United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: CBS News Caught Blatantly Distorting Cannabis Study, Says Legal Pot Doubles Fatal Car Crashes
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cb ... pot-doubles-fatal-car-crashes/
Published: May 11, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-05-11 20:21:36 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 12374
Comments: 80
In what could only be described as a desperate smear campaign evidencing the last vestiges of propaganda from the failed war on drugs, corporate media warped the findings of a study about cannabis-related car crashes to the point of being unrecognizable. On Tuesday, AAA’s safety foundation released a report concerning cannabis impairment and driving, which proved blood testing drivers for THC holds no scientific validity and should be abandoned. But a second part of the report found that — strictly statistically speaking — car crashes involving drivers who had consumed cannabis were on the rise. In fact, the number of people involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for cannabis did rise — a statistical doubling — but several caveats that should have also been reported by the mainstream press were flatly ignored. First, and of no small importance, cannabis isn’t even close to the leading cause of fatal crashes. In fact, when it comes to deadly accidents where the driver tested positive for cannabis, “most” had also consumed alcohol or other drugs. According to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, of 592 drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2013, 38 tested positive for cannabis. In the following year, of 619 deadly crashes, the number testing positive for cannabis jumped to 75. However, as Staci Hoff, Research Director for WTSC, explained: “Most of these drivers, these 75 drivers, also had alcohol or other drugs” in their systems. Over a five-year period, just 1.8 percent of fatal crashes involved drivers who tested positive only for cannabis. “So, in our study, we looked at all five years of date, 2010 to 2014,” Hoff continued, “and there were never 3,000 drivers involved in these fatal crashes during that time period. Only 56 of them had THC and only THC, nothing else.” WTSC is indeed concerned about drivers who consume cannabis — when they also consume alcohol. So though the number of fatal cannabis-involved deadly accidents did, indeed, double, the number represents a tiny proportion of the total and most of those drivers had consumed other substances. “There’s still a lot of work to do to figure out the impact of marijuana as a substance alone,” Hoff added, “but what I can say is that the combo of alcohol and marijuana is a scary concept we are seeing; it’s where our largest concern lays right now.” But if you rely on corporate media for information about the same report, your perception of cannabis-related traffic fatalities would be entirely different. CBS News’ national report on this same information proves how the misrepresentation of data can irresponsibly warp facts to bordering on outright misinformation — Report: Fatal marijuana-related crashes up where drug is legal. Though the headline could easily be redeemed through accurate information, the CBS article immediately capitalizes on people’s worst fears by beginning with an anecdotal account of a fatal accident involving a cannabis-impaired driver. At a time when policy-makers and the American public consider ending cannabis prohibition — a massively-failed policy whose biggest benefactor has arguably been the for-profit prison industry — such feckless reporting reduces the opportunity for worthy debate on the subject. CBS not only failed to mention how statistically minuscule the doubling of cannabis-related fatal crashes actually was, it also inexplicably — and inexcusably — left out that most of those drivers had consumed other substances. Worst of all, the CBS News article ends with the factual statement, “More than a dozen states are considering legalizing marijuana” — implying to readers, ‘look out, if you don’t stop this legislation, wantonly reckless weed-smoking drivers will be coming to your city.’ Of course, this simply isn’t the case, and the study the article was supposedly reporting about proves that — but CBS News’ audience would never know that if they were relying on the single source. And that is what makes propaganda so effective — its ability to distort facts to stoke baseless fear for other ends. Fortunately, such capricious and questionable media tactics are being exposed as more people turn to independent sources for good information otherwise obscured from public discussion.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-9) not displayed.
.
.
.
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
You see no relevant differences between other-substance abusers and the general population? Like unicorns, I know of no evidence for its existence - and despite your long history of citing this alleged study you've never provided any evidence for its existence, not even a title or list of authors. Are we done fooling ourselves or do you want to continue this bullshit? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. That twice as many abusers of alcohol and other substances may possibly have marginally increased their likelihood of crashing by adding pot to the mix appears to be a piss-poor reason for banning it for all adults. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "In a 1988 study of school-age children around the state, Bernard Segal, a professor of health sciences at the University of Alaska, reported that marijuana had "become well incorporated into the life style of many adolescents" and, for them, could no longer be considered an experimental drug." "Professor Segal found that overall marijuana use among minors rose slightly from 1983 to 1988. In Anchorage, its popularity among high school students had dropped but was still 16 percentage points above the national average." As a result of this study the citizens of Alaska, in 1990, passed Measure 2 which criminalized marijuana. Within 10 years, teen marijuana use dropped to national levels.
After all these years, you finally produce an author name. Wow. No data from 1975, when marijuana possession became legal in Alaska - and a slight at most rise in use during the period studied ... a sorry excuse for evidence that legalization had any effect on youth use. Or did lower-48 use rise? Your unsourced claim is gruel as thin as Segal's. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And one wonders: did youth use rise again after the 1990 measure was struck down in 2003 by the Alaska Court of Appeals ... and if so, why did Alaskans vote to legalize in 2014?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Until you came here it wasn't necessary. People believed me. "No data from 1975, when marijuana possession became legal in Alaska - and a slight at most rise in use during the period studied ... a sorry excuse for evidence that legalization had any effect on youth use." None needed. Rather than study the effects of the 1975 legalization, I merely looked at the effects of the the the 1990 criminalization. A 1988 snapshot showed Alaskan teen use at double the U.S. average -- and that usage dropped to the U.S. average 10 years later.
Segal didn't say that; who did? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Yes, one does wonder. We're now in agreement that the study was not mythical? And that marijuana use doubles when legalized?
At long last there is evidence for it. There is scant evidence for that. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Moi. Based on state-by-state statistics from the year 2000. Which I am not going to look up. You'll have to trust me. I have a track record of being right.
Well, there is evidence that marijuana use doubles in people involved in fatal crashes, right? You're just not convinced that it doubles for everyone. Because that would be a real stretch to conclude that.
LOL! A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. To repeat: You see no relevant differences between other-substance abusers and the general population?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Well, one group abuses other-substances and the rest don't? That's a difference right there.
Then go look it up and prove me wrong. It's in some SAMHSA database somewhere.
The always predictable entitlement demand.
No, what's predictable is your knee-jerk snippeting distortions and dumbfuckery. Do you think you're fooling anyone, or do your antics provide you with halfwitted self-amusement?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant. Your mileage may vary.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Yes. Alcohol causes harm, therefore society must grant you legalized dope. The entitlement argument. As tiresome and lame as it is predictable.
The entitlement argument again, this time dressed in your ragged hypothetical question begging. You're capable of nothing better.
The only one here saying that is the voice in your head. Maybe medical marijuana would help with that. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The entitlement argument again Your idee fixe again. Get the help you so clearly need. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You raised the alcohol argument, now you want to walk away from it.
Every alcohol user I know won't even switch brands, much less switch to a formerly illegal drug.
He wants to walk away from it because you refuse to accept the premise that alcohol should be the new legal standard -- ie., any recreational drug less lethal should be allowed. Which, of course, fixes nothing. It would be like legalizing only white wine during Prohibition.
I raised AN alcohol argument - but not the one you're rebutting. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "Switching" is not at issue here - the article is about people with both drugs in their systems. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Which, of course, fixes nothing. It would be like legalizing only white wine during Prohibition. False analogy, as all forms of alcohol have the same inebriating effect whereas not all illegal drugs have the same inebriating effect. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Even a better reason to legalize marijuana, huh?
The "effect" was not my point. If you want to end the War on Drugs you have to legalize ALL drugs, not just marijuana. When ending Prohibition, ALL forms of alcohol became legal.
There's no evidence that it's a reason to not legalize marijuana. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If you want to end the War on Drugs you have to legalize ALL drugs, not just marijuana. You proposed your analogy right after your claim that legalizing any recreational drug less lethal than alcohol "fixes nothing"; I pointed out that your analogy didn't support your claim. Have you dropped that claim in favor of your current near-tautology? I think fixing the problems caused or aggravated by marijuana criminalization, by ending that criminalization, is more prudent than legalizing all drugs in one swoop (not that the latter is a political possibility anyway). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. There is nothing surprizing here. The MSM has been lieing to the publick for decades.
Yes, one does wonder. One need wonder no longer: SAMHSA finds that between 2002-2003 and 2013-2014, past-month marijuana use in Alaska dropped among 12-17-year-olds and 18-25 (while rising among 26 and up). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Don't lie.
Go nip at someone else's ankles, pee-wee - you're no longer amusing.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You're funnier than hell. Inadvertently, of course.
Are you calling for decriminalization or legalization? "I pointed out that your analogy didn't support your claim." My analogy is valid. The problems caused by alcohol being illegal was solved by ending Prohibition, not legalizing one form of alcohol. Similarly, the problems caused by recreational drugs being illegal is only solved by ending the War on Drugs, not legalizing just those drugs less lethal than alcohol.
And nationwide?
You're duplicating his post.
Comments (51 - 80) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Are we done fooling ourselves
Mythical? You're saying it doesn't exist? Like unicorns?
#11. To: Roscoe (#9)
That's okay then.
#12. To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
#13. To: misterwhite (#12)
"overall marijuana use among minors rose slightly from 1983 to 1988. In Anchorage, its popularity among high school students had dropped but was still 16 percentage points above the national average."
Within 10 years, teen marijuana use dropped to national levels.
#14. To: misterwhite (#13)
#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
"After all these years, you finally produce an author name. Wow."
#16. To: misterwhite (#15)
that usage dropped to the U.S. average 10 years later.
#17. To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
"And one wonders: did youth use rise again after the 1990 measure was struck down in 2003 by the Alaska Court of Appeals ... and if so, why did Alaskans vote to legalize in 2014?"
#18. To: misterwhite (#17)
We're now in agreement that the study was not mythical?
And that marijuana use doubles when legalized?
#19. To: ConservingFreedom (#16)
"Segal didn't say that; who did?"
#20. To: ConservingFreedom (#18)
And that marijuana use doubles when legalized?
There is scant evidence for that.
#21. To: misterwhite (#19)
You'll have to trust me. I have a track record of being right.
#22. To: misterwhite (#20)
#23. To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
"You see no relevant differences between other-substance abusers and the general population?"
#24. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
#25. To: ConservingFreedom (#11)
abusers of alcohol
#26. To: Roscoe (#25)
#27. To: misterwhite (#23)
#28. To: ConservingFreedom (#26)
No
#29. To: ConservingFreedom (#27)
I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant.
#30. To: Roscoe (#28)
Alcohol causes harm, therefore society must grant you legalized dope.
#31. To: Roscoe (#29)
"I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant."
#32. To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
#33. To: ConservingFreedom (#27)
"I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant."
#34. To: Roscoe (#32)
"You raised the alcohol argument, now you want to walk away from it."
#35. To: Roscoe (#32)
You raised the alcohol argument
#36. To: misterwhite (#33)
switch to a formerly illegal drug.
#37. To: misterwhite (#34)
any recreational drug less lethal should be allowed.
#38. To: ConservingFreedom (#36)
"the article is about people with both drugs in their systems."
#39. To: ConservingFreedom (#37)
"all forms of alcohol have the same inebriating effect whereas not all illegal drugs have the same inebriating effect."
#40. To: misterwhite (#38)
Even a better reason to legalize marijuana, huh?
#41. To: misterwhite (#39)
The "effect" was not my point.
#42. To: Deckard (#0)
#43. To: misterwhite (#17)
"And one wonders: did youth use rise again after the 1990 measure was struck down in 2003 by the Alaska Court of Appeals ... and if so, why did Alaskans vote to legalize in 2014?"
#44. To: ConservingFreedom (#35)
I raised AN alcohol argument - but not the one you're rebutting.
#45. To: Roscoe (#44)
#46. To: ConservingFreedom (#45)
you're no longer amusing.
#47. To: ConservingFreedom (#41)
"I think fixing the problems caused or aggravated by marijuana criminalization, by ending that criminalization, is more prudent than legalizing all drugs in one swoop (not that the latter is a political possibility anyway)."
#48. To: ConservingFreedom (#43)
#49. To: misterwhite (#48)
(Edited)
#50. To: Roscoe (#49)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]