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: 12091
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 (1-23) not displayed.
.
.
.
#24. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
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.
Nationwide there was a smaller drop than Alaska's for 12-17, and a rise for 18-25. Alaska's re-relegalization of personal-use possession did no harm in the area of youth use. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Legalization. The problems caused by recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol being illegal are solved by ending the illegality of recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol; doing so does not "fix nothing" as you claimed. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I'll say it again. Ending the illegality of only recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol solves nothing. No courtrooms, prisons or jails are closed. No judges lose their jobs. Neither do guards, prosecutors or cops. The War on Drugs costs the same. No-knock warrants are still issued. Civil asset forfeiture continues. People still go to jail. And now, due to legalization, we have twice as many people using recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol, many of them children.
And for the first time you'll attempt to support it. Here's a big difference you overlooked: the $40 billion that Americans spend on marijuana (2010 ONDCP figure) would no longer be paid to cartels or other criminals. Only if you comically extrapolate fatal crashes to the entire population. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I stated this a long time ago. People just have a distorted view of pot. There really isn't a good reason to ban it and it only hurts the real drug war. Once you lose the people you lost the war and thats what has happen to the war on drugs. People have cried wolf too many ties with pot and it has caused a huge back lash.
Meaning what? They're going to go out and find honest work? If this is a good idea, lets legalize all drugs and really hit them hard! The bottom line is that the cartels will double down and continue to sell any drug that remains illegal and will sell them to anyone who is not old enough to buy them legally.
Some may, while others turn to crimes that more readily result in arrest and conviction because not everyone involved is cooperating in the commission of the crime (as is the case with drug transactions). That might turn out to be the best approach, but prudence dictates we start with the most renumerative and least harmful drug. That's being done already - and cartels are no more able than any other seller to create new demand through force of will. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Perfectly logical when you consider that the only other conclusion is that only people who smoke dope are those involved in fatal car crashes.
... and will continue. You've solved nothing.
Laughably false - another conclusion, as I've said, could be that the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes are disproportionately likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Continue but unlikely to increase, so I have solved the problem of criminals previously profiting from the now-legal drug. Cartels are no more able than any other seller to create new demand through force of will. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Or, people likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant could be the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes. Not that there's a cause and effect at work. Merely a coincidence.
Could be. Not sure what you're hinting at here - did the word "otherwise" go right over your head? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I ignore all weasel words.
Comments (65 - 80) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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)
#51. To: misterwhite (#48)
(Edited)
And nationwide?
#52. To: misterwhite (#47)
Are you calling for decriminalization or legalization?
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.
#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#52)
"The problems caused by recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol being illegal are solved by ending the illegality of recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol"
#54. To: misterwhite (#53)
I'll say it again.
Ending the illegality of only recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol solves nothing. No courtrooms, prisons or jails are closed. No judges lose their jobs. Neither do guards, prosecutors or cops.
The War on Drugs costs the same. No-knock warrants are still issued. Civil asset forfeiture continues. People still go to jail.
And now, due to legalization, we have twice as many people using recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol
#55. To: Deckard (#0)
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.
#56. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
"Here's a big difference you overlooked: the $40 billion that Americans spend on marijuana (2010 ONDCP figure) would no longer be paid to cartels or other criminals."
#57. To: misterwhite (#56)
Meaning what? They're going to go out and find honest work?
If this is a good idea, lets legalize all drugs and really hit them hard!
The bottom line is that the cartels will double down and continue to sell any drug that remains illegal and will sell them to anyone who is not old enough to buy them legally.
#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
"Only if you comically extrapolate fatal crashes to the entire population."
#59. To: ConservingFreedom (#57)
"That's being done already ..."
#60. To: misterwhite (#58)
the only other conclusion is that only people who smoke dope are those involved in fatal car crashes.
#61. To: misterwhite (#59)
... and will continue. You've solved nothing.
#62. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
"could be that the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes are disproportionately likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant."
#63. To: misterwhite (#62)
Or, people likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant could be the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes.
Not that there's a cause and effect at work.
#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#63)
"did the word "otherwise" go right over your head?"
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]