[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-9) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#10. To: misterwhite (#8)

Are we done fooling ourselves

You see no relevant differences between other-substance abusers and the general population?

Mythical? You're saying it doesn't exist? Like unicorns?

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   13:50:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Roscoe (#9)

That's okay then.

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   13:55:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: ConservingFreedom (#10)

"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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-13   16:15:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite (#12)

After all these years, you finally produce an author name. Wow.

"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."

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.

Within 10 years, teen marijuana use dropped to national levels.

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   16:26:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite (#13)

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   16:36:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)

"After all these years, you finally produce an author name. Wow."

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-13   16:43:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#15)

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   16:48:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?"

Yes, one does wonder. We're now in agreement that the study was not mythical? And that marijuana use doubles when legalized?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-13   16:52:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: misterwhite (#17)

We're now in agreement that the study was not mythical?

At long last there is evidence for it.

And that marijuana use doubles when legalized?

There is scant evidence for that.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   16:56:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: ConservingFreedom (#16)

"Segal didn't say that; who did?"

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-13   16:59:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: ConservingFreedom (#18)

And that marijuana use doubles when legalized?
There is scant evidence for that.

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-13   17:02:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#19)

You'll have to trust me. I have a track record of being right.

LOL!

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   17:09:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: misterwhite (#20)

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   17:10:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: ConservingFreedom (#22)

"You see no relevant differences between other-substance abusers and the general population?"

Well, one group abuses other-substances and the rest don't? That's a difference right there.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-13   17:15:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)

Then go look it up and prove me wrong. It's in some SAMHSA database somewhere.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-13   17:18:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: ConservingFreedom (#11)

abusers of alcohol

The always predictable entitlement demand.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-13   18:17:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Roscoe (#25)

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   21:39:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#23)

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-13   21:40:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: ConservingFreedom (#26)

No

Yes. Alcohol causes harm, therefore society must grant you legalized dope.

The entitlement argument. As tiresome and lame as it is predictable.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-13   23:24:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: ConservingFreedom (#27)

I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant.

The entitlement argument again, this time dressed in your ragged hypothetical question begging. You're capable of nothing better.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-13   23:27:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Roscoe (#28)

Alcohol causes harm, therefore society must grant you legalized dope.

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   0:06:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Roscoe (#29)

"I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant."

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   0:07:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: ConservingFreedom (#30)

You raised the alcohol argument, now you want to walk away from it.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-14   5:45:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: ConservingFreedom (#27)

"I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant."

Every alcohol user I know won't even switch brands, much less switch to a formerly illegal drug.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-14   8:44:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Roscoe (#32)

"You raised the alcohol argument, now you want to walk away from it."

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-14   8:55:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Roscoe (#32)

You raised the alcohol argument

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   14:03:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#33)

switch to a formerly illegal drug.

"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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   14:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: misterwhite (#34)

any recreational drug less lethal should be allowed.

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   14:09:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: ConservingFreedom (#36)

"the article is about people with both drugs in their systems."

Even a better reason to legalize marijuana, huh?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-14   15:25:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: ConservingFreedom (#37)

"all forms of alcohol have the same inebriating effect whereas not all illegal drugs have the same inebriating effect."

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-14   15:29:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: misterwhite (#38)

Even a better reason to legalize marijuana, huh?

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   16:05:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: misterwhite (#39)

The "effect" was not my point.

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   16:12:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Deckard (#0)

There is nothing surprizing here. The MSM has been lieing to the publick for decades.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-05-14   16:22:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?"

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   16:35:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: ConservingFreedom (#35)

I raised AN alcohol argument - but not the one you're rebutting.

Don't lie.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-14   16:58:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Roscoe (#44)

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.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   17:08:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: ConservingFreedom (#45)

you're no longer amusing.

You're funnier than hell. Inadvertently, of course.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-14   17:11:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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)."

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-14   18:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: ConservingFreedom (#43)

And nationwide?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-14   18:40:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: misterwhite (#48) (Edited)

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-15   3:34:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Roscoe (#49)

You're duplicating his post.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-15   9:38:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (51 - 80) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com