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.
While I'm inclined to also be suspicious of the study and fear people getting the wrong idea that it's ok to drive under *any* impairment, I do find one portion of your comment bizarre:
It's disappointing to see my tax money going to support the use of either.
I'm scratching my head at this sentiment over a study that was probably extraordinarily cheap compared to how much tax money goes towards enforcement and incarceration to fight the use of marijuana.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm more upset at my tax dollars being used to fight the use of something as harmless as pot. Meth and pot are not in the same league, to claim otherwise shows how poor your grasp on reality is.
I will agree that the medicinal marijuana argument is a bit of a "camel's nose' strategy as is the let's make everything out of hemp!" -- but in terms of addiction, societal and bodily harm -- the fact that the biggest 'risk' to pot use is a legal one; is telling.
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.
It will never be anywhere near the level of drunk driving. We could do the whole prohibition thing all over again and there would still be more drunk drivers on the road than there would be high drivers. Your average drunk driver will get on the freeway and drive home from the club 3 towns over without a second thought, while your average high driver knows they're impaired and will avoid situations requiring high speeds (like the freeway) at all costs; and that's to say nothing of the fact that they'll be too lazy for a long trip. Store on the corner? Sure. McDonalds down the road? Probably. Anywhere that'll keep them on the road for more than 5min at a stretch? Nah.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.