What's new

Taking a Hit in The Name of Science

vta

Active member
Veteran
Taking a Hit in The Name of Science
Author: Steve Lopez

cannabis Calif. -- The man on the other end of the phone wanted me to go to a dispensary and buy three-sixteenths of an ounce of high-grade dope and another three-sixteenths of an ounce of medium-grade.

My wife overheard part of the conversation, and when I hung up she had a question. "Who was that?" she asked. "The city attorney," I said. Before I explain, let's review some history.

As some of you may recall, I went to a Glendale doctor about a year ago seeking relief from lower back pain, and, of course, to have a first-hand look at the blossoming medicinal marijuana industry. Now I'm not saying it was strange for a doctor to have an office with no medical equipment in it, but I did take note of that fact. And when I described the pain, the doctor waved me off, saying he knew nothing about back problems.

"I'm a gynecologist," he said, and then he wrote me a recommendation making it legal for me to buy medicinal marijuana. The fee for my visit was $150.

Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, who led the recent crackdown on an explosion of local marijuana dispensaries, was very much aware of my legal status as an honorary Rastafarian. And one day, several months ago, he called to see if I'd be willing to make a sacrifice in the public interest.

With Proposition 19 on the ballot, which would legalize marijuana in the state, Trutanich was worried. There wasn't much data, he said, about the effects of marijuana on driving impairment. Recently, there'd been news of a study that suggested driving under the influence of alcohol is more dangerous than driving while high. Trutanich wanted to conduct his own research.

Do you like where this is going?

I know I did.

Would I be willing, Trutanich asked, to go to the police training center with him, smoke some reefer, and see how I did behind the wheel?

Before Trutanich completed a sentence, I interrupted: "I'm in."

"Everybody in my office thinks this is a crazy idea," said Trutanich. His staff was concerned about the legal and public relations liabilities.

"What do you think?" Trutanich asked.

"There are leaders, and there are followers," I said, advising Trutanich to trust his instincts and to ignore those of lesser courage and creativity.

"I'm really curious about it," he said. "Whatever we find out, fine, either way it goes. But I'd like to know more."

It is in the public interest, I said. Hey, I'd be willing to take a hit for the team.

To be honest, I'm not a pot smoker except on rare occasions (have you ever experienced the agony of lower back pain)? The only time I've smoked in recent years is with my sister, a cancer patient who has found that marijuana helps with the pain. I do believe there's a legitimate medicinal benefit for many people, just as I believe that potheads far and wide found quacks who would give them permission slips to get zonked.

Trutanich, by the way, opposes Proposition 19, as does much of law enforcement. I've taken the other side, arguing that people will continue smoking marijuana whether it's legal or not, so why not tax and regulate it, deal a blow to drug gangs and put the millions now spent on interdiction and prosecution to better use.

But I've wavered a bit as election day approaches, swayed by arguments that commercializing pot would violate federal law and invite litigation. It would also lead to patchwork policies at the local level, it would lower the price of weed dramatically and therefore create more widespread use, and it might lure illicit out-of-state dealers into the California market.

Would more people in California drive while high if Proposition 19 passes? Probably, and when you add that to the problem of drunk drivers and the legions of distracted drivers on cellphones and BlackBerrys , it seemed worth finding out how much a man can smoke before becoming a menace on the highway.

Several weeks went by, though, before I heard back from Trutanich. Our experiment was on hold, he said, while he tried to iron out legal concerns and talk law enforcement agencies into cooperating.

I had almost given up hope when Trutanich called a couple of weeks ago to say we were good to go ganja. He'd arranged for the CHP to administer sobriety tests, before and after, and guide me through an obstacle course at the LAPD training center in Granada Hills. The CHP was just as eager as he was to find out how I and another guinea pig — radio talk show host Peter Tilden of KABC-AM (790) — handled ourselves after puffing the magic dragon.

"We'll provide the marijuana," Trutanich said, but then he called back to say his staff determined the city attorney's office couldn't legally pull that off, so I, as a person with legitimate medical need, would have to pick up some product. Several times, late in the evening and on weekends, Trutanich called me at home to go over the details.

At the appointed time on the morning of Oct. 11, Trutanich's communications deputy, former L.A. County Sheriff's Cmdr. John Franklin, picked me up at my house to drive me to Granada Hills, where Trutanich and the police would be waiting.

"You got the stuff?" Franklin asked.

I reached into my backpack to make sure.

Yep, I said. Three-sixteenths of an ounce of Skywalker, and the same amount of something called Train Wreck. That's got to be good stuff, right?

Tune in Wednesday, and I'll let you know.

Note: Does pot impair drivers more than alcohol—or just make them mellow in traffic?Columnist puts it to the test.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Steve Lopez
 

vta

Active member
Veteran
Why not test this out on someone that smokes it all day everyday, instead of a guy that smokes occasionally. Tolerance is a big deal with cannabis.
 
I would rather Be driving with stoners than drunks, Its not like there isnt satistics out there right now, they changed it from DWI TO DUI for a reason, I had to attend a 8 hour AAclass, And out of 30 people 1 guy there was Dui for Smoking, (no dui btw, Drunk in public =D ) Anyways For the majority of people I would think driving stoned is alot safer and easyr, To the oddball like myself though, ALthough idont like doing it and i have cut way way back almost to none Not worth the risks!, I drive like a champ drunk. I drive terrible stoned, Eyes dont focus everythings to bright or dark =D lol... Also VTA My lower back goes Out everyonce in a while i feel your pain i like heavy indicas like hashplant or OG when it goes, I crab fish it puts a strain on the back, Although i started smoking for my sea sickness genrall nausea from early mornings, I dont wana jump on a band wagoon i started smoking to get high i like the feeling, But i was suprised how much it helps the joints after a long day. Anways Good luck in your test and thanks for the Information keep us all in the loop.
 

vta

Active member
Veteran
oh...it's not me taking the test..lol. Steve Lopez...LA Times writer
 
M

mugenbao

Why not test this out on someone that smokes it all day everyday, instead of a guy that smokes occasionally. Tolerance is a big deal with cannabis.
I think there's a legitimate reason to be curious about occasional smokers as well as everyday smokers. Maybe more reason, in terms of driving impairment.

I just hope they don't generalize from a single example, though of course that's almost certainly what they'll do if it goes the way they expect it to.

.
 

Japanfreakier

Active member
Veteran
I thought this was going to be another stun-gun thread.

Will be interesting to see how it turns out even though we've seen things like this before.
 

Tripsick

Experienced?
Veteran
indeed they need to use someone that is a real medical user with tolerance.
i could smoke all day and drive while doing bong hits and not be impaired.

Some "wannabee" might get the fear from smoking too much and then i would want that person driving while having a panic attack..

its not even about tolerance its about experience
 

tequila_sunrise

Active member
indeed they need to use someone that is a real medical user with tolerance.
i could smoke all day and drive while doing bong hits and not be impaired.

Some "wannabee" might get the fear from smoking too much and then i would want that person driving while having a panic attack..

its not even about tolerance its about experience

well what happens if some law abiding citizen decides to smoke a bowl or two to see what it's like. That is the kind of person this test is designed for.

The state is not worried about current medical users who may or may not be driving but future smokers that haven't taken a puff for fear of the law.
 

kmk420kali

Freedom Fighter
Veteran
well what happens if some law abiding citizen decides to smoke a bowl or two to see what it's like. That is the kind of person this test is designed for.

The state is not worried about current medical users who may or may not be driving but future smokers that haven't taken a puff for fear of the law.

Yes...altho I think they should have both out there doing it--
It would be interesting to see the results--:tiphat:
Looking forward to see the outcome of this (limited) experiment tho--
 

DoobieDuck

Senior Member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
The proper way to do the study would be with a larger diverse group of smokers and non-smokers. DD
 

mrwags

********* Female Seeds
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Here is why it need to be looked into folks.


Al the alcoholic wakes up from a 2 day drunk with a massive hangover and does 2 shots of Vodka to get his head straitened takes a shower waits 3 hours b4 he leaves and drives to work and crashes into Joe the pothead after he runs a red light.

Now Joe the "so called"pothead was late for work ran the red light and admits he was at fault. Now understand Joe went to a concert 2 weeks ago and he smoked like he had never smoked b4 on some of the best bud he has ever had in his life BUT has not smoked any since.

On average it take 1 hour per shot of alcohol for your body to burn it up enough to be below the legal limit so if this is true Al the alcoholic is a victim now, mowed down by a dope smoking pothead because MJ on average takes 28 days to get out of your system and in MOST states ANY form of cannabis in your system is an automatic DUI.

So poor ole Joe being at fault get's tested for sobriety and gets popped with a DUI for something he did 14 days ago as compared to 3 or 4 hours and that in itself does not take a whole lot of common sense to be able to say WTF is up with that?


My Penny
Mr.Wags
 

BrainSellz

Active member
Veteran
Here is why it need to be looked into folks.

Now Joe the "so called"pothead was late for work ran the red light and admits he was at fault. Now understand Joe went to a concert 2 weeks ago and he smoked like he had never smoked b4 on some of the best bud he has ever had in his life BUT has not smoked any since.

On average it take 1 hour per shot of alcohol for your body to burn it up enough to be below the legal limit so if this is true Al the alcoholic is a victim now, mowed down by a dope smoking pothead because MJ on average takes 28 days to get out of your system and in MOST states ANY form of cannabis in your system is an automatic DUI.


My Penny
Mr.Wags

Yeah they need to distinguish how long it keeps you high from how long it just lingeres in the human body. This alone shows the severe lack of study on the drug and its affects.
 

supermanlives

Active member
Veteran
if he is a gynecologist you must have a pussy. it wont look so good in court. my doctor has all the equipment and my records. your rec prob wouldnt stand up in court. i drive slower when stoned.when sober i drive like a maniac
 

vta

Active member
Veteran
Update...from NORML's Stash Blog

(LA Times) I had been asked by Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich to help determine whether, and how, marijuana impairs driving. He recruited more than two dozen police officers from various Southern California agencies and the CHP to bear witness and study the differences between driving while high and driving while drunk.

I’m not really a smoker, though, so I was concerned that I might get knocked on my heels and skew the results. But Trutanich and many cops believe that if Proposition 19 passes next month and marijuana is as legal as potato chips and nearly as cheap, more new users will be driving under the influence, so the experiment would be worthwhile. Trutanich also noted that users often have no clue as to the potency of the grass they buy, and it varies wildly.

I thought I could drive pretty well. For several minutes I concentrated on slaloming, parking and then finally the dreaded traffic signal. It didn’t seem to me that I was as impaired as I would have been after a few beers or glasses of wine or if I was one of the morons who drive while texting and yakking on cellphones.

But when I finished, Sgt. Nelms said I was less confident than I had been before smoking. He had to admit I hadn’t bombed on the slalom and parking challenges, wobbling only a few traffic cones. “They both show impairment across the board,” Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.

If Carmen Trutanich were really interested in the science of marijuana use and driving, he could have just asked us rather than performing a wildly unscientific publicity stunt with a beat writer and a radio host (KABC’s Peter Tilden also participated).

As our own Paul Armentano notes after compiling research from the US Dept of Transportation:

Although acute cannabis intoxication following smoking has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment is seldom severe or long lasting. In closed course and driving simulator studies, marijuana’s acute effects on psychomotor performance include minor impairments in tracking (eye movement control) and reaction time, as well as variation in lateral positioning, headway (drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them), and speed (drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation). In general, these variations in driving behavior are noticeably less consistent or pronounced than the impairments exhibited by subjects under the influence of alcohol. Also, unlike subjects impaired by alcohol, individuals under the influence of cannabis tend to be aware of their impairment and try to compensate for it accordingly, either by driving more cautiously or by expressing an unwillingness to drive altogether.

There is no doubt that cannabis use will impair your driving abilities, no matter what you think or what countless long-time tokers will tell you. That is why NORML has always had a “No Driving” policy for those who have recently used cannabis. That’s why Prop 19 maintains the laws against driving under the influence, which Trutanich has prosecuted all this time that marijuana has been illegal.

But will marijuana legalization lead to mayhem on the freeways of LA (I mean, more than there is now)? Hardly. People who have been smoking marijuana while its been illegal are going to keep smoking when it is legal, so the current users are a wash in any debate about driving. They aren’t going to be any higher than they are now and they aren’t going to be more likely to drive than they are now, because the cops still have the same power to pull them over for demonstrably impaired driving as they do now.

Trutanich is basing this experiment on the new tokers, though. He theorizes that new, naive users won’t have the experience to know how potent their herb is or how much that impairs them. (Which, if you think about it, means Trutanich is implying that the experienced users aren’t that much of a driving threat.) The problem with that theory is that the new users will be the ones who were not using marijuana because they respected and obeyed the law that makes marijuana illegal. So these people who were so paranoid about not smoking an illegal joint in a state where marijuana use is ubiquitous are suddenly going to become lawbreakers who think nothing of driving impaired?

Don’t get me wrong – marijuana impairment on our roadways is nothing to tolerate. A very real danger exists with marijuana use and driving, especially when combined with alcohol use – marijuana seems to exacerbate the impairing effects of the alcohol. The key to dealing with the issue, just as we have successfully dealt with drunk driving, is public education, societal pressure, and strict enforcement of DUID laws.
 

BrainSellz

Active member
Veteran
Trutanich is basing this experiment on the new tokers, though. He theorizes that new, naive users won’t have the experience to know how potent their herb is or how much that impairs them. (Which, if you think about it, means Trutanich is implying that the experienced users aren’t that much of a driving threat.) The problem with that theory is that the new users will be the ones who were not using marijuana because they respected and obeyed the law that makes marijuana illegal. So these people who were so paranoid about not smoking an illegal joint in a state where marijuana use is ubiquitous are suddenly going to become lawbreakers who think nothing of driving impaired?
.
It seems like they are looking for amunition for their bullshit fear mongering, with the radio station being there, which was somewhere else in the post. They had a commercial on not too long ago that showed kids smoking weed at a fast food joint, then showed them pulling off and running over a little girl on a bike. Where are the alcohol kill all commercials?
 

RetroGrow

Active member
Veteran
This guy's going to be going 3 miles an hour, thinking it's 30......
I definitely drive more slowly when stoned, so I have to say it's safer.
 

supermanlives

Active member
Veteran
the only danger i pose stoned is, the quick turn i make crossing 4 lanes to hit the exit for mcdonalds cause i got the munchies.
 
Last edited:

bigbrokush

Active member
Columnist Steve Lopez smokes a joint, takes a driving test

Columnist Steve Lopez smokes a joint, takes a driving test

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...opez-smokes-a-joint-takes-a-driving-test.html

Columnist Steve Lopez smokes a joint, takes a driving test
October 20, 2010 | 9:29 am
The man in the uniform had a question for me. "How do you feel?" CHP Sgt. David Nelms asked. His interest in my health was probably prompted by the fact that I was at that moment toking a joint stuffed with a bud called Train Wreck.

Pretty good, I said, already buzzed enough to wonder if this was really happening.

In my youth, I spent more than a few evenings hoping the police weren't keeping close tabs on my activities. So it felt a bit strange last week to have a group of cops paw my marijuana stash and then ask me to get high.

"There you go, Cheech," said KABC radio host Peter Tilden, a fellow volunteer. Tilden was smoking something called Blockhead, which I presume is a standard choice among talk show hosts.

As reported in my first installment of the Cannabis Chronicles on Sunday, I had been asked by Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich to help determine whether, and how, marijuana impairs driving. He recruited more than two dozen police officers from various Southern California agencies and the CHP to bear witness and study the differences between driving while high and driving while drunk.

Read the full column here: "He's a train wreck behind the wheel."
 
Top