Reply #132: dupe

[RainDog]

this is a repeat of this thread, yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2125207&mesg_id=2125207

the link you followed in the article does not go to any scholarly research, btw. it goes to a USA Today page with other articles from USA Today and letters to USA Today. There are no scholarly articles noted or linked to in this piece. Just to clarify.

It's interesting that any time anyone tries to engage you in a discussion on this thread that demonstrates no hostility at all, and even when they find agreement with you, you treat them rudely. It's strange to read, honestly.

I am invested in reality and the study indicates a two hour, mostly, time of impairment. One study indicated 4 hours. But that was one in nine - an outlier in terms of research. However, the USA Today article only noted the longest impairment time and neglected to notice the more accurate, because it was consistent, 2 hour time zone. That's an example of biased reporting. but, no matter. Just to note that there's an agenda there by the choice of data to share and data to fail to share.

As noted before, a saliva test exists to demonstrate impairment within that 2 hour zone. It is in use in Australia.

We don't check for impairment unless someone has already been in an accident or has demonstrated by action that this person may be driving impaired. So, it's good to have a test that can decrease the window of detection because urine and blood tests are inaccurate to test for impairment, as demonstrated by this study.