Perception and reality are very different things. Speak to any psychologist, and most people manufacture their own narratives to help them cope with reality. In a broad sense, we all fall into 2 rough camps:
1. Those who need some sort of crutch, delusion, or narrative to support them in their efforts to cope
2. Those who work through their crutches/delusions/narratives, discarding them and aligning their worldview with truth/reality/whatever.
Most of us human beings fall into category #1. A significant amount of us, through life lessons, learning, wisdom & experience, move into category 2. Most of us however, don't. We build an egoic existence around narratives (delusions, white lies, lies, other self-beliefs) and, when facts or information come along that challenge the fantasy we've built around ourselves, because our egoic beliefs about ourself have been built right into the core of who we wish we were / think we are, the research shows we reject that truth with the same force as if we are avoiding death.
There's a really good book on the subject: "A New Earth" by Eckhart Tolle
some quotes: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quote...life-s-purpose
So what's my point?
Well, I've observed a lot of pot smokers in my life, and most of them are smoking pot because, for a multitude of different reasons, they don't want to, or can't, face reality without it. I know several people who, will argue to the death they're better drivers after punching a few cones. I've heard them ALL argue they are the special exception to the rules which bind everyone else. "Nah man, but I'm different brah because <reason x, y & z>"
Yet, without fail, empirical scientific data shows smoking pot slows reactions, cognitive function, and physical response, and increases errors. "Nah brah, like, I'm different! Science doesn't apply to me, like, 'cause..."
Yeah. Science doesn't apply to them because, according to THEIR TRUTH, pot enhances their skills.
One such friend drove me around over some weeks (I'd lost my license, so was at the mercy of other people for lifts) and sure, if you define 'safe driving' as reducing one's speed to the already retard-level speed limits, one could argue he drove 'safer'. However, in Australia, speed limits are already set for the retards in the bottom 15% skill level. So punching a few cones and driving at the speed limit demonstrates you've lowered yourself into driving at the bottom 15% percentile's skill level.
Proving the very point they're trying to disprove. Only potheads can be that ****ing stupid not to be able to recognise they're scoring intellectual own-goals.
That being said, there are cases where these potheads do experience results which are better than when they are 'straight'. Faster lap times, they can ride harder on the trails, etc. This DOES NOT demonstrate an improvement, it demonstrates instead that the problem area limiting them is instead their mind. their mind is sabotaging them in their 'straight' state.
Instead of removing their mind from the equation, they should instead be facing the root cause head on, and addressing it. Fear, self-doubt, anxiety, whatever - this is sabotaging their 'straight' performance. So, fix the root cause. Such is the powerful effect of fear on their 'straight' state, it's making their performance WORSE than that of when they are a reaction-slowed pothead!
That's not something to be proud of lol.
Denial is part of the human psyche for a reason, it assists with short-term survival in traumatic and dangerous situations. Our minds will often create delusional narratives around ourselves so we can continue to function in the task of survival. However, these delusions aren't supposed to be kept after their purpose is served - the mind will, after the threat passes, start to surface the delusions and call us out on them. Hence, why so much cognitive dissonance and stress in people who are holding on to lies they've built their identities around. The multiple layers of their mind are at odds with each other, and they're spending a lot of energy suppressing this. And so, they turn to pot as a chemical suppressant.
So, if you do come across someone who says they ride 'better' with a few cones in them, it's very much relative. Their definition of 'better' may not be what you think. Their 'better' may be "I'm crippled with fear normally, and my baseline anxiety is high, so belting a few blunts makes me feel safer, more confident, and more in control."
At the end of the day, their belief is not supported by repeatable scientific data. It's a delusion they've told themselves in order to help cope with reality.
I just read the post by
and the research was published in 1977. It's only got one author, http://www.isye.umn.edu/faculty/kvalseth.shtml
He's most commonly published in the Journal of Perceptual and Motor skills, whose impact factor is 0.618. This is really low, which means it's basically an unknown journal with a very low exposure and citation rate. Take Nature - IF of 38.138; nature cell biology 18.68. A journal with an impact factor of less than 3 means it's a very, very small fish in a giant pond.
Given the abstract linked, there's a lack of precise methodology, finer details of the experiments, no information to fill in the blanks about precisely what and how the experiments were. We know the sample set was 6 experienced Marijuana users, and we are told the dosages - they were volunteers, perhaps the dosages were much lower than they were used to? For all we know, TO Kvalseth might have measured picking up coffee cup motor skills (the moving targets?) we don't know. There's not enough information in that abstract to repeat his experiments or draw any meaningful data. We'd need to view the full text in order to know.
His name is of Nordic origin (pro marijuana countries) and given his visage, probably fond of a toke. It's almost a given he's going to publish a paper in 1977 supportive of marijuana. So, the validity of that article in arguing pot doesn't have an adverse impact on all the factors required for riding is not tenable. That paper, just can't be used as current or valid research - except, as a snapshot of a historical position.