Posted on 04/11/2006 9:28:21 AM PDT by davesdude
Marijuana Not a Factor in Driving Accidents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 29, 1999
The safety hazards of smoking marijuana and driving are overrated, says U of T researcher Alison Smiley.
Recent research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident -- unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering . While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says.
"Both substances impair performance," Smiley says. "However, the more cautious behaviour of subjects who received marijuana decreases the drug's impact on performance. Their behaviour is more appropriate to their impairment, whereas subjects who received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner."
Smiley, who has studied transportation safety for over 25 years, drew her results from a "metanalysis" of existing research into the effects of marijuana on driving ability, combined with traffic accident statistics in the United States and Australia. Previous studies showing stronger effects often combined "fairly hefty doses" by researchers with driving immediately after consumption, likely exaggerating the drug's effects, she believes.
While Smiley does not advocate legalizing the drug, she says her results should be considered by those debating mandatory drug tests for users of transportation equipment such as truck or train drivers, or the decriminalization of marijuana for medical use. "There's an assumption that because marijuana is illegal, it must increase the risk of an accident. We should try to just stick to the facts."
Smiley presented her findings at a symposium of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in Florida in February. Her paper was also published in Health Effects of Cannabis, a publication of Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in March.
haha! i understand! the main issue that started the discussion...the featured article of this thread... or plainly the fact some specialist are claiming marijuana is less harmful than alcool on the road...
Marijuana does cause impairment. People should not drive while stoned. While I do not think people should drive impaired on any substance, I will say that I do think that alcohol can cause more impairment than marijuana. I would be less afraid to drive on a road full of drivers who had been smoking pot than one full of drunk drivers. A low dose of either substance is not likely to cause much impairment. A high dose of either will cause impairment, but overall alcohol seems to be cause the most impairment at higher doses relative to the impairment caused by marijuana at high doses. I am speaking from personal experience, so it does not surprise me at all that most research comparing the effects of both drugs with regard to relative impairment reaches the same conclusions.
You contend that pot has no effect, however my observations indicate otherwise.
Here, in the US, where driving is intimately connected to virtually everything we do,(The average driver drives 30 miles per day, every day, some considerably more), results might wildly differ from those in an urban area where everything is closer together and there is adequate public transportation.
Even with DUI laws approaching the draconian (when the courts adequately enforce them), we still have over 40,000 people killed on the highways every year.
I fail to see how adding another intoxicant to the mix is going to make highway travel any safer.
Do you think the potential risk to other motor vehicle operators is justified by the desire of a few to have their pet intoxicant legalized so we can all figure out how many traffic deaths per year should be attributed to the consumption of marijuana before getting behind the wheel?
Dude, push this in Canada if you want, we'll read the studies here in the States.
"You contend that pot has no effect, however my observations indicate otherwise. "
well no, i never said pot had NO effects, from personnal experience, it was harder for me to drive under the ingluence of alcool than it was from under the influence of pot...but i don't think i ever said it had NO effects!
"I fail to see how adding another intoxicant to the mix is going to make highway travel any safer. "
I understand a bit more what you mean, but do you agree that right now as we speak, a lot of people already smoke and drive at a high rate, so I fail to see why people will drive more under it's influence if pot were made to be legal...it would only push the research on adequate system to identify the substance accurately...would you start to smoke and drive if pot was made legal???
"Dude, push this in Canada if you want, we'll read the studies here in the States"
what do you mean by that? that your country is the only one to provide the proper information or studies? if this is not what you meant please tell me, i do not feel to safe about this one...
What universe are you in?
what do you mean by that? that your country is the only one to provide the proper information or studies? if this is not what you meant please tell me, i do not feel to safe about this one...
Iirc, you are from Canada.
Why push to legalize pot here in the States?
Push for legalization in your jurisdiction and conduct the studies there.
The results of that research could be applied to virtually any jurisdiction with similar demographics, and conclusions drawn as to the appropriateness of any action taken as a result thereof.
I have found no fault with any valid (and frequently peer reviewed) scientific research in Canada (or elsewhere), and as a scientist, frequently utilize the results of such research in my work.
I understand a bit more what you mean, but do you agree that right now as we speak, a lot of people already smoke and drive at a high rate, so I fail to see why people will drive more under it's influence if pot were made to be legal…
With pot illegal here, why would anyone take a chance on going out onto the highway when they can consume pot at a more secure location, without running the risk of being stopped for something as mundane as a burned out taillight and ending up facing drug charges? That does not mean people do not do so, just that no one reasonable person would place themselves at additional risk of getting busted.
Legalize pot, and that would no longer be a deterrent to those it deters now.
On that basis alone I would expect an increase in drivers under the influence.
Additionally, there is a contingent who have not tried or will not consume pot solely because it is illegal, and the possibility of a police record of drug arrests or convictions would make them less employable (and otherwise affect their lives) in the future.
With the criminal stigma removed, some of those people are going to try pot, and there would be a new group of new and novice users, regardless of their age or driving abilities.
I assume there would be a legal consumption age, as with alcohol, and it is likely that age would be near the age of legal consumption for alcoholic beverages as well. That age, in many jurisdictions, is within a few years of the age at which a driver's license can be obtained.
So there would be a contingent of relatively new drivers, also just reaching the legal consumption age, who would have yet to learn to cope with changes in reaction times, etc., from either intoxicant or both (pot and alcohol).
Relatively new drivers constitute a high risk group as it is (especially according to insurance company actuaries), simply because of their lack of driving experience, and in some cases, relative lack of emotional maturity.
You have stated that it is the experienced consumer of pot who can anticipate the level of intoxication they will get from consuming pot, who are less likely to get stoned and remain able to function.
This new consumer group would be the ones who are not experienced enough to anticipate their level of intoxication, whether with alcohol or pot, (or both) and would be more likely to have problems staying focused on what they are doing. They would start with a limited skill level, and degrade that by an unknown, and perhaps lethal quantity.
So, overall, yes, I would expect an increase in new users and drivers under the influence…and fatal accidents as well.
...it would only push the research on adequate system to identify the substance accurately
True, but not just identify, but also quantify the amount present. Currently, with pot an illegal substance, testing is done to identify the consumer, not to quantify the amount. Pre-employment, 'random' screening, post-accident testing, forensic toxicology, and tests to determine if parolees and probationers are refraining from the use of marijuana and other drugs do not need to produce quantified results, nor do they necessarily need to produce those results within minutes.
Unless the standard for driving under the influence were left subjective (at the discretion of the arresting officer--something few users would favor), there would need to be established legal limits for operating a motor vehicle, and the means to test whether the person was beyond that limit, quickly, quantifiably, repeatably, and accurately. Nothing less would pass an evidentiary standard.
At present, mere screening suffices when the substance is illegal because any quantity above zero is evidence of a violation, in the case of alcohol, screening provides probable cause to conduct an evidentiary breath or blood test and place the driver under arrest, if other factors of intoxication are in evidence (swerving, driving too slowly, slurred speech, impaired coordination, etc.)
For researchers, there would need to be conducted considerable research into what concentrations of what active ingredients in the body caused what level of impairment and the establishment of a quantified standard limit of consumption for determining intoxication.
What if no clear standards can be developed, if the results vary too much from person to person? What about latency (the time needed for the body to process and eliminate the active ingredients in a joint), and the effects thereof on determining intoxication levels?
Not to mention additional studies to verify those results.
It is likely there will be a significant contingent of any productive (read: taxpaying) population who would balk at their money being spent on such studies, for the purpose of facillitating the legalization of a substance they do not use.
The development of testing procedures and equipment would constitute a rich business opportunity for any company who devised them (buy stock!), but implementing such testing would also add a financial and personnel burden on the police and/or the medical community in obtaining the equipment, training personnel to conduct the test, and conducting the tests.
American emergency rooms tend to be busy enough, especially in urban areas, and Canadian medical facilities are notorious for their backlogs, at least in some areas. Why would you want to impose a further burden on the system? Taxpayers or medical consumers (insurance companies get their money from the insured) will pick up the tab. But taxpayers are us.
...would you start to smoke and drive if pot was made legal???
No, but I would not start smoking pot, anyway. As I have stated, I do not like being intoxicated.
what do you mean by that? that your country is the only one to provide the proper information or studies? if this is not what you meant please tell me, i do not feel to safe about this one...
Iirc, you are from Canada.
Why push to legalize pot here in the States?
Push for legalization in your jurisdiction and conduct the studies there.
The results of that research could be applied to virtually any jurisdiction with similar demographics, and conclusions drawn as to the appropriateness of any action taken as a result thereof.
I have found no fault with any valid (and frequently peer reviewed) scientific research in Canada (or elsewhere), and as a scientist, frequently utilize the results of such research in my work.
I understand a bit more what you mean, but do you agree that right now as we speak, a lot of people already smoke and drive at a high rate, so I fail to see why people will drive more under it's influence if pot were made to be legal…
With pot illegal here, why would anyone take a chance on going out onto the highway when they can consume pot at a more secure location, without running the risk of being stopped for something as mundane as a burned out taillight and ending up facing drug charges? That does not mean people do not do so, just that no one reasonable person would place themselves at additional risk of getting busted.
Legalize pot, and that would no longer be a deterrent to those it deters now.
On that basis alone I would expect an increase in drivers under the influence.
Additionally, there is a contingent who have not tried or will not consume pot solely because it is illegal, and the possibility of a police record of drug arrests or convictions would make them less employable (and otherwise affect their lives) in the future.
With the criminal stigma removed, some of those people are going to try pot, and there would be a new group of new and novice users, regardless of their age or driving abilities.
I assume there would be a legal consumption age, as with alcohol, and it is likely that age would be near the age of legal consumption for alcoholic beverages as well. That age, in many jurisdictions, is within a few years of the age at which a driver's license can be obtained.
So there would be a contingent of relatively new drivers, also just reaching the legal consumption age, who would have yet to learn to cope with changes in reaction times, etc., from either intoxicant or both (pot and alcohol).
Relatively new drivers constitute a high risk group as it is (especially according to insurance company actuaries), simply because of their lack of driving experience, and in some cases, relative lack of emotional maturity.
You have stated that it is the experienced consumer of pot who can anticipate the level of intoxication they will get from consuming pot, who are less likely to get stoned and remain able to function.
This new consumer group would be the ones who are not experienced enough to anticipate their level of intoxication, whether with alcohol or pot, (or both) and would be more likely to have problems staying focused on what they are doing. They would start with a limited skill level, and degrade that by an unknown, and perhaps lethal quantity.
So, overall, yes, I would expect an increase in new users and drivers under the influence…and fatal accidents as well.
...it would only push the research on adequate system to identify the substance accurately
True, but not just identify, but also quantify the amount present. Currently, with pot an illegal substance, testing is done to identify the consumer, not to quantify the amount. Pre-employment, 'random' screening, post-accident testing, forensic toxicology, and tests to determine if parolees and probationers are refraining from the use of marijuana and other drugs do not need to produce quantified results, nor do they necessarily need to produce those results within minutes.
Unless the standard for driving under the influence were left subjective (at the discretion of the arresting officer--something few users would favor), there would need to be established legal limits for operating a motor vehicle, and the means to test whether the person was beyond that limit, quickly, quantifiably, repeatably, and accurately. Nothing less would pass an evidentiary standard.
At present, mere screening suffices when the substance is illegal because any quantity above zero is evidence of a violation, in the case of alcohol, screening provides probable cause to conduct an evidentiary breath or blood test and place the driver under arrest, if other factors of intoxication are in evidence (swerving, driving too slowly, slurred speech, impaired coordination, etc.)
For researchers, there would need to be conducted considerable research into what concentrations of what active ingredients in the body caused what level of impairment and the establishment of a quantified standard limit of consumption for determining intoxication.
What if no clear standards can be developed, if the results vary too much from person to person? What about latency (the time needed for the body to process and eliminate the active ingredients in a joint), and the effects thereof on determining intoxication levels?
Not to mention additional studies to verify those results.
It is likely there will be a significant contingent of any productive (read: taxpaying) population who would balk at their money being spent on such studies, for the purpose of facillitating the legalization of a substance they do not use.
The development of testing procedures and equipment would constitute a rich business opportunity for any company who devised them (buy stock!), but implementing such testing would also add a financial and personnel burden on the police and/or the medical community in obtaining the equipment, training personnel to conduct the test, and conducting the tests.
American emergency rooms tend to be busy enough, especially in urban areas, and Canadian medical facilities are notorious for their backlogs, at least in some areas. Why would you want to impose a further burden on the system? Taxpayers or medical consumers (insurance companies get their money from the insured) will pick up the tab. But taxpayers are us.
...would you start to smoke and drive if pot was made legal???
No, but I would not start smoking pot, anyway. As I have stated, I do not like being intoxicated.
Sorry about the double post, I got one of those "this page cannot be accessed" pages, and tried a second time without checking.
So the inability to drive in a straight line and stay on your side of the road is no problem, eh? You know what the defining characteristic of a zealot is, right? The ability to reframe any statement, no matter how damning, so that it seems to support his premise. Anyone with an ounce of sense reading the above paragraph would have to admit that driving while high is incredibly dangerous. But the weed-zealots try to minimize the dangers by comparing it to driving drunk (clever, but disgustingly dishonest). Driving while impared is dangerous, whether on weed or on booze. Neither should be tolerated...
Why not reduce the burden on the system by banning alcohol? If you know the answer to that one, you know the answer to your own question.
The "logic" seems to be that if even ONE person drinks for the taste, that's enough of a difference from marijuana to justify the very different legal statuses of the two drugs.
I am not arguing the WOD or prohibition, the topic is traffic safety and the effects of pot on the ability to drive.
My point is that the legalization of another intoxicant would be likely to cause an increase in that ER load, so why go there.
Keep in mind that that increase in ER patients, whether for testing or for trauma will be utilizing resources already sorely taxed in some areas.
Why, with knowledge and forethought, increase that load by legalizing another substance which would have to be regulated, tested for, etc.?
There are those who will argue that the DUI industry is already one which has surpassed mere traffic safety and become a cash cow for certain sectors, namely law enforcement, local courts, and the evaluation, treatment, and rehab industry. There are others who will argue that it has become an excuse to set up checkpoints and violate the 4th amendent rights of Americans en masse. Why add another reason?
Reduction of that burden would be nice.
So do you support banning alcohol?
Alcohol has been legal for the entire lifespan of a majority of Americans, Marijuana has not.
So? There was a time when slavery had been legal for the entire lifespan of a majority of Americans; was that a good reason to maintain that policy?
I am not arguing the WOD or prohibition [...] Why, with knowledge and forethought, increase that load by legalizing another substance which would have to be regulated, tested for, etc.?
You contradict yourself.
There are those who will argue that the DUI industry is already one which has surpassed mere traffic safety and become a cash cow for certain sectors, namely law enforcement, local courts, and the evaluation, treatment, and rehab industry. There are others who will argue that it has become an excuse to set up checkpoints and violate the 4th amendent rights of Americans en masse. Why add another reason?
Those are good arguments for reining in the DUI industry, not for further violating the rights of adults by banning all use of certain substances.
I am not arguing for banning anything which is not already banned. As for testing, there would be a reasonable limit imposed on how much one could have in their system before being considered too impaired to drive. Unless you contend no such limit exists, whereupon I would disagree. Therefore some means of quantitatively determining whether that limit had been surpassed would be necessary to enforce that limit, otherwise the determination would fall solely at the discretion of the arresting officer, a situation which would not be agreeable to anyone with a sense of 'due process'. Thus you assertion of contradiction does not hold.
I am only asserting that if, and I repeat IF marijuana were legalized here in the US, I would expect an increase in automobile fatalities due to impaired driving, from either marijuana use before getting behind the wheel, or the combination of marijuana and alcohol.
I am not defending the use of alcohol (which I do not use), nor marijuana ( which I also do not use), nor am I condeming that useage.
The article asserted that marijuana use had no significant effect on the ability of the user to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence.
My observations of marijuana users I have known would indicate the article is wrong.
As for So? There was a time when slavery had been legal for the entire lifespan of a majority of Americans; was that a good reason to maintain that policy? , WTF does slavery have to do with operating a motor vehicle?
This is not a discussion of new restrictions on something, it is a discussion of the prudence of loosening the restrictions on something and the effects on highway safety.
Like all laws, the ones in place will only keep the law abiding in check, but that alone keeps a lot of drunks off of the road.
My assertion is that if the poster of the article (who is Canadian) wants this, push for it at home, let the studies of the effects be done, and we can evaluate that data before considering any such action here.
Agreed, regardless of their favorite intoxicant. But with alcohol, the 'lesser' partiers have become aware of at least the legal risks, and make a serious attempt to not be DUI. I expect that the lesser partiers with pot are similar, those who do not want to lose their license, job, etc.
There are those who insist it is absolutely harmless and those who insists it is the worst of all threats to our way of life. The truth is in the middle somewhere.
That may be true. I have tried to sidestep that emotional and unproductive fracas and deal with some of the practical considerations were it legalized, in terms of using and driving.
Some of those logistical considerations, that of identifying, imposing, and enforcing intoxication limits, are a given.
Other considerations are more speculative and deal with the possible increase in usage behind the wheel, and further speculation on the overall effects of that useage on traffic fatalities and emergency services patient loads.
I have been trying to avoid the hype and keep things practical.
Look at what is happening with cigarettes in this country. Do we see much glorifying of tobacco? Absolutely not.
Although, at one time there was...I remember the TV ads.
Almost no one remains arguing that tobacco is harmless.
True
When marijuana is legalized, and it will be legalized eventually, we'll see it following the same path cigarettes are following today, only there won't be so far to go because hardly anyone smokes weed compared to all those who smoke cigarettes.
Which is why I was encouraging the original article poster to push for legalization in their home jurisdiction of Canada (rather than push for us to change our laws), to let the studies be done there, and that way we could review the results of their research before really considering following suit.
"Push for legalization in your jurisdiction and conduct the studies there."
unfortunately canada won't do a move on that matter without his big brother moving first...
"That does not mean people do not do so, just that no one reasonable person would place themselves at additional risk of getting busted. "
Legal status of the substance is really not a concern to many stoned drivers...with experienced one, driving stoned is like driving tired at the end of the day but you still have your normal level of energy for reflexes (yes stoners still have some, i was playing badminton right after smoking and still held the game to a competitive level)so no problem for getting busted, as for unexperienced stoned drivers, they will wait til the buzz wear off...still some not in the perfect condition to drive, will drive but that is no matter the legal status...a lot of stoners respect their highs...
"What if no clear standards can be developed, if the results vary too much from person to person? What about latency (the time needed for the body to process and eliminate the active ingredients in a joint), and the effects thereof on determining intoxication levels?
Not to mention additional studies to verify those results. "
I agree no substances should be legalized without "sufficient studies"...the point will be "when do we have sufficient studies"!!! but anyway from personnal experience, a standard can already be stated : 2 hours after your last puff, you are safe home...but on the scientific side of things, how to detect the right amount of thc and determin when it was taken accurately, i wouldn't see why there would be no standards achievable...isn't that being a bit pessimist? :D
"The development of testing procedures and equipment would constitute a rich business opportunity for any company who devised them (buy stock!), but implementing such testing would also add a financial and personnel burden on the police and/or the medical community in obtaining the equipment, training personnel to conduct the test, and conducting the tests."
Please consider the huge money that will be taxed if regulated...a lot of that money would be certainly sent to help the development of such equipment...you would find back approximately 40 billion from the war on drugs ended, plus profits from the legal market created minus all those cost you have stated above = still a profitable idea... i am just summing it up quickly but a lot of information can be found on the web, for more details...
"No, but I would not start smoking pot, anyway. As I have stated, I do not like being intoxicated."
You are not alone my friend, you are not alone...
Man, leave the talking to smoking joe, he is being way more constructive than you...let me explain my point...
"So the inability to drive in a straight line and stay on your side of the road is no problem, eh?"
You are being zealot yourself, where is it stated the INABILITY??(not shouting there :D ) and it is affected on a "figure-of-eight loop"...i would like to see a drunk driver on such a track, that do not even exist on the real road!!
"Neither should be tolerated..." and neither is being tolerated here...i am not saying "everybody let's druive and fly" i am curious to see how many people will still try demonize the weed against scientific datas...how many are being zealous (but you are right that not some stoners are being zealous, but not all...that would be zealous in itself to calim all stoners are zealous you know...)! note: smoking joe ommitted cause he is almost the only one that didn't use any stereotypes and presented strong points based on logic...
peace
should read
"but you are right that some stoners are being zealous..."
I know you don't want to so argue, but logic is a harsh mistress: if you argue for maintaining a current ban on the basis of accident rates, that argument applies just as well to consideration of new bans.
some means of quantitatively determining whether that limit had been surpassed would be necessary to enforce that limit, otherwise the determination would fall solely at the discretion of the arresting officer, a situation which would not be agreeable to anyone with a sense of 'due process'.
I disagree; walking a line and other 'subjective' tests are fine by me if nothing better exists.
Alcohol has been legal for the entire lifespan of a majority of Americans, Marijuana has not.
So? There was a time when slavery had been legal for the entire lifespan of a majority of Americans; was that a good reason to maintain that policy?
WTF does slavery have to do with operating a motor vehicle?
It's a testing ground for your implied principle that a long period of legality is in itself grounds for continued legality.
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.