Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/09/stoned-drivers-are-a-lot-safer-than-drunk-ones-new-federal-data-show/

by pkaeding • 10 years ago

251 264 10 years ago

washingtonpost.com

riggins• 10 years ago

But what about their propensity to drive really slow?

panzagl• 10 years ago

Yeah, I would argue that stoned drivers make everyone else a less safe driver.

delecti• 10 years ago

Given the first paragraph of the article, that doesn't seem to make any difference.

criley23• 10 years ago

But what about their propensity to drive really slow?

You mean like a bicycle, moped, a new parent driving extra slow, an elderly driver, or any other street legal slow vehicle does?

I understand that drivers assume the speed LIMIT is a speed suggestion, and experience road rage when driving under the limit, but there is nothing -- nothing -- illegal or unsafe about staying under the speed limit.

If there is something unsafe about it, there should be a minimum posted speed (many places have this).

throwaway2016a• 10 years ago

At least in the US you can get a ticket for going under the speed limit if it is deemed to be impeding traffic even if there is no posted minimum limit. Especially if it is a multi-lane road and you are not in the rightmost lane.

CraigJPerry• 10 years ago

I've seen the result of a driver unexpectedly doing just over 35mph on a moderately busy 70mph motorway. Not nice. I don't even think 35mph is that much slower really - trucks are at 56mph and they get along fine but 35ish resulted in all sorts of crazy last minute swerves.

It's generally wise not to do anything other drivers will find surprising and I guess 35mph on a motorway falls in that category.

odonnellryan3• 10 years ago

It's definitely unsafe if you're traveling much under the speed limit on a major highway.

Most important thing when driving is to be predictable. It's predictable to be traveling plus or minus 10 mph from what is posted.

It isn't predicted to be traveling 30mph+ below the speed limit.

(no comment on being high, just saying, it's super dangerous to be doing 30-40 on a 65mph road).

JoeAltmaier3• 10 years ago

Slowing down is the single most effective thing to reduce traffic accidents and injury. Not good for efficiency or smooth flow, sure. But can't claim its not safer.

randunel• 10 years ago

Slowing down is the single most effective thing to reduce traffic accidents and injury. Not good for efficiency or smooth flow, sure. But can't claim its not safer.

Go to any motorcycle riding school and all their instructors will teach you that riding slower than the traffic around you is more dangerous than maintaining the average traffic speed, even when above the legal speed limit.

MOARDONGZPLZ• 10 years ago

Sure, I can make that claim. People driving slow, as you state, aren't good for smooth flow. Have you ever been driving at night at the speed limit and suddenly come upon someone going 15mph under? It's really dangerous.

JoeAltmaier3• 10 years ago

Its a matter of degree; of course stopping on the freeway is not a good idea. Here's a stat:

Samuel C. Tignor and Davey Warren. "Driver Speed Behavior on U.S. Streets and Highways." Institute of Transportation Engineers: 1990 Compendium of Technical Papers, 1990 August, p. 85. "The accident involvement rates on streets and highways in urban areas was highest for the slowest 5 percent of traffic, lowest for traffic in the 30 to 95 percentile range and increased for the fastest 5 percent of traffic."

bryanlarsen2• 10 years ago

Slowing down is not safer because it significantly reduces the number of traffic accidents.

Slowing down is safer because it significantly reduces the severity of the traffic accidents that do happen.

bluedino2• 10 years ago

Not if you're the only one going slow.

JPKab• 10 years ago

As a full supporter of cannabis legalization, I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis.

Notice that I'm focusing on whether or not they are impaired, as opposed to the amount in their bloodstream. The point being that people that use cannabis regularly for medical reasons don't seem to be impaired by it at all, while newer or more occasional users are certainly impaired.

It would be fascinating to see what kind of technologies could be used to achieve this that folks on HN are aware of.

ZanyProgrammer• 10 years ago

I'd assume regular medical users have gotten very used to the effects of pot, as opposed to noobs.

amelius• 10 years ago

a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired

I'm not sure if that would work in practice. As mentioned, alcohol makes someone more confident, or more likely to do stupid things. The test should incorporate that.

From another point of view, the alcohol tricks you into thinking your reflexes are still normal, while they are not. And this is the dangerous part, not the fact that your reflexes are somewhat lower (and perhaps comparable to an old lady who is still perfectly capable to drive safely).

eikenberry• 10 years ago

Why did you switch to alcohol when the parent was talking cannabis. They are very different drugs with very different physiological and psychological effects.

sudojudo• 10 years ago

alcohol makes someone more confident, or more likely to do stupid things.

Reminds me of the "say the alphabet backwards" challenge that cops often present in sobriety tests.

Drunk: ZYX... ZYXW... wait-wait... okay, ZYXTW, ummm...

Sober: I can't do that.

Stoned: Oh whaaat? No way, man. I can't even do that sober - shit, I mean...

thaumasiotes• 10 years ago

How would you differentiate between someone with good reflexes who is currently impaired by cannabis, and someone with bad reflexes who isn't?

As a followup question, what would be the point of making that distinction?

petra• 10 years ago

> As a followup question, what would be the point of making that distinction?

People with better reflexes might drive less conservatively due to their reflexes, and may continue to do so even while impaired.

jlcx• 10 years ago

Impairment should be the focus, rather than the amount of any substance in anybody's bloodstream. Why not a general test of perception and reaction time?

Broken_Hippo6• 10 years ago

How do you figure out what is normal for that person, though? Or what is normal to society? How do we set up a test that is fair to most folks? Can we rely on police training to be able to make accomidations (quickly) for those that are disabled, etc?

Broken_Hippo6• 10 years ago

Right now, there is none. Obviously the measurable amount isn't reliable - but that has been known to general users for years. And so much of it is personal - a person going out on the weekend and smoking a lot (much like drinking most weekends or occasionally) is going to be really impaired. A regular smoker, who keeps a slight buzz and gets used to it would have very little effect most times. People around them don't have a clue.

I honestly think the best solution would be to regulate the current traffic laws better - including things such as speed limits, yeilding to pedestrians, keeping distance ahead of you (don't know if that is a law) and other things. Not only is this going to help catch people too impaired to be driving, but folks that are simply not paying attention to the road and trying to multi-task while driving.

bostonpete• 10 years ago

And so much of it is personal

This is true of drunk driving too. I don't think that means we just shouldn't try to impose any restrictions...

jerkstate2• 10 years ago

Police have been doing field sobriety tests that don't rely on chemical detection for a very, very long time. Examples: walk a straight line, follow the light with your eyes, close your eyes and tell me when 30 seconds have passed, stand on one leg, and so on.

dghughes• 10 years ago

There is at least one made and more "pot breathalysers" on the way. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-pot-breat...

bnegreve• 10 years ago

Right now, there is none. ... a person going out on the weekend and smoking a lot (much like drinking most weekends or occasionally) is going to be really impaired.

I think the article is pretty misleading but the conclusion is clear: "There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble.".

The problem is that the legal thresholds for THC are so low that "stone drivers" are not actually stone, making the whole federal study flawed.

Here: "Several states have passed laws attempting to define "marijuana-impaired driving" similarly to drunk driving. Colorado, for instance, sets a blood THC threshold of 5 nanograms per milliliter. But that number tells us next to nothing about whether a person is impaired or fit to drive. "

If you look at the data, "any illegal drug" is also not correlated with more accidents.

dangerlibrary• 10 years ago

I could see something like an augmented reality setup for a driver where fake pedestrians wander into the road ahead of you and if you don't slow down in time you are warned / flagged as impaired / ignition shuts down. Passes the specificity test, for sure - which something like a reflex test to turn the ignition switch does not.

The problem is that it's way too invasive for people to sign up for it voluntarily - not to mention you'd cause a bunch of sudden stops for no reason and maybe create more accidents than you prevent.

odonnellryan3• 10 years ago

The real solution is to get people off the road in general.

kafkaesq2• 10 years ago

I'm a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis.

Wow. So you're also a big supporter of the massive, real-time surveillance infrastructure required to make this possible, then.

Don't think for a minute that those devices (which will inevitably be required in all human-driven cars... for as long as humans are allowed to drive cars, that is) won't be reporting those findings to insurance companies and of course, to one's friendly local police department -- and by extension, all police departments nationwide -- once in place.

striking• 10 years ago

I think parent commenter meant a device that can check the impairment of a person's reflexes, physically, when asked. Like a breathalyzer for reflexes.

metaphorm• 10 years ago

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. What is a credible test of impairment that can be administered automatically, remotely, anonymously, and with a high enough degree of accuracy and reliability (mitigation of false positives and false negatives), that we could feel ok about legislating around it?

gnaritas7• 10 years ago

I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis.

We simply don't need that; this presume driving while high is a problem that needs solving and it quite simply isn't. There's no evidence to justify treating pot special like we do alcohol and specifically testing for it.

ams61104• 10 years ago

Cops can tell if you're stoned. It's not that difficult. It's not like they never see it.

paloaltokid• 10 years ago

Having driven through multiple DUI checkpoints while stoned I can attest that this is not true.

spraak• 10 years ago

Yeah, but the poster above us talking about the degree to which someone is stoned, not just true/false. Relying purely on human judgement is not a good idea for something like that. Especially considering all of the abuses police commit already. If all they need to do is judge you're too stoned without any quantifying test, that's not good.

beat7• 10 years ago

Alcohol has two synergetic problems for drivers... it reduces reflexes and increases confidence, simultaneously. Less capable, and more aggressive. No wonder it's so awful for drivers.

Marijuana doesn't significantly impair reflexes (as generations of musicians have shown). As for judgment, it tends to make users more cautious, not more aggressive. They're not trying to get around that car in front of them to blow through the used-to-be-yellow light - they're trying to make sure they remember where they're going...

mankyd3• 10 years ago

Marijuana doesn't significantly impair reflexes (as generations of musicians have shown).

As an aside, is music really reliant on reflexes like this? I would assume that the beat of a song gives one plenty of forewarning as to when a melody might change.

And that assumes that the rhythm of a melody doesn't put you in am altered, hypnotic state in other ways.

Raphmedia• 10 years ago

Depends. If you are randomly jamming with friends and someone is too stoned, he's going to have one hell of a time trying to keep up if you suddenly go from a slow repetitive bluesy riff to something more rock & roll.

singlow2• 10 years ago

Jazz musicians and other improvisational music require fast reactions to other players.

atom-morgan• 10 years ago

As an aside, is music really reliant on reflexes like this?

Absolutely. The ability to recover from a mistake without anyone knowing.

emeraldd• 10 years ago

The reflexes come in with being able to make complex and delicate movements required to actually use an instrument. It's kind of like touch typing but more so, for music to sound smooth those movements have to just "happen" rather than being explicitly thought out.

beat7• 10 years ago

The original association of marijuana and music is in jazz, and playing while stoned is still as much norm as exception among jazz musicians. Jazz is a form of structured improvisation. The raw music actually isn't that complex. What's complex is trying to make a new statement with that music on the fly, while simultaneously listening closely to other musicians in the band, who are making their own statements. Done right, it feels like two (or more) minds thinking as one.

So yes, in addition to the physical reflexes needed to play difficult instruments gracefully, there's a lot of in-the-moment reflex in responding to the music and your fellow musicians.

zamalek2• 10 years ago

I know a few people (myself included) who claim to get impaired by marijuana. While I don't drink and drive myself, some of that crowd do, but, they never smoke and drive.

Not only is there the correlation as described in the article, I've also seen (p=0) much more honest self-evaluation on marijuana.

sageikosa• 10 years ago

Not really reflexes per se; as reflexes don't involve any higher brain function. One doesn't rely on reflexes for driving. Reaction time on the other hand is an entirely different matter...

ssully• 10 years ago

Your pot/music comparison to show reflexes being unaffected doesn't really work when the music industry has a long history of drug abuse of all kinds, including alcohol. It's not very hard to find stories or even videos of musicians being drunk and playing great shows. It is almost a cliche to have images of legendary musicians drinking from bottles of hard liquor while on stage.

dfrey• 10 years ago

Playing music also has very little to do with reacting to unexpected events.

rufus-overhead2• 10 years ago

I disagree. Marijuana can impair reflexes significantly, at least for some individuals. My high school drivers education class (1979) had an electronic device used to measure brake reflex time. The device had simulated accelerator and brake pedals. A red lamp would light to signal the need to brake. I believe the average response time for most teens was around 250ms. I smoked pot nearly everyday during this period of my life. On the day our class was put to the brake response test I showed up high, as usual. I scored over 1 second on the response test. The instructor at first thought I was putting him on. He reset the device and had me try again. The response time was the same. I'll also admit that during this time I had episodes where I would "zone out" while driving high on pot. I would not remember a significant portion of the drive I had just undertaken.

My read of the article referenced is that current measurement techniques for Marijuana do not accurately correlate with driver impairment. That's not the same thing as stating Marijuana impaired drivers are safer than ones intoxicated with alcohol.

rjeli• 10 years ago

I am curious, did smoking every day affect you permanently in any way?

I have used cannabis recreationally a few times, and each time I feel slightly mentally impaired (slow thinking) for days afterward. It has completely scared me off from using it further.

dimino4• 10 years ago

Marijuana doesn't significantly impair reflexes (as generations of musicians have shown).

What reflexes do you need while playing an instrument?

namlem• 10 years ago

I've driven high plenty of times in the past (not anymore though) and the issue is not one of reflexes or judgement, but attention. Being high makes you really easily distracted, and, in my experience, more likely to take your eyes off the road for longer periods of time. That's where the risk comes from.

oarsinsync• 10 years ago

"At the current time, specific drug concentration levels cannot be reliably equated with a specific degree of driver impairment"

Massively leading title given the statement actually issued, and their own remarks later on:

There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills[0]. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble.

[0]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23220273

MadManE• 10 years ago

But if they told the truth, they wouldn't get upvoted to the front page.

draw_down2• 10 years ago

If anything is true about how this country acts with cannabis, it's that facts and data are pretty much 100% ignored.

_dark_matter_• 10 years ago

I wonder if, as public perception changes on the issue, stoned drivers will be in even less accidents as their own perception changes - i.e. "I'm high on cannabis, but that doesn't impair driving, so my own driving isn't impaired", and thus they drive better. Compared to before, "I'm high, high drivers are bad drivers, so my own driving is impaired".

MaxfordAndSons• 10 years ago

I can't imagine that's how cognition and an activity like driving interact. It's not like negative reinforcement in a social setting (getting demoted at work and as a result getting discouraged and becoming a worse performer, for example) - most people realize driving is an inherently dangerous activity, and most people don't want to die (even if they're doing moderately risky things like driving stoned), so they're not going to have an emotional reaction like "Welp! Guess I'm just fated to drive like shit since I'm stoned right now, hope I make it home, but first lets do some donuts." No, they're going to overcompensate and drive more safely.

If anything, I'd be concerned the opposite effect would occur - data suggesting that driving stoned is safe will cause stoned drivers to lower their guard and not compensate for their impairment as much, and thus raise stoned driving accident rates.

Symmetry2• 10 years ago

I remember an article on this in New Scientist back in the 90s that went into a lot more depth. A study showed that while alcohol impaired multiple aspects of driving skill marijuana mostly impaired just time judgement. And stoned drivers tended to overestimate their level of impairment and slow down while drunk drivers tended to underestimate how impaired they were. They actually found that drivers who were moderately drunk and stoned were less likely to crash than drivers who were just moderately drunk because they slowed down even though they were more impaired.

webXL• 10 years ago

Right, there's more involved than just the impairment itself. I was just about to ask if this had something to with stoned drivers driving more carefully just to avoid harsher penalties for possession. Data from states where pot is legal would be interesting.

Symmetry2• 10 years ago

In this case the subjects were given substances in a lab and then used a driving simulator.

kdamken3• 10 years ago

Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high. Call an uber or something.

I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired. Driving is an incredibly dangerous activity on its own. Doing it when you're stoned is a stupid and risky move, and comparing it to how much more dangerous drunk driving is doesn't make it less stupid.

If you've never smoked pot, you don't understand how it feels and affects your thinking/reactions/perception of time and reality. If you smoke pot everyday, it may affect you less due to tolerance, but it's still affecting you, much like a functional alcoholic.

I have nothing against usage and I strongly encourage legalization, but I don't think it's okay to pretend that it's safe to get high and go driving.

Broken_Hippo6• 10 years ago

That isn't what the article was saying.

I do find it a bit unfair to compare daily smokers to functional alcoholics, however - there is a definite difference in the way the drugs affect folks. This was the main point of the article. A slight buzz like that of a daily smoker - or someone using for medical reasons - isn't affecting safety, but going more than that and it should be obvious. Be safe and all that.

Besides. Part of the issue is that public transportation lacking in a lot of parts of the country. Some folks just don't have options, even things like Uber, and if you live just slightly out of the way, such things wind up costing even more money. If you are drunk, you can get arrested in some places (indiana) for walking home - instant public intoxication charge. Still more places don't have safe options to walk or ride bikes if you are impared. These things need fixed to be able to do what you are encouraging.

squidfood• 10 years ago

The key point in the article is actually the tests used. THC stays in the body long (days/weeks) after you're no longer impaired.

If a breathalyzer test on Tuesday picked up the beer you had last Saturday, there'd be no correlation between that test and accidents, either. (and no one would approve of using such a test for law enforcement).

amazon_not• 10 years ago

These things need fixed to be able to do what you are encouraging.

Lack of transportation, other options or the public intoxication charges should not and cannot ever be an acceptable reason for driving while impaired.

If you indulge, don't drive. Period.

There is no option B. The only acceptable solution, if you have to get behind a wheel and drive, is to abstain from any impairing consumption.

wildmusings3• 10 years ago

If you are drunk, you can get arrested in some places (indiana) for walking home - instant public intoxication charge.

If you're so drunk that you'd get pulled over as a pedestrian, then you most certainly should not be driving.

Still more places don't have safe options to walk or ride bikes if you are impared. These things need fixed to be able to do what you are encouraging.

How about some personal responsibility? Society isn't responsible for enabling people's drinking. If you can't get home without driving, then don't drink (or if it's a long visit, have only one or two, at the beginning).

tetrep• 10 years ago

I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired.

The keyword here is "impaired." It doesn't just have to involve drugs, being exhausted and attempting to drive is also very dangerous. Not just for you, but for everyone else on/near the road.

odonnellryan3• 10 years ago

This is true, don't immediately after waking up, when very tired, etc..

dubcanada• 10 years ago

It's also not safe to drive while tired, on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs), while texting, while on the phone, while not looking at the road, with glasses (they could fall off and you'd be blind), with a heart condition, etc etc.

I think it's safe to assume you drive very often with things that affect your driving. If pot is proven to not affect your driving to a measurable degree, then the only thing that is different between that and random over the counter medication is one is called pot.

rudolf04• 10 years ago

People really, really shouldn't be driving under those conditions, either.

kdamken3• 10 years ago

Yes, all those things affect your ability to drive. You shouldn't text and drive, but people do it, etc. I would say being stoned is a lot worse than the other things you listed though:

- When you're tired, you can have a cup of coffee and wake up a bit and regain some of that focus. You can't drink a red bull and suddenly be way less high.

- If you send a text or two while driving, you're not paying attention to the road for a few moments (which is admittedly still crazy dangerous). If you drive stoned - you're driving less safely the entire time you're driving. The combination of the two is even worse.

- Having a heart condition doesn't mean you're going to necessarily have a heart attack every time you drive - there's just a higher risk that something might happen. Even in that case, you may be able to stop/pull over. Once again, if you drive stoned - you're driving less safely the entire time you're driving.

- You can have a backup pair of glasses, you can pull over, etc.

But my main point - just because there are other things that can make the already insanely dangerous activity of driving more risky, doesn't make driving high less bad.

Someone1234• 10 years ago

on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs)

I assume you mean any medication which may impair you.

There are lot's of medications which people should take before driving, like anti-seizure, antipsychotics, heart control, blood sugar control, and so on.

It will typically tell you on the label if it is safe to take and operate heavy machinery. Although I'd always suggest taking it the first time while not doing so regardless, just in case of an unexpected side effect or adverse reaction.

wildmusings3• 10 years ago

Your analogy is terrible. Marijuana is not comparable to anything you can buy over the counter. Unless you chug a bottle of cough syrup and then drive, which is just as illegal as driving drunk or stoned.

scarecrowbob• 10 years ago

I don't really mess with cannabis any more, but I think that a lot of folks have strange ideas about how it affects people.

If my only experience with the drug were the first couple of times in college where we were taking bong hits, then yeah, I can see why people would be shocked that you could drive in that state. It took a me a couple of years before I discovered that most of the folks (especially the folks in their 50s - 60s I hang out with) really are just getting a little bit at a time.

It's possible (and I think for many long-term users, more normal) to have only enough to modify your mood and outlook on events without becoming glued-to-the-couch high.

Pro tip: there is also a difference between having a beer with dinner and chugging vodka shots all night long. :D

dimino4• 10 years ago

If pot is proven to not affect your driving to a measurable degree

What??

ssmoot3• 10 years ago

I feel like you didn't even read the article. Here's the summary of the linked study:

Differences in study designs frequently account for inconsistencies in results between studies. Participant-selection bias and confounding factors attenuate ostensible cannabis effects, but the association with MVA often retains significance. Evidence suggests recent smoking and/or blood THC concentrations 2-5 ng/mL are associated with substantial driving impairment, particularly in occasional smokers. Future cannabis-and-driving research should emphasize challenging tasks, such as divided attention, and include occasional and chronic daily cannabis smokers.

Suggesting that taking a couple Tylenol is as dangerous as smoking anything (even tobacco for occasional users) before/while driving is ridiculous.

TallGuyShort• 10 years ago

Agreed. I think the value of results like this is to challenge selection biases. I have family in Colorado where marijuana was recently legalized, an action I support despite never smoking it nor having desire to. They're worried about the legalization resulting in everyone driving high, and they constantly cite 1 incident where someone rear-ended a cop while high. It's illogical to take anything from a single incident simply because it was relevant enough to make headlines and ignore all the other different incidents that don't make headlines because there's nothing novel about them.

scottious• 10 years ago

but I don't think it's okay to pretend that it's safe to get high and go driving.

I agree, but I also think it's more nuanced than that. Sure, at the extremes you're totally right. Though take a daily smoker who doses themselves with a predictable and regular amount... that person is very likely not impaired, or at least not more impaired than somebody who's behind the wheel while they're tired.

I think the reality is very complicated... and that makes accurate laws really hard to create. It certainly is easier to just say "you can't have any THC in your body while you're driving"... but I don't agree with that and I don't have a better suggestion honestly.

three14• 10 years ago

The article didn't say that it's safe at all - just that the measurement of THC in the blood doesn't tell you if someone is impaired. If someone knows they are high, they're probably at much more risk than the people with THC in their blood discussed in the article.

serge2k• 10 years ago

I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired

I don't know about that, I think the people who want to do that will just find another excuse. Especially potheads, who seem to be unable to acknowledge that anything exists in this world that isn't helped by pot. Driving? probably better if you do while high. Seizures? Pot is now the only accepted option man. Broken back? Here have a pot brownie.

gnaritas7• 10 years ago

You're incorrect and you're incorrectly equating pot to alcohol as if the effects were remotely similar, they are not.

And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no more likely to crash than who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving.

That means users who are too high to drive know it, and don't. It also means you can drive high as long as you're not too high without adversely affecting safety.

Pot is not alcohol, it does not belong in that mold and there's absolutely no reason to single it out of the multitude of other things that can impair driving. Alcohol is a special case precisely because it impairs your judgement.

norea-armozel• 10 years ago

Well I can say for certain when I take certain allergy meds I know I can't drive for crap. So I usually stay in. And when at work I just deal with the allergies as is since I have a long commute home since the last time I tried driving on allergy meds made it hard to concentrate. So, I can imagine it's not much better driving high on pot.

Shivetya• 10 years ago

Impaired has meaning, there might be different levels of impairment and that is what worries me most. People vastly over estimate their driving skills when sober.

Which by the way, you ever want to see just how good you are in reality, go do one of the racing related or defensive driving course. Ouch.

evo_9• 10 years ago

I disagree.

Most days when I get out of work the first thing I do is smoke with my Pax2 as I walk to my car.

I then drive home 'high'. I've done this most of my adult life. Smoking Pot and driving has zero negative effects on my driving. In fact, just as the article points out, I am more likely to drive more safely and take it easy.

Also, for what its worth, there are two types of strains - Sativa and Indica.

Indica is the type that knocks you out and makes you sit on the couch doing nothing; Sativa's, for me anyway, gives a focused, up buzz that makes me sharper and more alert.

I am a Sativa-only guy and for me smoking and then dealing with rush-hour traffic is how I prefer things. If you are saying people shouldn't smoke an indica heavy strain and then drive, I could see that argument but, in my experience, it's still safer than alcohol. But yes, generally, I would agree with that.

Sativa's though, no way, that just doesn't make sense based on my personal experience.

lubesGordi• 10 years ago

Did you read the article? What facts are you even basing your claims on?

Zigurd• 10 years ago

Statements like this one are baseless, unscientific, and fearmongering:

"Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high."

MAYBE this is correct. But it is also possible that being stoned is benign compared to allergy medication, sleep apnea symptoms, general fatigue, texting while driving, and a hundred other causes of risk, enough to make it hard to distinguish driving while stoned as an seperable risk factor.

The downside of statements like this is that they perpetuate a fear-driven enforcement model that will cost many people thousands to tens of thousands of dollars for infractions that are not making anyone safer. And there are opportunists ready to enrich themselves on that basis.

zzz1578• 10 years ago

It is nothing like functional alcoholism. Marijuana does not cause someone to become overconfident and make stupid decisions and take risks, and it doesn't cause any significant change in reaction time when used regularly. But, of course, a functional alcoholic would probably drive drunk slightly more safely than someone who rarely drinks. But the direct CNS effects of alcohol make alcohol a pretty direct safety risk in ways that marijuana is not.

Also, do you support the .08 legal limit for alcohol? That's about two drinks for most people. If you do, do you think Marijuana should be any different? Why could I have two drinks, but not two joints?

mywittyname2• 10 years ago

I can't argue with this data, but I have to wonder how much tolerance/individuality plays a role in this. I know that I personally could not drive high on THC, my propensity to zone out would almost certainly result in an accident, but I (used to) have friends who drove regularly during and after partaking and I was completely confident in their abilities.

Personally, I think prohibitionists/law enforcement is looking for an easy money-grab and are hunting for justification of their desires rather than responding to an actual harmful issue that society is facing.

bluedino2• 10 years ago

> I can't argue with this data, but I have to wonder how much tolerance/individuality plays a role in this.

A ton. Someone who only drinks a couple times a year and drives home drunk from a wedding or something and isn't used to it is a lot more unsafe than someone who goes to happy hour every day and drives home all the time like that.

sokoloff2• 10 years ago

Maybe on a per-event basis, but probably not on an annual basis.

lukeschlather• 10 years ago

The headline is simply a lie. The study basically showed that you cannot measure whether someone is stoned by testing their blood for THC. The blood test only proves they were stoned at some point in the past few weeks.

The study did not show that it's safe to drive while stoned, and if you read the entire article they're fairly clear about that.

mywittyname2• 10 years ago

The study did not show that it's safe to drive while stoned, and if you read the entire article they're fairly clear about that.

Which is exactly what I can't argue with. My point was in reference to the conclusion of the article, which states,

So, should we all assume that we're safe to blaze one and go for a joyride whenever the whimsy strikes us? Absolutely not. There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble.

We apparently cannot map concentrations of THC to driver impairment. Which agrees with my anecdotal experience in the matter, that the effects THC vary greatly with individuals.

hristov• 10 years ago

This means nothing. The big difference between alcohol and other drugs is that there is a relatively straightforward correlation between the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream and the current effect of alcohol on the brain.

Somebody testing positive for marijuana may not be stoned at all. It could be they were stoned last week and tested positive.

Furthermore, alcohol testing is much easier and is the only type of testing really done by police in the field. Police will try to get you to admit being impaired by other drugs if they stop you, but they do not have anything like the breathalyzer to test for other drugs.

Current data comparing driving impairment of various drugs and alcohol is almost entirely an artifact of the difference in testing methods.

vasilipupkin• 10 years ago

Yes, the only thing anyone should take away from this data is, we currently do not have reliable data on impairment vs intoxication on THC. Need controlled studies to collect it

chipotle2• 10 years ago

Maybe they get in fewer accidents because they are driving like 8 miles per hour.

curiousgeorgio4• 10 years ago

You can distort the data all you want, or in this case, put it in an absurd context to try and prove a point, but the fact remains - the legalization of marijuana is not without negative consequences.

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned AAA's findings (legalization followed by a 2x increase in fatal marijuana-related crashes): http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving...

EDIT: Link to the study [PDF]: http://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-content/uploads/201...

rudolf04• 10 years ago

Driving while high should definitely be banned, but it kind of seems like they're making a big assumption here.

The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014.

How are they ruling out the fact that since it's been legalized, more people in general are using marijuana?

curiousgeorgio4• 10 years ago

How are they ruling out the fact that since it's been legalized, more people in general are using marijuana?

That's exactly the point. No one is trying to say that driving high has gotten more dangerous as a result of legalization - just that it's inherently dangerous (and a certain percentage of marijuana users are going to be driving either way), so legalization only contributes to more usage, leading to more irresponsible decisions on the road.

gnaritas7• 10 years ago

Driving while high should definitely be banned

As there's no valid means of determining "while high", this is simply not a rational thing to attempt to do. Additionally, there's no data supporting that driving while high is actually a problem that needs solving, specifically that people don't know they're too high and drive anyway. You should first prove something is a problem before attempting to outlaw it.

Carrok• 10 years ago

The study you linked has the same error that almost all of these 'studies' have. "The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014." So they are testing the blood of deceased people, finding the presence of THC (which can remain the blood for weeks), and calling them 'marijuana-related crashes'.

So quite literally by their own definition, someone could smoke some weed, a week later get drunk, go driving, crash, and now this is a 'marijuana related' crash?

I don't buy it.

curiousgeorgio4• 10 years ago

The study may have flaws (as all do), but it's a whole lot more conclusive than a claim such as "Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show", a statement obviously trying to imply that marijuana is somehow safe for drivers, when it's obviously not.

One could compare marijuana-related accidents to any number of other dangerous activities and make it look safe in comparison.

Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? This article (especially the headline) is incredibly dangerous and misleading, as it's apparently trying to get people to respond with something like "see, marijuana doesn't harm anyone," when in reality, it does.

deelowe3• 10 years ago

I couldn't find a link to the study. I had a few thoughts on this that weren't addressed:

1) What do they mean by "involving marijuana?" The article jumps straight to THC concentration levels in the blood, but doesn't state that this was what was measured in the (i assume) study they are referencing. "Involving marijuana" could just as easily mean that they found pot or paraphernalia in the car. In previous studies I've read, this was actually the case.

2) Why limit it to just fatal road crashes? Is it because there's no change to nonfatal crashes or perhaps that number went down implying that their assumption of marijuana's influence over driving ability is pronounced and are instead focusing on an outlier to push an agenda?

3) Did the total number of fatalities change significantly? If not, then this is a non-story. Of course there would be more instances "involving marijuana." It's legal now, so there's more people "involved" with marijuana on a day to day basis. This would be no different than saying that the rate of fatal crashes "involving" Tesla automobiles has increased since they were introduced to the market.

All of this may be addressed in the study and this is just a terrible story, but I can't tell from the article.

zymhan• 10 years ago

This is from February of 2015. Nothing about this data is new anymore.

samsonradu• 10 years ago

I was watching a documentary the other day about life in a Delhi prison and I was thinking to myself if there's the slightest possibility for me to ever end up in prison for one reason or another, considering of course that I don't have the slightest intention of committing a felony. Then I realized that a driving mistake has the best odds of causing such a thing. It's crazy how many don't take such a high-responsibility task seriously, texting, drinking, smoking while driving.

elcapitan• 10 years ago

On the other hand, studies have shown that red wine is good for the heart and chocolate as well. So the best of all worlds is to get stoned, drink a lot of red wine and then drive while eating chocolate. Why is there no study yet showing that?

binarymax2• 10 years ago

I'm on vacation in Colorado right now, and you can point out the stoned drivers. They tend to drive slow and passive, they fear the merge, and spend lots of time stopped at stop signs making sure they really are stopped and not going to crash. The impression I have is that their judgement and reactions are definitely impaired, but in a stark contrast to the invincibility and carelessness of alcohol induced drivers.

hfourm• 10 years ago

You noticed this just on vacation eh?

As a CO resident, maybe you just haven't noticed how shitty our drivers are ;)

binarymax2• 10 years ago

It's purely anecdotal, but I point them out to my sister who has lived here for several years, and she confirms "Yes - definitely stoned."

sosborn• 10 years ago

As a CO resident, maybe you just haven't noticed how shitty our drivers are ;)

I've lived in many places, including Colorado, and let me tell you – drivers are shitty everywhere :)

mbrameld• 10 years ago

How do you verify your assumptions?

monocasa2• 10 years ago

As someone who lives in Colorado, you'd be surprised how many of those people are just "Colorado drivers". I keep asking my mother in law "why are you doing 15 under; you're not even high?" "Oh, it's just so pretty, I wouldn't want to pass everything so quickly". >_<

We also call this "meditating while driving" and "'This isn't my bike!? How do I drive something with 4 wheels?'"

tonyarkles• 10 years ago

The old joke back in high school: Drunk drivers ignore red lights, stoned drivers wait for the stop sign to turn green.

mountaineer22• 10 years ago

The drivers stopped at the stop sign for significant periods of time are actually waiting for the stop sign to turn green.

brickmort• 10 years ago

Stoned drivers are less dangerous than drunk ones

exodust• 10 years ago

"Safer than drunk" is a poor choice or words, irresponsible even.

If you drive within an hour or two or three of smoking sticky buds, the risk is not reflexes or reaction time, it's getting distracted by your own thoughts, or zoning out. That can easily translate into driving through a red light. The mind wanders when stoned, which is the opposite of what you want when operating machinery.

iconjack• 10 years ago

From the comments here, it seems like people either didn't read the article, or just don't believe the study, because it pretty much says it is ok to smoke and drive.

  For marijuana, and for a number of other legal and illegal
  drugs including antidepressants, painkillers, stimulants
  and the like, there is no statistically significant change
  in the risk of a crash associated with using that drug
  prior to driving.

draw_down2• 10 years ago

As I mentioned in my other comment, people do not want to hear about studies or other data indicating that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. They just do not want to hear it.

cooper12• 10 years ago

Skepticism is healthy. It's quite common for mainstream media to distill a study with tons of caveats and situational results to clickbait like "drinking alcohol means you'll live longer". Not to mention we shouldn't draw any conclusions until reading the paper itself because the article says nothing of their methodology. Lastly with things like the replication crisis and other shoddy results, I don't blame people for not being so fast to believe what common sense would tell them otherwise. [0]

Edit, case in point, caveats from the paper itself:

While the findings of this case control study were equivocal with regard to the crash risk associated with drug use by drivers, these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free. The study limitations cited above, together with the findings of numerous other studies using different and complementary methods, need to be carefully considered before more definitive conclusions about drug use and crash risk can be reached.
The findings of this study notwithstanding, the established body of scientific evidence on the subject of drug impairment indicates that in some situations, drugs other than alcohol can seriously impair driving ability.

Oh, and you really should read articles all the way through:

So, should we all assume that we're safe to blaze one and go for a joyride whenever the whimsy strikes us? Absolutely not. There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

notahacker2• 10 years ago

From your comment, you clearly read neither the article nor the study. I mean, the article states "There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble" and the study itself cites plenty of other studies which have found strong positive associations between marijuana use and driving impairments.

What it actually shows is that for one particular study the increase in crashes resulting from users testing positive for marijuana (i.e. have used up to a week ago) becomes statistically insignificant when controlling for user demographics. It also threw up anomalies like a [statistically insignificant] improvement in drivers under the influence of smaller amounts of alcohol over no alcohol or drugs, so I wouldn't exactly herald it as definitive.

To argue that they "pretty much says it is ok to smoke and drive" is a grotesque distortion of the actual research.

mcbits• 10 years ago

So, we have "impairs key driving skills" versus "no statistically significant change in the risk of a crash". It sounds a bit like in vitro vs. in vivo results. At the end of the day, I'm more concerned about risk factors that actually lead to accidents on the roads.

Why doesn't "key driving skill" impairment from marijuana appear to increase the risk of a crash? My best guess is that stoned drivers are concerned about being pulled over and are able to compensate more than 1) someone impaired but not aware/concerned enough to compensate (e.g. tired or distracted drivers) or 2) someone worried about getting pulled over but unable to compensate as well for their impairment (e.g. drunk drivers).

FireBeyond2• 10 years ago

I think you're completely misreading the study. The conclusion that you quote says -nothing- about the safety of using those drugs and driving, just compares them to marijuana.

Note: those drugs come with warnings either recommending against driving or observing your reaction to the drug before driving.

Not: "you can, so, good to go".

I don't smoke. I work in EMS. I see many many positive medical and recreational uses. My partner is a recreational, daily smoker. I have no bias here.

I'm just pointing out that you're extrapolating from the quote above something that it doesn't say. No comment is made about the safety of those drug classes and driving, and indeed your extrapolation makes you as guilty of inference as you say others are:

"Well, I don't see any impact when I use those drugs and drive, so I don't see a problem".

vlunkr• 10 years ago

That chart has sections for both "Any Legal Drug" and "Any Illegal Drug", and both bars are barely visible. Are they claiming that all drugs, legal or not, don't affect driving?? Because that would be an incredibly stupid claim.

dimino4• 10 years ago

I'm going to upgrade my view of this article to linkbait title. The title should be, "THC found to not correlate with impairment in the same way that blood alcohol concentration does".

From the article:

The study's findings underscore an important point: that the measurable presence of THC (marijuana's primary active ingredient) in a person's system doesn't correlate with impairment in the same way that blood alcohol concentration does.

The story here is that there is no "THC impairment" test like there is a blood alcohol test, not that driving while stoned is safer.

bunkydoo• 10 years ago

I'm a bit curious if the "any illegal drug" column includes LSD or hallucinogens. Part of me thinks most people have the common sense not to drive while on such a substance, part of me thinks there would be no way to gather data

green_lunch• 10 years ago

It's studies like this that have caused people in my city to support legally driving while high. I've seen so many people that somehow think there is no effect on driving skills.

I'm all for legalization, but I will not support the potential of endangering other people.

mjhm2539• 10 years ago

"Neighbor beats his wife less often than other neighbor, new federal data shows"

musgrove• 10 years ago

I think a lot of people could have told them that. Including, most likely, some of the researchers themselves as well as a few presidents, especially our current one, and most Kennedys.

RichardCA• 10 years ago

Carl Sagan had some things to say about this topic.

http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/

slipperyp• 10 years ago

KIRO TV in Seattle did a small test of impairment on a closed course with participants using varying amounts of marijuana a few years ago around the time Washington voters were choosing to legalize pot and found similar results:

http://www.kiro7.com/news/stoned-drivers-hit-test-course/139...

cphoover• 10 years ago

Confirming what everyone already knew.

Also... Driving impaired in anyway is a big mistake.

ck2• 10 years ago

I've had two friends killed by drunk drivers in two different decades and I have to run on the side of the road

If you are on anything, legal or illegal that influences you, I hope you get a nice long prison sentence for driving impaired.

If you see someone step out of a bar or whatnot that is either drunk or high and goes to drive, please call the police and possibly save someone's life - you don't have to call 911, call the anonymous number for your city.

return0• 10 years ago

Both should only be allowed to drive self-driving cars.

kalehrishi• 10 years ago

They must be smoking good stuff when they decided to publish this article :D

jacquesm• 10 years ago

The only valid comparison is with a driver that is sober.

breatheoften• 10 years ago

Are there any ways to directly measure impairment rather than using chemical trace detection as a proxy for the affect?

Maybe a driver could take a short impairment test on their cellphone or in car computer prior to starting their drive -- if they pass the test then they would have an argument against impairement should they become subsequently involved in an accident... If they fail the test and drive anyway then there's an even stronger argument that they made an irresponsible decision for which they must take responsibility.

WelcomeToHeaven• 10 years ago

Was federal data really needed to determine stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones? I thought it would be known that drunk driving is more dangerous than stoned driving.

skuunk1• 10 years ago

The title seems misleading. People with marijuana in their bloodstream != stoned drivers. Marijuana use is detectable for a long time past the point of impairment and the data only reflects that they HAVE used marijuana vs being stoned at the point of driving.

Maybe instead of breathalysers and drug detection kits we should have standardised attention/reaction tests to determine if someone is safe to drive (you could probably even run them on a tablet). This would also weed out (pun intended) tired drivers.

Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

Related Stories