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."

Comments

But, but, you're using logic and science

[msobkow]

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".

Re:But, but, you're using logic and science

[gstoddart]

You mean like how they call it a narcotic, and a hallucinogen, when in fact it is neither?

As you say, they're not interested in facts ... they've re-defined the terms to meed an ideological view, and it has nothing at all to do with the truth, just what they want the message to be.

The vilification of marijuana is so engrained in the way these people see the problem they're long past the point where they can discuss it in terms of reality.

Make no mistake about it, these people have built up a fantasy in their heads, and anybody who tries to demonstrate otherwise is "teh evul enemy". There really is no room for science and facts in this debate for some of the idiots involved.

Re:But, but, you're using logic and science

[Captain Splendid]

Get on the interstate while high? Spoken like someone who's never smoked. That's fucking crazy talk. Most pot smokers don't even want to drive while high, let alone get on a major highway.

Re:Rate of use

[Junta]

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.

Re:Rate of use

[rogoshen1]

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.