View Full Version : Federal grant funds Colorado effort to fight driving while high on pot
Federal grant funds Colorado effort to fight driving while high on pot (http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_24898550/federal-grant-funds-colorado-effort-fight-driving-while)
Efforts are expanding to keep those who overindulge on weed from getting behind the wheel — and punishing those who do.
A $400,000 grant from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is being used for an anti-imbibing and driving campaign and to train more law enforcement officers to spot pot-impaired drivers.
"It's ironic we're using federal funding for something that is illegal federally," Colorado Department of Transportation spokeswoman Emily Wilfong said. "But they (federal officials) do realize this is a traffic safety issue and needs to be addressed."
A chunk of the money will go toward television advertising. Posters warning of the danger of impaired driving will be distributed to stores that sell pot.
As a tax payer, I find this leans more towards criminal government insanity than "irony".
Either enforce the laws or change them. This idea that we'll have all kinds of laws on the books and whomever is running the federal government at the time will selectively enforce them is lunacy.
I dunno, I think the Feds are warming up to the idea. Besides, two CSP cars were hit last night by a stoned driver, best to nip this in the bud and try to campaign like they do with DUIs.
Sent from my evil, black smartphone.
Sounds like a really good use for the new MJ tax money. Tax the sin and use it to pay for the direct effects of the sin. No reason for the feds to be paying into that. Yeah $400k is peanuts when talking federal money but it does eventually add up.
Federal grant funds Colorado effort to fight driving while high on pot (http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_24898550/federal-grant-funds-colorado-effort-fight-driving-while)
As a tax payer, I find this leans more towards criminal government insanity than "irony".
Either enforce the laws or change them. This idea that we'll have all kinds of laws on the books and whomever is running the federal government at the time will selectively enforce them is lunacy.
NTSB's job is transportation related, idoubt they can do anything to enforce drug laws.
That said, this does fall into the same category as government funding anti -smoking campaigns, only to turn around and give handouts to tobacco farmers.
Either enforce the laws or change them. This idea that we'll have all kinds of laws on the books and whomever is running the federal government at the time will selectively enforce them is lunacy.
[Awesom] Great post.
Maybe the local tax dollars pay for intelligent things like this; Colorado changes 'Mile 420' highway marker to stymie stoner heists (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/12/22277341-colorado-changes-mile-420-highway-marker-to-stymie-stoner-heists)
Maybe the local tax dollars pay for intelligent things like this; Colorado changes 'Mile 420' highway marker to stymie stoner heists (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/12/22277341-colorado-changes-mile-420-highway-marker-to-stymie-stoner-heists)
Saw that too.
I can't imagine the 419.99 mile post is going to fare much better. They need to put up a "<-- 419 - think about it - 421 -->" post.
Just another waste of our federal taxes. No need o shuffle money to DC for them to send it back minus 50% to fund a few TV commercials.
BPTactical
01-13-2014, 22:43
Federal grant funds Colorado effort to fight driving while high on pot (http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_24898550/federal-grant-funds-colorado-effort-fight-driving-while)
As a tax payer, I find this leans more towards criminal government insanity than "irony".
Either enforce the laws or change them. This idea that we'll have all kinds of laws on the books and whomever is running the federal government at the time will selectively enforce them is lunacy.
FTW.
You're Punny.
[Beer] Glad someone caught it.
Regardless of the outcome, if someone I love is killed by an intoxicated driver (be it alcohol or pot, I don't see a difference- ability to drive is impaired), I'd want maximum penalties for it. But the better route is to *try* to not have it happen as much in the first place. Although I'm not sure it will really work... are we seeing positive results from those don't drink and drive commercials?
[Beer] Glad someone caught it.
are we seeing positive results from those don't drink and drive commercials?
Oh we caught it, were just hoping it would go away :)
If I had to guess, I'd say the high enforcement and extreme penalties have alot more effect than commercials.
Fatal car crashes involving pot use have tripled in U.S., study finds (http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/fatal-car-crashes-involving-pot-use-have-tripled-in-us-study-finds-1)
(HealthDay News) -- The legalization of marijuana is an idea that is gaining momentum in the United States, but there may be a dark side to pot becoming more commonplace, a new study suggests.
Fatal crashes involving marijuana use tripled during the previous decade, fueling some of the overall increase in drugged-driving traffic deaths, researchers from Columbia University (http://www.bing.com/search?q=columbia%20university&filters=ufn%3a%22columbia%20university%22+sid%3a%2 2f077ecb2-f11c-5802-d362-833678fd9d5f%22&FORM=MSNLHE)'s Mailman School of Public Health (http://www.bing.com/search?q=columbia%20university%20public%20health&filters=ufn%3a%22columbia%20university%20public%20 health%22+sid%3a%22e9ef8253-b84c-6b8d-9ef5-6502006c2cb9%22&FORM=MSNLHE) report.
"Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana," said co-author Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention atColumbia (http://www.bing.com/search?q=columbia%20university&filters=ufn%3a%22columbia%20university%22+sid%3a%2 2f077ecb2-f11c-5802-d362-833678fd9d5f%22&FORM=MSNLHE). "If this trend continues, in five or six years non-alcohol drugs will overtake alcohol to become the most common substance involved in deaths related to impaired driving."
The research team drew its conclusions from crash statistics from six states that routinely perform toxicology tests on drivers involved in fatal car wrecks -- California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and West Virginia. The statistics included more than 23,500 drivers who died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010.
Alcohol (http://www.bing.com/search?q=alcohol%20drink&filters=ufn%3a%22alcohol%20drink%22+sid%3a%224c620 994-9bf9-a675-94bd-6628dd385fe4%22&FORM=MSNLHE) contributed to about the same percentage of traffic fatalities throughout the decade, about 40 percent, Li said.
But drugs played an increasingly prevalent role in fatal crashes, the researchers found. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, up from more than 16 percent in 1999.
Marijuana (http://www.bing.com/search?q=marijuana&filters=ufn%3a%22marijuana%22+sid%3a%22e464e76c-29c7-3cbb-130d-9cd3633e98f3%22&FORM=MSNLHE) proved to be the main drug involved in the increase, contributing to 12 percent of 2010 crashes compared with 4 percent in 1999.
Article doesn't say if the drivers with drugs in their system were at fault or not. It specifically says that "Alcohol contributed to about the same percentage of traffic fatalities throughout the decade..." There is a significant difference between something being present, and something being a contributing factor. It might sound like I'm trying to defend driving while high, I'm not, I'm just pointing out that these statistics, and probably the alcohol related ones are likely to be misleading. Similar to children being killed by guns being aged 0-22. For example, if a limo with 14 passengers drives off a bridge and everyone dies, the tox report might come back as fatal accident with alcohol found in 14 out of 15 participants. I'd be willing to bet that number gets wrapped right up into the statistic without separating the fact that there were 14 people in the back drinking, but didn't contribute to the accident because the driver fell asleep at the wheel.
DUI is a crime, regardless of what chemicals you are under the influence of.
The problem with this is that the ingredient in marijuana that they currently detect through blood test or breathalyzer can remain in the body for days, long after the actual mind altering effects of the drug have subsided.
DUI is a crime, regardless of what chemicals you are under the influence of.
The problem with this is that the ingredient in marijuana that they currently detect through blood test or breathalyzer can remain in the body for days, long after the actual mind altering effects of the drug have subsided.
Whether DUI is a crime or not is irrelevant to the point they are trying to make. If you are drunk as a skunk, stopped a light and someone rear-ends you, you still have no liability and have not contributed to the accident. If they are going to throw our statistics about drugs being detected in people who have died in a car accident, it is misleading to not include whether the person with drugs found in their system contributed to the accident or not.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.