What's new
By:

I knew this was going to happen!

You realize people will test positive for pot for about a month after consumption. A person who smokes pot 3 times a week before bedtime and never ever drives stoned would be included in these bogus stats.
 
Yeah cj, this is dumb even for you.

Isn't there a clan meeting tonight?

Did I mention Franklin owns a Vietnamese sweat shop?
 
Actually assuming that they measure the data the same way from the beginning to the end of the study it does provide some interesting results. Sure the measure of THC in the blood may be from 3 weeks ago, but it is the same measure they used in 1999 to now, so it would have the same skewed effect all through the study, effectively negating the issue of recency. The study stated that across the board alcohol is a factor in 40% of fatal car crashes and that number has stayed pretty much the same over the course of the study. However, a combination of alcohol and marijuana in the system showed a fairly dramatic up-tick over the study.

Li reported in the study that alcohol contributed to about 40 percent of traffic fatalities throughout the decade.
The researchers found that drugs played an increasing role in fatal traffic accidents. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, which is 16 percent more than it was in 1999.
Click to expand...

Again, given that the toxicology testing hasn't changes significantly over the decade the results are valid.

The researchers also found that marijuana was the main drug involved in the increase. It contributed to 12 percent of fatal crashes, compared to only 4 percent in 1999.

“If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol,” Li said. “But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person.”
Click to expand...

So even if that THC showing in the tox screen is 3 weeks old, there would have been similar samples in the data throughout the study time period. It would be more interesting and telling if they could narrow down the truly "stoned" drivers from those who used a week ago and were not directly stoned at the time of the accident. Still, it is pretty interesting.


edit: I guess it might just be saying that generally people who smoke pot are worse drivers, and not that the pot itself was a strong mitigating factor. Either way it's hard to deny the correlation, even if causation cannot be proved from the data.
 
Could just be there are more pot smokers now
 
fishonjazz said:
Could just be there are more pot smokers now
Click to expand...

Kinda what I'm thinking.

That said, actually driving stoned, and especially driving drunk and stoned...not good. You can put me one the record on that one.
 
Gameface said:
Kinda what I'm thinking.

That said, actually driving stoned, and especially driving drunk and stoned...not good. You can put me one the record on that one.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
fishonjazz said:
Could just be there are more pot smokers now
Click to expand...

That is actually exactly their point. That with legalization there is an uptick in fatal accidents due to more people driving stoned, and stoned and drunk, and the data seems to prove that out.
 
LogGrad98 said:
That is actually exactly their point. That with legalization there is an uptick in fatal accidents due to more people driving stoned, and stoned and drunk, and the data seems to prove that out.
Click to expand...
Not really.

1. They don't use data from states that have legalized marijuana, since their data covers 1999-2010.

2. Fatal accidents decreased over the 1999-2010 period.

3. The study doesn't even attempt to address causality (why have fatal accidents decreased?). The authors also don't give any indication of the rates of use in the general population.

This "study" effectively presents a few summary statistics without providing any story (plausible or not). Pretty ****ing worthless.
 
It's pretty easy to construct a story about cannabis use decreasing fatal accidents with their statistics fwiw.

They report fatal accidents for the periods 1999-2002, 2003-2006 and 2007-2010. Over those 3 periods, dead drivers tested positive for alcohol at a more or less constant rate overall (the rate for BAC >= .08 increased over the 3 periods), tested at an increasing rate for cannabinol, narcotics, depressants and "other". Positive tests for stimulant use went up from the first period to the second period, and then down from the second period to third period.

Fatal accidents (where the dead drivers were tested, using data from only 6 states) went up 14% from the first period to the second period (7667 to 8764), and then down 18% from the second period to the third (8764 to 7159).

Suppose that there is a subset of the population that is both on average more reckless in their driving (and/or in general) AND more likely to consume drugs (a pretty plausible story...there are few crazies who aren't ****ed up whenever possible). Suppose that this subset of people substituted their stimulants with weed between the second and third periods, perhaps, at least in part, due to medicinal laws. One could conclude (not that they should, of course) that this substitution led to the decrease in fatal accidents...

These authors would get eaten alive presenting this garbage to an audience with even a half decent empirical background. The standard for publication in medical journals seems to be ridiculously low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top