1 In 5 Auto Accident Deaths Now Involves Marijuana Use

[GON]

Advisory to BITOG members that are medical marijuana users and are traveling and/ or transiting through China:

Penalties for possession, use, or sale of marijuana are severe and, in some cases, may result in execution under PRC criminal law. Medical marijuana patients should refrain from traveling to China with any cannabis products.

 

[ripcord]

Marijuana stays in your system, does this mean people had it in their system or they were actually high? I don’t know of a test to see if you are actually high. Seems like propaganda.

That is a big whole in the evidence provided. At least in the government stats.

 

[CarlB]

Smells like skunk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But no one here has presented one bit of data or anything saying driving stoned is safe. It isn't.

Agree. As much as I know smoking weed is idiotic and makes people stupid (while stoned) I really dislike those kind of studies. They do the same junk with meat and fats.

It goes the other direction. Gotta prove that the accident wouldn't have occurred without marijuana involvement if you wanna trend that stuff.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I wonder how many drivers are speeding when they cause a traffic death? My guess is a lot of 'em.
Regardless, driving while under the influence is bad news. The main reason I quit drinking 37 years ago was I knew one day I could wake up in jail having hurt or killed someone and not even remember it.

For me, alcohol is poison. I never wanna take another drink as long as I live.

 

[TheOilWizard]

I'm 45 and grew up in NYS and I absolutely was taught and knew there was no difference between driving impaired from alcohol or marijuana. I now live in a state with legal recreational use and I will occasionally pop a gummy 1 or 2 times every 6 months and I still know not to get into the car and drive.

There's nothing new here. Tons of people drove high as kites in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s too. People make bad life decisions all the time fully knowing they are bad decisions and the consequences fall on the individual.

Absolutely agree that it's not new - really, what is? - but it's far more common and problematic than ever. Look at any of the available stats showing daily/yearly marijuana users by year to get an idea of the increase. Presumably because of cultural influences and/or legalization.

I grew up in a state where the biggest issue was drinking and driving. Many of the state educational campaigns centered on drunk driving. If marijuana was covered at all, it was brief, but I don't think it was. I suppose they really just wanted to focus on the bigger issue during that era.

Anecdotally speaking, people I've known who smoked considered it their medicine and saw no issue driving afterwards.

Also agree 100% about it being an issue of personal responsibility.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Agreed 100%.

We've had multiple generations raised being educated on the dangers of drinking and driving. I remember learning about this is grade school. Obviously, this doesn't stop people from doing it, but in general it's not socially acceptable.

On the contrary, marijuana has just been legalized by some states in the last couple of years, and hasn't gone through the same cycles as alcohol in terms of being socially stigmatized. "it helps me think more clearly" - "it helps me relax" seem to be common themes.

MJ laws were used to suggest black men high on MJ were going to seduce the daughters of white people. These laws primarily targeted towards black communities.


Then there's the 1930's film reefer madness

 

[GMBoy]

The smell of weed makes me sick. Driving down the freeway I should not be able to smell your stink in my car!.... We get smelly pot cars to the shop too and they stink - just nasty. Driving while high is unsafe just like alcohol and other substances.

 

[ripcord]

Not necessarily because of marihuana use. Much like alcohol involved. Could be a lot of reasons and some not impaired driving.

And fentanyl is the big problem with druggies laying around.

Next you'll be saying you don't like the smell......

I'll freely admit my bias against pot and it does stink... In fact the last time I smelled it was a couple of days ago when two dudes where doing a Cheech and Chong next to me at a four way intersection waiting for the light. One of them rolled a window down and let out a huge cloud of smoke. That's why I was reading articles about high driving this morning.

 

[wag123]

1 In 5 Auto Accident Deaths Now Involves Marijuana Use? I call BS on this one. It sounds like politically motivated propaganda to me. I'm not saying that it is OK to drive high, it isn't, and I'm not saying that SOME auto accident deaths involve marijuana use, but 1 in 5? Give me a break.

 

[SHOZ]

Smells like skunk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But no one here has presented one bit of data or anything saying driving stoned is safe. It isn't.

Agree. As much as I know smoking weed is idiotic and makes people stupid (while stoned) I really dislike those kind of studies. They do the same junk with meat and fats.

There still is no good way to tell just how intoxicated and individual gets from the THC. Just going by blood levels is not the same as comparing alcohol blood levels and stepped levels of impairment.

So I would look at any study that goes solely by THC levels in the blood. It's just propaganda.

Cannabis is probably one of the greatest plants on the planet. It has to be suppressed so we can use synthetic and man made items.

 

[dnewton3]

It goes the other direction. Gotta prove that the accident wouldn't have occurred without marijuana involvement if you wanna trend that stuff.

That is no more or less accurate than the alternative.
You clearly don't understand how a hypothesis is developed, studied, and analyzed.

The lack of credible studies should be an indicator to any sane person that legalization should not be done until the effects are known.

With alcohol, we understand the absorption and desorption rates and how they relate to metabolization. We can predict accurately a BAC which equates to some level of impairment. And we label products which contain alcohol with the % of concentration, and have published scales of body mass to time. Etc ...

None of that exists with THC; there are no credible studies which indicate we understand the rates of metabolizing the drug, especially since there are different methods of doing so (inhalation; ingestion; absorption). Further, there's not any decent data which indicates what level of X% in the body equates to Y% of impairment. The FDA and NHTSA have not even made any efforts to define the above.

And none of that addresses the fact that often THC is consumed by some folks in concert with other drugs (alcohol; meth; etc). As hard as it would be to define how THC affects the competency of a person, it would be even more hard to discern the effects in contributory circumstances.

I'm against any efforts to first legalize a currently-banned product, and then "let's see what happens" second. That's a STUPID way to release any product into a marketplace.

I've seen firsthand the effects of impairment; how it maims and kills with no discretion. Not for one second do I think impairment from THC is any more or less dangerous than any other form of impairment.

 

[MrHorspwer]

Not to disparage the fine journalism that the esteemed writers of The Federalist publish [], but the headline "1 in 5 Auto Deaths" is based on an extrapolation of an assumption, not actual data.

Starting with the 33% increase in alcohol-related traffic deaths from 2019 to 2022, which is actual data from NHTSA, The Federalist extends this to marajuana use,

Deaths from stoned driver car crashes likely increased even more,

because

given that, unlike alcohol use (which hasn’t changed much), pot use has risen greatly over the past few years.

There is absolutely no data available to back this up. None. This is an estimation made up by The Federalist. Besides using the term "likely" while introducing the information, they explicitly call it an estimation in the next paragraph:

If the portion of car crash deaths involving cannabis also rose by between 45 and 51 percent — a reasonable estimate —

This is called extrapolation:
The action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable.

There is no data to support this conclusion. It is not a fact, nor is it truth.

My suggestion: Find better media to follow, maybe some that don't extrapolate data on their own to support an agenda.

 

[Thermo1223]

I also will state that the "herb" & "Ganja" of later years is far outweighed by today's superior products. Edibles can have effects on people that equate to LSD and with technology comes increased potency and longer lasting highs than before. Then there is the vaping aspect of it. It's a big ol' mess to legalize it with zero afterthought on how to determine impairment.

 

[sloinker]

If folks were serious about stopping traffic injuries and deaths. A prohibition on alcohol would be critical followed by cannabis and other intoxicants. So Joe Six Pack needs to step up and take responsibility for 98% of all DUI traffic fatalities over the last 90 years. I think the 98% is probably low. Even more important should be the surrendering of your license if caught with a cell phone in your hand when the car is in motion. Neighbor had his lawn ran over by a woman who was on her cell phone. He was in his driveway when he looks up just in time to see this woman jump the curb and head toward him, phone in her hand. He vamoosed out of the way and she jerked the car back onto the street. He got her license plate and phoned the cops. They came and looked at the tire tracks across the lawn and proceeded to do nothing. Probably heard the "Hot Now" sign was lit up at Krispy Kreme and went to investigate that instead.

 

[TheOilWizard]

If folks were serious about stopping traffic injuries and deaths. A prohibition on alcohol would be critical followed by cannabis and other intoxicants. So Joe Six Pack needs to step up and take responsibility for 98% of all DUI traffic fatalities over the last 90 years. I think the 98% is probably low. Even more important should be the surrendering of your license if caught with a cell phone in your hand when the car is in motion. Neighbor had his lawn ran over by a woman who was on her cell phone. He was in his driveway when he looks up just in time to see this woman jump the curb and head toward him, phone in her hand. He vamoosed out of the way and she jerked the car back onto the street. He got her license plate and phoned the cops. They came and looked at the tire tracks across the lawn and proceeded to do nothing. Probably heard the "Hot Now" sign was lit up at Krispy Kreme and went to investigate that instead.

This argument will never work. "if you believe in X, then you need to do XYZ..."

Yes, alcohol-related crashes are a huge problem. Yes, marijuana-related crashes are becoming a bigger issue. We can acknowledge and address both issues simultaneously.

 

[ripcord]

The

Not to disparage the fine journalism that the esteemed writers of The Federalist publish [], but the headline "1 in 5 Auto Deaths" is based on an extrapolation of an assumption, not actual data.

Starting with the 33% increase in alcohol-related traffic deaths from 2019 to 2022, which is actual data from NHTSA, The Federalist extends this to marajuana use,

because


There is absolutely no data available to back this up. None. This is an estimation made up by The Federalist. Besides using the term "likely" while introducing the information, they explicitly call it an estimation in the next paragraph:



This is called extrapolation:
The action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable.

There is no data to support this conclusion. It is not a fact, nor is it truth.

My suggestion: Find better media to follow, maybe some that don't extrapolate data on their own to support an agenda.

Did you read the article? They were reporting on the results of a journal study, and neither the study or the article made any claims of causality. I agree with some that it was not a the clearest bit of writing, but I think you're over stating things. Saying pot is "involved" in a certain number of fatalities is not the same as it caused that number of deaths.

That said, it's entirely reasonable to infer that some of the increased numbers of pot users are driving while high high drivers and that it contributes to the increase in driving fatalities.

What I found most interesting about the article was the research that suggests that pot usage increases the rate of drunk driving.

 

[sloinker]

This argument will never work. "if you believe in X, then you need to do XYZ..."

Yes, alcohol-related crashes are a huge problem. Yes, marijuana-related crashes are becoming a bigger issue. We can acknowledge and address both issues simultaneously.

That is exactly what I said. The real solution is unpalatable to most of our population. People kicking up a ruckus about weed but not alcohol are puzzling to me.

 

[ripcord]

That is exactly what I said. The real solution is unpalatable to most of our population. People kicking up a ruckus about weed but not alcohol are puzzling to me.

I didn't notice anybody doing that in this thread.

 

[sloinker]

I didn't notice anybody doing that in this thread.

If you read the inferences from some of the posters you see disdain for those that partake in cannabis but don't hold that same disdain for alcohol. I went back and re-read all the posts to see if my point was valid and I believe it is.

 

[slo town]

If a brain surgeon is an every day user, either an alcoholic or a pot head - or both - I don't want them touching me, even if they're supposedly "sober".

Scott