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.
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
The summary butchered the article (surprisingly). What it should have said was that after adjusting for other factors (namely age and sex) in the group that were in accidents, there was not a difference between using and not using Marijuana.
For example young men are more likely to be in an accident (Regardless of drug use), they are also more likely to smoke weed compared to other groups.
As it happens, males and young drivers have higher crash rates than females and older drivers; they're also more likely to be marijuana users. And once these factors are corrected for, "the significant increased risk of crash involvement associated with THC...is not found."
Those totally sober people who should have never been given a fucking driving license in the foist place ...
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.
You're looking for information that is not present in that metric, by design, and then claiming a fault because it's not there. And in so doing, you could choose many other pieces of information that aren't there to the same effect. It's very clear that they begin by quantifying the alcohol content of the average "drink" because there are so many *kinds* of drink with alcohol that they'd have to write about a spectrum otherwise. They then consider average body weight to arrive at an average blood alcohol level as a function of "drink".
If this were *not* their method then they'd basically be suggesting that if you drank a beer two years ago and another one last month, then you're just as intoxicated as somebody who just slammed two bottles of vodka. If you stop to think about how alcohol intoxication is actually quantified for statutory purposes, then what they actually mean becomes obvious.
I suppose it really is to much to ask that people Read The Fucking Study...
In a nutshell, this study collected drug use data from 3095 drivers involved in crashes and 6190 matched control drivers. THC was detected in 234/3095 crash involved drivers, vs 379/6190 controls. That sample size is plenty. If you think otherwise, please explain why you think the studies' methodology is statistically underpowered.
The biggest caveat is probably that THC testing can be positive even if the drug use was days or weeks ago. I'm not aware of a test that, like BAC, can detect whether someone is high as balls right now. That makes the conclusions a bit weaker, but we can still conclude that people who frequently use marijuana are not riskier drivers than anyone else, and blood THC testing is not a measurement of impairment.
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...
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?
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Stop giving advice about motorcycles when you never drove one, mkay?
Hint: You don't "balance" a motorcycle. It balances you and there's little you can do about it. Go faster than, say, 20mph and you will not be able to de-balance it other than by force-turning the handlebar apruptly (which takes considerable strength at "even faster" speeds).
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
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.
(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.