b_illymac

Soap Lake Posse
WFF Moderator
Considering how long THC can be detected in one's system it would definitely make sense that its the one most often found after fatal crashes.

Then again just because its detected in a test doesn't really prove that much. A fat guy like me can fail a test several months after smoking. I know this first hand. So in theory I could smoke heavily at home on my couch for months on end, sober up for a month, get in a fatal car
This has all been looked at. Each state has a legal level where a driver is considered impared from marijuana use. The blood work although not quite as clear cut as alcohol does give a more accurate picture then what you are implying imho by looking at active THC. 2014_DUIDLaws_0.png
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
I suspect the increase is due to an increase in the frequency of testing rather than just an increase in instances of impaired driving. I don't doubt that there is an increase in frequency but a 300% figure likely indicates something else in my opinion.
I disagree with Billy that it is very accurate wit regards to actual impairment. The correlation between blood levels and impairment is not as consistent as with other substances. A regular user will often be above limits but in no way impaired.

Go Sox,
cds
 

b_illymac

Soap Lake Posse
WFF Moderator
Billy,

I think the point is that even this source amounts to cherry picking. That is, of course marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently detected in drivers' blood in crashes simply because marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug. Remove the adjective "illicit," and then the drug most frequently detected is alcohol far more likely than not.

Something that I think is lost in translation in this thread is that "words matter." What I mean is, how something is said or written can affect the meaning as much or more than what is said or written. Careless and uninformed use of language has become so common I'm sometimes amazed that people actually think they understand one another.

Also the point that Nick makes about THC being detectable long after the effect of the drug has worn off undermines many of the claims made about pot's deleterious effects. BTW, I'm not championing nor advocating using any drug and then driving. I'm just being an asshole advocating that people listen and look at what they say and write so as to know that what they say and write actually conveys their intended meaning.
For the record I am not opposed to recreation use. I think however that the adverse effects that research is starting to show us should be discussed the same as it should be for any medication or stimulant.

I also find it a little ironic how many people here I know trust the science behind global warming or fish studies but want to discredit the science and research behind things like impared drivers or emergency room visits concerning a cyclic vomiting increase caused by cannabis. To me this research is fascinating and because we are in the process of legalization across the country it should be talked about and discussed.

Respectfully @Salmo_g I think you are wrong. One side of this arguement is posting research and saying look at the research and one side is using words.
 

Dustin Bise

reformed hot-spotter
This has all been looked at. Each state has a legal level where a driver is considered impared from marijuana use. The blood work although not quite as clear cut as alcohol does give a more accurate picture then what you are implying imho by looking at active THC. View attachment 209577

the blood tests for THC are terrible. You could smoke 2 weeks ago and test blood positive for DUI....
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS

dflett68

WFF Supporter
Smoking pot not understood...
Really??

I've been to enough keggers, frat parties, and rock concerts to know...
It doesn't take science or a scientist to know the effects of smokin' dope on the human body.
"the commonest sense is that of men sleeping, which they express by snoring" - hdt
 
B

bennysbuddy

Considering how long THC can be detected in one's system it would definitely make sense that its the one most often found after fatal crashes.

Then again just because its detected in a test doesn't really prove that much. A fat guy like me can fail a test several months after smoking. I know this first hand. So in theory I could smoke heavily at home on my couch for months on end, sober up for a month, get in a fatal car crash and test positive. That would seem to skew the truth of the scenario just a bit. One might assume that marijuana use was at fault for the crash when the reality there is much different.

Perhaps things have changed and I'm totally wrong, but I always understood that testing doesn't prove someone IS high, but rather that they HAD been high at some point in the past, the timeline of which is affected by many factors.[/QUOTE
]
In 2005 all they could prove is that a sometime in the last 12hours you were high, the dude that killed my sister walked out of the courtroom without even a traffic ticket.
 

dflett68

WFF Supporter
"Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones. " And the source:
  1. Brady JE, Li G. Trends in Alcohol and Other Drugs Detected in Fatally Injured Drivers in the United States, 1999–2010. Am J Epidemiol. January 2014:kwt327. doi:10.1093/aje/kwt327
Google is pretty cool if you haven't tried it.
it has a dictionary function too. in this case, the magic word is "illicit", which excludes alcohol. this "research" isn't a discovery, it's a confirmation of the obvious.
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
Benny,

I have read this thread and kept you in mind from the start. I feel terrible for you and your family. I am sure that the way he got off makes the healing process damn near impossible.
The testing is awfully flawed. I know people who voted against legalization because of the dui language. Basically they feared that it made every pot smoker over the limit, all the time and the limit was arbitrary.
I voted for legalization. The biggest reason was to take the money away from criminal enterprises. In that way it has mostly worked. Kids have always been able to find pot. Its better that the source does not also sell physically addictive substances.

Go sox,
Cds
 

b_illymac

Soap Lake Posse
WFF Moderator
it has a dictionary function too. in this case, the magic word is "illicit", which excludes alcohol. this "research" isn't a discovery, it's a confirmation of the obvious.
Have you read that actually study? Hardly a confirmation of the obvious and more education and knowledge on an increasing problem.
"Abstract
Drugged driving is a safety issue of increasing public concern. Using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System for 1999–2010, we assessed trends in alcohol and other drugs detected in drivers who were killed within 1 hour of a motor vehicle crash in 6 US states (California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia) that routinely performed toxicological testing on drivers involved in such crashes. Of the 23,591 drivers studied, 39.7% tested positive for alcohol and 24.8% for other drugs. During the study period, the prevalence of positive results for nonalcohol drugs rose from 16.6% in 1999 to 28.3% in 2010 (Z = −10.19, P < 0.0001), whereas the prevalence of positive results for alcohol remained stable. The most commonly detected nonalcohol drug was cannabinol, the prevalence of which increased from 4.2% in 1999 to 12.2% in 2010 (Z = −13.63, P < 0.0001). The increase in the prevalence of nonalcohol drugs was observed in all age groups and both sexes. These results indicate that nonalcohol drugs, particularly marijuana, are increasingly detected in fatally injured drivers."
 
Last edited:

girlfisher

Active Member
the blood tests for THC are terrible. You could smoke 2 weeks ago and test blood positive for DUI....

Very true Mr. Bise. But conversely, you could smoke for the first time, shortly after show no THC, and be physically impaired. State Patrol officers are quite aware of the inaccuracy of THC - Impairment as far as blood test amounts are concerned. It is my understanding they are now considering combining any level of THC along with witnessed impairment. Their goal, as one officer put it, is to address impairment under any circumstance.

My question is, why didn't we work through all these issues with sound, research, studies before legalization. Maybe, many lives could have been saved.
 

Dustin Bise

reformed hot-spotter
Very true Mr. Bise. But conversely, you could smoke for the first time, shortly after show no THC, and be physically impaired. State Patrol officers are quite aware of the inaccuracy of THC - Impairment as far as blood test amounts are concerned. It is my understanding they are now considering combining any level of THC along with witnessed impairment. Their goal, as one officer put it, is to address impairment under any circumstance.

My question is, why didn't we work through all these issues with sound, research, studies before legalization. Maybe, many lives could have been saved.


I like colorados setup most. they use blood levels + impairment observations. To answer your question, prohibition made it extremely difficult for any interested parties to conduct legal studies.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top