Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled (Harmless????)
seattle.cbslocal.com ^

Posted on 02/07/2014 3:47:32 AM PST by Red in Blue PA

Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana,” Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia, and co-author of the study told HealthDay News.

The researchers found that drugs played an increasing role in fatal traffic accidents. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, which is 16 percent more than it was in 1999.

The researchers also found that marijuana was the main drug involved in the increase. It contributed to 12 percent of fatal crashes, compared to only 4 percent in 1999

If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol,” Li said. But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person.

(Excerpt) Read more at seattle.cbslocal.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: again; letsdoprohibition; marijuana; nodrinknosmoke

1 posted on 02/07/2014 3:47:32 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Or, marijuana is not involved in 88% of fatal dui crashes. Feel better now?

And this little tidbit:

“But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person.”

“This study shows an alarming increase in driving under the influence of drugs, and, in particular, it shows an increase in driving under the influence of both alcohol and drugs,”

Sounds to me that they tested for the presence of marijuana, and even if the driver was high on booze and pot, put it down as a marijuana-related death.


2 posted on 02/07/2014 3:53:48 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Individual rights without individual responsibility.


3 posted on 02/07/2014 3:55:54 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Li added that police do not have a test as accurate as the Breathalyzer to check a driver’s marijuana intoxication level.

The problem with this study is that cannabinols can be detected in the blood up to 30 days after use. The study is more alarmist than anything else....

4 posted on 02/07/2014 3:56:37 AM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Let’s ban alcohol too, by the same “reasoning”.

/s


5 posted on 02/07/2014 3:57:23 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

scuse me while I kiss the sky. . .


6 posted on 02/07/2014 3:59:39 AM PST by DeaconRed (I hate BO. I am not a racist I hate Biden too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

The point is that we are always told it is harmless by the MSM and even the govt. It is not harmless.


7 posted on 02/07/2014 4:02:12 AM PST by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

I’m sure weed doesn’t slow down your reaction time or cause you to not pay attention. Oh wait, it does.


8 posted on 02/07/2014 4:04:38 AM PST by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Statistics for Dummies: note the word "involved" - in a multiple car accident it means all regardless of who caused the accident. The next line has "Drugged driving" suggesting that the one causing the accident was "drugged" while it may be the one not drugged caused the crash. Yet the accident involved a "drugged person". Clever.

Further, pot is fat-soluble and is detectable in the blood for months when using mass-spectroscopy. There is no clear blood-pot-level for impairment as there is with ethanol. So the odds of finding some level of pot despite the length of time since used is greater than for similar ethanol use.

I'd rather be on a drug-free highway but if I had my choice I would pick the slow-driving potheads than the reckless boozehounds.

9 posted on 02/07/2014 4:06:00 AM PST by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

But...but...stoned drivers don’t blow past stop signs.

They sit there quietly & until they turn green.


10 posted on 02/07/2014 4:08:27 AM PST by elcid1970 ("In the modern world, Muslims are living fossils.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

The cancer rate will go up in marijuana states. Then the regulators will pass lows restricting where it can be smoked, banning smoking around children, and all the other laws that have been passed on tobacco use.


11 posted on 02/07/2014 4:09:10 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Yeah,I can’t get through the day without some major news outlet proclaiming that a) pot is harmless, and b) it’s just fine to get high and drive.


12 posted on 02/07/2014 4:10:06 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee
Then the regulators will pass lows restricting where it can be smoked, banning smoking around children, and all the other laws that have been passed on tobacco use.

Ask a tobacco smoker if he wants to trade smoking in public and around children for the chance to be arrested and put in jail.

13 posted on 02/07/2014 4:11:28 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Nothing is harmless.


14 posted on 02/07/2014 4:12:39 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

And somehow our highways keep getting safer and safer => http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx


15 posted on 02/07/2014 4:14:17 AM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

RE: “Li added that police do not have a test as accurate as the Breathalyzer to check a driver’s marijuana intoxication level.”

Maybe that sentence should start this news report?

If you smoke a lot of marijuana, your drug test is going to show a lot of THC (or whatever they measure) when you are completely straight.

Also, if you smoke a lot, even the most potent weed available, your “peak” intoxication is over in 30 minutes at most, and you are almost completely straight in 60 minutes.

But, the best advice still applies.....

If you are even a little bit high, on anything, don’t drive a car!


16 posted on 02/07/2014 4:25:48 AM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Those who give up freedom for security are bound to be slaves.


17 posted on 02/07/2014 4:27:39 AM PST by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

I live and work near Seattle and could swear I’m seeing a lot more buzzed driving lately.


18 posted on 02/07/2014 4:29:23 AM PST by Catmom (We're all gonna get the punishment only some of us deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

This is like the “All pit bulls should be killed” thread.


19 posted on 02/07/2014 4:41:21 AM PST by VaRepublican (I would propagate taglines but I don't know how. But bloggers do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Oh...woooow...bummer, man.


20 posted on 02/07/2014 4:41:38 AM PST by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Li added that police do not have a test as accurate as the Breathalyzer to check a driver’s marijuana intoxication level.

Yes there is. Just ask a few questions of the driver.

Q. Are you happy I pulled you over?

A. (Giggling) "Oh yes, officer!" = Marijuana use.

A. (Stern look)Of course not! = Questionable about use.

Q. Do you like to pay high taxes for everything?

A. (Giggling) "Yes, yes, yes! YOU sure are handsome copper!" = Marijuana use.

A. Hell no! = Questionable about use.

Etc.

21 posted on 02/07/2014 4:45:21 AM PST by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Not to mention they fail to explain how any marihuana related death was possible in 2010 since it was illegal at the time. Don’t they know prohibition works? /sarc

But in all seriousness this is a classic example where the old phrase comes to mind, “there are lies, there are damned lies, then there are statistics.”

I have been a prosecutor and defense attorney for nearly 8 years and I can say without a doubt alcohol is way more dangerous to drive on than marijuana.

There are plenty of people safely driving around while taking hydrocodone or oxycodone because their tolerance prevents the impairment that might otherwise result. Marijuana is not much different.

Also, these statistics are pretty useless and until they show a direct connection between the fatality and the alleged impairment. For instance, if a guy smokes weed and is driving down the street and a little old lady (sober as a priest) runs a stop light resulting in both of their deaths then is it properly included as a “marihuana related death”? I don’t think so.

Lots of agendas going on here.
Most of it has to do with all the government jobs that are attached to the endless losing WOD.


22 posted on 02/07/2014 4:46:47 AM PST by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
I love these threads.

 photo 5ed0r9_zpsa0822eb9.gif

23 posted on 02/07/2014 4:51:48 AM PST by Pan_Yan (Who told you that you were naked? Genesis 3:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

The states that are pushing “medical” marijuana are morally responsible for these crashes.


24 posted on 02/07/2014 4:59:55 AM PST by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible traitors. Complicit in the destruction of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

I wonder how many Freeps here think the government has no authority to enforce healthcare yet think it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to prohibit the use of recreational drugs?

I wonder if any of you even bother to review their own thoughts periodically and adjust for hypocritical positions?


25 posted on 02/07/2014 5:00:00 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back
The states that are pushing “medical” marijuana are morally responsible for these crashes.

Study shows medical marijuana laws reduce traffic deaths (FR thread)

26 posted on 02/07/2014 5:09:48 AM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

I drove on pot once over 40 years ago; the time/space distortion from pot was so scary I haven’t done it since and would never attempt it again.


27 posted on 02/07/2014 5:16:53 AM PST by NRA1995 (I'd rather be a living "gun culture" member than a dead anti-gun candy-ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clump

Agreed on all points.

But the real thrust is this: Nobody is saying it should be legal to get high and drive.


28 posted on 02/07/2014 5:21:16 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Get stoned, get high, do what ever..

Just stay off the roads and out of cars.

Ya, I don’t care if you smoke, shoot up or what ever you want to get high.

Just don’t put my life at risk while you are doing it.


29 posted on 02/07/2014 5:48:53 AM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Statistically speaking, if the data is correct, we can confidently conclude:

1. Marijuana doesn’t confer immunity to fatal accidents.

2. Either more people are smoking and driving than in 1999, or they’re measuring or reporting differently.

3. If there actually were a major increase in stoned motoring, the lack of any adverse trend in the overall fatality rate suggests that stoned motoring isn’t a big risk-enhancer.


30 posted on 02/07/2014 5:53:33 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: corkoman

Statistics for Dummies: note the word “involved” - in a multiple car accident it means all regardless of who caused the accident.


Indeed. It also include accidents where a passenger is stoned, even if the driver was sober. It even includes stoned (or drunk) pedestrians who get mowed down by a sober driver while trying to cross a highway.


31 posted on 02/07/2014 5:55:27 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

The cancer rate will go up in marijuana states. Then the regulators will pass lows restricting where it can be smoked, banning smoking around children, and all the other laws that have been passed on tobacco use.


I wasn’t aware the public pot smoking was an issue.


32 posted on 02/07/2014 5:56:15 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed

It’s named “Driving While Impaired” for a good reason. It doesn’t say driving due to use of marijuana or driving due to alcohol consumption or driving after sniffing drain-o.


33 posted on 02/07/2014 5:58:24 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

But, the best advice still applies.....

If you are even a little bit high, on anything, don’t drive a car!


What if you are a little high, but still far safer than a sober octogenarian, or teen, or tired driver who hasn’t slept in 18 hours, or someone talking on the phone, or just distracted with work or personal issues.

Is your advice the same for them?


34 posted on 02/07/2014 6:10:27 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995

I drove on pot once over 40 years ago; the time/space distortion from pot was so scary I haven’t done it since and would never attempt it again.


My experience is similar (I was a passenger). It’s the exact opposite of the sense of invulnerability that alcohol gives.


35 posted on 02/07/2014 6:12:48 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

The problem with this study is that cannabinols can be detected in the blood up to 30 days after use. The study is more alarmist than anything else....
***********************************
Exactly right , the truth is that with simple blood alcohol testing you KNOW if the person has recently been drinking. With marijuana that person could have been perfectly sober for more than a month.. This alarmist report simply reflects the percentage of adults that use the drug but it proves nothing.


36 posted on 02/07/2014 6:14:19 AM PST by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

“You may see me tonight with an illegal smile”


37 posted on 02/07/2014 6:17:59 AM PST by DeaconRed (I hate BO. I am not a racist I hate Biden too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

According to this bullshit a guy in the back seat who smoked a joint 45 days ago would count as “a fatal car crash involving marijuana.”


38 posted on 02/07/2014 7:19:24 AM PST by AAABEST (Et lux in tenebris lucet: et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

+1


39 posted on 02/07/2014 8:56:59 AM PST by EnigmaticAnomaly ("Nothing does more damage to the left than an honest election.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Okay, don’t text and drive and only use hands free dialing, and I’ll continue to only get high, curled up in flannel bed roll next to my oversized fireplace watching ‘Family guy’ with my Basset Hound.


40 posted on 02/07/2014 9:00:12 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

I already do both ;)

Nice choice of dogs. I have two of them myself. Mine are so laid back one has to wonder if they are stoned 24/7.


41 posted on 02/07/2014 11:37:12 AM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

well ya... they have to make the numbers report what they want ;)


42 posted on 02/07/2014 11:38:27 AM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
..put it down as a marijuana-related death

If you were sitting in your backyard drinking a beer, and the number three engine of a passing 747 tumbled out of the sky and crushed you, it would be put down as another alcohol related death.

43 posted on 02/07/2014 11:50:03 AM PST by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: laotzu

or had recently used an alcohol based mouth wash.


44 posted on 02/07/2014 12:30:14 PM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed

I think you are much more likely to have serious legal problems, including civil lawsuits, if marijuana shows up in your drug screen.


45 posted on 02/07/2014 1:07:52 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Especially if you pull out in front of a Reno motorcycle cop with no impairment. Google to learn about some poor lady whose life was ruined because she let a high-speed “hero run into her car.


46 posted on 02/07/2014 5:51:25 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson