new data does show "drugs" involved in 25% of fatal crashes

[woodsmoke]

How many times have I read in online forums that "people doing marijuana don't get into wrecks".

Well......all those tens of thousands of posts that litter the internet were wrong....as usual...

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/...nds/48740704/1

Researchers examined data on more than 44,000 drivers in single-vehicle crashes who died between 1999 and 2009. They found that 24.9% tested positive for drugs and 37% had blood alcohol levels in excess of .08, the legal limit. Fifty-eight percent had no alcohol in their systems; 5% had less than .08. The data were from a government database on traffic fatalities.

Study co-authors Eduardo Romano and Robert Voas of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Md., say their study is one of the first to show the prevalence of drug use among fatally injured drivers. Among drivers who tested positive for drugs, 22% were positive for marijuana, 22% for stimulants and 9% for narcotics.

I do not await with 'bated breath, the obligatory straw man argument that "well.....alcohol accounts for MORE!".

right....what we need on the roads is TWO ways for somebody to slam head on into you friend's or your relatives' or maybe your car...

I'd much rather that people should be online to post rather than maybe attempting to communicate through a medium's trumpet.

[img width=400 height=260]http://www.hauntmastersclub.com/files/trumpet_medium.jpg[/img]

woodsmoke

[oshunluvr]

Re: new data does show "drugs" involved in 25% of fatal crashes

Not in way of rebuttal - anyone with common sense knows impaired means impaired regardless of the reason - however as usual the author of the article leaves out enough data to tilt to conclusion their way. The article only sites a study and does not include the entire study, but the math doesn't add up exactly.

24.9% Drugs (illegal or legal?)
22% + 22% + 9% > 24.9%
37% Drunk (by legal definition, not by actual impaired-ness)
No mention of what percentage had both drugs and alcohol or a mixture of drugs.

My point being if you're hammer drunk - lets say .15% or more - but also had imbibed just enough marijuana to test positive, you'd technically (since marijuana is illegal in most states) be "on illegal drugs" but it would be impossible to state that the marijuana was the primary factor in a crash and in fact, it would be highly unlikely.

However, since people who write articles like this one have no interest in actual fact sharing or creating a valid public debate, they leave out part of the actual data because it either doesn't support their pre-determined conclusions or forward the emotional response they're attempting to invoke. To be fair, the author really didn't put forward any conclusions in the article.

While I appreciate and support your desire to have all impaired driving cease, this article does nothing to actually further that goal nor does violently formed written or verbal descriptions of imagined horrible outcomes. I think almost everyone over the age of 10 knows crashing a car can kill you or others and I'd bet most of that same group would also understand that being somehow impaired (btw, driving sleepy is impaired driving. What's the jail term for that "crime?") increase your chances of a crash.

IMO bottom line is human nature cannot be legislated away, whether that be drinking, using marijuana, having premarital sex, driving in the middle of the night when you're too tired, or what have you. The only real solution is education, alternative forms of transportation, rehabilitation for those who want it, and the understanding we ultimately cannot control others.

I believe if we put 40-50% of the billions of dollars we currently spend on the prosecution and housing alcoholics and drug-addicts, include the public and private money spent on repairing the damage they do (this includes insurance companies, employers, and ourselves) and we used this money - Instead of making criminals out of people who can't control some of their behavior - to heal, treat, and provide services to these people, we'd be a much better off society and spend less money.

And yes, this would mean legalizing drugs - all drugs. Prohibition only served to create a huge network of crime syndicates and make common people into criminals - but still we have not learned the lesson that it doesn't work and the inner city gangs dealing crack on every-other corner proves it. Most western countries treat their drug addicts in hospitals - we send them to jail. Shameful.

<stepping off the soap-box>