Marijuana use may double the risk of accidents for drivers

23536

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
October 6, 2011 -- Over 10 million people age 12 or older are estimated to have driven under the influence of illicit drugs in the prior year, according to a 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. While marijuana is the most commonly detected non-alcohol drug in drivers, its role in causing crashes has remained in question. To examine the link between marijuana use by drivers and risk of a car accident, researchers at Columbia University did a meta-analysis of nine epidemiologic studies and found that drivers who test positive for marijuana or report driving within three hours of marijuana use are more than twice as likely as other drivers to be involved in motor vehicle crashes. The researchers also found evidence that crash risk increases with the concentration of marijuana-produced compounds in the urine and the frequency of self-reported marijuana use.

According to the investigators 8 of 9 studies found that drivers who use marijuana are significantly more likely to be involved in crashes than drivers who do not. Only one small case-control study conducted in Thailand, where the prevalence of marijuana use is far lower than reported elsewhere, was the exception.

The analysis indicates that 28% of fatally injured drivers and more than 11% of the general driver population tested positive for non-alcohol drugs, with marijuana being the most commonly detected substance.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/cums-mum100611.php
 
How are they testing for marijuana though? My state (Virginia) has some horrible drugged driving laws, and base their detection on metabolites of the drug in question, in addition to the drug itself. So, at least in theory, if you test positive for cannabis in a roadside drug test, you can be charged with driving under the influence of a drug, even if you smoked the cannabis days and days ago (or even weeks and weeks ago) and are stone-cold sober.

Are these people saying that all these people who tested positive were high on marijuana when they were involved in a crash or just had smoked cannabis recently? As we all know, heavy use of cannabis can cause positives on drug tests for up to a month after usage is stopped.
 
It is much harder to measure impairment due to cannabis intoxication. I do agree, etarded, though, that drugs have a level below which impairment isn't dangerous (although there is still impairment...).

Police officers are trained to recognize the impairment alcohol produces (and by extension, the impairment that other depressants cause) but they're not really trained to notice if somebody is stoned.
 
NeighborhoodThreat said:
How are they testing for marijuana though? My state (Virginia) has some horrible drugged driving laws, and base their detection on metabolites of the drug in question, in addition to the drug itself. So, at least in theory, if you test positive for cannabis in a roadside drug test, you can be charged with driving under the influence of a drug, even if you smoked the cannabis days and days ago (or even weeks and weeks ago) and are stone-cold sober.

Are these people saying that all these people who tested positive were high on marijuana when they were involved in a crash or just had smoked cannabis recently? As we all know, heavy use of cannabis can cause positives on drug tests for up to a month after usage is stopped.
Click to expand...
based on this:

The researchers also found evidence that crash risk increases with the concentration of marijuana-produced compounds in the urine and the frequency of self-reported marijuana use.
Click to expand...

I'd say they are saying had smoked it recently... But obviously if they smoked it recently, odds are higher that they would be stoned, vs somebody who is clean.
 
Not to dispute what etarded is saying, but just to point out that nothing is black and white:
there are times when smoking weed improved my driving, reducing the chance of an accident by 100%.
When I was extremely tired, smoking weed woke me up, and gave me mental energy to get to the destination safely.
(I haven't done this in many years, I should note, and now I would probably just get a hotel.)

However, impaired is impaired.
I would prefer people on any drugs not to drive.

On the question of how to test of weed impairment:
urine tests may be able to measure approximately how high one currently is, but there are many questions left over.
I get high on one or two hits, so there would be less of whatever chemicals in my urine than someone who is a heavyweight, and used to smoking, and smokes a joint or more just to feel buzzed.
Also, "frequency of self-reported marijuana use"? That is pretty silly.
 
oh my holy shit!!! From .0001% to .0002%!!!! Someone better make this shit illegal quick!!1!1!
 
IMO kids driving high on bud IS a problem, so many people do it and think nothing of it when it endangers those around you...and i know at least me personally I cant drive well while high...
 
correlation does not imply causation

which could mean people that tend to smoke just also tend to be spatially retarded either way (to a degree, on average)
 
Well the number of drunk drivers and fatality caused by them are probably way worse than from weed and that shits legal
 
235360287471352662 said:
October 6, 2011 -- Over 10 million people age 12 or older are estimated to have driven under the influence of illicit drugs in the prior year
Click to expand...

12 year olds, seriously!? Hopefully they weren't included in the study, or anyone else without a license.
 
NeighborhoodThreat said:
It is much harder to measure impairment due to cannabis intoxication. I do agree, etarded, though, that drugs have a level below which impairment isn't dangerous (although there is still impairment...).

Police officers are trained to recognize the impairment alcohol produces (and by extension, the impairment that other depressants cause) but they're not really trained to notice if somebody is stoned.
Click to expand...

This. But also think about impairment of 2 beers for someone who is straight sober/healthy vs 2 beers to somebody who is coming off smoking meth for 2 days. I think the 2 beers for the sleep deprived meth head are going to have far more impairment from 2 drinks vs the sober/healthy one. It's a big difference but under current laws in most states the police wouldn't view it differently.
 
That's a good point, and for an alcoholic, a BAC just above the legal limit might not cause any impairment at all. Like slimvictor said about people with different marijuana tolerences. So quantitative drug testing is probably pretty useless for measuring impairment, ideally they'd find more direct measures of impairment, however much of a pain in the ass that might be.
 
skillet said:
That's a good point, and for an alcoholic, a BAC just above the legal limit might not cause any impairment at all. Like slimvictor said about people with different marijuana tolerences. So quantitative drug testing is probably pretty useless for measuring impairment, ideally they'd find more direct measures of impairment, however much of a pain in the ass that might be.
Click to expand...
I think DUI/DWI is worthless charge and needs to be replaced with 'impaired driving'. If you are drunk but you are on enough speed to pass the sobriety test just fine, I think that's what counts. Like slimvictor said about weed waking him up to drive, I think the same is true but to an even greater degree about speed directl counter-acting the depressant effect of alcohol with stimulant effect and making you appear more sober on a sobriety test.

I think there should be at least 2 degrees of impairment, and have the charges vary based on it. People that KNOW they are way too fucked up to drive and can't even stand up etc should be felony charge. That is very dangerous. But people not so fucked up should have a lesser charge IMO. Driving after 3-4 beers is by no means safe, but much less dangerous than driving after a 12 pack!
 
skillet said:
12 year olds, seriously!? Hopefully they weren't included in the study, or anyone else without a license.
Click to expand...
but we need an accurate picture of how many cars are driving under the influence, license or no license. analysis of how many of those cars have a license can also be done...
etarded said:
Driving after 3-4 beers is by no means safe, but much less dangerous than driving after a 12 pack!
Click to expand...
tolerance is important here, as is the question, how are those dependent on alcohol supposed to get around?
 
No, we need a (well I don't really care, but I'd hope the paper tried to give an) accurate picture of how intoxication effects people who can actually drive. Including people who obviously don't have a license just confounds things. I don't know if they did, I haven't read the study, but it seems pointless to mention the 12-year old thing otherwise, probably just to sound more dramatic.

Tolerance is what a lot of the last few posts were about, we were saying that quantitative drug/metabolite testing is useless for determining impairment, marijuana makes a nice example of this. How do alcoholics get around?
 
Im not sure of the exact numbers so ill make them up, but you can check and i wont be far off!

Deaths caused by drink drivers = 1146

Deaths caused by drug drivers = 421

Deaths caused by sober people = 4265

The stats tell us, its much safer to drive when smashed!

:)
 
I'm pretty sure those stats tell us that if you carefully prune which parts of the data you want to report and how you group it, you can make a set of data appear to say anything you want it to say to people who don't understand statistics and research methods (which is a very large portion of the population).
 
I'm way more concerned about drivers on their cell phones. I feel I almost get hit by someone talking on there phone about once a week. Talking is bad enough, but there are even those who think texting while driving is acceptable. Ridiculous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top