Jump to content

911 call: TX man shoots robbers with shotgun


Agent Orange

Recommended Posts

[quote name='oldschooler' post='615095' date='Dec 29 2007, 12:56 PM']I would like to be a test subject for the studies of effects of marijuana on humans.

Or being one of those cops that wear the mirrored glasses,
while standing right next to a big pile of burning marijuana
plants, would also be a great gig.

Is there a place I can fill out an application ? :whistle:[/quote]
Ever notice how they manage to somehow stand [i]downwind[/i]?

Hospitals and universities who do research usually have newspaper ads and post fliers seeking volunteers for studies.

Their not going to advertise the fact the study involves marijuana. "Are you 18-45 years old with HIV, but not AIDS or other chronic medical conditions, no history of mental illness, and a smoker? Would you be interested in participating in an study to determine the effects of an non-FDA approved, investigational drug upon weight loss in HIV positive patients?" Something like that.

I had a friend who volunteered for studies to make money in college.

I made over $200/month donating plasma. You get money for referrals. I was a Plasma Pimp with my own little stable of Plasma Bitches. Bitch better have my money. Not half, not some, but all of my mother fucking do-ray-me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614972' date='Dec 29 2007, 02:41 AM']Since we're so in love with studies here:

[url="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm"]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm[/url]
A Dutch (because the US would NEVER let this test be done here, obviously) study on the effects of marijuana smoking and driving:[/quote]
I don't have time today to give you my critique, but I'll get to it later.

In the mean time, feel free to read this report by [url="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/driving.htm"]the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration[/url]

EDIT: I decided to change #347, Brett.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='617486' date='Jan 2 2008, 04:02 PM']I don't have time today to give you my critique, but I'll get to it later.

In the mean time, feel free to read this report by [url="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/driving.htm"]the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration[/url]

EDIT: I decided to change #347, Brett.[/quote]

it's the same study? :huh:

Held in Maastricht, Holland.

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='615069' date='Dec 29 2007, 12:10 PM'][center][b][size=5]BOO YEAH[/size][/b][/center]






Brett, Brett, Brett, Brett, Brett, Brett, Brett....

It must be hard work; hard GOD DAMN work talking out your ass that much.

You a ventriloquist?

Can you talk out your ass while drinking water, too?

Impressive.[/quote]

I must say, it's actually quite easy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='617628' date='Jan 2 2008, 06:51 PM']it's the same study? :huh:

Held in Maastricht, Holland.[/quote]
Yes, Cupcake.

It's the same study...using US Govt Grade A Bud...and quoted and published by the US Department of Transportation in 1993...taken from the same website you gave me as a reference.

That's probably why you're unaware of this information. In 1993, you would have been...what? Seven years old? You must have had a subscription to the NY Post Coloring Book. Everybody knows the conservative NY Post Coloring Book ignored the story. You should have been coloring the pictures in the more liberal NY Times Coloring Book, instead. They did a beautiful 2 page color by number layout.

Probably gonna bellyache that the study wasn't done in the US. Why should it be when the US can outsource the study to the real experts in the Netherlands?

Now on to my critique. This is an example of why proposed studies are peer reviewed by NIDA. The peer reviewers for NIDA should have sent this guy back to the drawing board like they did Dr Abrams. Overall, this study is a piece of shit. Not worth the paper it is printed on.

[quote]Marijuana's Effects on Actual Driving Performance
HWJ Robbe
Institute for Human Psychopharmacology, University of Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, NL-6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

[color="#FF0000"]This is part of a PhD thesis, not a peer reviewed journal article. Basically, a peer-reviewed journal article is an article submitted by an author wishing to have his research published. There are lots of reasons one might wish to be published. I'm sure you can come up with a few of these reasons on your own. The publisher sends the prospective article to independent, unbiased experts, or peers, in their field for review. The peers, in turn, break out their red pens (like your professors) and offer up their expert advice or suggestions on how to improve the article and advise the editors of the journal as to the overall merit of the article. The editors then decide if the will publish the article as is, with corrections, or decline to publish the article. I'll give you a little example.[/color]

ABSTRACT

Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. [color="#FF0000"]But not actual reality?[/color] The first was conducted on a highway closed to other traffic. Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 µg/kg, [color="#FF0000"]Why those amounts? What is the average plasma concentration of THC found in your typical, recreational marijuana user when he feels the desired "high" associated with smoking marijuana cigarettes? Is this value the same vs. bongs or pipes? [/color]and placebo. [color="#FF0000"]Was this a double-blind, placebo controlled study? How many subjects from your 24 total were included in your placebo group? How many in the 100mcg/kg group? 200mcg/kg group? 300mcg/kg group?[/color] They performed a 22-km road tracking test [color="#FF0000"]What's a road tracking test?[/color] beginning 30 and 90 minutes after smoking. [color="#FF0000"]Why 30-90 minutes later? Is that when the peak plasma concentration of THC occurs? [/color]Their lateral position variability [color="#FF0000"]Swerving, right?[/color] increased significantly after each THC dose relative to placebo in a dose-dependent manner for two hours after smoking. The second study was conducted on a highway in the presence of other traffic. Subjects (16) were treated with the same THC doses as before. They performed a 64-km road tracking test preceded and followed by 16-km car following tests. [color="#FF0000"]What's a car following test?[/color] Results confirmed those of the previous study. Car following performance was only slightly impaired. The third study was conducted in high-density urban traffic. Separate groups of 16 subjects were treated with 100 µg/kg THC [color="#FF0000"]Why not 200mcg/kg and 300mcg/kg as in the road tracking and car following tests?[/color] and placebo; and, ethanol (mean BAC .034 g%) and placebo. Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. [color="#FF0000"]How were you able to quantify this lack of perception? Was their perception, itself, impaired? If the subject's perception is impaired, how can subjects perceive changes with their perception?[/color] THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. [color="#FF0000"]The subject's performance wasn't impaired, but their perception of speed, velocity, acceleration, deceleration, distance, and relative position in space to other objects made them believe their performance was affected? I think that means their perception was altered.[/color] These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 µg/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance. [color="#FF0000"]How do you define "significant" vs. "yet not dramatic" as it relates to driving performance? The 300mcg/kg group didn't undergo your most realistic testing so this statement really only applies to your subgroup of tests which "progressively approached reality." Is the goal to test real world driving with less than real world doses of THC and then extrapolate hyperbole into a conclusion?[/color]

INTRODUCTION

This article describes the results of a research program that was set up to determine the dose-response relationship between marijuana and objectively and subjectively measured aspects of real world driving; and to determine whether it is possible to correlate driving performance impairment with plasma concentrations of the drug or a metabolite. The program consisted of three driving studies in which a variety of driving tasks were employed, including: maintenance of a constant speed and lateral position during uninterrupted highway travel, following a leading car with varying speed on a highway, and city driving. A laboratory study preceded the driving studies for identifying the highest THC dose to be administered in the subsequent studies.

GENERAL PROCEDURES

Subjects in all studies were recreational users of marijuana or hashish, i.e., smoking the drug more than once a month, but not daily. They were all healthy, between 21 and 40 years of age, had normal weight and binocular acuity, and were licensed to drive an automobile. Furthermore, law enforcement authorities were contacted, with the volunteers' consent, to verify that they had no previous arrests or convictions for drunken driving or drug trafficking.

Each subject was required to submit a urine sample immediately upon arrival at the test site. Samples were assayed qualitatively for the following common 'street drugs' (or metabolites): cannabinoids, benzodiazepines, opiates, cocaine, amphetamines and barbiturates. In addition a breath sample was analyzed for the presence of alcohol. Blood samples were repeatedly taken after smoking by venepuncture. Quantitative analysis of THC and THC-COOH in plasma was performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (gc/ms) using deuterated cannabinoids as internal standards.

Marijuana and placebo marijuana cigarettes were supplied by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse. The lowest and highest THC concentrations in the marijuana cigarettes used in the studies were 1.75% and 3.57%, respectively. [color="#FF0000"]What was the concentration of THC of the placebo marijuana cigarettes? The strength of placebo marijuana supplied by the NIDA is "as close to 0% as possible," which is different from an absolute "0%." Is it possible to detect THC in vivo from smoking placebo marijuana? If so, what were the peak plasma concentrations of THC in the control group of subjects who smoked placebo marijuana cigarettes?[/color] Subjects smoked the administered cigarettes through a plastic holder in their customary fashion.

Subjects were accompanied during every driving test by a licensed driving instructor. A redundant control system in the test vehicle was available for controlling the car, should emergency situations arise.

In each study, subjects repeatedly performed certain simple laboratory tests (e.g. critical instability tracking, hand and posture stability), [color="#FF0000"]I do clinical neurological testing on patients every week and I'm not familiar with these tests. Please explain.[/color] estimated their levels of intoxication [color="#FF0000"]How? Using what scale? [/color]and indicated their willingness to drive under several specified conditions of urgency. In addition, heart rate and blood pressure were measured. Results of these measurements are reported elsewhere (Robbe, 1994). [color="#FF0000"]I'd also like to give a shout out to LoyalFanInGA v2.0 for all his help with this peer review.[/color]

LABORATORY STUDY

Methods
Twenty-four subjects, equally comprised of men and women, participated in this study. They were allowed to smoke part or all of the THC content in three cigarettes until achieving the desired psychological effect. [color="#FF0000"]Which is? How is this effect quantified and/or qualified? Can the effect be related to plasma concentration? Can it be compared to the effect of alcohol?"[/color] The only requirement was to smoke for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. When subjects voluntarily stopped smoking, cigarettes were carefully extinguished and retained for subsequent gravimetric estimation of the amount of THC consumed. [color="#FF0000"]How many of the 24 subjects were part of the control group? How many were part of the investigational group? Was the control group equally comprised of men and women?[/color]

Results
Six subjects consumed one cigarette, thirteen smoked two and four smoked three (data from one male subject were excluded from the results because no drug was found in his plasma after smoking). [color="#FF0000"]WHAT???!!! Even in a double-blind, placebo controlled study such as this, after you have compiled the data, you should be able to demonstrate "X" amount of subjects had smoked "X" amount of marijuana from the placebo cigarettes, the 1.75% cigarettes, and the 3.57% cigarettes, and the subject's resultant THC plasma concentration was in the 100mcg/kg, 200mcg/kg, or 300mcg/kg range. IF YOU HAVE A CONTROL GROUP TREATED WITH PLACEBO SHOULDN'T THEIR PLASMA CONCENTRATION OF THC BE 0mcg? Unless, this question is answered adequately this study is FATALLY FLAWED![/color] The average amount of THC consumed was 20.8 mg, after adjustment for body weight, 308 µg/kg. It should be noted that these amounts of THC represent both the inhaled dose and the portion that was lost through pyrolysis and side-stream smoke during the smoking process. There were no significant differences between males and females, nor between frequent and infrequent users, with respect to the weight adjusted preferred dose. It was decided that the maximum dose for subsequent driving studies would be 300 µg/kg. [color="#FF0000"]Why 300mcg/kg? Why not 50mcg/kg? Why not 500mcg/kg?[/color]

STUDY 1: DRIVING ON A RESTRICTED HIGHWAY

Methods
The first driving study was conducted on a highway closed to other traffic. The same twelve men and twelve women who participated in the laboratory study served again as the subjects. They were treated on separate occasions with marijuana cigarettes containing THC doses of 0 (placebo), 100, 200, and 300 µg/kg. [color="#FF0000"]No, the cigarettes contained as close to 0% as possible, 1.75%, and 3.57% THC. The subjects smoked the marijuana until their plasma concentration of THC reached 100mcg/kg, 200mcg/kg, or 300mcg/kg. This is a big difference.[/color] Treatments were administered double-blind and in a counterbalanced order. [color="#FF0000"]I understand the term "double-blind" and it should be used in the abstract. I do not understand what "counterbalanced order" means. Frankly, at this point I have serious doubts as to whether the study's protocols were actually conducted in a double-blind fashion based upon my misgivings related to the control group treated with the placebo.[/color] On each occasion, subjects performed a road-tracking test beginning 40 minutes after initiation of smoking and repeated one hour later. [color="#FF0000"]Why 40 minutes later? Why repeated one hour later? How is this related to the objective data of plasma concentrations or the subjective data of the desired psychological effect?[/color] The test involved maintaining a constant speed at 90 km/h and a steady lateral position between the delineated boundaries of the traffic lane. Subjects drove 22 km on a primary highway and were accompanied by a licensed driving instructor. The primary dependent variable was the standard deviation of lateral position (sdlp), which has been shown to be both highly reliable and very sensitive to the influence of sedative medicinal drugs and alcohol. [color="#FF0000"]In the author's abstract he stated, "Their lateral position variability increased significantly after each THC dose relative to placebo in a dose-dependent manner for two hours after smoking." He continued, " These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 µg/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance."[/color] Other dependent variables were mean speed, and standard deviations of speed and steering wheel angle. Blood samples were taken 10 minutes before the driving tests (i.e. 30 and 90 minutes after initiation of smoking, respectively).

Results
All subjects were willing and able to finish the driving tests without great difficulty. Data from one male subject were excluded from the results because no drug was found in his plasma after smoking. [color="#FF0000"]Again, this is a fatal flaw in his methodology (as previously discussed) unless adequately addressed.[/color]

Figure 1 demonstrates that marijuana impairs driving performance as measured by an increase in lateral position variability: all three THC doses significantly affected sdlp relative to placebo (p<.012, .001 & .001, for the 100, 200 & 300 µg/kg conditions, respectively. The Dose by Time effect was not significant indicating that impairment after marijuana was the same in both trials. Marijuana's effects on sdlp were compared to those of alcohol obtained in a very similar study by Louwerens et al. (1987). It appeared that the effects of the various administered THC doses (100-300 µg/kg) on sdlp were equivalent to those associated with bacs in the range of 0.03-0.07 g%. [color="#FF0000"]So the doses tested aren't even the equivalent of legally driving drunk?[/color] Other driving performance measures were not significantly affected by THC. [color="#FF0000"]The subjects were only evaluated regarding lateral position and steady speed. If the subjects speed is indeed steady, then other variables such as mean speed and standard deviation of speed aren't going to be affected; whereas, a subject's steering wheel angle can remain constant and yet his vehicle leave the road entirely.[/color] Plasma concentrations of the drug were clearly related to the administered dose and time of blood sampling but unrelated to driving performance impairment. [color="#FF0000"]I don't understand the author's last conclusion given his earlier statements of: "The primary dependent variable was the standard deviation of lateral position (sdlp), which has been shown to be both highly reliable and very sensitive to the influence of sedative medicinal drugs and alcohol," "Their lateral position variability increased significantly after each THC dose relative to placebo in a dose-dependent manner for two hours after smoking," and "These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 µg/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance." It's like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.[/color]

Figure 1
Mean (+se) sdlp by THC Dose and Time

STUDY 2: DRIVING ON A NORMAL HIGHWAY IN TRAFFIC

[color="#FF0000"]Christ! I'm only on Study 2? My red pen is about ready to shit the bed on me![/color]

Methods
The second driving study was conducted on a highway in the presence of other traffic and involved both a road-tracking and a car-following test. A new group of sixteen subjects, equally comprised of men and women, participated in this study. A conservative approach was chosen in designing the present study in order to satisfy the strictest safety requirements. That is, the study was conducted according to an ascending dose series design where both active drug and placebo conditions were administered, double-blind, at each of three THC dose levels. THC doses were the same as those used in the previous study, namely 100, 200, and 300 µg/kg. Cigarettes appeared identical at each level of treatment conditions. If any subject would have reacted in an unacceptable manner to a lower dose, he/she would not have been permitted to receive a higher dose. [color="#FF0000"]Again, how many of the 16 were in the control group? Leaving how many subjects in the investigational study?[/color]

The subjects began the car-following test 45 minutes after smoking. [color="#FF0000"]Does this length of time in anyway correlate to the effect of THC or is it selected arbitrarily? [/color] The test was performed on a 16 km segment of the highway and lasted about 15 minutes. After the conclusion of this test, subjects performed a 64-km road-tracking test on the same highway which lasted about 50 minutes. At the conclusion of this test, they participated again in the car-following test. [color="#FF0000"]Of 16 km for about 15 minutes?[/color] Blood samples were taken both before the first and after the last driving test (i.e. 35 and 190 minutes after initiation of smoking, respectively).

The road-tracking test was the same as in the previous study except for its duration and the presence of other traffic. [color="#FF0000"]Light, heavy, highway, rural, city, 2 lane, 4 lane? [/color]The car-following test involved attempting to match velocity with, and maintain a constant distance from a preceding vehicle as it executed a series of deceleration/acceleration maneuvers. The preceding vehicle's speed would vary between 80 and 100 km/h and the subject was instructed to maintain a 50 m distance however the preceding vehicle's speed might vary. The duration of one deceleration and acceleration maneuver was approximately 50 seconds and six to eight of these maneuvers were executed during one test, depending upon traffic density. [color="#FF0000"]The preceding car decelerated from 62mph to 50 mph and then accelerated back to 62mph over almost a minute and the test subject had to match their speed and maintain a separation of 160 feet. Doesn't seem too rigorous, but it's a starting point.[/color] The subject's average reaction time to the movements of the preceding vehicle, mean distance and coefficient of variation of distance during maneuvers were taken as the dependent variables from this.

Results
All subjects were able to complete the series without suffering any untoward reaction while driving. Data from one female subject were excluded from the results because no drug was found in her plasma after smoking. [color="#FF0000"]Ad nauseam.[/color]

Road-tracking performance in the standard test was impaired in a dose-related manner by THC and confirmed the results obtained in the previous closed highway study (Figure 2). The 100 µg/kg dose produced a slight elevation in mean sdlp, albeit not statistically significant (p<.13). The 200 µg/kg dose produced a significant (p<.023) elevation, of dubious practical relevance. [color="#FF0000"]Of dubious practical relevance in statistical terms, what about in terms of maintaining the car in their lane?[/color] The 300 µg/kg dose produced a highly significant (p<.007) elevation which may be viewed as practically relevant. [color="#FF0000"]Does this mean that a police officer following the subject would pull them over for suspicion of driving under the influence because the subject was swerving? Is that practically relevant? Or they may swerve into another vehicle causing an accident relevant?[/color] After marijuana smoking, subjects drove with an average speed that was only slightly lower than after placebo and very close to the prescribed level.

Figure 2
Mean (+sed) changes in sdlp in the standard driving test by THC dose, relative to placebo

In the car-following test, subjects maintained a distance of 45-50 m while driving in the successive placebo conditions. They lengthened mean distance by 8, 6 and 2 m in the corresponding THC conditions after 100, 200 and 300 µg/kg, respectively. The initially large drug-placebo difference and its subsequent decline is a surprising result. Our explanation for this observation is that the subjects' caution was greatest the first time they undertook the test under the influence of THC and progressively less thereafter. [color="#FF0000"]Caution? The effect of a little THC is more caution? The effect of more and more THC is less and less caution? Until the THC level reaches a point equivalent to a blood alcohol content of .07% (as previously stated by the author) and the caution dissipates and you see the same type of recklessness demonstrated by legally drunk drivers with a blood alcohol content of .08%?[/color] The reaction time of the subjects to changes in the preceding vehicle's speed increased following THC treatment, relative to placebo. [color="#FF0000"]There's a surprise.[/color] The administered THC dose was inversely related to the change in reaction time, as it was to distance. However, increased reaction times were partly due to longer distance (i.e. the longer the distance to the preceding vehicle, the more difficult it is to perceive changes in its speed). [color="#FF0000"]Maybe the more you achieve the desired psychological effect from smoking marijuana the more difficult it is to judge distance and speed?[/color] Statistical adjustment for this confounding variable resulted in smaller and non-significant increases in reaction time following marijuana treatment, the greatest impairment (0.32 s) being observed in the first test following the lowest THC dose (Figure 3). [color="#FF0000"]When researchers (or PhD candidates) start statistically adjusting for confounding variable it usually means there is a flaw in the study or the analysis. The reduction in reaction time could be due to statistical artifact or manipulation. In other words, the wheels are falling off the bus.[/color] Distance variability followed a similar pattern as mean distance and reaction time; the greatest impairment was found following the lowest dose. As in the previous study, plasma concentrations of the drug were not related to driving impairment. [color="#FF0000"]On the contrary, the higher the THC concentration, the more cautious the driver.[/color]

Figure 3
Mean (+sed) changes in 'adjusted' reaction time by THC dose and time, relative to placebo

STUDY 3: DRIVING IN URBAN TRAFFIC

[color="#FF0000"]OH, DEAR LORD! Make the Bad Man Stop.[/color]

Methods
The program proceeded into the third driving study, which involved tests conducted in high-density urban traffic. [size=5]There were logical and safety reasons for restricting the THC dose to 100 µg/kg.[/size] [color="#FF0000"]Please list the logical reasons why the THC dose was restricted to 100mck/kg or 1/3 the equivalent dose of a blood alcohol content of .07%; which is still legal to drive? Please list the safety reasons why the THC dose was restricted if, "Subjects were accompanied during every driving test by a licensed driving instructor. A redundant control system in the test vehicle was available for controlling the car, should emergency situations arise."[/color] It was given to a new group of 16 regular marijuana (or hashish) users, along with a placebo. For comparative purposes, another group of 16 regular users of alcohol, but not marijuana, were treated with a modest dose of their preferred recreational drug, ethanol, and again placebo, before undertaking the same city driving test. Both groups were equally comprised of men and women.

Marijuana was administered to deliver 100 µg/kg THC. The driving test commenced 30 minutes after smoking. The alcohol dose was chosen to yield a bac approaching 0.05 g% when the driving test commenced 45 minutes after onset of drinking. [color="#FF0000"]If a THC plasma concentration of 300mcg/kg is equivalent to a BAC of .07%, wouldn't that make a THC plasma concentration of 100mcg/kg equivalent to a BAC of .02% or less than 1/2 of the alcohol dose being tested in the same study?[/color] Active drug and placebo conditions were administered double-blind and in a counterbalanced order in each group. Blood samples were taken immediately prior to and following all placebo and drug driving tests (i.e. 20 and 80 minutes after initiation of smoking, or 35 and 95 minutes after initiation of drinking).

Driving tests were conducted in daylight over a constant 17.5 km route within the city limits of Maastricht. Subjects drove their placebo and active-drug rides through heavy, medium and low density traffic on the same day of the week, and at the same time of day. Two scoring methods were employed in the present study. The first, a 'molecular' approach adopted from Jones (1978), involved the employment of a specially trained observer who applied simple and strict criteria for recording when the driver made or failed to make each in a series of observable responses at predetermined points along a chosen route. The second, a 'molar' approach, required the driving instructor acting as the safety controller during the tests to retrospectively rate the driver's performance using a shortened version of the Royal Dutch Tourist Association's Driving Proficiency Test. In total, 108 items were dichotomously scored, as either pass or fail. Total test performance was measured by the percentage items scored as 'pass'. Subscores were calculated for vehicle checks, vehicle handling, traffic maneuvers, observation and understanding of traffic, and turning'. This method has been applied previously to show the impairing effects of alcohol and diazepam (De Gier, 1979; De Gier et al., 1981).

Results
Data from two male subjects in the marijuana group were excluded from the results because neither THC nor THC-COOH was found in their plasma after smoking. [color="#FF0000"]Ad nauseum, again.[/color]

Neither alcohol nor marijuana significantly affected driving performance measures obtained by the molecular approach, indicating that it may be relatively insensitive to drug-induced changes. The molar approach was more sensitive. Table 1 shows that a modest dose of alcohol (bac=0.034 g%) produced a significant impairment in city driving, relative to placebo. More specifically, alcohol impaired both vehicle handling and traffic maneuvers. Marijuana, administered in a dose of 100 µg/kg THC, on the other hand, did not significantly change mean driving performance as measured by this approach. [color="#FF0000"]Not surprising since it is about half the equivalent dose of alcohol being tested.[/color]

Table 1
Mean (±sed) changes in driving performance scores measured by the molar approach for the marijuana (N=14) and alcohol (N=16) group; and, the significance of each change and difference between changes.
Dependent Variable Marijuana Group Alcohol Group Marijuana v Alcohol
Delta p< Delta p< p<
Total score -0.7 (±2.7) ns -6.8 (±1.8) .002 .065
Vehicle checks -0.6 (±1.5) ns +0.5 (±1.3) ns ns
Vehicle handling +3.7 (±2.8) ns -8.4 (±2.2) .002 .002
Traffic maneuvers -2.7 (±3.1) ns -8.4 (±2.3) .003 ns
Observation and understanding of traffic +1.8 (±8.7) ns -6.3 (±7.0) ns ns
Turning -1.8 (±4.9) ns +3.1 (±7.5) ns ns

Subjects' ratings of driving quality and effort to accomplish the task were strikingly different from the driving instructor's ratings. Both groups rated their driving performance following placebo as somewhat better than 'normal'. Following the active drug, ratings were significantly lower (35%, p<.009) in the marijuana, but not (5%, ns) in the alcohol group. Perceived effort to accomplish the driving test was about the same in both groups following placebo. Following the active drug, a significant (p<.033) increase in perceived effort was reported by the marijuana, but not the alcohol group. [color="#FF0000"]Interesting. The marijuana group required more effort to drive while under the effects of half the equivalent dose compared to alcohol. [/color]

Thus, there is evidence that subjects in the marijuana group were not only aware of their intoxicated condition, but were also attempting to compensate for it. These seem to be important findings. They support both the common belief that drivers become overconfident after drinking alcohol and investigators' suspicions that they become more cautious and self-critical after consuming low doses of THC, as smoked marijuana. [color="#FF0000"]Finally, the author reveals his preconceived prejudice. He isn't investigating marijuana's effects upon driving so much as confirming his theory that marijuana users are more cautious drivers and even "statistical[ly] adjust[ing] for this confounding variable" when necessary.[/color]

Drug plasma concentrations were neither related to absolute driving performance scores nor to the changes that occurred from placebo to drug conditions. With respect to THC, these results confirm the findings in previous studies. They are somewhat surprising for alcohol but may be due to the restricted range of ethanol concentrations in the plasma of different subjects.

DISCUSSION

The results of the studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in inhaled doses up to 300 µg/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance (cf. Smiley, 1986). Standard deviation of lateral position in the road-tracking test was the most sensitive measure for revealing THC's adverse effects. This is because road-tracking is primarily controlled by an automatic information processing system [color="#FF0000"]Can I have a reference? Neurology? Anatomy? Physiology? Psychiatry?[/color] which operates outside of conscious control. The process is relatively impervious to environmental changes but highly vulnerable to internal factors that retard the flow of information through the system. THC and many other drugs are among these factors. When they interfere with the process that restricts road-tracking error, there is little the afflicted individual can do by way of compensation to restore the situation. Car-following and, to a greater extent, city driving performance depend more on controlled information processing and are therefore more accessible for compensatory mechanisms that reduce the decrements or abolish them entirely.
THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08 g%; [color="#FF0000"]THC effects shouldn't if the 300mcg/kg dose is equivalent to a BAC of .07%.[/color] and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs' (Robbe, 1994; Robbe and O'Hanlon, 1995; O'Hanlon et al., 1995). Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. [color="#FF0000"]The author needs to show how he has defined, quantified, and qualified risky and cautious behavior regarding marijuana and alcohol use while operating a motor vehicle.[/color] Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence. [color="#FF0000"]Not surprising given the equivalent dose of THC tested was less than half that of alcohol during the third test.[/color]

Inter-subject correlations between plasma concentrations of the drug and driving performance after every dose were essentially nil, partly due to the peculiar kinetics of THC. It enters the brain relatively rapidly, although with a perceptible delay relative to plasma concentrations. Once there, it remains even at a time when plasma concentrations approach or reach zero. As a result, performance may still be impaired at the time that plasma concentrations of the drug are near the detection limit. This is exactly what happened in the first driving study. Therefore an important practical implications of the study is that is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.

Although THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program, one can still easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have a dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol. Because these possibilities are real, the results of the present studies should not be considered as the final word. They should, however, serve as the point of departure for subsequent studies that will ultimately complete the picture of THC's effects on driving performance.

[color="#FF0000"]In addition to this study's previously noted shortcomings, it was conducted with a very small sample size; sixteen subjects with an unknown number comprising a control group and the remainder the investigational group. I would like to see this investigation's sample size increased and determine whether the results are reliably reproducible following the same protocols. [/color]

REFERENCES
De Gier JJ (1979) A subjective measurement of the influence of ethyl/alcohol in moderate doses on real driving performances. Blutalkohol, 16, 363-370.
De Gier JJ, 't Hart BJ, Nelemans FA and Bergman H (1981) Psychomotor performance and real driving performance of outpatients receiving diazepam. Psychopharmacology, 73, 340-347.
Jones MH (1978) Driver Performance Measures for the Safe Performance Curriculum. Traffic Safety Center, Institute of Safety and Systems Management, University of South California, Los Angeles, CA (DOT HS 803 461).
Louwerens JW, Gloerich ABM, de Vries G, Brookhuis KA and O'Hanlon JF (1987). The relationship between drivers' blood alcohol concentration (bac) and actual driving performance during high speed travel. Pages 183-192 in PC Noordzij and R Roszbach, eds., Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.
O'Hanlon JF, Vermeeren A, Uiterwijk MMC, van Veggel LMA and Swijgman HF (1995) Anxiolytics' effects on the actual driving performance of patients and healthy volunteers in a standardized test: an integration of three studies. Neuropsychobiology, 31:81-88.
Robbe HWJ (1994). Influence of Marijuana on Driving. PhD thesis, Institute for Human Psychopharmacology, University of Limburg, Maastricht.
Robbe HWJ and O'Hanlon JF (1995) Acute and subchronic effects of paroxetine and amitriptyline on actual driving, psychomotor performance and subjective assessments in healthy volunteers. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 5:35-42.
Smiley AM (1986). Marijuana: On-road and driving simulator studies. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews 2: 121-134.[/quote]

Like I said before, fucking [s]business[/s] Econ majors. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Probably gonna bellyache that the study wasn't done in the US. Why should it be when the US can outsource the study to the real experts in the Netherlands?[/quote]

You say they're real experts, then go through and tear apart the study. Guess they're not experts?

[quote]using US Govt Grade A Bud[/quote]

:lol: I wouldn't expect you to know this, but bud with 1.75% and even 3.57% THC is dirt weed. The irony is that they grow all the marijuana outside the U of Miss, iirc, and it's very low quality. 6-8% is probably about "average"... with upwards of 15-20% for higher quality that is readily available...

That's where I think the study is flawed... if they were regular marijuana users, they probably weren't even very high...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='617931' date='Jan 3 2008, 07:53 AM']You say they're real experts, then go through and tear apart the study. Guess they're not experts?



:lol: I wouldn't expect you to know this, but bud with 1.75% and even 3.57% THC is dirt weed. The irony is that they grow all the marijuana outside the U of Miss, iirc, and it's very low quality. 6-8% is probably about "average"... with upwards of 15-20% for higher quality that is readily available...

That's where I think the study is flawed... if they were regular marijuana users, they probably weren't even very high...[/quote]
No, I don't think Robbe is an expert. However, I didn't come to that conclusion until after I read his article. I think that article is fluff and not the type of quality I would expect from a respected journal such as The Lancet or JAMA. I've pointed out why I have my reservations about that article. I would hope this gives you a better appreciation for journal articles in the future. Research articles are in a sense a sales pitch. They need to convince me. Robbe didn't close the deal.

You might be surprised at what I know. I know you've never taken your dime bag to a quantitative chemistry lab and had its THC concentration analyzed. You may know the THC concentration of a joint you could have purchased overseas. Otherwise, when it comes to the THC concentration of marijuana you've purchased and smoked in the US you only know if it is 'good shit' or not.

Please don't start talking out your ass again when you're actually starting to have a good point here. Medical researchers have argued that the Govt supplied weed is basically skunk weed compared to the higher quality, more potent weed available to consumers, although illegally. As of 2005 a UMass (if I remember, correctly) researcher was challenging the Govt's monopoly contract with the University of Mississippi to be the sole producer of Govt approved marijuana. Among his reasons, researchers want to test more potent marijuana. I'm sure you can google it.

Robbe's test subjects were allowed to smoke until they achieved 'the desired psychological effect,' whatever that may be because he left it undefined. Maybe they were a little buzzed, maybe the were totally, fuckin' stoned. We don't know. They could smoke as much of or all of three marijuana cigarettes as long as the time it took didn't exceed 15 minutes. Six subjects reached their desired psychological effect after 1 joint, 13 subjects reached their desired psychological effect after 2 joints, and 4 subjects smoked all 3 joints, 1 subjects data was excluded. At least 14 subjects felt high enough they didn't want to smoke the 3rd joint...or ran out of time, although Robbe didn't note this.

The concentration of the THC isn't a concern of mine because the subjects were able to achieve the desired effect. I would like to have the desired effect described in a qualitative and/or quantitative manner. This issue is small potatos compared to the other crap.

I bet the regular drinkers didn't feel buzzed with a BAC of .05%, either. What is that one, maybe two drinks, depending upon body weight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='618109' date='Jan 3 2008, 12:36 PM']No, I don't think Robbe is an expert. However, I didn't come to that conclusion until after I read his article. I think that article is fluff and not the type of quality I would expect from a respected journal such as The Lancet or JAMA. I've pointed out why I have my reservations about that article. I would hope this gives you a better appreciation for journal articles in the future. Research articles are in a sense a sales pitch. They need to convince me. Robbe didn't close the deal.

You might be surprised at what I know. I know you've never taken your dime bag to a quantitative chemistry lab and had its THC concentration analyzed. You may know the THC concentration of a joint you could have purchased overseas. Otherwise, when it comes to the THC concentration of marijuana you've purchased and smoked in the US you only know if it is 'good shit' or not.

Please don't start talking out your ass again when you're actually starting to have a good point here. Medical researchers have argued that the Govt supplied weed is basically skunk weed compared to the higher quality, more potent weed available to consumers, although illegally. As of 2005 a UMass (if I remember, correctly) researcher was challenging the Govt's monopoly contract with the University of Mississippi to be the sole producer of Govt approved marijuana. Among his reasons, researchers want to test more potent marijuana. I'm sure you can google it.

Robbe's test subjects were allowed to smoke until they achieved 'the desired psychological effect,' whatever that may be because he left it undefined. Maybe they were a little buzzed, maybe the were totally, fuckin' stoned. We don't know. They could smoke as much of or all of three marijuana cigarettes as long as the time it took didn't exceed 15 minutes. Six subjects reached their desired psychological effect after 1 joint, 13 subjects reached their desired psychological effect after 2 joints, and 4 subjects smoked all 3 joints, 1 subjects data was excluded. At least 14 subjects felt high enough they didn't want to smoke the 3rd joint...or ran out of time, although Robbe didn't note this.

The concentration of the THC isn't a concern of mine because the subjects were able to achieve the desired effect. I would like to have the desired effect described in a qualitative and/or quantitative manner. This issue is small potatos compared to the other crap.

I bet the regular drinkers didn't feel buzzed with a BAC of .05%, either. What is that one, maybe two drinks, depending upon body weight?[/quote]

[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNVol11N2/MarijuanaTearoff.html"]http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNVol11...anaTearoff.html[/url]

[quote]# Most ordinary marijuana [color="#FF0000"][maybe if you're a freshman in high school [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] ][/color] has an average of 3 percent THC.

# Sinsemilla, which is made from just the buds and flowering tops of female plants, has an average THC concentration of 7.5 percent, although it can be as high as 24 percent.

# Hashish, a sticky resin obtained from the female plant flowers, has an average of 2 to 8 percent THC and can contain as much as 20 percent THC.

# Hash oil, a tar-like liquid distilled from hashish, generally consists of between 15 and 50 percent THC but can have as much as 70 percent THC.[/quote]

I think the whole 'desired effect' thing is about as ambiguous as you can get. To completely normalize the 'high factor' of marijuana use for study is next to impossible, imo. I mean you can sit there and tell 3 different people to inhale for 5 seconds, hold your breath for 10 seconds, and exhale, but they're each going to inhale differently, they all have different tolerances, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='618224' date='Jan 3 2008, 03:25 PM']I think the whole 'desired effect' thing is about as ambiguous as you can get. To completely normalize the 'high factor' of marijuana use for study is next to impossible, imo. I mean you can sit there and tell 3 different people to inhale for 5 seconds, hold your breath for 10 seconds, and exhale, but they're each going to inhale differently, they all have different tolerances, etc.[/quote]
Yeah, it is ambiguous. That's why I stated (at least twice already) it needed to be addressed in some sort of qualitative and/or quantitative manner.

Starting to have doubts? Well, you presented this study as the Holy Grail of Marijuana's effects upon Driving, not me.

I don't know about 'normalize,' but it is possible to know the plasma concentrations of THC in subjects and observe its effects upon the subject's driving ability. It's no different than blood alcohol content used to determine if someone is driving under the influence of alcohol. Are you going to argue this, too? Sure, there are differences in tolerance, but a person with a high alcohol tolerance is still getting a DUI with a BAC of .08 compared to a person with little alcohol tolerance with a BAC of .08.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ThurmanMunster' post='600076' date='Nov 26 2007, 11:39 PM']then i guess you would solve their problems.


if someone is robbing my house and im there and i have a gun. i will be takin face like its Call of Duty.[/quote]


you dont have a house.. or a gun, and no one wants to steal your moms disney dolls and decorations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a useless argument.

I recall seeing a special about the war on drugs, it was quite interesting. As far as I remember the government made drugs illegal for a specific reason and for that same reason I doubt in either of your lifetime's you will see the drug legalized.

I am not sure what the point of the heated debate is, but if its in favor of getting marijuana legalized then write some letters to your state senators it would be way more proactive than bickering about it online.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ScarletKnight' post='620176' date='Jan 7 2008, 11:56 PM']What a useless argument.

I recall seeing a special about the war on drugs, it was quite interesting. As far as I remember the government made drugs illegal for a specific reason and for that same reason I doubt in either of your lifetime's you will see the drug legalized.

I am not sure what the point of the heated debate is, but if its in favor of getting marijuana legalized then write some letters to your state senators it would be way more proactive than bickering about it online.[/quote]


Internet messageboards are all about useless arguments, if you haven't noticed.

As to why drugs are illegal here, well that boils down to good ol' racism and social control

Here's an excerpt from a paper I wrote, about just that

[quote]For the United States, efforts to prohibit drugs began in the beginning of the twentieth century. This effort would be difficult, as during the previous century, drugs of all kinds were available through doctors and pharmacies, legally, to whomever wanted them. As Edward Brecher notes, "The United States of America during the nineteenth century could quite properly be described as a dope fiend's paradise (Abadinsky 2004)." The first order of business was to associate the use of these drugs with undesirable, usually violent, groups of people in society. From the beginning, drug legislation in the United States has been heavily based on racism and classism. This negative association method was the central way of illegitimizing drugs in the United States, regardless of whether the claims made were backed by legitimate evidence or not. These "drug scares" have been created about all widely used recreational drugs, and they function to convince the masses that the drugs are the direct cause of many problems, and therefore eliminating the presence of the drug will eliminate these problems. These scares are usually created by an interest group, a group for which the control of a particular drug problem is a goal, either because they are "moral entrepreneurs", wanting to impose their morality on the people, for example Churches and politicians, or because they have financial incentives in having drug criminals, such as law enforcement agencies and treatment facilities (Inciardi and McElrath 2008). The first effort in the United States to ban drugs came in 1875, in San Francisco. There were many immigrant Chinese workers in the area, and they had brought opium over from China with them. An economic depression started, and as a response an ordinance was passed to prohibit the operation of opium dens, "not because of health concerns as such, but because it was believed that the drug stimulated coolies into working harder than non-smoking whites (Abadinsky 2004)." Then in 1901, Congress enacted the Native Races Act, which prohibited the sale of alcohol and opium to "aboriginal tribes and uncivilized races (Abadinsky 2004)." It is obvious that the actions originally taken by the U.S. government against opium use had nothing to do with concern about the health dangers of opium, after all, during this time it was freely distributed over the counter in patent medicines. According to Abadinsky, "It was like aspirin; every household had some, usually in the form of laudanum [a patent medicine] (Abadinsky 2004)." Instead, opium control was a direct means of social control over the immigrant Chinese population.

Cocaine use, especially in the South, was connected to violent African Americans around the turn of the century. "As with Chinese opium, southern blacks became a target for class conflict, and drug use became one point of tension in this larger sociopolitical struggle (Abadinsky 2004)." In this case, politicians trying to increase support for federal legislation from Southern politicians who typically disagreed with the federal government interfering with state's rights, used misinformation to exaggerate the problem. "Without any research support, a spate of articles alleged widespread abouse of cocaine by African Americans, often associating such abuse with violence and the rape of white women (Abadinsky 2004)." By tapping into the racism already present in the South, and creating fear of "violent" African Americans under the influence cocaine, these "claims makers" created a "drug scare" about cocaine.

Marijuana has also been treated similarly. "[T]he most prominent influence in marijuana legislation was racism: State Laws against marijuana were often part of a reaction to Mexican immigrants (Abadinsky 2004)." This time the target minority group was Mexican immigrants. "Because Mexican laborers and other lower-class groups were identified as typical marihuana users, the drug was believed to cause the kinds of antisocial behavior associated with the drug (Abadinsky 2004)." Later, in the 1930s, there was a lot of anti-Marijuana literature that has been completely debased by contemporary research. Writers of the times wrote that marijuana "has led to some of the most revolting cases of sadistic rape and murder of modern times," and in 1936 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics presented the case of "the homocidal tendencies and the generally debasing effects which arise from the use of marijuana." (Abadinsky, 57) The culmination of these efforts was the Uniform Drug Act proposed by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics that was accepted by 35 states in 1937. This Act outlawed the sale of cocaine, opiates, and left it open to the state to outlaw the sale of marijuana, which every state did. Some find it curious that so soon after colossal failure that was the prohibition of alcohol, the U.S. government would then begin the prohibition of other drugs. David Courthwright notes that "One factor must have been that alcohol use was relatively widespread and cut across class lines. It seemed unreasonable for the government to deny a broad spectrum of othewise normal persons access to drink. By 1930, opiate addiction, by contrast, was perceived to be concentrated in a small criminal subculture; it did not seem unreasonable for that same government to deny the morbid cravings of a deviant group (Abadinsky 2004)." It is evident, that from the beginning, drug legislation has been a means of social control. By attaching the use of these drugs to marginalized groups in society, and then making the drugs illegal, a clear message is sent about what is considered socially acceptable. In this way, the U.S. drug policy follows a deterrent model. The belief is that by heavily prosecuting and incarcerating drug offenders, the example set will act a deterrent for anyone else who might want participate in this deviant behavior. (Dolin 2001).[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...