Legalizing Marijuana Reduces Traffic Fatalities

[RainDog]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/29/study-legalizing-medical-marijuana-reduces-traffic-fatalities/

From a study by the Institute for the Study of Labor

Opponents of medical marijuana often focus on the social detriment to making America’s most valuable cash crop available to those approved by doctors, arguing that medical marijuana legalization makes it easier for teens to buy pot and that they’ll soon move to more dangerous drugs. They also suggest that legalization would increase the number of vehicle accidents — and that very argument was one of the main reasons why California voters did not approve full legalization in 2010.

Studying data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, researchers also found that legalizing medical marijuana did, in fact, drive up usage among adults. But contrary to medical marijuana critics’ claims, they were unable to find evidence of it growing the number of minors on the drug.

A further analysis of data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, spanning from 1990 to 2009, revealed that states which legalized medical marijuana saw a decline in alcohol consumption. A decline in traffic fatalities was a direct side effect of that.

Traffic fatalities are the leading cause of death for Americans age 35 and under.

It seems the real problem with legalizing marijuana is that it would negatively impact the alcohol industry and reduce traffic fatalities. OH NOES!1!! think about the children!

[NightWatcher]

1. But if you do smoke and drive, you're only going 5mph. Tada no fatalities

[RainDog]

2. increased usage by adults. no increase found among teens

fewer traffic accidents. fewer people getting aggressive from drinking alcohol because fewer people drinking alcohol...

grrrr. what a menace to society!

not to mention those folks driving 5mph.

[dionysus]

3. pretty much. while if a stoned guy might not have the snap reflexes to avoid, say, someone swerving

out in front of him unexpectedly, or someone dashing into the street, most stoned drivers actually focus on driving safely, unlike some drunks who are like "GET ER DONE!111!" and drive super fast and cause deadly accidents.
i disagree with folks who say driving stoned in no way impacts their driving, but the dangerousness of doing so is a tiny fraction of the risk in driving drunk.

[RainDog]

4. Sen. Barbara Boxer (2010) Legalization would lead to increase in crime, traffic accidents

...and other things the law enforcement community said that weren't true.

(link from the article, above)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/04/05/boxer-legalizing-pot-increase-crime-car-accidents/

California Sen. Barbara Boxer has a message for marijuana law reform activists: Just say no.

The liberal senator’s position might come as a surprise, but it’s no surprise to those who follow California politics: Boxer is facing perhaps the toughest reelection race of her career in 2010. She’s neck-and-neck with former GOP Rep. Tom Campbell and slightly ahead of former Hewlett Packard chief Carly Fiorina.

“Senator Boxer does not support this initiative because she shares the concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials that this measure could lead to an increase in crime, vehicle accidents and higher costs for local law enforcement agencies,” (campaign manager) Kapolczynski said. “She supports current law in California, which allows for the use of medicinal marijuana with a doctor’s prescription.”

This is an example of a politician not willing to make herself a target in a tough campaign.

[Exultant Democracy]

5. If the politics around this weren't so toxic this would have some interesting policy implications

but of course we live in Drug War Inc U.S.A.

[RainDog]

7. how so?

'splain yourself. :)

...about the policy implications.

I do agree the politics are the most toxic thing about cannabis. It's like some bizarre fetish.

[Exultant Democracy]

53. First that 9 percent drop in traffic fatalities if it was nation wide that would bigger then 9/11

in the number of lives it would save.

Everything else has to be looked at from that light.

The other interesting thing to notice is that alcohol and pot work as substitutes, so that suggest that as a society our market demand for drugs is relatively stable but we can influence the drugs people choose to be on.

Now these numbers are only for medical marijuana, I suspect that with full legalization that the 9% number would even get larger but that brings us to the next question, what about people who drive high?

The obvious answer is that if we legalize it we should come up with some test to see if people are under the influence of marijuana while they are driving, similar to those we use for drunk driving. This is a totally rational viewpoint up until we get number like this with such dramatic life savings.

If saving lives and public safety was the number one concern, and we take a societal minimum threshold of people "on drugs" as a given it then this booze pot exchange presents us with a unique opportunity. We can see from medical marijuana that the law can change the incentives that make people choose one drug over the other, the question is how many lives would be saved each year if people knew it was legal to drive high? Crazy I know, but 9% drop in fatalities as a minimum it pretty crazy too.

[RainDog]

61. Thanks for the reply!

I think the issue concerning decreased rates of alcohol use admits that, at least in places like Cali and Montana, people find it easy to obtain a mmj card and some of the usage that would be viewed as recreational is under the umbrella of medical.

In Australia, iirc, police use a saliva test to indicate with much greater accuracy if someone is driving under the influence of marijuana. I think the window for the saliva test is 2 hours, which is also the window for what would be considered intoxication. In studies that indicated some impairment of driving performance under the influence of marijuana, the impairment window was also 2 hours, except for one outlier study that noted a 4 hour window.

This saliva test would avoid the problem of checking for metabolites, which are no indication of impairment.

But what's also interesting in the study is the finding that people with more experience driving under the influence of cannabis do not exhibit levels of impairment in performance that people who are not "seasoned" users do - and the sorts of driving issues for those who are under the influence of cannabis are different than those who are intoxicated by alcohol. Alcohol results in poorer judgement of rate of speed, reaction time, and riskier/sudden driving actions. Under the influence of cannabis, drivers slow down, increase their distance between cars and avoid risky or sudden driving actions.

One thing about this issue, too, is levels of potency and the differences this would have upon the idea of what constitutes a problem. Someone who is using cannabis as a medicine, in a legal situation, may opt for something less psychotropic. Sativex, the legal whole cannabis medicine developed and prescribed in the UK (and legal in Canada, Israel and Germany) is a 50/50 mix of THC and CBD. It's the ratio of these two (so far, since the full complex of cannabinoids is yet unknown) that determines how "high" someone feels from cannabis. The greater the percentage of THC to CBD, the more psychotropic the cannabis experience will be.

iow, someone who is using Sativex as a medicine would test for cannabis intoxication but would not, most likely, be high at all.

CBD acts as the "anti-THC" and moderates the effects. Interestingly, while high THC levels are of concern regarding use for those at risk of schizo-affective disorders, CBD is now under study as an anti-schizo medication.

so, it's complicated. however, first and foremost, demonstrating impairment is the issue - how someone drives, not whether they would test as positive if they were randomly stopped and tested, is the issue. Considering the invasive thrust of our current political climate, falsely assuming someone is impaired would also be a problem.

I don't know if you know of the book, but there's an interesting one out there called "Marijuana is Safer." It talks about the various ways in which marijuana is a safer intoxicant than alcohol for a variety of reasons (they could now add this study...)

So, yes, if the issue is public health, marijuana is a safer alternative to alcohol in many ways. It has also been used by vets to wean them off of opiods taken for PTSD and physical problems resulting from war injuries. Some alcoholics have used marijuana to wean them off alcohol, as well - this is something that would be very useful to study. Beyond marijuana, other drugs that are considered outside the realm of a current legal status have been used for alcoholism and PTSD, etc. as well - psychedlics. This is controversial only because our culture has labeled those things are part of the counter culture and opposing them has become a shorthand for claiming to stand for traditional values. Prejudices are hard to overcome when it's to your benefit to hold them. The damage to society from alcoholism, however, should give politicians pause in their knee-jerk rejection of such potentially helpful medical applications. Cannabis and psychedelics are all Schedule I, with no medical value and great potential for abuse, according to the DEA. This is simply a lie.

btw, the beer industry gave money to defeat proposition 19 in CA in 2010. They know legalization would hurt their sales. btw, did you also know that the alcoholic beverage industry was an early big supporter in the "War on Drugs" and lobbied to have alcohol excluded from this propaganda campaign? True. I'm sure their donations and their concern were purely in the public interest. lol.

[RainDog]

62. to add - one of the best ways to avoid driving under the influence

is better public transit and campaigns to motivate people to use public transit - and to make people feel safe using the same throughout the day. This nation isn't really set up for that sort of thing, tho, outside of urban areas.

[usregimechange]

6. The study does not support that conclusion

It found that states that have medicalized have seen a decline in accidents, that doesn't mean that medical cannabis was the cause.

[RainDog]

8. it said cannabis resulted in a decrease in alcohol use

and the decrease in alcohol use led to a reduction in car accidents.

[usregimechange]

13. Better compared to horrible (alcohol) might not be an accurate frame of reference

[RainDog]

15. Traffic fatalities fall by 9% (9%!!!) with MMJ laws

how is that not good?

The majority of decline in use of alcohol is among those 20-29 years old - so, fewer young adults are dying... how is that not good?

Use of alcohol is associated with a host of other issues, as well, and marijuana is safer than alcohol in a variety of ways - so how is this not good?

if you simply don't want people to use any sort of intoxicant - well, yes, use of cannabis is better than use of alcohol. but it's also GOOD because cannabis is far more benign. I have no problem with people wanting to use something to alter their consciousness. we do it all the time with caffeine, sugar, chocolate... that's simply reality. if their choice of intoxicant is non-toxic - THAT'S A GOOD THING.

[usregimechange]

18. The study did not indicate that cannabis by itself resulted in less alcohol use or fatalities

Are we reading about the same study?

[RainDog]

21. Then what did the study indicate?

because, yes, I read the study and quoted it here.

The study is title "Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities and Alcohol Use" - so what are they talking about here?

[usregimechange]

24. "we find that traffic fatalities fall by nearly 9 percent after the legalization of medical mar..."

It does not say that marijuana makes driving safe. It indicates that compared to alcohol use, cannabis use is more safe.

[RainDog]

27. lol. no one claimed the study said marijuana makes driving safe

I've had enough of this b.s.

[usregimechange]

30. Given that that has been my point if no one is saying it I am not sure why you are objecting

But we may have been talking past each other. And thanks to our disagreement we may both know more about this than we did previously.

[EOTE]

64. You said that the study doesn't support what is mentioned in the OP.

That is entirely untrue. The study says that legalizing marijuana causes a drop in traffic fatalities, not that marijuana makes one a better driver. You should read the study before trying to make comments about what it does or does not say.

[RainDog]

67. there's also a comment here

talking about detecting level of THC in the bloodstream, which had absolutely nothing to do with the study either. it's hard to understand what others are reading sometimes...

[usregimechange]

19. Medical marijuana laws did that all by themselves? And you have evidence of this right?

[RainDog]

22. Read the study n/t

[usregimechange]

25. I think you could and all of it including this quote that makes my point for me:

"If marijuana consumption typically takes place at home, then designating a
driver for the trip back from a restaurant or bar becomes unnecessary, and legalization could
reduce traffic fatalities even if driving under the influence of marijuana is every bit as dangerous
as driving under the influence of alcohol."

[usregimechange]

28. "does not necessarily imply that driving under the influence of marijuana is safer than driving"

...under the influence of marijuana is safer than driving under the influence of alcohol."

[RainDog]

29. butbut they didn't find that driving under the influence of marijuana is as dangerous

they noted that marijuana users adjust their driving to compensate. they noted studies that indicated impairment in a laboratory setting but those studies did not translate to every bit as dangerous.

to say "IF" driving under the influence means it is as dangerous is simply not true.

[usregimechange]

31. Agreed.

[Tsiyu]

38. I would say that fewer alcohol-fueled drivers IS safer

you want to parse words. You want to make a game out of this.

I consider people like you the reason America is backwards and inane.

Keep playing games. Most sane people would welcome fewer drunk drivers on the roads, and most understand the implications of the study.

Pure cause and effect: Fewer people drinking BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO MMJ (caps in case you can't get the CAUSE). Fewer people driving drunk. Safer roads.

That's just so HARD to get, eh?



:crazy:

[usregimechange]

41. I think they would be more safe but only because cannabis use reduces alcohol use

[Tsiyu]

43. So the OP title is correct

Legalizing Cannabis makes the roads safer.

Thanks for clarifying that.

[RainDog]

45. LOL.

this is a strange conversation.

[Tsiyu]

47. The same one we've been having for decades, huh?

Circular talk that leads to the same conclusions; maybe because if you say "Cannabis" or "Marijuana" some people just HAVE to argue? Maybe they watched too many of those old propaganda films financed by the anti-hemp corporations in the 1930-40s?



Dunno, but I K&R this thread. :fistbump:

[RainDog]

48. cognitive dissonance

our govt has been lying to us for 70 years, using racism and fear to target minorities and to suppress votes from liberals - and yet cannabis remains the danger. it's not safe because it's cannabis.

thanks for the kind words.

[Tsiyu]

54. Thank YOU for staying on top of this issue

The reason I have a cannabis leaf as avatar is to "normalize" the image. It's a plant. It does good things. People need to get over their terror and irrational fear about this herb.

I'm too poor to have any, myself lol.

I did find out this week that my friend undergoing chemo can legally get some sent to his Doctor here in TN. Cost: 1 oz = $400.

I did not know this was a possibility, but his chemo doctor says it is :shrug:

It's not covered by insurance, and comes from California. I wonder how cheap it would be if the Tennesseans could grow it legally.

[RainDog]

57. good to hear for your friend

I would be interested in finding out how this is possible in TN as well. If your friend is ever in the mood to ask the doc, that would be something interesting to know - b/c I just looked at the law for TN and paraphenalia is even subject to a 1 year prison sentence - and/or a $2500.00 fine.

but it's good to know that doctors are somehow able to provide compassionate care for cancer patients, even in states with regressive laws.

cannabis laws in the U.S. are indicative of a national failure of policy, our govt in general and the lack of concern for the rights of citizens when someone's profit may be at stake.

[Tsiyu]

59. I'm wondering if it's part of a study

Because it's a teaching hospital, perhaps the state is allowing them to do a study on efficacy? Another friend said he knew someone else who was getting MMJ through his physician here. Of course, Marinol - a Pharma product - is available to them as well. Funny how THC in a pill is okay, THC in a plant form is verboten.

Big Pharma makes drug policy today, rather than physicians. But politicians and corporations should not decide what is best for patients.

Your last sentence says it all....

[RainDog]

60. so two different people...

again, it would be great to find out how this is happening.

I mean, it only makes sense to me to allow doctors to help patients in this way, but we both know what doesn't really matter to drug warriors.

my stepmother had marinol when she was undergoing chemo for ovarian cancer (in Nashville.) She didn't like it. We were able to keep her supplied with morphine, tho only one pharmacist in the area back then supplied it. wish I'd known then what I know now about cannabis because I would've tried to help her. she wasted away to nothing.

[Tsiyu]

63. Whenever my friend stops using cannabis

he gets worse, can't eat, sleep, etc.

I can see the change every time. They gave him lortabs and valium and he became a zombie. Now he's back using cannabis and he's like his old self.

The pills are addictive and damaging and perfectly legal, though.

[RainDog]

16. in other words, you have no argument here?

other than your personal issue that you don't want people to enjoy something you don't?

[usregimechange]

20. I love how during a debate people start describing my beliefs for me

What else do I believe?

[RainDog]

23. well, you deleted your response about claiming that better is not good

I guess, you know, language might indicate someone's belief.

[usregimechange]

26. What it does indicate is that you are making a lot of assumptions here

My point is that the conclusion that cannabis is safe because it is safer than alcohol is ridiculous.

[RainDog]

32. your point has no point

however - if you'd like to indicate how cannabis is not safe, please feel free to have a go at it.

what is safe? is it safe to drive under any condition? is it safe to leave your house?

your argument is without merit in realityville - because we ALWAYS look at cost/benefit in regard to laws and we look at risk assessment in our personal lives - there is NOTHING in this world that is "safe."

the issue is about laws that prohibit one thing yet allow another, which is, demonstrably, across a range of issues, more dangerous. Aspirin is more dangerous. Aspirin is not safe because there is a risk of fatality from overdose. Do you think we should, therefore, prohibit aspirin?

you have no argument.

[usregimechange]

34. If you would stop distorting what I haven't said and arguing with that it may make more sense

[RainDog]

35. "My point is that the conclusion that cannabis is safe because it is safer than alcohol is ridiculo"

your words. what does this statement mean?

let me step back and apologize for my frustration - and ask how would you interpret that statement. what do you mean by this claim?

[usregimechange]

40. More safe does not equal safe, it is more safe to be assaulted than murdered for example

[RainDog]

44. The leading pharmacologist in the UK, Roger Pertwee, said marijuana is safe

Pertwee issued a statement this year that stated marijuana is safe for the general population and, for this reason, he recommended legalization.

He said there is a subset of the population that is already at risk of schizo-affective disorders and, for that small group, marijuana use may contribute to earlier onset of mental illness - but not that it created the mental illness.

Your analogy doesn't hold because cannabis is not considered a harmful substance by those who have studied it for decades - those who have made it their life's work to look at the effects of cannabis.

So, again, what is the purpose of your statement?

How is cannabis not safe if aspirin is considered "safe" for people to use, even with the threat of overdose? How is cannabis not safe when there is not one single death ever attributed to overdose - because it is, in fact, physically impossible to do?

Cannabis is safe for the general adult population to use based upon any metric you would apply for any sort of drug - and is, in fact, safer than most every other one of them.

So, how is cannabis not safe?

[EOTE]

66. And where did you read this conclusion, oh wise one?

Christ, if you need to make up stuff to support your argument, you have no argument to begin with.

[RainDog]

69. I would still like to hear evidence that marijuana is unsafe

not for driving, but for use in general by adults.

it seems to me that by any standard we set in society for things that are safe to use as medication or as an intoxicant, marijuana is, in fact, safe.

[EOTE]

71. I don't believe that marijuana is unsafe, but that's not the focus of the article anyway.

It's so damned frustrating that it's impossible to have a cogent argument with the prohibitioners. Either they're making up information to support their own arguments or they're fighting against things that no one makes claim to. Honesty is one of the huge casualties of the drug war.

[RainDog]

72. true. 70 years of govt propaganda are not easily gotten rid of

however, the internet has been a great tool to use against govt propaganda of all sorts, no matter what country.

[RainDog]

10. The Beer Institute found that sales decline with MMJ laws

and the study cites evidence that shows a direct relationship b/t alcohol consumption and increased risk of collision.

the study also notes other studies indicating some impairment for those driving under the influence of cannabis (which have been noted here) but no related increase in accidents because those under the influence of cannabis compensate by slowing down, increasing distance between cars, and avoiding risky driving behavior.

[duhneece]

9. I would love to see more peer-reviewed, good research

On the impact of cannabis in so many areas of life.

[RainDog]

12. me too

I would also like to see the evidence that lawmakers get at this time that allows them to continue to support prohibition.

the one time I saw a DEA agent, on video, debating this topic, his resources seemed to be sort of self-referential.. the govt, that doesn't support legalization does a report that supports their desire not to legalize...

[sarcasmo]

11. #1 cash crop in America, legalize it and tax it,.

[Taverner]

14. The absolute LAST thing a stoner wants to do when high is drive

Seriously, even the most seasoned stoner would rather sleep in his or her car...

[RainDog]

17. the study also indicated that experience creates better drivers

i.e. people who don't have experience with marijuana who drive under the influence are worse drivers than those who have experience. we've had people on DU argue this exact experience - but it's always based upon their personal reports, not data.

it seems this study confirms their anecdotal reports.

...something I thought was interesting.

but, yeah, better not to drive if possible. driving too slowly can also be a problem in traffic.

[Taverner]

33. That happens with drunken drivers too...

Not necessarily a good thing

I'm all for stoners (like me) staying home instead of driving

[RainDog]

36. me too

and you can even watch porn. LOL. :)

[Taverner]

37. Porn makes everyone happy :)

[RainDog]

39. ummmm. don't wanna get into that argument...

there are already so many threads for that one. :)

[Taverner]

52. Can we call it pr0N?

[RainDog]

58. I usually avoid talking about much at it. call it what you like

the only pr0n movie I ever liked was Boogie Nights.

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. That very headline is IMPOSSIBLE to prove.

Marijuana isn't "LEGAL" anywhere in the United States.

It's a reach, connected to a leap of faith, wrapped up in a fallacy.

[RainDog]

46. Medical Marijuana is Legal in 16 states and D.C. by state law

so, in those states, citizens have voted, or their legislatures have chosen to make medical marijuana legal at the state level.

your claim is without merit - to say the study has nothing to say because the feds prefer to keep their heads up their asses on this subject has no bearing on the study, done in states that have created legal medical marijuana.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. "LEGALIZING Marijuana REDUCES traffic fatalities."

Um... since when have the votes of citizens been used to make statistics such as the one claimed in the OP's subject line?

It's bullshit on its premise. Legal medical marijuana... The subject line in the OP neglected to mention that.

It's also an attempt to prove a negative.

The first time I got stoned, I was 16. The last time I got stoned I was 50 years, 5 months, and oh, about 10 days. About two weeks ago. I'm still alive, though I can't be counted in the statistic the OP claims though.

[RainDog]

50. this is a study looking at marijuana usage, alcohol usage and traffic fatalities

It also referenced other studies that dealt with issues related to usage of both alcohol and cannabis and driving.

You're not the focus of the study. It's not just about you.

[RainDog]

51. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2400488&mesg_id=2400727

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. Studies have shown that leaving a bar before last call lowers insurance claims.

Since there is no definitive/quantitative test for THC in the blood at a particular moment, ALL of this is bullshit.

Again, I say this as a 32 year pothead.

[RainDog]

56. that's not what the study tried to do

why don't you read it before you try to debunk it?

just a thought.

[Uncle Joe]

65. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, RainDog.

[Dreamer Tatum]

68. Counterfactuals need to be proven, not merely stated. nt

[RainDog]

70. fact: cannabis is legal in 16 states and DC

counterfactual: cannabis is not legal in the U.S.

State law counts as law.

[Wilms]

73. Not particularly counter-intuitive. Now is it? n/t

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RainDog]

75. thanks for the kick anyway, eh. n/t