The headline is interesting but the operational point still seems to be that residual blood levels alone are a poor proxy for next day impairment. I would want to know sample size, dosing pattern and whether the driving task captured rarer attention failures before drawing policy conclusions.
ZotMatrix on
No impairment? Why do it then?
LoogyHead on
I mean that makes sense as the metabolites are functionally inert, and unless you had a crazy high dose, the most significant effects of THC are done within about 4-5 hours. A trial of 12-15 basically has enough half lives going that there should be little active effect at all.
Am curious what their test dose was.
_TorpedoVegas_ on
I’ve yet to see a study that supports the basic assumption that being high on cannabis makes someone unsafe to drive. Maybe we should lock that down first.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
4 Kommentare
The headline is interesting but the operational point still seems to be that residual blood levels alone are a poor proxy for next day impairment. I would want to know sample size, dosing pattern and whether the driving task captured rarer attention failures before drawing policy conclusions.
No impairment? Why do it then?
I mean that makes sense as the metabolites are functionally inert, and unless you had a crazy high dose, the most significant effects of THC are done within about 4-5 hours. A trial of 12-15 basically has enough half lives going that there should be little active effect at all.
Am curious what their test dose was.
I’ve yet to see a study that supports the basic assumption that being high on cannabis makes someone unsafe to drive. Maybe we should lock that down first.