Or, marijuana is not involved in 88% of fatal dui crashes. Feel better now?
And this little tidbit:
“But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person.”
“This study shows an alarming increase in driving under the influence of drugs, and, in particular, it shows an increase in driving under the influence of both alcohol and drugs,”
Sounds to me that they tested for the presence of marijuana, and even if the driver was high on booze and pot, put it down as a marijuana-related death.
Individual rights without individual responsibility.
The problem with this study is that cannabinols can be detected in the blood up to 30 days after use. The study is more alarmist than anything else....
Let’s ban alcohol too, by the same “reasoning”.
/s
scuse me while I kiss the sky. . .
The cancer rate will go up in marijuana states. Then the regulators will pass lows restricting where it can be smoked, banning smoking around children, and all the other laws that have been passed on tobacco use.
And somehow our highways keep getting safer and safer => http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
RE: “Li added that police do not have a test as accurate as the Breathalyzer to check a driver’s marijuana intoxication level.”
Maybe that sentence should start this news report?
If you smoke a lot of marijuana, your drug test is going to show a lot of THC (or whatever they measure) when you are completely straight.
Also, if you smoke a lot, even the most potent weed available, your “peak” intoxication is over in 30 minutes at most, and you are almost completely straight in 60 minutes.
But, the best advice still applies.....
If you are even a little bit high, on anything, don’t drive a car!
I live and work near Seattle and could swear I’m seeing a lot more buzzed driving lately.
Oh...woooow...bummer, man.
Yes there is. Just ask a few questions of the driver.
Q. Are you happy I pulled you over?
A. (Giggling) "Oh yes, officer!" = Marijuana use.
A. (Stern look)Of course not! = Questionable about use.
Q. Do you like to pay high taxes for everything?
A. (Giggling) "Yes, yes, yes! YOU sure are handsome copper!" = Marijuana use.
A. Hell no! = Questionable about use.
Etc.
The states that are pushing “medical” marijuana are morally responsible for these crashes.
I wonder how many Freeps here think the government has no authority to enforce healthcare yet think it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to prohibit the use of recreational drugs?
I wonder if any of you even bother to review their own thoughts periodically and adjust for hypocritical positions?
I drove on pot once over 40 years ago; the time/space distortion from pot was so scary I haven’t done it since and would never attempt it again.
Statistically speaking, if the data is correct, we can confidently conclude:
1. Marijuana doesn’t confer immunity to fatal accidents.
2. Either more people are smoking and driving than in 1999, or they’re measuring or reporting differently.
3. If there actually were a major increase in stoned motoring, the lack of any adverse trend in the overall fatality rate suggests that stoned motoring isn’t a big risk-enhancer.
“You may see me tonight with an illegal smile”
According to this bullshit a guy in the back seat who smoked a joint 45 days ago would count as “a fatal car crash involving marijuana.”