Big Increase in Traffic Deaths Due to Pot Legalization

[98valk]

https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-big-increase-traffic-deaths-due-pot-legalization/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=deepsix

Studies in Colorado and Washington State, the first two states to legalize marijuana for recreational use have found huge increases in motor vehicle deaths since pot was approved.

In Colorado, marijuana-related traffic deaths rose 66 percent in the four years since legalization (2013-2016) while, during the same period, all traffic deaths dropped by 16 percent.

In Washington State, the number of marijuana-related traffic deaths doubled during the same period.

In both states, there was an alarming increase in the number of arrests for impaired driving that can be traced to marijuana use. In Washington, the proportion of suspected impaired driving cases that tested positive for THC rose from 19 percent in 2012 before legalization to 25 percent in 2013 to 28 percent in 2014 and 33 percent in 2015.

Significantly, the increase in traffic incidents related to pot rose most sharply during the daytime hours. The proportion of daytime drivers who tested positive for THC rose from 8 percent to 19 percent in Washington State while the nighttime proportion rose only from 18 percent to 22 percent.

The impact of marijuana legalization on traffic deaths should be a source of concern to us all. After dropping from 47,000 annually in 1988 to 32,000 in 2012, traffic deaths have climbed back slowly to 37,000 in 2017. Now, with legalization of pot kicking in, look for them to climb sharply, perhaps offsetting the gains that seat belts, airbags and DUI enforcement have brought over the past two decades.

[hubcapsc]

traffic fatalities [in Colorado] in which drivers had enough marijuana in their bloodstream to be deemed legally
impaired dropped sharply, from 52 in 2016 to 35 last year.

https://gazette.com/news/mixed-findings-on-colorado-marijuana-traffic-deaths/article_ec6a8f4c-a722-11e8-9c81-17b5312abb33.html

In Colorado, 642 people died in traffic in 2017, the highest number since 2004, when 667 were killed.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/20/colorado-traffic-deaths-2017/

Drive careful out there, it is dangerous, but likely no more so than ever...

-Mike

[The emperor has no clothes]

traffic fatalities [in Colorado] in which drivers had enough marijuana in their bloodstream to be deemed legally
impaired dropped sharply, from 52 in 2016 to 35 last year.

https://gazette.com/news/mixed-findings-on-colorado-marijuana-traffic-deaths/article_ec6a8f4c-a722-11e8-9c81-17b5312abb33.html

In Colorado, 642 people died in traffic in 2017, the highest number since 2004, when 667 were killed.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/20/colorado-traffic-deaths-2017/

Drive careful out there, it is dangerous, but likely no more so than ever...

-Mike

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Probably some increased traffic caused by a 5000% increase in pizza deliveries!

[DirtyDan]

Billboards, radio commercials, illuminated pot leaves on the Vegas strip

Things are certainly going green

FAST !

Dan

[Jess from VA]

Probably some increased traffic caused by a 5000% increase in pizza deliveries!

 

As if telephones weren't a big enough distraction.

[Bighead]

traffic fatalities [in Colorado] in which drivers had enough marijuana in their bloodstream to be deemed legally
impaired dropped sharply, from 52 in 2016 to 35 last year.

https://gazette.com/news/mixed-findings-on-colorado-marijuana-traffic-deaths/article_ec6a8f4c-a722-11e8-9c81-17b5312abb33.html

In Colorado, 642 people died in traffic in 2017, the highest number since 2004, when 667 were killed.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/20/colorado-traffic-deaths-2017/

Drive careful out there, it is dangerous, but likely no more so than ever...

-Mike

The biggest problem with all this data is a drug screen CANNOT dertrmine if you smoked 5 minutes ago or 5 days ago. It only says presumptive positive. I have been looking at drug screens for 30+ years and never have I seen a LEVEL of any amount listed except for ETOH. Which is alcohol.

[Pappy!]

Here in Florida Medical Marijuana was just legalized. Every kid in the state is salivating to get their "Card".

[Bighead]

Here in Florida Medical Marijuana was just legalized. Every kid in the state is salivating to get their "Card".

Yeah and the ones to write the RX for them should be locked up for good.

[Jess from VA]

The biggest problem with all this data is a drug screen CANNOT dertrmine if you smoked 5 minutes ago or 5 days ago. It only says presumptive positive. I have been looking at drug screens for 30+ years and never have I seen a LEVEL of any amount listed except for ETOH. Which is alcohol.

Yes.  We were trained on this when enforcing random urinalysis results in military Art 15s and Courts Martial.  Testing reveals metabolites of THC, and once at or above a certain set number, you are positive.  Same for all illegal drugs (or legal with no script).  An unusually high nanogram count can indicate more recent usage, but that is really only an educated guess.  

It turns out the weakest drug (compared to coke, meth, heroin, opoids, yada) stays in your system longer than any other drug (probably from smoking through your lungs to blood).  We could never prove when you did it, only that you did it.

A lot of guys claimed they unknowingly ate MJ brownies, and almost all of them were lying.  

I had to fly to Sicily to defend a poor Airman (SP) being court martialed for a single positive MJ urinalysis.  He was very unhappy since it was general USAF policy that first term enlisted only got an Article 15 for a positive MJ urinalysis, but he was getting court martialed.

He asked me why he was being singled out, and I told him it was probably because he personally guarded the GLCMs (nuclear ground launch cruise missiles) inside the Comiso AB storage facility with a loaded machine gun.

He told me (almost certainly truthfully) that he had never used it on duty, but only while on leave way up on the Sicilian coast in Palermo.  I said.... but how can command know that to a certainty?

The testing only is positive, but there is no timeline at all.  It can last in your system for weeks,  and maybe more than a month for chronic users.

Even completely sober MJ-user drivers should keep this in mind.  Especially with a CDL.

Felons on probation and parole subject to random urinalysis do know this.  



  

[Bighead]

Jess a somple urinalysis will  show you positive for up to 6 weeks. And as I stated it shows no levels that I have witnessed just say presumptive Positive. So that is the problem here. I have no problem with anyone tokin up a J on their own time. But it is still a FEDERAL  offense. And it cannot be proven that it was today or a month ago. Myself have never been into smokin MJ. (Just dont do it for me) yes I have tried it (unlike our previous POTUS (democrat) I did inhale). A beer or Twelfth will do it for
Crainium Magnanimous  and as we all know as long as the liver is doing its job gone in a few hrs

[Jess from VA]

Well, what I don't know is what your civilian absolute minimum reading is to report a positive.

With the USAF lab (to use the test result in criminal or disciplinary actions), it had to arise to some base level of nanograms per milliliter. (I cannot remember what the USAF Brooks Lab requirement for THC was..... 50?)

Nanogram =  one-billionth of a gram

Millilitre = 1/1000 litre

I found these on line:

https://www.alliance2020.com/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Testing-Cutoff-Levels.pdf
  
https://www.redwoodtoxicology.com/resources/cutoffs_methods/screen-confirm_urine

In any event, you are correct.  This testing does not prove when you smoked or ate cannibis, only that you did.... sometime.

Historically speaking, for traffic court, the prosecution had to prove (beyond any reasonable doubt) you were unlawfully under the influence of and impaired by drugs or alcohol.

This caused so much litigation nationwide in DWI cases, that all states finally changed their laws to make the crime of DWI simply a blood alcohol of .10, then later .08.... and some may even be lower now.  It was no longer necessary to prove actual impairment in each case (ie, your honor, my client is 6'6" 280lbs, and at .10 he simply wasn't drunk.... is no longer a defense)

I never did a driving drugged case in my life, but I suppose they are doing the same thing with dope.

Still, some trace level of lab evidence of X (below the cutoff, whatever it is), will not be reported as positive.

However, in all cases, the officer's eyewitness account of drunk/drugged behavior remains relevant (slurred speech, staggered gait, smelled of ETOH or MJ, failed sobriety tests, pissed in pants, puking in back of police car, empty bottles or roaches in ashtray, and my all time favorite... singing the ABCs)

[Reb]

traffic fatalities [in Colorado] in which drivers had enough marijuana in their bloodstream to be deemed legally
impaired dropped sharply, from 52 in 2016 to 35 last year.

https://gazette.com/news/mixed-findings-on-colorado-marijuana-traffic-deaths/article_ec6a8f4c-a722-11e8-9c81-17b5312abb33.html

In Colorado, 642 people died in traffic in 2017, the highest number since 2004, when 667 were killed.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/20/colorado-traffic-deaths-2017/

Drive careful out there, it is dangerous, but likely no more so than ever...

-Mike

 

[3fan4life]

and my all time favorite... singing the ABCs

It's dang near impossible to go through the entire alphabet without singing them at some point.

Even if you're stone cold sober.

[scooperhsd]

Do it in a foreign language....

[baldo]

and my all time favorite... singing the ABCs

It's dang near impossible to go through the entire alphabet without singing them at some point.

Even if you're stone cold sober.

Old one but still funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_IPOxpA2_Y

[Jess from VA]

and my all time favorite... singing the ABCs

It's dang near impossible to go through the entire alphabet without singing them at some point.

Even if you're stone cold sober.

That's what I always argued to the judge.  

Of course when they step out of the car to do field sobriety tests, and their pants fall down to their ankles, and the car motors away on it's own still in drive, and the cop has to chase it down the street before it hits other parked cars, the singing part seemed small potatoes.  (true story)

Some of these cases it was hard to keep a straight face, though laughing along with the whole courtroom was not the behavior expected of good defense counsel.

And at some point (like 3d-7th offense), it was better to keep them laughing than being mad as hell at your guy.    

[G-Man]

Here in Florida Medical Marijuana was just legalized. Every kid in the state is salivating to get their "Card".

Yeah and the ones to write the RX for them should be locked up for good.

Don't worry, the taxation will keep kids, and adults buying it illegally.  Read an article recently that says that they aren't receiving the anticipated tax dollars because folks are buying it cheaper from their dealers.
 

[Moonshot_1]

Read these articles and while I am absolutely opposed to impaired driving, the statistics presented here are skewed as hell.
Maybe not so much the statistics themselves but the definitions behind some of them.

What the hell does "marijuana related traffic deaths" mean?

Obviously testing positive for marijuana use does not mean that one is or was impaired at any particular time. This doesn't follow a parallel to alcohol for which you can immediately test for impairment levels.

The problem with this is that it creates a false narrative. To say that a traffic death is marijuana related because someone tested positive for use 4 days ago means nothing since it would be next to impossible to still be impaired at the time of the traffic accident.

Perhaps there have been, but what is surely needed is Lab controlled experiments on the impairment of marijuana users and driving skills. And how to determine the levels of impairment in real time.

Until then the statistics presented here mean absolutely nothing and surely do not even remotely support their own conclusions.   

[bscrive]

The main idiot (Trudeau) legalized it up here in the north.  Just what we needed.  Why are there so many boneheads in power?

[phideux]

Well, what I don't know is what your civilian absolute minimum reading is to report a positive.

With the USAF lab (to use the test result in criminal or disciplinary actions), it had to arise to some base level of nanograms per milliliter. (I cannot remember what the USAF Brooks Lab requirement for THC was..... 50?)

Nanogram =  one-billionth of a gram

Millilitre = 1/1000 litre

I found these on line:

https://www.alliance2020.com/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Testing-Cutoff-Levels.pdf
  
https://www.redwoodtoxicology.com/resources/cutoffs_methods/screen-confirm_urine

In any event, you are correct.  This testing does not prove when you smoked or ate cannibis, only that you did.... sometime.

Historically speaking, for traffic court, the prosecution had to prove (beyond any reasonable doubt) you were unlawfully under the influence of and impaired by drugs or alcohol.

This caused so much litigation nationwide in DWI cases, that all states finally changed their laws to make the crime of DWI simply a blood alcohol of .10, then later .08.... and some may even be lower now.  It was no longer necessary to prove actual impairment in each case (ie, your honor, my client is 6'6" 280lbs, and at .10 he simply wasn't drunk.... is no longer a defense)

I never did a driving drugged case in my life, but I suppose they are doing the same thing with dope.

Still, some trace level of lab evidence of X (below the cutoff, whatever it is), will not be reported as positive.

However, in all cases, the officer's eyewitness account of drunk/drugged behavior remains relevant (slurred speech, staggered gait, smelled of ETOH or MJ, failed sobriety tests, pissed in pants, puking in back of police car, empty bottles or roaches in ashtray, and my all time favorite... singing the ABCs)

For legal purposes, all urine drug screens are inadmissible in court here. They will pull a blood test which shows the amount of whatever drug is in your bloodstream, including marijuana, instaed of trace metabolites in your urine, which like alot of folks have already said, tells that you did it sometime within the past days/weeks/month. If it is in your blood, over a certain limit, you are under the influence.
A few companies are trying to develop a breathalyzer type test for marijuana.