- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
In a first, drug use eclipses alcohol in fatal crashes
Posted on 4/26/17 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 1:48 pm
quote:Sauce: Denver Post
For the first time, statistics show that drivers killed in crashes are more likely to be on drugs than drunk.
Forty-three percent of drivers tested in fatal crashes in 2015 had used a legal or illegal drug, eclipsing the 37 percent who tested above the legal limit for alcohol, according to a report released Wednesday by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility.
Of the drivers who tested positive for drugs, more than a third had used marijuana and more than 9 percent had taken amphetamines.
“As drunken driving has declined, drugged driving has increased dramatically, and many of today’s impaired drivers are combining two or more substances,” said Ralph S. Blackman, president of the foundation, a nonprofit founded and funded by a group of distillers.
The report is narrowly focused on fatal crashes. It shows that among fatally injured drivers with known test results, 2015 was the first time that drug use was more prevalent than alcohol use.
Beyond that, however, it draws on other studies and statistics that create a complicated portrait of legal and illegal drug use nationwide. Every state bans driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The number of drivers who tested positive for drugs after dying in a crash rose from almost 28 percent in 2005 to 43 percent in 2015, the latest year for which data is available.
Though the dates when each state passed a law vary, that period coincided with more-permissive laws covering the use of marijuana.
Medical use of the drug is now allowed in 29 states and the District of Columbia; 17 states permit its use in some medical circumstances; use has been decriminalized in 21 states; and recreational use is allowed in eight states and the District.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has promised to reinvigorate the war on drugs, reversing an Obama administration policy that reduced prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
Although the liberalization of marijuana laws and increase in drug-use fatalities might lead to an easy conclusion, the report cites European studies that found marijuana use slightly increased the risk of a crash, while opioids, amphetamines and mixing alcohol with drugs greatly increased the risk of a crash.
Counterbalancing that assessment of crash risk is this stark statistic: In Colorado, marijuana-related traffic deaths increased by 48 percent after the state legalized recreational use of the drug.
“Drugged driving is a complicated issue,” said Jim Hedlund, a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration official who wrote the GHSA report. “The more we can synthesize the latest research and share what’s going on around the country to address drug-impaired driving, the better positioned states will be to prevent it.”
Unlike the blood alcohol standard of 0.08, which often can be established at the scene of a crash, testing for drug use is more complex, usually requiring a blood test, and the effect of drug use can vary substantially among users.
Surveys of regular marijuana users in Colorado and Washington state, which also has legalized recreational use, found that almost none of them thought marijuana use impaired their driving, while they believed drinking alcohol did.
The challenge to police in attempting to enforce laws against drug-using drivers is compounded because many officers lack training to identify those under the influence of drugs, and delays in testing may allow the drug to metabolize so the results do not accurately measure the concentration in the driver’s system at the time of the incident.
“As states across the country continue to struggle with drug-impaired driving, it’s critical that we help them understand the current landscape and provide examples of best practices so they can craft the most effective countermeasures,” said Jonathan Adkins, executive director of GHSA.
Being a Colorado resident, I was/am very intrigued by the fallout of legalizing marijuana here a few years ago. It may be relatively safe to use but people still need to stay off the roads while they are under the influence of it and better (and more immediate) testing needs to be available for the police.
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 1:52 pm to FooManChoo
"tested positive for drugs" does NOT equal "caused by" or "driving under the influence"
Posted on 4/26/17 at 1:53 pm to FooManChoo
Isn't it hard to say when they smoked pot? They could have smoked in the morning and be ok in the afternoon to drive and get in a wreck and it's still in their system. So how are they going to tell how impaired they are at the time of the crash?
Posted on 4/26/17 at 1:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Counterbalancing that assessment of crash risk is this stark statistic: In Colorado, marijuana-related traffic deaths increased by 48 percent after the state legalized recreational use of the drug.
This is so misleading, it must be deliberate. "Marijuana-related" essentially means "tested positive for marijuana" and says little to nothing about the actual impairment due to marijuana at the time of the accident.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 1:54 pm to FooManChoo
Alcohol lobby doing work.
Sessions will be trumpeting these findings as an excuse to escalate his war on pot.
Sessions will be trumpeting these findings as an excuse to escalate his war on pot.
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 1:54 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
"tested positive for drugs" does NOT equal "caused by" or "driving under the influence"
Yup - especially if they use hair testing for fatal accidents, etc.
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 1:58 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:That's always been my counter point to legalization. It's easy to tell when someone is drunk because of the BAC, but how do you tell when someone is impaired from marijuana if it impacts people differently and in varying amounts? If we had a reliable way to tell when someone was actually impaired in their driving due to marijuana use, I'd be more accepting of its usage.
Isn't it hard to say when they smoked pot? They could have smoked in the morning and be ok in the afternoon to drive and get in a wreck and it's still in their system. So how are they going to tell how impaired they are at the time of the crash?
Posted on 4/26/17 at 1:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:AKA anyone involved in the accident used marijuana in the last month
marijuana-related traffic deaths
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:04 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
That's always been my counter point to legalization. It's easy to tell when someone is drunk because of the BAC, but how do you tell when someone is impaired from marijuana if it impacts people differently and in varying amounts? If we had a reliable way to tell when someone was actually impaired in their driving due to marijuana use, I'd be more accepting of its usage.
I'd prefer a standard of "you are RESPONSIBLE for what you do (no matter 'why'). If a person is driving erratically....ticket them. If they cannot pass a "sobriety test" - take them off the street. If you crash and kill someone - hold them accountable whether sober or drunk.
Any "DUI" is basically a "sobriety issue" I don't care if you are impaired via alcohol, MJ, legal painkillers, or huffing.....if you are behind a wheel, do not be impaired.
And, AFTER a crash occurs, I really don't care WHY you were unable to avoid it. Be held accountable for the damage / death.
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:04 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
This is so misleading, it must be deliberate. "Marijuana-related" essentially means "tested positive for marijuana" and says little to nothing about the actual impairment due to marijuana at the time of the accident.
what is doubly misleading is this study labeled it a marijuana related death if they tested for marijuana and alcohol!
this study was been tossed around a lot by those who want weed to be ilelgal, and its fricking crap.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:06 pm to FooManChoo
It's funny to me how everyone is jumping on the legalize bandwagon without looking at the long term repercussions. Nobody thought about what we should do to keep cheech and chong from running over a bus full of children. You can't prove intoxication because there isn't a relevant level that can be drawn. You can't administer field sobriety tests post-mortem. So, you just buckle up real tight and close your eyes when you drive your family by taco bell at 11 on a Saturday night.
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:08 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
"tested positive for drugs" does NOT equal "caused by" or "driving under the influence"
Totes agree. but I'm surprised the number isn't BEYOND 100% more wrecks caused by it. I'm surprised it wasn't like a 300% increase for example.
Anyone that's been high a few times can handle it... but some people can't. and noobs can't.
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:12 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
"tested positive for drugs" does NOT equal "caused by" or "driving under the influence"
Exactly. That is part of the problem. ETOH is the only drug that is not stored in fat cells and metabolizes quickly enough to get results that would be suggestive of intoxication versus recent use. Plus, some drugs have lingering effects that persist beyond the time when person actually feels intoxicated.
THC in particular is highly fat soluble and remains in fat cells for weeks, especially in chronic users. Because the brain is almost entirely fat and water, a lot of THC deposits in brain tissue which can slow impulse transmission and interfere with complex neurotransmitter activity long after the user "feels high."
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:13 pm to FooManChoo
breaking news: alcohol is a drug
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:18 pm to m2pro
quote:
Anyone that's been high a few times can handle it... but some people can't. and noobs can't.
It's not about "handling it." It's about don't fricking drive and put other peoples' lives in more danger if you insist on getting high. Even the most experienced user (seems bizarre to use that terminology) is not going to perform as well as he/she would if he/she were not high. Users often report performing as well if not better on complex tasks when high when tests clearly show that they do not.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:21 pm to LSU Patrick
quote:
a lot of THC deposits in brain tissue which can slow impulse transmission and interfere with complex neurotransmitter activity long after the user "feels high."
Got a link for this?
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:22 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:The issue is that the free market has no incentive to create a more reliable and accurate test to determine the impairment at the time of a crash since it was illegal anyways.
Isn't it hard to say when they smoked pot? They could have smoked in the morning and be ok in the afternoon to drive and get in a wreck and it's still in their system. So how are they going to tell how impaired they are at the time of the crash?
So when the government causes this limitation, and then used it as evidence for the continued ban, they create a dishonest self-fulfilling prophecy.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:24 pm to LSU Patrick
quote:
Even the most experienced user (seems bizarre to use that terminology) is not going to perform as well as he/she would if he/she were not high. Users often report performing as well if not better on complex tasks when high when tests clearly show that they do not.
Exactly.... It's called tolerance. Just because you don't "feel" it doesn't mean you aren't impaired.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The number of drivers who tested positive for drugs after dying in a crash rose from almost 28 percent in 2005 to 43 percent in 2015, the latest year for which data is available.
This is a misleading statistic. Drunk driving deaths have been decreasing nationwide, increasing the percentage of drug deaths in proportion, though not necessarily increasing the number of drug related fatal crashes.
My guess is that opioids are far more dangerous than MJ is.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 2:29 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
Got a link for this?
It's pretty basic psychopharmacology stuff. Just pick up an intro text book or google a decent source, and you can find it. I learned about it many years ago, so I don't need a link.
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 2:31 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News