As you can see, and will probably read in upcoming media headlines, the original headline without mentioning that this study was carried out in a single county in Ohio (Montgomery County) is extremely alarmist and even mentioning where they're talking about isn't listed till quite a way down the page.
That isn't to say intoxicated driving isn't a problem. I'm sure that it is (and there may even be data on it I'm unaware of). How to address it without law enforcement having an easy to use immediate test like a breathalyzer for alcohol, I don't know. Driving high/drunk/buzzed on any intoxicating substance is reprehensible and should involve education, public messaging, law enforcement action, and further research into all the aspects of it.
But, headlines like these, IMHO, do more of a disservice than a benefit.
> No Effect from Legalization: The rate of drivers who tested positive for THC did not change significantly before or after legalization (42.1% vs. 45.2%), indicating that legal status did not influence the behavior of those who chose to drive after use.
Ohio recently passed a marijuana decriminalization bill.
Testing for impairment from THC is not as simple as testing for impairment from alcohol.
It's a molecule that is similar to normal endogenous chemicals, and the human body is good at building tolerance to it.
Here is a video (timestamped to the relevant content) of an expert explaining to Huberman why it is so difficult to assess impairment from blood levels.
This seems fundamentally intended to be misleading. Blood THC concentration has no correlation with current level of impairment the way it does with blood alcohol. "far exceeding most state impairment limits" specifically seems like it was written by someone trying to make a technically correct statement that is essentially wrong. The "legal limit" for THC is either 0 or there isn't one.
This is interesting but the causal relationship inferred by the article isn't supported by the evidence.
Unlike alcohol for example, there's no clear dose of THC where it can be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is impaired. A dose that might give a regular user a gentle buzz could render a first-time user completely stoned.
It's possible that these people were all incredibly stoned while driving but it's also possible that many drivers in Ohio are regular THC users and have such a high tolerance that their function is unimpaired.
And like always, there's the definite possibility of confounding factors, like reckless drivers also enjoying recreational drug use.
It's also important to note that the article's focus on legal limits is somewhat pointless. As there's no clear threshold above which one is impaired, the legal limits are somewhat arbitrary and are determined by other factors, like whether THC can be reliably tested at the given concentration.
Ultimately, as far as I can tell, the current state of things is that we're fairly certain that THC is able to impair driving ability but we have no idea how much THC is needed to do it or how impaired drivers become.
Without getting into the technical weeds of dosing, tolerance, and impairment, this is an interesting data set that definitely paints a picture of lax enforcement and ineffective public messaging around substance use and associated impairments. That being said, I also don’t see how we can do better in the USA given that cars are necessary evils for the majority of people outside a select few cities with public transport options, and that we’ve been doing messaging about impaired driving for nearly a century to no real avail.
Perhaps it’s time to start treating motor vehicle operation as an actual privilege rather than a “right” gated by a far-too-easy licensing regime. Start by tasking safety officers with more citations for things like failing to signal or illegal turns through dash camera footage (to avoid dangerous traffic stops), start suspending licenses earlier for consistent or serious infractions, and raise licensing standards higher to shunt more folks onto smaller vehicles or public transit.
This isn’t a cannabis vs alcohol debate despite the framing as such: it’s a debate over how many people should be allowed to drive at all, and to what degree we hold them accountable to ensure good behavior.
while I'm glad they're no longer doing urinalysis and convicted people of DUI based on evidence that doesn't prove anything beyond that they've used marijuana in the past several months, the standard they use to test for impairment (5ng/ml seems to be the highest standard I could find among states that have a standard) may not actually indicate recent marijuana use and in some states the standard for intoxication is so low that frequent users will still test positive after days of abstinence (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32841811/)
This would be interesting IFF those drivers did not have alcohol in their system too. I can’t tell if that’s the case from the attached article. I also can’t tell whether the drivers were at fault or e.g. if they froze when another vehicle came at them, which would fit with the stereotype of the slow overly cautious stoned driver vs fast reckless driving you get from alcohol or being a young male (which might be more common in Dayton because of the Air Force base).
Why would anyone expect legalization to cause drug usage to go down? It helps eliminate the violent criminals that proliferate around any criminalized activity. Addicts are not doing drugs for the lure of the forbidden, so making drugs easier and cheaper to get should only increase usage.
Personal experience after living in Columbus for a few months - it felt like everybody was driving drunk and/or distracted by default. Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati were not very fun to drive around and taking unprotected left turns felt like a gamble.
On the other hand, Amish communities had glass-smooth roads and people were careful when passing horse carriages.
I remember when someone was prosecuted for a drug offense because their money was contaminated by cocaine... but it turns out 3/4 of currency is already contaminated:
I wonder because it might be many people have THC in their blood for days, and it might not indicate what the prosecution infers. (I think thc lasts longer than say alcohol)
Well, unless you're completely brainwashed in luxury beliefs, it is pretty obvious that legalization would increase the prevalence and frequency of usage.
This is trade-off that any rational person could predict.
25 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 49.4 ms ] threadThat isn't to say intoxicated driving isn't a problem. I'm sure that it is (and there may even be data on it I'm unaware of). How to address it without law enforcement having an easy to use immediate test like a breathalyzer for alcohol, I don't know. Driving high/drunk/buzzed on any intoxicating substance is reprehensible and should involve education, public messaging, law enforcement action, and further research into all the aspects of it.
But, headlines like these, IMHO, do more of a disservice than a benefit.
The fact is that people are bad at estimating risks so they need to be told the facts.
Ohio recently passed a marijuana decriminalization bill.
Here is a video (timestamped to the relevant content) of an expert explaining to Huberman why it is so difficult to assess impairment from blood levels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jouFvyRZntk&t=6072s
The study in TFA may just be finding that nearly half of drivers in Ohio are habitual cannabis users, or used cannabis in the past few days.
Unlike alcohol for example, there's no clear dose of THC where it can be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is impaired. A dose that might give a regular user a gentle buzz could render a first-time user completely stoned.
It's possible that these people were all incredibly stoned while driving but it's also possible that many drivers in Ohio are regular THC users and have such a high tolerance that their function is unimpaired.
And like always, there's the definite possibility of confounding factors, like reckless drivers also enjoying recreational drug use.
It's also important to note that the article's focus on legal limits is somewhat pointless. As there's no clear threshold above which one is impaired, the legal limits are somewhat arbitrary and are determined by other factors, like whether THC can be reliably tested at the given concentration.
Ultimately, as far as I can tell, the current state of things is that we're fairly certain that THC is able to impair driving ability but we have no idea how much THC is needed to do it or how impaired drivers become.
For a somewhat reputable source, the NHTSA did a report to Congress in 2017: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812440...
Perhaps it’s time to start treating motor vehicle operation as an actual privilege rather than a “right” gated by a far-too-easy licensing regime. Start by tasking safety officers with more citations for things like failing to signal or illegal turns through dash camera footage (to avoid dangerous traffic stops), start suspending licenses earlier for consistent or serious infractions, and raise licensing standards higher to shunt more folks onto smaller vehicles or public transit.
This isn’t a cannabis vs alcohol debate despite the framing as such: it’s a debate over how many people should be allowed to drive at all, and to what degree we hold them accountable to ensure good behavior.
How many recently dead Ohio adults have THC in their blood? Forget driving.
On the other hand, Amish communities had glass-smooth roads and people were careful when passing horse carriages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency
I wonder because it might be many people have THC in their blood for days, and it might not indicate what the prosecution infers. (I think thc lasts longer than say alcohol)
This is trade-off that any rational person could predict.
They’re basically saying in a random sampling of dead people 50% had consumed THC at some point in the last few weeks.
So this is more an analysis of THC use in the population and in no way can be causally linked to the deaths.