United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers soared in Washington since pot was legalized
Source:
CNN
URL Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/stoned-driving-fatal-accidents/
Published: May 10, 2016
Author: Chris Isidore
Post Date: 2016-05-10 21:48:36 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 11011
Comments: 51
Stoned driving can be as serious a problem as drunk driving. Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers have soared in the state of Washington since marijuana was legalized there, according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. But it's difficult to determine whether a high-on-pot driver is too impaired to drive, according to a separate study from the same group. Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana more than doubled in 2014. Pot was involved in 17% of fatal crashes in Washington in 2014, up from 8% in 2013 -- the year before recreational marijuana was allowed there. "The significant increase in fatal crashes involving marijuana is alarming," said Peter Kissinger, CEO of the foundation, which funds scientifically rigorous studies for the drivers organization. "Washington serves as an eye-opening case study for what other states may experience with road safety after legalizing the drug." But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC, the main chemical component in marijuana, in the blood. One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired. "There is understandably a strong desire by both lawmakers and the public to create legal limits for marijuana impairment, in the same manner as we do with alcohol," said Marshall Doney, AAA's CEO. "In the case of marijuana, this approach is flawed and not supported by scientific research. It's simply not possible today to determine whether a driver is impaired based solely on the amount of the drug in their body." The study was criticized by the National Cannabis Industry Association, which pointed to a different study, by the Transportation Department, which found that drivers who drivers who are drunk have a much greater increase in the risk of being in an accident than drivers who used marijuana. "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week," said Taylor West, deputy director of the group. AAA said the key result of the studies are that it's important that drivers be aware that marijuana can greatly impair driving ability. "Whether the use of marijuana is legal or not, all motorists should avoid driving while impaired," said the group. "Just because a drug is legal does not mean it is safe to use while operating a motor vehicle. Drivers who get behind the wheel while impaired put themselves and others on the road at risk." Another problem with testing for THC is that it requires a blood test, which can take up to two hours to be administered. That's much longer than the roadside breath tests used to test blood alcohol levels. And THC levels can decline significantly in those two hours, making results suspect.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Gatlin (#0)
Who cares, as long as they kill each other and diminish the plague they represent?
"All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week,"
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Study: No scientific basis for laws on marijuana and driving Six states that allow marijuana use legal tests to determine driving while impaired by the drug that have no scientific basis, according to a study by the nation’s largest automobile club that calls for scrapping those laws. The study commissioned by AAA’s safety foundation said it’s not possible to set a blood-test threshold for THC, the chemical in marijuana that makes people high, that can reliably determine impairment. Yet the laws in five of the six states automatically presume a driver guilty if that person tests higher than the limit, and not guilty if it’s lower. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much “Even a couple hours later when the blood was drawn, that had doubled,” said Staci Hoff with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission about the number of cases where marijuana was present in blood tests after fatal accidents. “That’s 1 in 6 drivers in Washington that were involved in a fatal collision who were under the influence of active THC (marijuana).”
They could have been glaucoma or cancer patients or some other medical reason such as being treated for seizures and convulsions. Perhaps they were running low on THC in their respective blood systems.
"The legalization of marijuana is presenting a big problem in Washington state, where stoned drivers are causing more fatal accidents since marijuana was legalized there and experts want to have tests to determine how stoned a driver is. This is raising concerns in California, where a legalized pot bill will likely appear on the November ballot."
Cause and effect? What if people going to the library were tested? I bet that after legalization, more book readers have presence or traces of THC in their blood. Same with people going to the restaurants. Of course with the exception of Olive Garden and International House of Pancakes.
This rationalization is a defense mechanism trying to show that the controversial behavior of using pot and driving is justified and there is no problem. You are trying to explain pot use in a seemingly rational and logical manner so as to avoid the true problem and make marijuana and driving consciously tolerable. This rationalization by comparison is done to lessen the perception of marijuana’s negative effects … to justify an action and to excuse culpability. Your invented reasons for irresponsible actions are not justified.
What if people going to the library were tested? I bet that after legalization, more book readers have presence or traces of THC in their blood. Same with people going to the restaurants. If they are driving to the library or restaurant stoned, then that can be a serious problem.
If they are driving to the library or restaurant stoned, then that can be a serious problem. You do not understand my argument. Oh, well.
Study: No scientific basis for laws on marijuana and driving Six states that allow marijuana use legal tests to determine driving while impaired by the drug that have no scientific basis, according to a study by the nation’s largest automobile club that calls for scrapping those laws. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much No scientific basis exists to legitimize current THC testing in place in five states who base their impaired driving standards on THC levels in blood. According to a study from auto club giant AAA’s safety foundation, a blood test threshold for THC — the chemical component of cannabis that makes people ‘high’ — is simply not scientifically possible. Yet, in five of six states where cannabis is legal, the tests are used to determine whether or not drivers should be considered impaired. Those tests employ a blood level-based judgment similar to that used for determining alcohol impairment. But AAA found such tests for THC are wholly unreliable — sending potentially unimpaired drivers to jail and putting impaired drivers back behind the wheel. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much I'd say if they crashed that's a pretty good indicator.
Deal with it. The tests for alcohol "impairment" are similarly capricious. Who says every driver above .08 is too impaired to drive?
You have a greater chance of having a car crash when you drive after using marijuana. After alcohol, marijuana is the second most common drug found in dead and injured drivers. Make no mistake about it: driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs — including legal-use marijuana — is illegal in all states. "Drive High, Get A DUI."
Don’t drive when you are high.
Study: Weed Smokers are Slower, Safer Drivers A provider of free online auto insurance quotes says it has conducted a study that concludes marijuana uses are safer drivers. Manhattan-based 4AutoInsuranceQuote.com says its study “seeks to dispel the thought that ‘driving while stoned’ is dangerous.” “What law enforcement agencies and insurers do not understand is that driving while high is actually a safe activity,” says James Shaffer, chief executive officer of the national auto-quote provider, in a statement. Marijuana users may get into fewer accidents than other drivers, says the study, which looked at data on accidents, traffic violations and insurance prices. The only significant effect of smoking marijuana may be slower driving. “Marijuana users often say that when they are high, they feel like they are driving 80 mph but actually are only going 30 mph,” says Shaffer. The opposite is true for drunk drivers, he adds. There are less traffic fatalities and fewer accidents in states where medical marijuana use is legal, Shaffer’s company concludes. “This is what makes alcohol dangerous behind the wheel and marijuana safe,” Shaffer says. Shaffer says marijuana users could see lower insurance rates if smoking the drug and driving was accepted. In the meantime, he says, “the key to safer driving is to use marijuana, but do it under wraps.” The study by 4AutoInsuranceQuotes.org references other studies, including one done in 1983 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration that found marijuana smokers to be slower drivers, the online quote service says. Another study by the NHTSA in the Netherlands found marijuana users drove straight. A study in Australia concluded the drug users were more likely to maintain a consistent speed and less likely to pass other vehicles. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much How dare you! That's an unconstimutushunal demand!
"May" ... he says ... "MAY? There is no "may" in the following study:
Or if a higher percentage of them had a corn syrup drink before accident, it is a good indicator too. A before B might mean A caused B, or C caused both A and B, or A is as frequent among B and non B, etc ... Causal Fallacies It is common for arguments to conclude that one thing causes another. But the relation between cause and effect is a complex one. It is easy to make a mistake. In general, we say that a cause C is the cause of an effect E if and only if: We say "generally" because there are always exceptions. For example, we say that striking the match causes the match to light, because: Many writers also require that a causal statement be supported with a natural law. For example, the statement that "striking the match causes it to light" is supported by the principle that "friction produces heat, and heat produces fire". The following are causal fallacies:
However, Marilyn Huestis, who headed the chemistry and drug metabolism section at the National Institute on Drug Abuse said the attitude difference between stoned drivers and alcohol drivers seems clear. Pot smokers, she says, "tend to be more aware they're impaired than alcohol users." Drunk drivers are more aggressive, and high drivers are slower.
Of course, do the math … stupid. There are fewer marijuana users driving than there are non-marijuana users. Your presentations are flawed. Oh, I just remembered ... you have absolutely no problem posting biased yellow journalism articles.
The devil is in details. 1. How many drivers who DO NOT get into accidents have THC in their blood? 2. How many alcohol? Just two examples. Any statistics?
The point, Gatlin, being that we shouldn't conclude from this that pot use causes library patronization. On the flip side, it's a pretty safe bet that as "Make America Great Again" caps have become more widespread, their presence on drivers in fatal crashes has gone up - which wouldn't prove that "Make America Great Again" caps cause fatal crashes. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So if either of those substances should be banned, it's alcohol. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Sure. And those hoofbeats you hear could be zebras. And let's set asid asid asid aside your "causal" argument. The article clearly stated, "Pot was involved in 17% of fatal crashes in Washington in 2014". Where did you read, "Pot caused 17% of fatal crashes in Washington in 2014"?
Hmmmm. Didn't we try that already?
Hmmmm. Didn't we try that already? How did that work out BTW? As I recall, it was a complete and utter failure. Doing the same thing with drugs has had the same results. Seems to me there's a lesson to be learned there. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Seems to me there's a lesson to be learned there. Apparently in some people's minds learning from the past is not a conservative thing to do. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I caught a strong whiff of it here: "Washington serves as an eye-opening case study for what other states may experience with road safety after legalizing the drug." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Sure was. Why, you'd have to be crazy to propose trying it again.
Correct. They may experience pot being involved in a higher percentage of fatal crashes.
Crazy, huh? It's exactly what you and the other prohibitionists have endorsed. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much A case study wasn't needed to know that they MAY. As I said, a strong whiff of correlation-is-causation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Drunk drivers are more aggressive, and high drivers are slower. Booze always slowed me down while driving. Several times, back in the 60's coming home from a party, cops would pull up alongside and pump their arms, telling me to speed it up. If I'd a been smoking weed, odds are I'd have given them the finger.
Actually I suspect that potheads are more likely to visit library than beer bellies.
Smells like denial to me.
I have never endorsed bringing back alcohol prohibition. That would be crazy.
Who is supposedly denying what? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You've endorsed continuing a substance prohibition that's no more justified nor more successful than alcohol prohibition was. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I have endorsed the prohibition of certain recreational drugs, and that prohibition has been much more successful than the prohibition of alcohol. If you agree that Prohibition was unsuccessful, why did you propose that we ban it today?
Comments (42 - 51) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFatal accidents involving stoned drivers soared in Washington since pot was legalized
#2. To: Gatlin (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#3. To: Gatlin (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#4. To: Deckard (#2)
#5. To: Gatlin (#4)
“That’s 1 in 6 drivers in Washington that were involved in a fatal collision who were under the influence of active THC (marijuana).”
#6. To: Deckard (#3)
#7. To: Gatlin (#0)
#8. To: buckeroo (#5)
They could have been glaucoma or cancer patients or some other medical reason such as being treated for seizures and convulsions.
#9. To: A Pole (#7)
"Whether the use of marijuana is legal or not, all motorists should avoid driving while impaired," said the group. "Just because a drug is legal does not mean it is safe to use while operating a motor vehicle. Drivers who get behind the wheel while impaired put themselves and others on the road at risk."
#10. To: Gatlin (#9)
"What if people going to the library were tested? I bet that after legalization, more book readers have presence or traces of THC in their blood. Same with people going to the restaurants."
#11. To: Gatlin (#4)
“Even a couple hours later when the blood was drawn, that had doubled,” said Staci Hoff with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission about the number of cases where marijuana was present in blood tests after fatal accidents.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#12. To: Gatlin (#9)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#13. To: Gatlin (#0)
"But it's difficult to determine whether a high-on-pot driver is too impaired to drive"
#14. To: Deckard (#12)
"in five of six states where cannabis is legal, the tests are used to determine whether or not drivers should be considered impaired."
#15. To: Deckard (#12)
#16. To: Deckard (#11)
Don’t get into a car with someone who has been using marijuana.
Don’t mix marijuana with alcohol or other drugs.
Understand that smoking marijuana could get you arrested.
Choose not to use marijuana.
Get help if you think your marijuana use is getting out of control.
#17. To: Gatlin (#15)
You have a greater chance of having a car crash when you drive after using marijuana
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#18. To: Gatlin (#16)
Don’t drive when you are high.
#19. To: Deckard (#17)
Marijuana users may get into fewer accidents than other drivers, says the study ..
An investigation by the Institue for the Study of Labor found that the legalization of medical marijuana in the United States has been linked to a dramatic decrease in traffic fatalities.
There is no "may" here ... there is a "finding" here !!!
#20. To: misterwhite (#13)
I'd say if they crashed that's a pretty good indicator.
#21. To: Deckard (#17)
Study: Weed Smokers are Slower, Safer Drivers …
#22. To: Deckard (#17)
Marijuana users may get into fewer accidents than other drivers, says the study …
#23. To: Gatlin (#22)
There are fewer marijuana users driving than there are non-marijuana users.
#24. To: A Pole, Gatlin (#7)
What if people going to the library were tested? I bet that after legalization, more book readers have presence or traces of THC in their blood.
#25. To: Gatlin (#21)
Pot smokers, she says, "tend to be more aware they're impaired than alcohol users." Drunk drivers are more aggressive, and high drivers are slower.
#26. To: A Pole (#20)
"A before B might mean A caused B, or C caused both A and B, or A is as frequent among B and non B, etc ..."
#27. To: ConservingFreedom (#25)
"So if either of those substances should be banned, it's alcohol."
#28. To: misterwhite, ConservingFreedom, tpaine (#27)
So if either of those substances should be banned, it's alcohol."
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#29. To: Deckard (#28)
Doing the same thing with drugs has had the same results [as Prohibition].
#30. To: misterwhite, A Pole (#26)
Where did you read, "Pot caused 17% of fatal crashes in Washington in 2014"?
#31. To: Deckard, ConservingFreedom, (#28)
"As I recall, it (Prohibition) was a complete and utter failure."
#32. To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
"Washington serves as an eye-opening case study for what other states may experience with road safety after legalizing the drug."
#33. To: misterwhite (#31)
(Edited)
Why, you'd have to be crazy to propose trying it again.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#34. To: misterwhite (#32)
They may experience pot being involved in a higher percentage of fatal crashes.
#35. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#21)
Pot smokers, she says, "tend to be more aware they're impaired than alcohol users."
#36. To: ConservingFreedom (#24)
The point, Gatlin, being that we shouldn't conclude from this that pot use causes library patronization.
#37. To: ConservingFreedom (#34)
"As I said, a strong whiff of correlation-is-causation."
#38. To: Deckard (#33)
"It's exactly what you and the other prohibitionists have endorsed."
#39. To: misterwhite (#37)
Smells like denial to me.
#40. To: misterwhite (#38)
I have never endorsed bringing back alcohol prohibition.
#41. To: ConservingFreedom (#40)
"You've endorsed continuing a substance prohibition that's no more justified nor more successful than alcohol prohibition was."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]