Slashdot Mirror
Federal Study: Marijuana Use Doesn't Increase Auto Crash Rates
An anonymous reader writes: After the legalization of marijuana in multiple states around the U.S., many are worried about a corresponding uptick in car crashes as people drive while under the influence of pot. But according to a new federal study (PDF) commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, those fears seem unfounded. They report that after adjusting for other factors (people who tend to drive after using marijuana also tend to be more crash-prone in general), there was no statistically significant increase in crash rates by drivers who tested positive for the drug. It's still a bad idea to drive high, but driving drunk is far, far worse: "One substance was shown to have a major influence on crashes: alcohol. The study confirmed the enormous danger of drinking and driving, even after age and sex adjustment: drivers with a 0.05% blood-alcohol level were found to be twice as likely to be in a crash. For a person weighing 180 to 190 pounds, that could be a single can of beer, glass of wine, or shot of liquor. At 0.08% (two drinks), the likelihood is quadrupled, and at .20% (four drinks or more), the risk is higher by 23 times."
The problem is you're using logic and science to argue with people who still believe bullshit WOD propaganda like the "gateway drug" theory.
They're not interested in facts, statistics, or scientific evidence. Like fundamentalist religion people, they've made up their mind and anything that disagrees with their predisposition is a "lie".
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Not that I care about legalisation either way because it's a past time I view as entirely pointless and don't need any kind of drug whether alcohol, tobacco or whatever else to pretend I'm happy, but this:
"They report that after adjusting for other factors (people who tend to drive after using marijuana also tend to be more crash-prone in general)"
So by adjusting out people who drive whilst high on marijuana by declaring that they'd have crashed anyway they've managed to show no difference in crash rates?
No fucking shit.
The problem here is that some people will interpret this as if it was OK to smoke and drive.
You should avoid all drugs when you drive, including nicotine. Even if it keeps you sharp the cigarette itself is a distraction.
As much as you need your caffeine fix, don't try to juggle a coffee cup and a smartphone while driving.
IMO, there's not enough samples to produce this study. The rate of use of marijuana while driving is still statistically -- and radically -- low. As use becomes normalized (in other words, accepted), you'll see abuse while driving to increase as well.
But, let's say what this is really trying to do: push the Legalization activist agenda. Sorry, pot is as much a drug as meth. So is alcohol. It's disappointing to see my tax money going to support the use of either.
To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.
duh. too lazy to elaborate. im really tired of the confusion over this
After filtering out the crash-prone marijuana users, they don't have more crashes due to the crash-prone marijuana users.
How about that.
Studies more than 40 years old have always consistently shown this, including one I read as a young boy long ago, that showed professional race drivers after mild marijuana intoxication had IMPROVED lap times, though this edge dropped off at higher intoxication levels. Trying to point stuff like this out over the decades had jerkwads accusing me of the most awful things. Whatever I just don't care anymore. Marijuana being illegal while alcohol is not is insanity by definition, but most people are dumb animals and our world is run by sociopaths and there's nothing I can do about it.
According to in depth research performed on several subjects throughout the 1960s and 70s, being paranoid makes you drive slower, while lowered inhibitions tend to increase driving speed.
And loud music was the original "gateway drug".
Gently reply
For real , this is exactly what happens :
..
Alcohol : makes you a moron
Weed : makes you a really paranoid moron
People on alcohol lose their hand eye coordination and tend to step on the gas
People on weed do not lose all of the hand-eye and because of the paranoia , unkowingly drive slowly . That's it
sotally tober .
Marijuana does not impair a persons motor skills or reflexes.
A drunk driver is dangerous because they are likely to lose control of their car.
A stoned driver is not nearly as dangerous: they can control their car, and react to danger, just fine. The most likely mistake a stoned driver will make is to miss their exit because Stairway to Heaven is on the radio.
"If we assume that people who smoke pot are more crash-prone in general, we can claim that their higher rate of automobile crashes is due to their higher-level of crash-proneness, which has absolutely nothing with the fact that they're high all the time, or something, dude, pass the dutchie upon the left hand side..."
Whenever inaccuracies are reported as fact, it makes the rest of the information less credible.
FWIW, I condone neither drunk nor stoned operation of a motor vehicle. Sober drivers are distracted enough with ubiquitous cellphone use, eating and talking, putting on makeup, turning around to correct backseat children, et al.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Those totally sober people who should have never been given a fucking driving license in the foist place ...
Somebody tell O'Reilly
Fine, go ahead and mark me down.
I'd like to see two tiers. 0.05 and 0.08 and above for BAC. With different punishments for both. Maybe 0.05 a civil infraction, but something still.
Also, crashes don't factor in missing someone, but almost hitting them, right?
This study from 1993 (mentioned earlier probably) shows that this was already known to federal authorities, but was probably swept under the rug or willingly ignored by legislators for obvious reasons.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/2...
None of this is a surprise to potheads. Being stoned in the driver's seat makes you MORE cautious and attentive to everything outside the vehicle, not less. It's the exact opposite of being drunk in the driver's seat.
"They report that after adjusting for other factors (people who tend to drive after using marijuana also tend to be more crash-prone in general)"
So, after adjusting for the factor that people who use pot crash more often, there's no data to support that people who use port crash more often?
What chart are they getting their information from - the pre-teen's guide to Vodka?
0.05 is the *peak* BAC in a woman weighing less than 100lbs. At 190lbs, man or woman, you're only half way there (0.02-0.025).
And 0.20 - holy shit, you're well into the "wasted" range and probably are going to have troubles getting the key into the ignition by yourself. For that 180-190lb person, that's shotgunning a .375 flask of Vodka on an empty stomach. Maybe by "four drinks" the poster meant "Four doubles, as made by Bill Cosby at a fraternity hazing initiation"
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Balance is worse, though. Stay off motorcycles high.
The study is relatively meaningless because it wasn't collecting data about people who were HIGH on marijuana, but people who tested positive for having consumed it at some point. It could have been many hours ago or even days ago.
The conclusion reached by the horrible article is outright wrong and doesn't even have face validity. In fact, it is actually irresponsible and could cause society great harm by spreading possibly wrong information about the dangers of driving while altered.
I believe we should test this, in the real world. Get 30 to 100 people. Setup a course with fake cars and such. Have them all drive it without anything in their system. Then get them drunk and do it again. Then when they are sober, let them smoke pot, and do it again. Then once that is clear have them drink and smoke pot, and go yet again. Then for fun, do it with someone who is just smoking a cig while driving. Compare the results.
Loading a bong whilst driving still considered hazardous.
drivers with a 0.05% blood-alcohol level were found to be twice as likely to be in a crash. For a person weighing 180 to 190 pounds, that could be a single can of beer, glass of wine, or shot of liquor.
The chart in the article's source puts a person weighing 180 lbs into a group that has a BAC between 0.01 and 0.05%. Thats far different than the article which suggests you will have a 0.05% BAC after one drink. It normally would be about half of that.
At 0.08% (two drinks), the likelihood is quadrupled, and at .20% (four drinks or more), the risk is higher by 23 times.
So were the third and fourth drinks bigger than the first two drinks?
With our government being full of pathological liars, who is to know what this claim actually is.
This study does not study what you probably assumed that it study.
The study you expect is. How is the likelihood of a crash altered by using MJ. This study actually studies those involved in crashes and looks at THC, alcohol and other drugs. How many people taking MJ simply avoid driving completely? If 1 out of 2 avoid driving in this condition, this study under reports the accident risk by a factor of 2.
It does refer to several studies that measure impairment based on MJ usage and comments that the impairment in clearly seen in a number of ways.
Also, some THC is not the best measure of the effect of THC. Maybe moderate use has a relaxing effect that actually improves driving by reducing risk taking behavior even if it simultaneous impairs reaction time and judgment while more THC allows the negative effects to outweigh the positive.You would never know in this study.
Given that MJ usage is so widespread, an honest and comprehensive study would be a lot more useful than studies like this one. since MJ is legal now in some places, why not have a real study with various ages, levels of THC, etc. and spend some time in driving simulators. By and large I know people will take recreational drugs and it does not affect me. But I would like to keep them off the roads if this means they are driving while impaired.
Of course! Cuz so many don't even make it to the car, as they are all to busy with manslaughter, suicide, attempted rape, hallucinations, and descent into madness due to marijuana addiction.
But, let's say what this is really trying to do: push the Legalization activist agenda.
As if that were a bad thing...
In my country (especially its bigger cities) it's almost a weekly occurence that a marijuana-growing operation gets busted. Sometimes big (hundreds of plants), often small (a few dozen plants). Typically this involves a half dozen to a dozen police officers and related personel, driving up to a house and seizing all product, plants, and equipment used to grow the plants. Which likely takes the better part of the day, meaning that's a whole bunch of cops not out on the street looking for real criminals. Product, plants and equipment are usually destroyed, which is capital destruction regardless what you think of marijuna.
If it's a regular house, and happens to be a rented one owned by a housing corporation, the people involved may face eviction from their house. Which has a decent chance of steering them towards a homeless / criminal path with a much, much higher cost to society than that marijuna-growing operation ever had.
Of course that doesn't stop us from criminally proscecuting those growers, which taxes already-overburdened justice system. If 'successful', people may get fines which they have 0 chance of paying since money shortages are a common reason to start a marijuana-growing operation in the first place. In severe cases they may even be locked up, and thus will be non-productive members of society for the duration. Once released, it will be much harder for them to find a regular job, again increasing the chances they embark on a career-criminal path (with asociated costs to society). All these things increases stress between the people involved & their significant others, family, friends and so on. Which helps to increase incidents of domestic violence, homicide, you name it.
Note that all the above is cost to society, mostly paid for using tax money, innocent bystanders footing the bill, etc.
As Europeans, I'm happy to say we tend to be more 'enlightened' in topics like these, and focus more on the practical issues. For example, many marijuana-growing setups tap electricity illegally somewhere. Which is a problem both from safety and economic perspective.
What would legalization do here? Simple: remove the bulk of those costs from the picture. Read: less burdened justice system, more cops out on the street, fewer people evicted from their home, etc. Increase marijuana use? Yeah, probably - a little. It's not hard to get hold of some weed, and those who want to use it will anyway, so legalization wouldn't change much on that front. Why doesn't it happen? Mostly because of an almost religious crusade of people like you, which (imho) are the real obstacle in improving the situation.
Sorry, pot is as much a drug as meth. So is alcohol.
Wrong again. You mention 3 very different substances, with very different properties, and very different problem sets attached. Yes there may be some overlap, but basically: apples and oranges.
Maybe no increase in accidents but a much higher incident of "dude, you missed that exit (turn, address, city...) again!"
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
You're about the 5th person to have this problem understanding the article.
There is statistical overlap between the two groups mentioned: a) those who tend to drive after using marijuana, and b) those who tend to be more crash-prone in general, however, they are not the same group.
Group b (those who tend to be more crash-prone in general) consists of males and young people, and especially young male drivers.
Group a (those who tend to drive after using marijuana) also consists *in part* of males and young people.
You correct for the overlap between the two groups by looking at the part of group b who *aren't* also part of group a. The increased rate of crashes in that subset can't be attributed to marijuana, so you can isolate that from the overlapping group, any statistical increase left after that adjustment can be attributed to marijuana intoxication. After isolating the common factor, and accounting for it, there was *no* statistically significant increase left to attribute to marijuana in the marijuana-using population of the study.
"They report that after adjusting for other factors (people who tend to drive after using marijuana also tend to be more crash-prone in general)"
Wait. As an adjustment, you took out the thing you were looking for and then claimed you couldn't find it?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife
As someone who's been driving drunk and high for over a decade and not received a DUI, ticket, or been in an accident, I have some observations on the effects of driving under the influence.
First, after a while you get "used" to it. Your mind adapts to compensate for the effects, partially negating them. Something of extreme importance is that you're familiar with the roads you're driving on. There's a big difference between DWI on familiar roads and unfamiliar roads, especially with reduced visibility such as at night or in the rain (or God help you both).
Second, marijuana is more distracting than alcohol. While alcohol slows your reflexes and reaction time, marijuana changes the way you think and makes it more difficult to focus and concentrate.
Third, intoxication acts as a coefficient to your driving skills while sober. An excellent sober driver will fare much better DWI than that asshole eating hamburgers and talking on the phone DWI.
Fourth, and this only applies to alcohol (I generally don't smoke my brains out), after a certain amount of alcohol your good driving habits and concentration aren't going to be enough to ensure a safe ride. When your vision starts to blur you seriously should not be driving. Again this is from personal experience.
Lastly, unless you're completely wasted (blurry/double vision), how well you DWI is in your hands entirely. The rules of the road are dead simple. The lane width, markings, signs and lights are designed to make it easy for you and conform to time-tested government standards. There's no guesswork to driving. Identify the handful of relevant pieces of information around you (cars, lanes, signs, lights) and follow the rules accordingly. Use GPS if you're unfamiliar with the roads.
Caveat: When some sober jackass doesn't follow the rules and hits your car while you DWI, you're out of luck unless you can convince them to not call the cops. And yes, that actually happened to me. Some kid (sober) ran a red light while I was turning left at a leading green and t-boned my car. No report was filed.
Pot is benign. People are bad drivers.
I vilify Marijuana because it smells really awful.
So long as you smoke it where that scent doesn't regularly affect your neighbors, though, let's just look at studies--like this one--to decide whether and where it's acceptable to use.
My $0.02
Actually, the highest risk is from using a cell phone, or even having a cell conversation while driving, even if hands off. Texting is even worse.
Alcohol is pretty bad though.
PUT DOWN THE PHONE!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
An interesting article from Car & Driver magazine, June, 1980.
The conclusion?
"The test is over. It's obvious our subjects are as high as they're going to get. It is also obvious—and a little disappointing—that their driving abilities as determined by our two tests have not been particularly impaired, have not shown dramatic deterioration."
Visit the link for more details, including comments by an assistant research scientist specializing in drugs and their effects on driving at the Highway Safety Research Institute in Ann Arbor. (Hint -- the Car & Driver results are consistent with other tests.)
From what I remember from school health class. The rule of thumb is 0.02 up for every drink, and 0.02 down for every hour after the first hour. So 0.08 would be 5 drinks over two hours. That would make 0.20 something like 11 drinks over 2 hours or 12 drinks over 3 hours.
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
It doesn't seem to take into account DUI/DWI charge rates. The hope being that a DUI/DWI charge that is not involving an accident likely prevented one. Seems like a pretty major flaw.
I'd had a brownie at an all-day outdoor concert, and at the end of the day it had been long enough that I felt like I'd sobered up and was ready to drive home. (Reminder, kids, edibles don't always deliver their effects upfront or at a steady rate.) Driving through the city was just fine, no problems with red lights or distraction or pedestrians (which there were lots of near the concert, as well as randomly in other parts of the city on my way to the freeway. It's probable that streetlights also helped, but I was fine.) Driving on the freeway was %#$#$ing terrifying! Lights zooming by at high speeds in the other lanes, in contrast to the dark spaces when nobody was around traffic speeding up and slowing down (for real, in addition to my head speeding up and slowing down, which made it tough to keep my speed consistent with the other drivers, though I mostly succeeded.) It was somewhere that getting off the freeway and taking local roads home wasn't really an option. Got off the freeway near home, local streets and streetlights, fine again, except I was still paranoid. Not doin' that shit again.
The US has made air travel a really hostile process, mostly on purpose. But especially when they started banning taking liquids on the planes, my reaction was "ok, guys, you need to allow us to use marijuana in the smoking lounge instead." (Edibles don't have the same getting-caught risks, but they can last too long unless you're flying cross-country or overseas. Vaporizer sounds about right.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
(or related agency) published a detailed study on this subject in the late 90s.
as far as i remember i found this report on The Well, but i have since lost track of the file, and if anyone knows about it, i would really appreciate a chace to study it again.
the report was notable, as i remember, because it actually went so far as to suggest that weed makes better drivers - basically because they are more relaxed and therefore more likely to make the correct decisions in an emergency.
I'll be driving home at 16:20 then.
The study studied the effect of all drugs on accident rates, but for some reason slashdot readers only want to discuss the section about marijuana. Are slashdot readers pot heads?
Ok, well not entirely irrelevant.
Many of these posts talk about how driving ability, that is, the ability to navigate a course while drunk or stoned, is not imparied by M.J. except at large doses (unlike alcohol which can make it hard to even go on all-fours in a straight line; I know that for a fact).
So what. Sure, alcohol significantly impairs motor skills and reaction times, but the real problem with alcohol is how it impairs judgement.
While a youngster I did drive wasted. I made an conscious effort to drive as carefully as possible so as to get home, and much more carefully than is my natural inclination.
My experience was that most people I knew lost all common sense when drunk. When they were sober, they would not do the things that I did while I was sober (some would not even ride with me to go get a burger, at least not in my race car), but while drunk they would try anything and even in the rain.
I just don't see that judgement problem with stoned people. I cannot speak from personal experience; I never did toke.
People I knew seem to pretty much drive stoned the same way they did while straight.
Those that drove like my mom when they were straight drove like my mom when they were stoned.
Those that drove like they were trying to get home to beat a diarhea attack when straight drove like that when stoned.
My crazy redneck friends didn't get mellow when they started smoking. They just turned into stoned assholes.
Anyway, I think the whole thing of doing tests on motor-skills while driving is nearly pointless.
Crashes occuring due to insufficient skills are rare compared to numb-skullery.
The real problem with people is that they get into crashes due to their poor judgement. Not watching the road ahead, fooling with the radio, reading the newspaper, fooling with their lunch, trying to one-hand text while driving where children are playing and so on.
In my observations, I don't believe that marijuana affects judgement in the way that alcohol does; it's not even close. If we are going to let people self-medicate, then I believe marijuana is a superior choice.
However, in my experience as a school teacher , something must be done to keep it (any recreational drug) out of the hands of teenagers and children. It is very obvious that many of them lack the ability to control their usage, and they seem to often become damaged in their mental abilities in a way that does not seem to happen to the adults that I knew that started later in life.
I would really really want the children problem solved. I also think that with M.J. legalized, we can do a better job of keeping it away from kids.
We used to do a much better job of keeping alcohol away from teenagers, but I think people have gven up.
It's not pleasant walking through a bad area and seeing a bunch of filthy people laying around in a drug induced stupor, from alcohol or other.
Putting millions of people in steel and concrete prisons -- out of sight, out of mind -- because the puritans don't want little johnny or susie to see it is a crime against humanity.
Some people can handle drugs, some can't. That's why we should have treatment, not terror.
Ending the drug war would crush the criminal black markets and also the abuse of many self-defense products.
Test subjects underwent sex and age adjustment, but were still dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol.
I drive stoned, i toke while driving (all pre rolled so no fiddling, set along the dash) and I've never had complaints or any accident. It makes journeys tolerable and my eye sight is far better baked. I drink drive on private land while working the land though because i can, totally different - too much confidence and arrogance. No big crashes but often bumping things which on the road could well be squishy people
If you look closer at the conclusions made from the study, essentially it's the same thing as having someone swallow a teaspoon of wine so it registers in their blood, and then saying "Drivers with alcohol in their blood are perfectly safe to drive". While they flaunt dosage dependence from alcohol, it is conveniently omitted from marijuana. Disappointing to see a supposed intellectual community like Slashdot post this without examination. There IS such a thing as being "too stoned to drive". It is a common observation and also rational to assume that increasing the dose of the drug will create increased impairment. Here are some studies which came with far less politically correct conclusions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Speeding is the biggest cause of crashes, people who are stoned don't speed. Drunk drivers and speeding (or even going slow) thats a recipe for disaster. And of course speeding sober - simply driving to fast for the conditions causes crashes.
Years ago I watched an interview with Marc Emery mostly talking about driving while high. He made really good points. As mentioned above, it will often make the driver more attentive from paranoia, drive within limits to not attract cops, and seriously cut down on road rage (at the time, it seemed there were crazy road rage events that made it center topic).
Good interview. I wish I could still find it.
Many of the reports mentioned in the summarizing report fail to adequately explain their methods. My favorite is the "self reporting" meta report..... I'm sure that's an accurate representation, everyone likes to self report illegal activities! The one NHSTA report that does have statistical results AND a control states,
That marijuana users are most likely to have more than one drug in their system! That's a believable quote!
I know a few people who got into accidents due explicitly to smoking weed.
dropped the cherry from their home rolled spliff into the chair/their crotch/a passenger.
Doesn't seem to happen with professionally rolled Big Tobacco.
But seriously, while I'll see maybe one person a month along the freeway taking a pull from a bottle, I'll be around 2 or 3 a week with a Cheech and Chong smokescreen billowing out of their car.
If you can't wait till you get home, you might have some sorta problem.
But seriously, the argument of "this other thing is worse" is a TERRIBLE justification. It'd be like legalizing the carrying of dynamite because carrying nitroglycerine is worse.
So that must mean that not crashing a car often leads to marijuana use, therefore availabilty?