Drug Driving and THC Impairement

[Ksa]

There was a meeting in Ontario that discussed the impact that the 2017 legalization of marijuana in Canada will have on Drug Driving laws and how the new laws would be enforced by Police. Top findings:

Drug impaired driving is increasing as a safety problem. In 2010, nearly as many drivers died in road crashes after using drugs (34.2%) as those who had been drinking (39.1%).

Young people continue to be the largest group of drivers who die in crashes and test positive for alcohol or drugs.

They also brought up some problems:

- The designated driver, who abstains from alcohol, but who accepts pot from their friends "so he could also get something out of it";
- Implementing a new roadside drug test in the next 2 years, which involves the Police officer collecting saliva;
- How even low doses of THC deliver maximum impairment;
- How a survey showed that not only young people will consume, but also baby boomers, who retire and wish to spend their time more creatively, so Police can't screen out anyone;
- They also mentioned how prescription drugs are an important source of impairment as users feel they are not in violation of any laws and they never read the label on the bottle.
- They said what's most concerning is that 50% of THC users think they can drive safely while stoned;

The consensus among the experts is that a zero tolerance should be imposed on THC while driving. They said:

"We take their license and sent them to jail for alcohol DUI, so they got the message, they understood, and we need to deliver the same message for pot"

So their logic is, some dudes die in a car accident. We test for drugs and find that oops, 43% of them had some form of drug in their system. Ok. But if they don't know how many people actually use drugs within a population, how are they establishing a relation? Like, if 43% of the population uses some form of drug, and when they test the dead dudes they find the average is 43%, it doesn't mean anything and no relationship can be found to say drugs caused the fatality. I mean, 43% of road users who die in a car crash drove used vehicles with over 150,000 Km, why can't THAT be the cause?

It's also the way they approach THC users who volunteered to do the survey is quite worrying. You have guys who drove for 5-30 years and have no at fault claims, maybe 1 or 2 not at fault claims with their insurance company. They claim they can drive on THC. Experts say they have a problem because they shouldn't think that they can? Hello? The dudes can drive. They are not believing anything they are stating fact, that they have no at fault claims with their insurance company for 30 years. So that group of people, saying they can drive safely, have clean insurance records, but they are treated like they are a problem.

I'm saying what is the problem? There's sober people who have 13 at fault accidents in the past 10 years, they are denied comprehensive and collision coverage and are only given by law coverage, and they are OK! Because they are sober. Well, I wouldn't want to drive next to a sober guy like that! If I had the option to take one of them off the road I would take off the sober guy! Not the stoned one!

Debate.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

This is one reason I'm not so sure about weed legalization....they will start going after high drivers in a big way....it will become easier to get in legal trouble because of weed....and the penalties for dui are far worse than weed possession with prohibition

 

[iksaxophone]

I'm sure they will figure out something reliable...maybe an old-fashioned line test or something that indicates real coordination levels.

 

[Yourbaker]

After 5 years of medical use I still attempt to never drive under the influence of weed. Taking it orally can sometimes cause a delayed onset due to metabolism so if I know I'm driving that day I avoid using weed until after. I've tried a few times and found myself stoned suddenly while in traffic. Never fun, still very able to deal with the situation. I usually pull over at the easiest opportunity and just take a nap. Despite feeling fine to drive I choose not to. I don't want to add to the issue. At times this makes things inconvenient but I'd happily give up driving a few times in exchange for the medical benefits I get from weed.

I have had 1 at fault accident in almost 38 years of driving, I was rushing for a meeting and stressed, in reality I use weed to combat the very issue that caused this accident.

 

[Ksa]

What I'm mostly afraid of and what I deem to be outrageous is that they will not look into my driving record to see I didn't have a scratch in my 12 years of driving, nor any Police incident: They will just run that test and find 5 different substances in my blood, and decide, by themselves, that it's a problem and label it as DUI without:

- understanding drug interaction, such as Dexedrine completely negating the drowsiness effects of Codeine and Clonidine.
- understanding that stimulants are not causing impairment in prescribed doses, and that increased aggressiveness and risk taking is not within the domain of what they can prove beyond the reasonable doubt.

The guy will simply read: d-amphetamine, nicotine, caffeine, clonidine, codeine, and go JESUS FUCK! What is this guy doing on the road. And the answer is: What I've been doing for the past 12 years without incidents! Hello! You're not a medical doctor.

So I don't question the precision of the device, I question just how qualified a Police officer is, to be able to properly interpret those readings.

 

[burn out]

"
Drug impaired driving is increasing as a safety problem. In 2010, nearly as many drivers died in road crashes after using drugs (34.2%) as those who had been drinking (39.1%)."

After using drugs doesn't mean the drugs caused the crash. THere is no way as many people are dying from drug related as alcohol because most illegal drugs dont even impair your driving to a significant degree and alcohol is still the most commonly used drug.

 

[Ravr]

Mooo

 

[Ksa]

Another argument that PhD researchers like to bring forward is they say, sure methamphetamine increases reflexes and driving abilities, but during the crash, the driver feels drowsy and impaired, and meth crashes can happen without the driver noticing. They like to bring up this point, however, no cop was ever able to prove that an accident occurred because the driver was crashing from stimulants. I can surely relate to how crashing from an amphetamine binge can manifest drowsiness compared to Heroin nodding, but I don't see myself, nor do I see anyone being in that situation while driving a car. It's impossible, these people know they're running out of juice, and they just redose. It can't happen.