Fewer Americans Drinking And Driving; More Using Drugs [Alcohol, Marijuana, Pot]

The number of people driving under the influence of alcohol on U.S. roads continues to decline, but the number of drivers using marijuana and prescription drugs that can affect road safety is climbing, according to two studies released by the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

One study found that the number of inebriated drivers has declined by nearly one-third since 2007, but that same survey found a large increase in the number of drivers using marijuana or other illegal drugs. In the 2014 survey, nearly one in four drivers tested positive for at least one drug that could affect safety.

"The latest Roadside Survey raises significant questions about drug use and highway safety. The rising prevalence of marijuana and other drugs is a challenge to everyone who is dedicated to saving lives and reducing crashes," said NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind.

The latest edition of the survey shows that about 8% of drivers during weekend nighttime hours were found to have alcohol in their system, and just over 1% were found with 0.08% or higher breath alcohol content - the legal limit in every state. This is a marked reduction of about 30% from the previous survey in 2007 and 80% from the first survey in 1973.

At the same time, the number of weekend nighttime drivers with evidence of drugs in their system rose from 16.3% in 2007 to 20% in 2014. The number of drivers with marijuana in their system grew by nearly 50%.

A second survey was conducted to determine whether marijuana use increases the risk of crashes. It found that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in accidents, due in part because they are more likely to be in groups at higher risk of crashes such as young men.

"Drivers should never get behind the wheel impaired, and we know that marijuana impairs judgment, reaction times and awareness," said Jeff Michael, NHTSA's associate administrator for research and program development. "These findings highlight the importance of research to better understand how marijuana use affects drivers so states and communities can craft the best safety policies."

You've had similar idée fixe before, attempting to "prove" correlation / causation of crime statistics in California relative to assumption of "loosened marijuana laws" when there was no causation and when other "non-loosened" states showed similar or better crime reduction statistics : Cannabis really can trigger paranoia - FR, posts #64, #68, #71, 2014 July 21

You distorted my posts on that thread and you continue to do so now. You failed to mention #65, which puts lie to everything you just claimed. I bolded the times I made the point that causation does not equal correlation.

_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

To: CutePuppy

If you accept the premise that marijuana laws have loosened significantly since the mid-1990s, and if you accept the crime figures at the link, then there indeed has been a positive correlation between the two since the mid-1990s. However, you cannot say there is a causal relationship based on such a correlation. Agree with both statements?

To say two things are correlated is not to say that one or the other variable is causal =>

_________________________________________________________________

"Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

_________________________________________________________________

CutePuppy: How about illegal immigration and crime rate? There has been unarguably more illegal immigration while the crime rate ostensibly dropped. Conclusions?

Same as with the pot laws => 1. There's been a positive correlation between the two since the mid-1990s. 2. You cannot say there is a causal relationship. 3. Further investigation is needed to draw any conlusions.

Do you agree?

_______________________________________________________________

Now, I'll be glad to discuss other points you raised, such as causes of falling crime and what drug policy should be. But first, I want to get cleared up what should be a simple point => When I say there a correlation, I am not making the case for causation. I am making a case against the claim legalizing pot would cause crime to rise significantly. With CA's violent crime rate falling by half since 1996, it seems a highly dubious proposition.

65 posted on Tue Jul 22 2014 00:44:03 GMT-0400 (EDT) by Ken H

_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

So was it an oversight, or was it a deliberate act of deceit on your part to omit it?

Not to get too far from the non sequitur of your "highway deaths" theory to the facts of "fewer Americans are drinking and driving; more are using drugs" — I did not "distort," "failed to mention," or commit an "oversight, or a deliberate act of deceit to omit..."

I presented a link to a number of posts (which include responses to and refutations of your #65 and other posts, so I didn't have to "mention" or "omit" anything) so that people who read the thread and are interested, may see your tendency to present your theories as correlations and/or implied causations (possible correlation that strongly implies and is passed as causation, without which theories and correlations are coincidental and meaningless). I didn't feel the need to continue that "conversation" on that thread or graft it into this one.

Based on your posts, I think you are sincere in your confusion and not quite understanding the importance of the differences between these concepts (rather than "not understanding" it because it's convenient "not to understand" it) but it may confuse other people (as it's often designed to do, especially in politics or finance, some examples of which I have provided) and it makes difficult to have an intelligent argument with you without getting into all kinds of tangents and having useless "endless threads" and being called, in effect, a liar, i.e., "dishonest / distort / deliberate deceit / omit" etc., which is irresponsible and is often used in debates as a "shut up" or "yo' mama" or "change the subject" tactic.

I think it's safe to say that you haven't met the burden of proof on your theory of "highway deaths" related to "fewer Americans are drinking and driving; more are using drugs" and leave it at that. tactic.

I personally think it's calculated to distract from the point that nearly 20 years of looser pot laws have not resulted in deadlier highways.

So the article which reports a large-scale study about the fact that "fewer Americans are drinking and driving; more are using drugs" and doesn't mention fatalities is a distraction from your later post about your unrelated theory of "deadlier highways" and not the other way around?

This is transparently ridiculous. Well, I tried to help, but I might have been wrong about giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding your sincerity of "not understanding" the basic concepts and issues.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.