That some will engage in dangerous or criminal conduct is pretty much a given if the opportunity presents itself, but not necessarily a reason to prohibit the lawful version of the conduct. In this instance, the conduct is ingesting marijuana, and the danger is driving high. Before you pooh-pooh it off, consider that if you or a loved one is in the car next to Tommy Chong on the highway, it could take on a more ominous concern.
Any form of driving while intoxicated is obviously a bad idea, but smoking a joint or taking an edible before getting behind the wheel can pose distinctive risks. That, experts say, is because of the particular ways that marijuana affects the brain, and the fact that there’s no standard dose for a federally criminalized drug.
There have long been very real issues with drunk driving, from the fact that the current Blood-Alcohol Content was basically made up of whole cloth by MADD and “universally accepted,” even though it lacks any scientific basis and fails to take into account salient facts. But when it comes to pot, we don’t even have a made-up number. We have no quantities, like two 12-ounce beers, and no way to define quantities. One joint? Two gummies? These words don’t serve to provide any meaningful quantification to even establish what amount of marijuana puts you one toke over the line.
But how serious is the problem of driving high? Even that’s not clear.
During the past decade, car accidents involving cannabis have been rising, and recreational use of the drug continues to climb. A recent analysis of U.S. public safety data showed that from 2000 to 2018, the percentage of motor vehicle fatalities involving cannabis more than doubled from nine percent to about 22 percent. By contrast, the percentage of fatalities involving alcohol stayed roughly the same during this period.
Is early data, from before legalization, useful? Does it skew the numbers up (because user before legalization were more inclined to be criminal and reckless) or down (as the numbers of users were lower)? Even worse, marijuana can remain in the system for 28 days, so a test on the road or post crash may not mean that the person was high at the time.
It’s also tricky for marijuana users to predict how exactly they’ll be impaired, and for how long. If you smoke a joint or take a bong hit, you’ll feel high within minutes and then return to a base level after three or four hours, Dr. Pearlson said. If you opt for a pot brownie or a gummy, it takes longer for the high to kick in, since the marijuana in edibles has to be absorbed into your gut and be metabolized through your liver. And it’s difficult to predict just how long that high will last, Dr. Pearlson said.
“If someone takes an edible, the classic scenario is, they say, ‘Hey, I’m not feeling this,’ and then 40 minutes goes by, and they get in a car and start driving,” said Dr. Collin Reiff, a psychiatrist at NYU Langone Health, in New York City.
Of course, people can recognize this about marijuana use and choose not to drive despite not “feeling this,” because they are cognitively aware of how the drug works, but will that happen? Jim Dwyer of Bisbee, Arizona says:
Given enough experience behind the wheel while stoned, such drivers can be as safe as the non-stoned.
I like edibles alot!
And in contrast, Sarah O of Ann Arbor says:
We know less than nothing re: Cannabis’ affects on driving because we allowed paper barrons to vilify it in the 20s for their own power and profit.
Pot was never the demon. White men’s greed was and is.
Of course, there’s much truth to the old joke.
“There’s that joke: Why did you get pulled over?” he said. “If you’re speeding, it’s because of alcohol. If you’re going too slow, it’s because of cannabis.”
But Silvio of Volpone sums it up best.
Wait. What the question?
But if you or your loved one is harmed or killed by a high driver, none of this is very funny.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the vast continuum of driving skills, its quite likely person A when high has less chance of an accident than a lot of person B’s.
Until we know what makes a good driver and have a way to measure it, we are wasting a lot of time and effort. We should just use the catch-all of ‘causing an accident’ whether drunk, stoned, using a phone, talking to a passenger, hopelessly inadequate as a driver…
The law prohibited reckless driving long before MADD came up with BAC. The problem is it requires proof of recklessness, whereas blowing into a black box and getting a reading was conclusive. Easy-peasy guilt.
how about ubiquitous aerial surveillance? we are nearly there. if every accident is on video then it will show who was reckless or not.
I agree .08 seems low to be and I think if MADD could get their way it would be .01. Some years ago I read that Colorado (since they were early on the legalized marijuana wagon) received a NHTSA grant to come up with a blood test for marijuana intoxication but they were unsuccessful as far as I know. Probably because, as you pointed out, of how long after use it will show up in a test. Over the past 15 or 20 years, it seems my agency has had more drugged driving cases than alcohol. It is to the point we routinely use blood draws rather than the breathalyzer.
Then there’s the question about the lifting being done by the word “involving.” It would be expected for accidents “involving” cannabis to rise after legalization even if it were to have no bearing on driving ability at all. “Involving” might mean the person in question was sitting at a red light and was rear ended by someone watching “Stranger Things” on their iPhone.
It’s fairly well-known that blood tests can distinguish between the active component THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and the non-psychoactive marijuana metabolite THC-COOH, which can linger in the body for days and weeks with no impairing effects. It’s true that there is no threshold such as the .08 threshold for alcohol. Similar to alcohol, any given amount of THC could impair some people and have no effect on others, so a hard threshold would be pointless (as it is with alcohol, especially when it is set so low that drinking the night before and then driving to work the next morning can put someone over the limit). It’s also true that, even if the blood test shows 0 THC, police can and will testify that the defendant was, in their expert opinion, impaired, and juries will convict those defendants.
https://youtu.be/RijB8wnJCN0
[Ed. Note: Against my better judgment, I’m allowing this.]
I know of only one controlled test of marijuana’s effect on driving done by Car and Driver about 40 years ago. This was a follow-up to their drunk driving experiment and involved several staff members, a,supply of inoxicant and a test track. They also had a breathalyzer for the alcohol test but simply counted tokes for marijuana.. Both experiments showed increased impairment with consumption but varying degrees by individual.
Three true statements:
SHG:
Elpey P.:
Pedantic Grammar Police:
So, at risk of unapproval by our generous host, I repeat this excellent advice from Lawrence Welk, Gail Farrell and Dick Dale, (incidently posted by by Tom Shipley himself): When in doubt, take the train.
I was hoping someone would post that vid.
I think it’s kinda dead-horseville.
At this point, for me, the funniest thing is the intro hosts still gagging from the huge bong hit he did before the cameras rolled….he was in the green room adding an accordion part to this…
I know, but oldies can still be goodies.