It is probably this compensatory behaviour by cannabis users that explains the comparatively small effects of cannabis intoxication in on road studies. For ethical reasons such studies have not been able to adequately test the response of cannabis intoxicated drivers to situations that require emergency decision, in which there is less opportunity to compensate for impairment. The few studies which have attempted to simulate this situation (e.g. by using subsidiary reaction tasks in addition to driving) have shown that cannabis intoxication impairs emergency decision-making (Smiley, 1986). As the previous sections have shown, there is considerable evidence that cannabis intoxication has some negative effects upon performance which become more pronounced with increasing task difficulty. Motor vehicle driving is a complex task, especially in conditions of heavy traffic or poor road or weather conditions, and as such, it might be expected to be adversely affected by cannabis.
Gieringer used a different approach to circumvent the absence of data on the prevalence of cannabinoids in drivers not involved in accidents. He used data from a National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) household survey of drug abuse in the United States to estimate the proportion of all drivers who might be expected to have blood and urine samples positive for cannabinoids. Even if cannabis users drive when intoxicated it does not necessarily follow that they will be over-represented among drivers involved in accidents. It could be, for example, that cannabis users take special care and avoid risk-taking when driving while intoxicated.
“I have a blood cancer and I’m on a maintenance drug that costs $8,000 per month,” Hales said, citing the cost as one of the reasons why she recently turned to CBD oil. While CBD doesn’t produce the kind of intoxicating effects CBD hemp oil for sale THC is known for, it’s important to consider any possible CBD oil side effects. Because CBD doesn’t produce the high associated with THC, it’s potential for abuse is considered limited by scientists. The researchers determined that CBD had as much likelihood for abuse as the placebo in this study.
Cannabis affected the ability to judge the time taken to pass another vehicle, while alcohol did not. Moskowitz et al found that alcohol altered the visual search patterns of subjects performing a simulated driving task, while cannabis did not. The alterations found with alcohol were, in theory, consistent with a reduced ability to scan for hazardous events, but no reliable difference in task performance was found with either drug. Different drugs tests may look for different substances, however CBD wouldn’t normally be tested for in a drugs test as it is legal and doesn’t have any psychoactive effects. CBD does not have any psychoactive effects; however, you may find that CBD oil makes you feel a little tired or sleepy.
Simulated driving tasks require skills which are similar to those involved in driving, which can be performed under controlled laboratory conditions. When special efforts are made to simulate the performance characteristics of a car, simulations have two major advantages (Smiley, 1986). First, cannabis users an be tested after taking doses of cannabis which it would be unethical to use on the road. Second, they can be placed in simulated emergency situations which test their level of impairment in ways that would be impermissible on the road.
This possibility is difficult to investigate because there have been no controlled epidemiological studies conducted to establish whether cannabis users are at increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle or other accidents. This is in contrast to the instance of alcohol use and accidents, where case-control studies have shown that persons with blood alcohol levels indicative of intoxication are over-represented among accident victims (Holman et al, 1988). The small effects of cannabis on driving performance seem at odds with its effects on laboratory tasks requiring divided attention. Peck et al have pointed out, however, that the subtle performance effects of drugs in laboratory divided attention tasks may be poor predictors of driving performance. Much more attention must be allocated to the central task in most divided attention tests, for example, leading to a substantial decrease in performance when drugs such as cannabis are taken.
The disadvantage of simulator studies derives from the difficulty of achieving sufficient fidelity to on-road driving tasks. One of the earliest studies by Crancer et al, found only that "speedometer errors" increased in simulated driving after cannabis use. In one of the more influential studies, Dott reported an apparent decrease in the willingness to take risks in simulated passing of another vehicle after cannabis use, while alcohol had the opposite effect. Alcohol also tended to hamper the subjects’ response to stimuli signalling an emergency condition, while cannabis had little effect on this response. A similar dissociation of the effects of alcohol and cannabis was reported by Ellingstad, et al, who found that cannabis did not appear to increase risk-taking, whereas alcohol did.
In addition, in the laboratory the subject is unable to vary a key task parameter, such as driving speed, in order to compensate for any perceived impairment. Hence, while laboratory divided attention tasks may be ideal for detecting small drug effects, they may over-estimate the effects of drugs on actual driving. It is not surprising then that many studies which have used both types of test have reported less effect on actual driving than on laboratory tasks or simulated driving. Overall, the effects of cannabis use on on-road driving have been smaller than the comparable effects of intoxicating doses of alcohol in the same settings (Smiley, 1986). The most consistent cannabis effect has been that drivers reduce their risk by slowing down; a finding that contrasts with the consistent finding that subjects typically increase their speed when intoxicated with alcohol.
As a result, percentages stated on their packaging may not directly relate to the amount of CBD. For example, some products may show 5% on the label but this in fact is the amount of hemp oil and they may only contain around 0.45% actual CBD.
If you’re trying CBD oil for the first time, we recommend that you take your first dose when you won’t need to drive or operate machinery for a few hours. Some suppliers will list the percentage of hemp oil in their products rather than the actual percentage of CBD. Unrefined hemp oil contains plant oils that dilute the strength of the CBD.