Author Topic: Fatal road crashes involving marijuana double after state legalizes drug. Foundation research also shows that legal limits for marijuana and driving are meaningless  (Read 481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Fatal road crashes involving marijuana double after state legalizes drug
Foundation research also shows that legal limits for marijuana and driving are meaningless

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160510103131.htm

Date:
    May 10, 2016
Source:
    AAA
Summary:
    Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug, according to the latest research. New research also shows that legal limits for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science, which could result in unsafe motorists going free and others being wrongfully convicted for impaired driving.
Share:

FULL STORY
Police lights (stock image).
Credit: © chalabala / Fotolia

Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug, according to the latest research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. New research also shows that legal limits for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science, which could result in unsafe motorists going free and others being wrongfully convicted for impaired driving. Washington was one of the first two states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, and these findings raise serious concerns about drug-impaired driving with at least 20 states considering marijuana legalization this year.

The Foundation examined drug tests and fatal crashes among drivers in Washington, a state that legalized marijuana in December 2012. The researchers found:

    The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014.
    One in six drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2014 had recently used marijuana, which is the most recent data available.

"The significant increase in fatal crashes involving marijuana is alarming," said Peter Kissinger, President and CEO of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. "Washington serves as an eye-opening case study for what other states may experience with road safety after legalizing the drug."

In an attempt to enforce drug-impaired driving, some states have created legal limits, also known as per se limits, which specify the maximum amount of active THC that drivers can have in their system based on a blood test. THC is the main chemical component in marijuana that can impair driver performance and affect the mind, and the presence of active THC is generally suggestive of recent marijuana use. These limits are similar in concept to the .08 BAC limit for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Researchers examined the lab results of drivers arrested for impaired driving, and the results suggest that legal limits for marijuana and driving are problematic because:

    There is no science showing that drivers reliably become impaired at a specific level of marijuana in the blood. Depending on the individual, drivers with relatively high levels of marijuana in their system might not be impaired, while others with low levels may be unsafe behind the wheel. This finding is very different from alcohol, where it is clear that crash risk increases significantly at higher BAC levels.
    High THC levels may drop below legal thresholds before a test is administered to a suspected impaired driver. The average time to collect blood from a suspected driver is often more than two hours because taking a blood sample typically requires a warrant and transport to a facility. Active THC blood levels may decline significantly and could drop below legal limits during that time.
    Marijuana can affect people differently, making it challenging to develop consistent and fair guidelines. For example, frequent users of marijuana can exhibit persistent levels of the drug long after use, while drug levels can decline more rapidly among occasional users.

"There is understandably a strong desire by both lawmakers and the public to create legal limits for marijuana impairment, in the same manner as we do with alcohol," said Marshall Doney, AAA's President and CEO. "In the case of marijuana, this approach is flawed and not supported by scientific research. It's simply not possible today to determine whether a driver is impaired based solely on the amount of the drug in their body."

AAA is urging states to use more comprehensive enforcement measures to improve road safety. Rather than relying on arbitrary legal limits, states should use a two-component system that requires (1) a positive test for recent marijuana use, and most importantly, (2) behavioral and physiological evidence of driver impairment. This system would rely heavily on two current law-enforcement training programs: Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) and the 50-state Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program. These programs train law enforcement officers around the country to more effectively recognize drug-impaired driving.

"Marijuana can affect driver safety by impairing vehicle control and judgment," continued Doney. "States need consistent, strong and fair enforcement measures to ensure that the increased use of marijuana does not impact road safety."

Whether the use of marijuana is legal or not, all motorists should avoid driving while impaired. Just because a drug is legal does not mean it is safe to use while operating a motor vehicle. Drivers who get behind the wheel while impaired put themselves and others on the road at risk.

Four states, including Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Washington, D.C., have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and 20 states have legalized it for therapeutic and medicinal use. Montana and Washington have implemented a per se limit for marijuana at 5 ng/mL; Nevada and Ohio have set a limit at 2 ng/mL; and Pennsylvania's is set at 1 ng/mL. Twelve states have strict per se laws that forbid the presence of any levels of marijuana. In Colorado, a blood concentration of 5 ng/mL or more gives rise to permissible inference that a person was driving under the influence of the drug.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 09:35:24 pm by rangerrebew »

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,475
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Quote
The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014.
This could be a distorted stat.

Was there an actual increase in fatal crashes during this time frame, or was this simply a case of more people using it because it was legal, and thus the increase showing up in an unrelated statistic?
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,978
Although I'm a non-doper, I have in the past few years become more amenable to lenient drug laws. If people can get stinking drunk and cause accidents, why should dopers be penalized?  Nevertheless, I'm a little skeptical of pot advocates claim that pot is much safer than alcohol.
 And furthermore, the claim that pot make people peaceful is belied by the facts that many violent criminals are found to have pot in their systems after committing crimes. Usually as they are lying on a table having an autopsy done on them.
Like the article says, pot can affect many people differently.  Much more study has to be done on marijuana. Apparently it's not quite as harmless as the pot pushers would have us believe.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,978
People can still steal, too.  But just because anti-theft laws have not ended all stealing doesn't mean we should be lenient on embezzlement laws.  You know that old thing moms tell their kids:  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Besides, consuming alcohol does not automatically make you drunk.  Most drugs are not lightly affected in the body.  It is a better comparison to say you want to make all prescription drugs legal without restraint.   What a bunch of chaos that would be.  Freedom is not served by drugging the minds of men.

The rights of man are tied to his unique ability to reason above that of animals.  They are God given rights by design.  If man chooses to alter his brain in a way that eliminates those abilities, then he is incapable of the responsibility side of those rights.  We are not advancing freedom by lifting drug laws.  We are abetting a new and dangerous kind of slavery over the mind of man.
Not quite that. How can you logically forbid you to take some kind of mind/behavior altering substance that might be dangerous when I allow another type of mbas, alcohol, that has proven to be extremely dangerous when abused?
 Society must prove that certain substances are so dangerous to the health of society they must be banned. Pot hasn't quite risen to that level.  And again alcohol has proven to be by far the most harmful substance as far as historical records go.
 Am I advocating pot use? Not at all...I don't recommend any recreational drug use. If you need drugs to make your life interesting or worth living, then what is your life? But we haven't yet proven that weed is such a threat to society it must be banned.

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male
I have a problem with all this focus on pot and not the myriad of other "legal" pain and mood altering drugs everyone seems to be on these days.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,978
It is a logical fallacy to say that because one thing is legal another thing has to be legal in order to be fair.  Each is weighed on its own merit.
True to some extent. But then the onus is on the person saying some substance should be banned while others allowed.
The simple matter is alcohol has been the drug of choice for the great pct. of Americans since the inception of the country. Drugs like cannabis and others are late arrivals.
 Many people who are anti-pot do it out of either ignorance or obstinacy. 
I have already stated that I do not consider pot a harmless drug as many of its proponents have argued.
 I've simply stated it has not proven itself (as yet) to be so harmful as to be  a severe and immediate danger to the health of the general population requiring its banning. Maybe it will turn out to be that.
But simply saying that it can be a dangerous drug does not necessarily justify banning it. You still have to give legitimate reasons to ban it.

geronl

  • Guest