3 ms·
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. Bu
by 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 agoIt'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 agoYou'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 agoThat'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.