Pot and highway safety.

[Warren Stupidity]

As legal marijuana spreads across America, mostly for medical use, anxiety about its side effects is spreading with it: What other changes will it bring? Campaigns against loosening the law tend to focus on its unknown and possibly dangerous repercussions—a surge in pot smoking, perhaps opening the door to increased use of harder drugs and to associated spikes in crime and other societal ills.

Amid the heated debate, a small amount of hard data is starting to emerge. And among the most intriguing findings is a recent study suggesting that Massachusetts could enjoy an unexpected boon from last November’s vote to legalize medical marijuana: fewer deaths on our roads and highways.

A team of economists who specialize in health and risk behaviors looked at the link between marijuana laws and traffic deaths, and found that roadway fatalities dropped significantly in states after they legalized medical marijuana. On average, deaths dropped 8 to 11 percent in the first full year after the law went into effect, and fell 10 to 13 percent by year four. Five years out, the results grew more varied, and faded in some cases.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/08/10/medical-marijuana-laws-save-lives-road-medical-marijuana-laws-save-lives-road/bBMqFVJ1jhv6tUbPBZotFJ/story.html

Let the authoritarian response begin!

[WinkyDink]

1. Okay, here's the deal. I am not anti-mj, but to deny it has any effect on a person and thus on their

driving is STUPID.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Read the article, that is not the claim.

The claim is that legalization is highly correlated with a decrease in highway fatalities.

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. lol +1

Cheers!

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. LOL! An antispasmodic +1 n/t

[Life Long Dem]

6. Define effect and on driving

And keep in mind the effects would need to reflect on the decrease in highway fatalities.

[WinkyDink]

36. I plead the 5th. How's THAT?

[gulliver]

12. "...more pot-smoking means less booze-swilling"

From the article. I agree driving while stoned is a terrible thing to do, by the way.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. They also made it clear that this is not an endorsement for dws.

And the best theory they have is substitution. It's less dangerous than alcohol and it seems people don't do both a whole lot.

While not a recommendation for driving while stoned it is a clear benefit for sane drug policies, like for example legalization of pot.

[gulliver]

34. Completely agree. nt

[Scuba]

35. Zactly.

[JDPriestly]

27. I don't know, but could it have a less disabling effect than alcohol?

Are people using marijuana rather than alcohol? Alcohol and driving are a deadly mix. I suppose marijuana and driving could be too, but perhaps to a lesser extent.

Is it possible that when people use marijuana they are less likely to drive? Maybe it makes them generally less active?

It may not be a matter of whether driving under the influence of marijuana is dangerous. It may be that it is dangerous but less dangerous than the most common inebriant/drug of choice which is alcohol, but it could mean that people are less likely to drive when using marijuana.

[Dawson Leery]

3. kick

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. Far fewer accidents, but way more people getting lost.

Not to mention a new golden age for Denny's and Waffle House.

[mick063]

9. Certainly if there was a rise in traffic deaths, there would be great exposure to go with it.

I don't believe the roads are safer after the law. I do believe the differences are insignificant. In other words, negligible effect on statistics.

Why?

Because there have always been people driving while stoned. Why would anyone expect a meteoric rise after a law was passed? Laws don't necessarily change behavior in an abrupt way.

What I do believe is that cars are being engineered to be safer.

If traffic safety was the true concern, much more emphasis would be placed on engineering controls as opposed to administrative controls. As it is, traffic engineering has made great strides.

In my mind, the single greatest threat to my life, is driving on a two lane 55 mph highway. I am literally trusting the oncoming driver with my life. The advent of four lane roads, separated by a median, has done more to save lives than just about anything. This is an example of an engineering control.

Pulling a person over, for being under the influence of alcohol, is an administrative control. Blowing into a sensor that will allow or disallow a car to start is an engineering control.

Administrative controls are inherently less safe than engineering controls.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. You can of course believe what you want, the facts are what they are.

A team of economists who specialize in health and risk behaviors looked at the link between marijuana laws and traffic deaths, and found that roadway fatalities dropped significantly in states after they legalized medical marijuana. On average, deaths dropped 8 to 11 percent in the first full year after the law went into effect, and fell 10 to 13 percent by year four. Five years out, the results grew more varied, and faded in some cases.

[mick063]

11. Yes I do believe what I want

I am very much for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use.

I also attribute traffic saftey improvement to advances in technology and engineering more than the use of marijuana.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Ok, but the study accounted for other factors like that. Nt.

[Recursion]

22. Nobody's claiming marijuana itself makes drivers more safe

However, it's possible that decriminalization through some unintended consequence does change driver behavior.

[liberal_at_heart]

25. I'm more worried about drivers texting or being sleep deprived than stoned drivers.

I do agree that anybody impaired by anything such as alcohol or prescription medicine or marijuana shouldn't be driving. I also agree with you that driving on a two lane 55 MPH highway is very dangerous. I just moved into an area where the two closest highways are two lane 55 MPH highways and it does make me very nervous. You are indeed trusting that every car that passes you is alert and obeying the driving laws. But if we think about the odds of who is going to drive into oncoming traffic and kill you it is likely to be someone who is sleepy or texting or just plain not paying attention.

[mick063]

28. So this is really a function of money

Are we willing to pay for medians to separate oncoming traffic?

It is a cost benefit analysis where human lives are weighed against construction expense. I do believe that many people could be put to work making such changes though. This added stimulus must weigh into the cost analysis. But then, there is a lot of ways people can be gainfully employed by improving society. What are we collectively willing to pay for?

Drivers can be impaired for a variety of reasons. Prescription drugs are not illegal because someone may drive under the influence. The same can be said for alcohol. For that reason, the fear of pot induced drivers carries little weight for me. Many, many people will drive impaired whether pot is legal or not. This is a personal decision based upon personal responsibility, not a government policy decision.

[99th_Monkey]

13. Wow! great find. K&R. eom

[Enrique]

14. wow surprising

hopefully this will be corroborated.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. Worried about stoned drivers? Test for impairment, not metabolites.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. exactly.

[Mnemosyne]

29. +1000 nt

[eridani]

18. People worry too damned much about THC and not enough about cannabidiols

The latter are responsibile for the analgesis effects of pot, and also for the tendency toward sleepiness. The diols are the painkillers, and they are not the only painkiller that you shouldn't be ingesting before driving. The same side effects are associated with many other painkillers.

The pot stores in WA State are not yet open, but when they are I intend to look for an indica dominant hybrid with a 2/1 diol/THC ratio. I gave up pot 40 years ago because it put me to sleep. Now I'm old enough to need a little help in that department. Needless to say, I don't intend to vaporize it before I drive or do anything else requiring alertness.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. both THC and cannabidiols cause impairment. The trick as you said is not to drive when you are

impaired, and most people don't drive when impaired. Anyone who drives while impaired from marijuana or alcohol or prescription medicine or anything that can impair your driving should go to jail. But the extremely low level they have set with I502 would land just about every medical marijuana patient in jail whether impaired or not. That's the problem.

[eridani]

31. The THC impairment is far less severe

I agree that there ought to be actual impairment tests for impairment before any testing for active components of any kind. There are all kinds of meds that have warnings against using while driving heavy equipment of any kind, and I don't think MMJ patients are any more entitled to drive if their meds impair them than anyone else is. The question here is a test for actual impairment should be3 required.

I think the reason why employers prefer drug testing to impairment testing is that the latter would show too many of their employees are unfit for work because they are not getting enough sleep.

[NightWatcher]

21. And if you do get in a wreck you're only going 5mph

The bad news being that since you didn't open the garage door first, you'll have to get a new one of those.

[Mnemosyne]

30. Seriously,

[starroute]

23. I can think of two possible mechanisms

1) Pot can encourage people to drive more slowly and be more aware of what's going on around them.

2) Booze definitely encourages people to drive faster and more aggressively -- and to underestimate the extent to which their reflexes are impaired -- and people who are getting stoned are less likely to be getting drunk.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. 3) it is possible that stoners stay home.

That might be a function of illegality, even where pot is legal for medical use, it isn't ubiquitous like booze.

But I think the bottom line reason is that it makes a person less impaired than booze and usage is mostly substitutional not complementary.

[Enthusiast]

26. I believe that's it.

Dope smokers stay home, watch TV and eat Doritos.

[bvar22]

32. Lets get the drunks and legal Pill Poppers off our roads,

and then worry about the pot smokers.

[olddots]

33. Who would you rather have coming at you in oposing traffic ?

someone drunk or someone stoned ? I would go with the pot smoker if they had only smoked pot .

[WinkyDink]

38. Why is that? Seriously; what do perceive the difference to be?

[WinkyDink]

37. Sure, "going 5 MPH" seems a lot funnier than going 90 MPH, but in RL maybe not so much.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. I think perhaps you still haven't read the article.

There is no claim that people should drive stoned. The claim is simply that one of the consequences of legalization seems to be a reduction in traffic fatalities.