4 ms·

You can distort the data all you want, or in this case, put it in an absurd context to try and prove a point, but the fact remains - the legalization of marijua

You can distort the data all you want, or in this case, put it in an absurd context to try and prove a point, but the fact remains - the legalization of marijuana is not without negative consequences. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned AAA's findings (legalization followed by a 2x increase in fatal marijuana-related crashes): http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving-marijuana-double-state-legalizes-drug/ http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving... EDIT: Link to the study [PDF]: http://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Prevalence-of-Marijuana-Involvement-Report-FINAL.pdf http://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-content/uploads/201...

rudolf0 10y ago
Driving while high should definitely be banned, but it kind of seems like they're making a big assumption here. >The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014. How are they ruling out the fact that since it's been legalized, more people in general are using marijuana?
- curiousgeorgio 10y ago
  > How are they ruling out the fact that since it's been legalized, more people in general are using marijuana? That's exactly the point. No one is trying to say that driving high has gotten more dangerous as a result of legalization - just that it's inherently dangerous (and a certain percentage of marijuana users are going to be driving either way), so legalization only contributes to more usage, leading to more irresponsible decisions on the road.
  - rudolf0 10y ago
    My point is: They're getting this data by doing drug tests of drivers in fatal car crashes after the crash has occurred. Previously, 8% of those drivers had cannabis detected. Now, 17% have it detected. What evidence is there that the increased cannabis use is causing these crashes, considering you have to control for the fact that more people in general are using cannabis, so in almost any population (drivers in fatal car crashes; fast food employees; school teachers; whatever) you could expect to see an increase in use.
    - deelowe 10y ago
      I doubt there is any. Else they would have quoted a cumulative increase in fatalities.
    - curiousgeorgio 10y ago
      Ah, I understand what you're saying now. Still, I think it'd be a stretch to assume that none of those fatalities were actually related to the marijuana use. But I agree, it doesn't necessarily imply causation, just a correlation (which as you say, could in part be coincidental).
      - deelowe 10y ago
        It's a fine assumption. We could also assume that marijuana use discourages use while under the influence due to increased paranoia. Neither have been demonstrated yet. All we know from this is that there was a increased detection of thc for people involved in fatal accidents. The reason for this seems obvious to me and I assume it correlates with general increased use among the population. I still conject that "fatal" accidents are used here to push a particular narrative. I don't see any significance in "fatal" versus cumulative accidents or DUI arrests. If the intent is to prove that there is an increased hazard on the road due to marijuana use, then they need to prove that it's use significantly increases this hazard AND that the rate of drivers under influence has increased. Those are two separate and independent studies. I'm still waiting to see those studies.
      - rudolf0 10y ago
        You're right, it probably is a stretch. But since they have not demonstrated any evidence either way, the study basically has to be disregarded.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        That's exactly what this particular study is trying to measure - whether there's a causative link. And they didn't find one (subject to the precision of their study, of course). Basically, yes, more people have higher blood levels, but this does not translate to more accidents.
  - ae_keji 10y ago
    >Also, results of this study do not indicate that drivers with detectable THC in their blood at the time of the crash we re necessarily impaired by THC or that they were at-fault for the crash; the data availabl e cannot be used to assess whether a given driver was actually impaired, and examination of fault in individual crashes was beyond the scope of this study If there was a general increase in accidents, I think you would have a point, but all this conclusively demonstrates is that there has been an increase of marijuana usage among the population of Washington. The thing about how these drug tests work, is that they do not test impairment or if someone was high at the time, but if they were high within the past few hours to days. I think you're misunderstanding, that even if there is THC in someone's bloodstream, it does not mean they are high. It is possible that none of the drivers in the study were high at the time of their crashes, and all of them smoked the day before. It is also possible that every single one was high during the collision. Due to the nature of the testing, the linked study is not very conclusive on at least what you're trying to prove from it.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > Driving while high should definitely be banned As there's no valid means of determining "while high", this is simply not a rational thing to attempt to do. Additionally, there's no data supporting that driving while high is actually a problem that needs solving, specifically that people don't know they're too high and drive anyway. You should first prove something is a problem before attempting to outlaw it.
Carrok 10y ago
The study you linked has the same error that almost all of these 'studies' have. "The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014." So they are testing the blood of deceased people, finding the presence of THC (which can remain the blood for weeks), and calling them 'marijuana-related crashes'. So quite literally by their own definition, someone could smoke some weed, a week later get drunk, go driving, crash, and now this is a 'marijuana related' crash? I don't buy it.
- curiousgeorgio 10y ago
  The study may have flaws (as all do), but it's a whole lot more conclusive than a claim such as "Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show", a statement obviously trying to imply that marijuana is somehow safe for drivers, when it's obviously not. One could compare marijuana-related accidents to any number of other dangerous activities and make it look safe in comparison. Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? This article (especially the headline) is incredibly dangerous and misleading, as it's apparently trying to get people to respond with something like "see, marijuana doesn't harm anyone," when in reality, it does.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    > The study may have flaws (as all do) This isn't "a flaw", it's a fatal flaw that invalidates the study. You're missing the point; saying marijuana-related accidents is itself an invalid statement as there is not way to quantify that correctly. You can therefore not conclude anything from marijuana-related anything other than people who want to control other people are happy to use invalid statistics to try and impose their will where it isn't welcome. > Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? Because it is not dangerous and irresponsible, that's your assumption, it is not a fact in evidence.
deelowe 10y ago
I couldn't find a link to the study. I had a few thoughts on this that weren't addressed: 1) What do they mean by "involving marijuana?" The article jumps straight to THC concentration levels in the blood, but doesn't state that this was what was measured in the (i assume) study they are referencing. "Involving marijuana" could just as easily mean that they found pot or paraphernalia in the car. In previous studies I've read, this was actually the case. 2) Why limit it to just fatal road crashes? Is it because there's no change to nonfatal crashes or perhaps that number went down implying that their assumption of marijuana's influence over driving ability is pronounced and are instead focusing on an outlier to push an agenda? 3) Did the total number of fatalities change significantly? If not, then this is a non-story. Of course there would be more instances "involving marijuana." It's legal now, so there's more people "involved" with marijuana on a day to day basis. This would be no different than saying that the rate of fatal crashes "involving" Tesla automobiles has increased since they were introduced to the market. All of this may be addressed in the study and this is just a terrible story, but I can't tell from the article.

rudolf0 10y ago

Driving while high should definitely be banned, but it kind of seems like they're making a big assumption here. >The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014. How are they ruling out the fact that since it's been legalized, more people in general are using marijuana?

curiousgeorgio 10y ago
> How are they ruling out the fact that since it's been legalized, more people in general are using marijuana? That's exactly the point. No one is trying to say that driving high has gotten more dangerous as a result of legalization - just that it's inherently dangerous (and a certain percentage of marijuana users are going to be driving either way), so legalization only contributes to more usage, leading to more irresponsible decisions on the road.
- rudolf0 10y ago
  My point is: They're getting this data by doing drug tests of drivers in fatal car crashes after the crash has occurred. Previously, 8% of those drivers had cannabis detected. Now, 17% have it detected. What evidence is there that the increased cannabis use is causing these crashes, considering you have to control for the fact that more people in general are using cannabis, so in almost any population (drivers in fatal car crashes; fast food employees; school teachers; whatever) you could expect to see an increase in use.
  - deelowe 10y ago
    I doubt there is any. Else they would have quoted a cumulative increase in fatalities.
  - curiousgeorgio 10y ago
    Ah, I understand what you're saying now. Still, I think it'd be a stretch to assume that none of those fatalities were actually related to the marijuana use. But I agree, it doesn't necessarily imply causation, just a correlation (which as you say, could in part be coincidental).
    - deelowe 10y ago
      It's a fine assumption. We could also assume that marijuana use discourages use while under the influence due to increased paranoia. Neither have been demonstrated yet. All we know from this is that there was a increased detection of thc for people involved in fatal accidents. The reason for this seems obvious to me and I assume it correlates with general increased use among the population. I still conject that "fatal" accidents are used here to push a particular narrative. I don't see any significance in "fatal" versus cumulative accidents or DUI arrests. If the intent is to prove that there is an increased hazard on the road due to marijuana use, then they need to prove that it's use significantly increases this hazard AND that the rate of drivers under influence has increased. Those are two separate and independent studies. I'm still waiting to see those studies.
    - rudolf0 10y ago
      You're right, it probably is a stretch. But since they have not demonstrated any evidence either way, the study basically has to be disregarded.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      That's exactly what this particular study is trying to measure - whether there's a causative link. And they didn't find one (subject to the precision of their study, of course). Basically, yes, more people have higher blood levels, but this does not translate to more accidents.
- ae_keji 10y ago
  >Also, results of this study do not indicate that drivers with detectable THC in their blood at the time of the crash we re necessarily impaired by THC or that they were at-fault for the crash; the data availabl e cannot be used to assess whether a given driver was actually impaired, and examination of fault in individual crashes was beyond the scope of this study If there was a general increase in accidents, I think you would have a point, but all this conclusively demonstrates is that there has been an increase of marijuana usage among the population of Washington. The thing about how these drug tests work, is that they do not test impairment or if someone was high at the time, but if they were high within the past few hours to days. I think you're misunderstanding, that even if there is THC in someone's bloodstream, it does not mean they are high. It is possible that none of the drivers in the study were high at the time of their crashes, and all of them smoked the day before. It is also possible that every single one was high during the collision. Due to the nature of the testing, the linked study is not very conclusive on at least what you're trying to prove from it.
gnaritas 10y ago
> Driving while high should definitely be banned As there's no valid means of determining "while high", this is simply not a rational thing to attempt to do. Additionally, there's no data supporting that driving while high is actually a problem that needs solving, specifically that people don't know they're too high and drive anyway. You should first prove something is a problem before attempting to outlaw it.

Carrok 10y ago

The study you linked has the same error that almost all of these 'studies' have. "The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014." So they are testing the blood of deceased people, finding the presence of THC (which can remain the blood for weeks), and calling them 'marijuana-related crashes'. So quite literally by their own definition, someone could smoke some weed, a week later get drunk, go driving, crash, and now this is a 'marijuana related' crash? I don't buy it.

curiousgeorgio 10y ago
The study may have flaws (as all do), but it's a whole lot more conclusive than a claim such as "Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show", a statement obviously trying to imply that marijuana is somehow safe for drivers, when it's obviously not. One could compare marijuana-related accidents to any number of other dangerous activities and make it look safe in comparison. Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? This article (especially the headline) is incredibly dangerous and misleading, as it's apparently trying to get people to respond with something like "see, marijuana doesn't harm anyone," when in reality, it does.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > The study may have flaws (as all do) This isn't "a flaw", it's a fatal flaw that invalidates the study. You're missing the point; saying marijuana-related accidents is itself an invalid statement as there is not way to quantify that correctly. You can therefore not conclude anything from marijuana-related anything other than people who want to control other people are happy to use invalid statistics to try and impose their will where it isn't welcome. > Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? Because it is not dangerous and irresponsible, that's your assumption, it is not a fact in evidence.

deelowe 10y ago

I couldn't find a link to the study. I had a few thoughts on this that weren't addressed: 1) What do they mean by "involving marijuana?" The article jumps straight to THC concentration levels in the blood, but doesn't state that this was what was measured in the (i assume) study they are referencing. "Involving marijuana" could just as easily mean that they found pot or paraphernalia in the car. In previous studies I've read, this was actually the case. 2) Why limit it to just fatal road crashes? Is it because there's no change to nonfatal crashes or perhaps that number went down implying that their assumption of marijuana's influence over driving ability is pronounced and are instead focusing on an outlier to push an agenda? 3) Did the total number of fatalities change significantly? If not, then this is a non-story. Of course there would be more instances "involving marijuana." It's legal now, so there's more people "involved" with marijuana on a day to day basis. This would be no different than saying that the rate of fatal crashes "involving" Tesla automobiles has increased since they were introduced to the market. All of this may be addressed in the study and this is just a terrible story, but I can't tell from the article.