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...
This will be used in the public debate over marijuana policy and likely influence how legislators act. So yeah, my points are relevant to the topic raised in the article.
As it should, but there was absolutely nothing about fatalities in the article. You ignored it and went on that tangent, without any facts regarding intersecting data sets.
If you are a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
If your mind is set that everything in the world relates / caused only by drug laws, regulations or absence of them, then you will try to prove it no matter whether there is a causation in the data set or you have to create one out the blue.
Just like some people find that everything revolves around "inequity," "racism," "social [in]justice" or some conspiracy theory and will find the "facts" that "prove" it in any unrelated or only tangentially related study.
Trying to reduce everything to a single factor is bad enough, but using it to statistically or logically prove causation when it's not even a part of the data set is ridiculous.
For example, much safer cars, better highways, car-pooling, drive for re-urbanization with higher utilization of public transportation in major cities (reducing, limiting / one-way, or banning passenger car traffic in certain areas) would have a reasonably high degree of correlation with whether the outcome of accident was fatal or not, and can be statistically verified, though fatalities were not a part the above report.
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