atara
Bluelighter
It is a consensus of sorts that impaired driving is wrong. Without delving too deeply into the cultural origins of this belief, let's extract some corollaries.
Diphenhydramine and similar drugs -- any antihistamine that penetrates the BBB, such as quetiapine but not cetirizine -- strongly impair driving performance. This is a medical fact.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=713291&atab=11
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-003-1462-6
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1995.tb01140.x/abstract
"After participants took diphenhydramine, driving performance was poorest, indicating that diphenhydramine had a greater impact on driving than alcohol did. Drowsiness ratings were not a good predictor of impairment, suggesting that drivers cannot use drowsiness to indicate when they should not drive."
This raises some questions in combination with the precept that risk-prevention legislation should be based on real estimates of risk rather than perceived risk (security theatre). It is common to suggest stringent restrictions on impairment while driving, to the point that even people who are not practically impaired may be considered impaired, consider e.g. Colorado's "any detectable THC" standard.
It is similarly common for both supporters and detractors of medical marijuana to argue that those using cannabis for pain relief should not drive while medicated. It is not so common to extend this reasoning to allergy sufferers taking Benadryl.
While any discussion about the possibility of drug legalization is punctuated by concerns about automotive safety, this reasoning is not often grounded in presentations of actual data. Instead, it seems to be a sort of social signal that the legalization-supporter does not condone reckless behavior: "As long as they don't use it while driving!". The object of the statement is not actual road safety but the appearance of concern for safety.
It appears to me that antiprohibition activists are generally too image-conscious to really tackle the question of drugs and driving. "But what if they drive!" is a common argument by prohibition supporters which most of us would rather avoid than address, as it tarnishes the conceptual clarity of arguments like "my body, my control", so we respond in the simple way: "Oh, obviously that should be illegal."
A driver really ought to be capable of driving, and so we want to establish a capability standard that drivers on the road should adhere to. In a perfect world, this would include checks on adequate sleep, absence of distractions, physiological health, medical drug use, and recreational drug use, with each potential risk factor weighted according to its particular contribution, but in reality it seems that we value recreational drug use as a risk factor greatly in excess of other risk factors even when the data do not support this. So we want really strict tests for drivers on cannabis; do we want really strict tests for drivers on Valium, Soma, or Ambien?
Unfortunately this question is hard, and the discussion is not benefitted by the contributions of people whose third cousin once removed was killed in a DUI crash. We perceive a sort of slight or insult in such cases, whereas we might not perceive such insult in a crash caused by a driver who works the night shift. Unfortunately, the absence of insult does not make the victim any less dead.
A person taking recreational drugs, so the logic goes, made a choice. Even if that choice contributes a massively smaller risk than other factors, we count it this much higher. So high, indeed, that the idea of anyone getting off for a DUI -- particularly if that person is of high social standing (a rich, white, small-town mayor) -- really makes us mad:
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/trial-set-start-waxhaw-mayor-accused-drunk-driving/ncpLx/
Look at the comments. People are too angry to follow the rather drab discussion rules of a local news site. Everyone who didn't manage to get their comment deleted wants the guy to lose his job, or, in some cases, limbs. I don't really like him very much myself. But is the level of emotion on display here really commensurate with the crime being committed? Do people clamor for the head of some bureaucrat who embezzles a $3 million government contract? Even though that money could save lives if spent appropriately, it's not as immediately insulting to us as watching some minorly famous individual get away with driving badly. It doesn't make the front page of reddit.
Of course this cultural volatility regarding DUI has been an enormous boon preventing deaths in a culture where nearly 80% of the population consumes regularly a drug which impairs driving to an extreme degree. It is almost impossible to imagine drunk driving having been prevented any other way: people, by and large, do not listen to public health recommendations unless you scream it in their face several times a day, and the consequent impact of ominous posters that read "YOU JUST BLEW $10000" is positive.
DUI concerns practically had to be religious, because religion is one of the only things that can really convince people to change, and the world needed a change. Religious furor, however, historically, is more of a chainsaw than a scalpel. It works, too: Road casualties per mile driven have been dropping for almost two decades since the introduction of DUI laws.
This is a major and pressing question with the impending arrival of cannabis legalization. Current zero-tolerance logic has been largely grafted onto cannabis intoxication with alcohol intoxication as the model. The data support a more relaxed standard. To put it bluntly: DUI laws set a limit of 0.08% alcohol by volume. The equivalent for THC is probably about 10-15 ng/mL. Colorado's law states 5 ng/mL. Other laws are more stringent.
Can we reconcile the religion that built our steady year-on-year increase in road safety with the reality where it might not make as much sense as we think? Or would a measured approach to DUI simply result in everyone ignoring the recommendations?
Diphenhydramine and similar drugs -- any antihistamine that penetrates the BBB, such as quetiapine but not cetirizine -- strongly impair driving performance. This is a medical fact.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=713291&atab=11
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-003-1462-6
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1995.tb01140.x/abstract
"After participants took diphenhydramine, driving performance was poorest, indicating that diphenhydramine had a greater impact on driving than alcohol did. Drowsiness ratings were not a good predictor of impairment, suggesting that drivers cannot use drowsiness to indicate when they should not drive."
This raises some questions in combination with the precept that risk-prevention legislation should be based on real estimates of risk rather than perceived risk (security theatre). It is common to suggest stringent restrictions on impairment while driving, to the point that even people who are not practically impaired may be considered impaired, consider e.g. Colorado's "any detectable THC" standard.
It is similarly common for both supporters and detractors of medical marijuana to argue that those using cannabis for pain relief should not drive while medicated. It is not so common to extend this reasoning to allergy sufferers taking Benadryl.
While any discussion about the possibility of drug legalization is punctuated by concerns about automotive safety, this reasoning is not often grounded in presentations of actual data. Instead, it seems to be a sort of social signal that the legalization-supporter does not condone reckless behavior: "As long as they don't use it while driving!". The object of the statement is not actual road safety but the appearance of concern for safety.
It appears to me that antiprohibition activists are generally too image-conscious to really tackle the question of drugs and driving. "But what if they drive!" is a common argument by prohibition supporters which most of us would rather avoid than address, as it tarnishes the conceptual clarity of arguments like "my body, my control", so we respond in the simple way: "Oh, obviously that should be illegal."
A driver really ought to be capable of driving, and so we want to establish a capability standard that drivers on the road should adhere to. In a perfect world, this would include checks on adequate sleep, absence of distractions, physiological health, medical drug use, and recreational drug use, with each potential risk factor weighted according to its particular contribution, but in reality it seems that we value recreational drug use as a risk factor greatly in excess of other risk factors even when the data do not support this. So we want really strict tests for drivers on cannabis; do we want really strict tests for drivers on Valium, Soma, or Ambien?
Unfortunately this question is hard, and the discussion is not benefitted by the contributions of people whose third cousin once removed was killed in a DUI crash. We perceive a sort of slight or insult in such cases, whereas we might not perceive such insult in a crash caused by a driver who works the night shift. Unfortunately, the absence of insult does not make the victim any less dead.
A person taking recreational drugs, so the logic goes, made a choice. Even if that choice contributes a massively smaller risk than other factors, we count it this much higher. So high, indeed, that the idea of anyone getting off for a DUI -- particularly if that person is of high social standing (a rich, white, small-town mayor) -- really makes us mad:
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/trial-set-start-waxhaw-mayor-accused-drunk-driving/ncpLx/
Look at the comments. People are too angry to follow the rather drab discussion rules of a local news site. Everyone who didn't manage to get their comment deleted wants the guy to lose his job, or, in some cases, limbs. I don't really like him very much myself. But is the level of emotion on display here really commensurate with the crime being committed? Do people clamor for the head of some bureaucrat who embezzles a $3 million government contract? Even though that money could save lives if spent appropriately, it's not as immediately insulting to us as watching some minorly famous individual get away with driving badly. It doesn't make the front page of reddit.
Of course this cultural volatility regarding DUI has been an enormous boon preventing deaths in a culture where nearly 80% of the population consumes regularly a drug which impairs driving to an extreme degree. It is almost impossible to imagine drunk driving having been prevented any other way: people, by and large, do not listen to public health recommendations unless you scream it in their face several times a day, and the consequent impact of ominous posters that read "YOU JUST BLEW $10000" is positive.
DUI concerns practically had to be religious, because religion is one of the only things that can really convince people to change, and the world needed a change. Religious furor, however, historically, is more of a chainsaw than a scalpel. It works, too: Road casualties per mile driven have been dropping for almost two decades since the introduction of DUI laws.
This is a major and pressing question with the impending arrival of cannabis legalization. Current zero-tolerance logic has been largely grafted onto cannabis intoxication with alcohol intoxication as the model. The data support a more relaxed standard. To put it bluntly: DUI laws set a limit of 0.08% alcohol by volume. The equivalent for THC is probably about 10-15 ng/mL. Colorado's law states 5 ng/mL. Other laws are more stringent.
Can we reconcile the religion that built our steady year-on-year increase in road safety with the reality where it might not make as much sense as we think? Or would a measured approach to DUI simply result in everyone ignoring the recommendations?
