Is around here somewhere…
A growing number of marijuana users are driving while high — and it’s costing them their lives.
More than 40% of victims of fatal vehicle accidents over the past six years have had elevated levels of THC in their blood, a new study shows. The drug screenings were performed during the autopsy process.
THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the main psychoactive compound in the cannabis plant, is what causes the “high” feeling of euphoria that is associated with using the drug.
The Wright State University-led study, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, reviewed data for 246 deceased Ohio drivers.
The researchers found that nearly 42% tested positive for THC, with an average blood level of 30.7 ng/ML, according to a press release.
Full article, HERE from Fox News.
We’ve known this for…at least 30 years, probably longer…
But everybody wants to ignore it, since ‘legalization’ is a thing…
And there is no way for the LEOs to test for cannabinoids on a traffic stop. So unless the driver is smoking at the time, or smells like a joint, they might get away with a ticket. Also, smokers don’t congregate at bars/joints, mostly smoking at home, so not really many ‘touch’ points for LEO to work from. And potency is up! From around 4% in the 90s to 12-15% of THC in most samples today.
So what happens when the bus driver for your kids is driving ‘high’, or the guy/girl driving the subway/metro train? Or the pilot flying the airplane?
I guess we’ll need to pile up a bunch more dead to get anyone to actually take action on this…sigh
What anybody puts in the their body is their private Life. Any effects from those taken on the road BECOMES our business and people driving under the influence hurt themselves and others. Alcohol – marijuana or other illicit drugs count. I know some individuals who go to a bar and have one or two beers to wind down the day. Can’t say I approve but its their Life.
Pretty sure that the guy having one or two beers after work isn’t causing accidents or killing people.
Here in Washington state you can’t drive around without smelling pot, which means that they aren’t just driving under the influence, they’re smoking while they drive. Also, more and more people just vaping it, so no smoke, no lighters, no pot pipes. It’s become a huge problem at school, and the vape companies sell vapes that look like all sorts of innocuous items. Pens, USB sticks, etc.
Surprised someone hasn’t developed a roadside THC test. Saliva swab or something. I seem to remember that they have to take you somewhere to do a blood test for alcohol, but seems like given the improvements in diabetes testing and monitoring, that the same technology would apply.
The original article only tested for THC. Would be prudent to test for big pharma drugs as well, such as Oxycodone, Flunitrazepam, statins, SSRI’s, psychotropics, etc. As if there is no interaction of THC with the cornucopia of other big pharma drugs in a persons system, that treat only the symptoms.
For the record, I applaud your initial declaration. Legalization of THC exacerbates the problem. Nobody mentions big pharma drugs getting people high or distracted, even though the effects are listed on the meds. When will the cops use tests for meds doctors prescribe?
One note, sir. The NHTSA “Standardized Field Sobriety Tests” used by most LEO agencies *will* show someone under elevated THC levels as impaired – and, in many jurisdictions, that is sufficient to conduct an arrest and get a subsequent blood test. What LEOs do NOT have is a quick way to definitively correlate the impairment to THC (such as the breath tests do with alcohol).
On the other hand, you are absolutely correct in that this result was predicted for decades, and shared with many legislatures who obviously didn’t care.
I would sarcastically quote “reee. pot is harmless. ”
The same proofs of medical effects for justifying ‘medicinal’ claims were also proofs of effects that might justify restriction.
I remain convinced that the pot smokers are incompatible with a well functioning society. I’m still quite open to the idea that it might be a good thing to kill them all.
Where I have changed is mellowing in how intensely I /feel/ that “something must be done”, and in being concerned that everyone else in America might be nuts enough to be stampeded into a choice that we would regret.
The stupidities of recent years have broken a lot of the old ‘consensus’ ‘understanding’ of how we do things.
We don’t know what the new baseline of politically possible will be.
Lots of things may be possible, and some of those things could actually be wise.
There are currently available saliva tests which can detect THC, as well as opiates, cocaine, and various types of speed. However, they don’t test for IMPAIRMENT from the drug, just PRESENCE of the drug.
More research is needed, and that’s a problem because cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, and there are significant restrictions placed on studying it.
I think lack of funding for research is more the issue. There was plenty of funding available to study medicinal benefits (to justify legalization) and those had no problems accessing it.
It used to be that you could tell the pot smoker driving by how slow he/she was rolling.
Here in Michigan, every other billboard is for anther pot shop.
That is not an exaggeration. The other billboards are for accident lawyers. A coincidence? I think not!
It’s discouraging to think that the market can support all of them.
If only they’d stay stoned at home on election day.
Sadly body counts are a feature now, not a bug. Drugs won the WOD.
Seems like every time we have a “War on _______” we get more of it.
Drugs
Poverty
Terrorism
Racism
Maybe we need to start a “War on education” or common sense.
Oddly enough, although they do exist, pot shops have only a relatively minor presence in Silicon Valley – very few billboards and even fewer obvious storefronts. Perhaps because regular use is a detriment to a high pressure tech career?
But there seem to be a much higher number of ads and dispensaries in other areas of California. Especially in vacation hotspots like the Lake Tahoe area, where there seems to be a dispensary every block or so along every major street.
Considering that pot *is* still technically illegal under federal law I can’t help thinking that if the Federal government ever wants to really put the screws to the state government officials using the RICO statutes they should have a slam-dunk case.
Really, I wish they would. At the very least, it would put pressure on the spineless drones in Congress to either sanction the states ignoring federal law or go on record voting to truly legalize what the states are doing. I’m pretty certain they wouldn’t tolerate this sort of lax enforcement of, oh, Title 9 rules, underage alcohol or cigarette sales, or anything else they deem truly important.
I’ve known a few people that smoked pot daily. I don’t like the idea of them driving while under the influence, which with those I’ve seen, the influence is all day, every day, and the effect on their thinking is long term.
and then there’s the diarrhea that comes with constant use.
The last time I smoked was 11/8/68 during an election watch party. Later, on my motorcycle, I ran a red light on Denver’s Colfax Avenue at about 60 mph. Decided the next day it wasn’t for me.
You describe a serious problem, for which I don’t have an answer.
The simple answer, of course, is to simply treat any intoxicant under-the-influence-related crime like they supposedly do with guns.
You choose to drink/smoke/injest/inject/absorb a mind-altering substance and then do a crime? Immediate and non-plea-downable enhancement.
And causing death? First degree murder. Why? Well, the murderer purposely chose to drink/smoke/injest/inject/absorb thus showing intent and prior planning to do whatever crime the drugged/intoxicated person did.
This will handle all the “Oh, he/she/it was drunk so the crime doesn’t matter” bullscat. And all the other bullscat.
Of course this requires a serious readjustment to the criminal justice system and pimp-slapping most of the prosecuting attorneys nationwide.
All- You raise some interesting points. Sean, I was not aware of that… sigh…
Beans- Don’t disagree at all!
Arbitrary levels of alcohol etc aren’t the issue.
It ought to be possible to develop a laptop based perception/reaction/error rate test or quite a number of different ones and compare to unimpaired drivers. You may even find some “unimpaired” who should not be driving.
Eyrie- Good point, and I know for a fact that people going into diabetic shock should NOT be driving…
Yes. We had a female doctor diabetic some years passed out while driving on the highway north of Brisbane because of low blood sugar.
Ran across the wide median to head on with another car and killed baby in the other car. She walked. I thought that of all people who should know, a doctor would be the one.
Another time a pal called and said a mutual friend who was diabetic had grabbed his car keys and was acting paranoid. When I got there he was sitting in the car in the driveway. Took me about 20 minutes to convince him to take a sip of a sugary soda pop whereupon he came good in about 15 seconds. The doc at the local country town hospital where Mrs Eyrie RN was working that evening said nobody could do anything until the guy passed out, even though he was clearly off his trolley and would have been a danger to others if he had driven off.
Some of the people with politics I dislike, having those opinions is perhaps directly evidence of impairment, potentially enough that they should not be driving, should not be deciding about whether others can drive, and should not be at universities when universities are assumed to have positive value.
I think the self driving cars were partly a stupid decision by legislatures that certain categories of impairment were not sufficient to remove persons from a civil society, therefore ‘fix’ the problem with automation. Self driving cars are an inadequate remedy to this, and perhaps also destructively stupid.
Ad hoc sorting with vigilante killings is obviously a sub optimal way of squaring the circle.
For some reason, people seem to not like a bunch of hand waving over ‘peace consensus’, and the insistence that conditions about mental state can be insisted on by that sort of mechanisms.
This is basically potentially an admission against interest on my part, because I have seemingly natural issues with impairment. For example, my allergic headaches can significantly screw with my thinking in various ways. I’m up right now, and raving, due to one. (One type of allergic headache I have causes very fixed thinking, from some of the pain. I woke up dreaming about work, with a bit over half a night of sleep, and could not calm down and go back to sleep.)
I had a conversation yesterday over whether I am too down on my judgement when I speak to other people. Quite possibly yes. I am also keeping some of my own problems contained from everyone being fully aware of them. I think that if an employer had no option between trusting everything I say, and trusting nothing that I say, the reasonable option is the latter, and letting me go. I think other people have a right to discernment and selectively in what statements they trust. I think I also have a responsibility to provide tests for the ideas I have which might be correct, and to market my ideas to other people.
Anyway, I can function fairly at fairly high levels analytically, even when I am not safe to drive. I would have a tendency to collapse all questions of mental function onto a single number line, and propose absurd tests for ‘safe behind the wheel’, because of calibrating against my own function.
I think it is fair to describe some politicians as people who use pot and commit rape, or who rape people under the influence of pot, and those specific politicians in general want to rape people without being shot. This describes some political preferences for gun control. But, yes, I am very prejudiced against the decision making of some of my political opponents. I may be much more unfair than I should be.
Body counts will increase until they overtake the addiction of the tax junkies. Every place that recpot was legalized, a main selling point was the tax revenue.
Second-order effect: Auto insurance rates always go up after a state starts allowing potheads to legally partake.
Years ago, one of the Car Mags (car and driver or road and track) ran a comparison to their Drunk Driving Test with marijuana in place of booze. The test results were not what was anticipated, IIRC.
No crashes, and some participants driving results actually improved. I suspect this was back in the low THC days. The Test was halted when the participants could no longer find the parked cars for another round of driving.