Federal grant funds Colorado effort to fight driving while high on pot

[merl]

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.

[Gman]

Fatal car crashes involving pot use have tripled in U.S., study finds

(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's Mailman School of Public Health 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. "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 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 proved to be the main drug involved in the increase, contributing to 12 percent of 2010 crashes compared with 4 percent in 1999.

[Irving]

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.

[Ridge]

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.

[Irving]

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.