"Fatal Road Crashes Involving Marijuana Double After State Legalizes Drug"

[Vurdah]

A study from "the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, publicly supported charitable research and educational organization. Dedicated to saving lives and reducing injuries on our roads, the Foundation’s mission is to prevent crashes and save lives through research and education about traffic safety."

Here's the article: http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fata...egalizes-drug/



I hope the extra tax revenue is worth it.

I would love to see the data on how many of the people that are under the influence of marijuana were the ones not at fault in the accident. I would also like to see data on thc content in their system.

For the most part this seems inflated in an attempt to further demonize marijuana.

[Malachi256]

I don't think that's a big enough difference you could conclude that its reversed anything. It was legal at the end of 2012. It continued to go down for 2013 overall and is 26 people higher for 2014. That's ~5% difference. Between plenty of years the rate of deaths have been different. In Texas, 149 more people died in 2014 than 2013, again a bit under a 5% difference, but they didn't legalize weed.

My point is, that's not a large enough difference that you could attribute to any sort of significant change. Alaska saw an increase of 43% over the previous year! That's just because their number is already small enough that it swings drastically.

I think in general all states went up for 2014. Possibly more people are out driving due to low gas prices or something.

I agree that the car crash fatality data is mostly useless because it's very soft data - it's impossible to really link it to any one thing or another, as you correctly point out.

That leaves us with the other data which shows that active THC is showing up more often in car crashes. This should be concerning to anyone with common sense.

[Espe]

I would love to see the data on how many of the people that are under the influence of marijuana were the ones not at fault in the accident. I would also like to see data on thc content in their system.

For the most part this seems inflated in an attempt to further demonize marijuana.

Bingo. More propaganda for the easily manipulated.

[kail]

I'll even acknowledge that being severely high can affect driving, just to be the devils advocate. Solution would still be the same as alcohol restrictions.

[Pipebomb]

I agree that the car crash fatality data is mostly useless because it's very soft data - it's impossible to really link it to any one thing or another, as you correctly point out.

That leaves us with the other data which shows that active THC is showing up more often in car crashes. This should be concerning to anyone with common sense.

Do you think marijuana should be made illegal again in the states that have regulated it?

[Annoying]

After reading the article, it should be the same principle set for alcohol - there should be a legalized limit, each person reacting differently is a null point as the same applies with alcohol, and yet there is still a limit set.

Taking any sort of drug (yes even prescribed ones) or alcohol and getting behind the wheel of a car is stupid and selfish of that person, accidents are fatailities are a high risk in these situations and it needs controlling, regardless of its legal status.

While this is correct, we run into the issue that it's really hard to tell if a person was recently under the influence or not. Drug tests for marijuana will show up weeks after taking it if you're a regular user. You could be completely sober that day, and if you were smoking all weekend long, you'll test positive despite not being currently under the influence. Until a better method comes out that's actually capable of detecting it while it's actively affecting your mind, it's really hard to enforce a limit.

That being said, I wonder how many of those people in the fatal crash merely just tested positive versus how many were actually high when the accident happened.

[Malachi256]

Do you think marijuana should be made illegal again in the states that have regulated it?

Too soon to make that call. I do hope that other states don't follow suit. I'd actually be quite happy to have my area lose drug users to states that legalize.

- - - Updated - - -

While this is correct, we run into the issue that it's really hard to tell if a person was recently under the influence or not. Drug tests for marijuana will show up weeks after taking it if you're a regular user. You could be completely sober that day, and if you were smoking all weekend long, you'll test positive despite not being currently under the influence. Until a better method comes out that's actually capable of detecting it while it's actively affecting your mind, it's really hard to enforce a limit.

That being said, I wonder how many of those people in the fatal crash merely just tested positive versus how many were actually high when the accident happened.

Read this article. They seem to be developing more discerning tests.

[Ripster42]

I know of an experimental detector that is 97% accurate in trial studies that only needs a drop of blood to determine the THC level in a matter of minutes, but that's a long way from being as accurate or as easy to use as a breathalyzer test in cases for motorized vehicle stops.

The problem, even with this, is that regular users test positive even days after they've smoked. I'm not talking about the metabolized compound they measure when taking a urine sample that can last for a month, but the metabolic THC that can remain in the blood stream for 2-7 days after ingested for regular users which is what they test for.

- - - Updated - - -

Read this article. They seem to be developing more discerning tests.

Read this article and realize that even the more discerning test, testing for metabolic THC, show positives for regular users even days after use.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Marijuana tests detect if it's there or not, the cheap tests. If you actually want to know the exact concentration, it's much more expensive and time consuming.

This study just took the presence of marijuana in the system which, as stated earlier in this thread, remains for up to a week in the blood in someone who uses it ONCE. For people who use it a lot, it can be in the blood for up to a month. This does not mean they are actively intoxicated.

[Sastank]

Lol no kidding. But some of these people who have never tried it claim that it's worse than crack-cocaine and alcohol.

- - - Updated - - -



Logic means nothing to the "Say NO to drugs" brigade

Those people are...special and uneducated.

[Malachi256]

Read this article and realize that even the more discerning test, testing for metabolic THC, show positives for regular users even days after use.

Seems to support more what I was saying/linking.

Blood tests are a better detector of recent use, since they measure the active presence of THC in the system. Because they are invasive and difficult to administer, blood tests are used less frequently. They are typically used in investigations of accidents, injuries and DUIs, where they can give a useful indication of whether the subject was actually under the influence.

Detection Time for Marijuana in Blood : Blood tests can detect presence of active THC; high levels indicate recent use, low levels may persist for hours or days.

[Indigenously Abled]

I'll even acknowledge that being severely high can affect driving, just to be the devils advocate. Solution would still be the same as alcohol restrictions.

I've driven while stoned. It's not even close to the same experience, and is really a horrible idea. I don't think anyone should advocate driving while intoxicated, but simple road sobriety tests should suffice when determining a driver's level of intoxication.

[Masark]

TY, that's the site we need =)

According to their data, the legalization of marijuana is correlated with a small uptick in car fatalities, reversing a general downtrend that had been going for years.

According to their other data, there's no real link between marijuana use and increased collision risk once you control for other factors (e.g. also being drunk).

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Pre...tudies-02-2015

[Malachi256]

According to their other data, there's no real link between marijuana use and increased collision risk once you control for other factors (e.g. also being drunk).

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Pre...tudies-02-2015

Seriously I think the reading comprehension around here is just awful.

A second survey, the largest of its kind ever conducted, assessed whether marijuana use by drivers is associated with greater risk of crashes. The survey found that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in accidents, but that the increased risk may be due in part because marijuana users are more likely to be in groups at higher risk of crashes. In particular, marijuana users are more likely to be young men – a group already at high risk.

This was the most precisely controlled study of its kind yet conducted, but it measured the risk associated with marijuana at the levels found among drivers in a large community. Other studies using driving simulators and test tracks have found that marijuana at sufficient dosage levels will affect driver risk.

“Drivers should never get behind the wheel impaired, and we know that marijuana impairs judgment, reaction times and awareness,” said Jeff Michael, NHTSA’s associate administrator for research and program development. “These findings highlight the importance of research to better understand how marijuana use affects drivers so states and communities can craft the best safety policies.”

So you interpret "may be due in part" to mean "there's no real link between marijuana use and increased collision risk." I mean seriously?? Lay off the drugs, mannnnn...

[Masark]

Seriously I think the reading comprehension around here is just awful.


So you interpret "may be due in part" to mean "there's no real link between marijuana use and increased collision risk." I mean seriously?? Lay off the drugs, mannnnn...

No, I looked at the actual numbers in the study, which gives in table 5 an adjusted (for demographics and concurrent alcohol) odds ratio for THC of 1.00 i.e. as likely to get into a crash as someone who is stone sober.

For comparison, in table 8, 0.08% of blood alcohol gives an adjusted odds ratio of 3.93.

[Jotaux]

So my question is have accidents overall increased? Basically is this a result of marijuana or a coincidence?

[Arganis]

People shouldn't drive high or drunk. End of story.

[Mistame]

People shouldn't drive high or drunk. End of story.

Pretty much. It should be illegal to drive under the influence of anything. Period.

[Luxxor]

Let me know when it reaches alcohol's level.

Also, "Recently used marijuana" is a bullshit term as stated in the article. Regular users show up as "recently used" in blood tests for up to a week after they stop smoking.

Try a month or longer depending on fat lipids.

[hrugner]

So the amount of people who admit smoking weed to a cop now only doubled? Weird.