US Gov’t hyping threat of drugged drivers to push zero tolerance DUID laws
By "Radical" Russ Belville on November 30, 2010
(UPDATED with helpful research from Paul Armentano.)
The headline from the Associated Press reads “Gov’t: Drugs were in 1 in 5 drivers killed in 2009“. The lede for the story is:
Other outlets like USA Today give it a more chilling headline “U.S.: Third of tests on motorists killed shows drug use“. The discrepancy results from the AP considering all drivers who were killed when not every driver killed was drug tested. The USA Today considers the “tests on motorists killed”, thereby discounting the roughly 40% of killed drivers who were never drug tested. Whatever – 20% of all drivers or 33% of all drivers tested – they’re dead, they drove, there’s drugs, be afraid!
The AP then follows with a second paragraph that points out the obvious logical fallacy of “correlation = causation” – just because dead drivers had drugs in their system doesn’t mean drugs caused the accident that killed them - something the USA Today article never addresses:
However, while AP doesn’t get around to distinguishing what exactly “drugs” refers to until paragraph seven, USA Today opens by explaining we’re talking about all drugs, prescription and recreational:
Nobody recommends driving while impaired by drugs – legal or illegal. NORML has maintained this as a core Principle of Responsible Use for years. But there are many legal prescription drugs that will cause impairment that bear the warning “Until you know how you may be affected by this drug, do not drive or operate heavy machinery,” which suggests to me that once you do know how it affects you, it’s your judgment call. In fact, one of those drugs is prescription dronabinol, the synthetic cannabinoid THC marketed as “Marinol”.
AP’s seventh paragraph also points out that presence of a drug in your system may have no bearing on whether that drug was impairing you in the first place:
Cannabis metabolites can be detectable in urine for weeks and THC itself can be detected blood for at least six hours. Most illegal drugs can be detected for a few days in urine and a few hours in blood. Prescription drugs are just as varied. So we’ve got 20% or 33% of killed drivers who had a drug in their system that may or may not have contributed to the crash that killed them and they may or may not have taken that drug before driving.
For comparison’s sake, USA Today links to the stat that drowsiness was a factor in 17% of all fatal crashes. You just may be more likely to die in a crash caused by lack of a nap as by taking the pill to get a good night’s sleep. Are you scared yet? Well, you should be, because the whole point of scaring you about the drugged drivers is the push for nationwide zero-tolerance DUID laws. Back to the USA Today:
The irony here is that compared to the threat from drinking drivers, drowsy drivers, texting drivers, and prescription drugged drivers, the threat from drivers using cannabis is negligible. Just last week we took a look at a study in the Netherlands that showed that experienced users can develop a tolerance to the psychomotor impairing effects of cannabis. This summer we examined a study performed in Iowa and Connecticut that showed cannabis-using drivers performed as well on a driving simulator after smoking marijuana as they did before smoking marijuana. (If you’d like the full examination of marijuana and driving, please see Paul Armentano’s impeccable white paper, Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review.)
As for the prescription drugs, there isn’t much political benefit in threatening a majority of your constituents, especially the older ones who do most of the voting, with a DUI charge for the pills they’re required to take every day. Also consider the lobbying money and clout of Big Pharma that won’t look kindly on strict new driving laws that might cause people to use less pills.
No, the per se limit on prescription drugs isn’t coming to your state anytime soon… but maybe the end of driving privileges for cannabis consumers in your state is. The seventeen states with current per se DUID laws are:
Arizona (except for medical marijuana patients), Utah, South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, Delaware, and Georgia already have these zero tolerance laws for any THC or metabolites of THC – if you toked within the past week, you could already be an impaired driver.
Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island have zero tolerance for THC in the blood – if you toked before bed you might be an impaired driver in the morning.
Nevada and Ohio consider you impaired if they detect 2 nanograms (2 billionths of a gram) of THC per milliliter of blood (2ng/ml) and Pennsylvania raises that limit to 5ng/ml.
Virginia, Minnesota, and North Carolina have zero tolerance laws for drugs that do not include cannabis or its metabolites.
By "Radical" Russ Belville on November 30, 2010
(UPDATED with helpful research from Paul Armentano.)
The headline from the Associated Press reads “Gov’t: Drugs were in 1 in 5 drivers killed in 2009“. The lede for the story is:
Other outlets like USA Today give it a more chilling headline “U.S.: Third of tests on motorists killed shows drug use“. The discrepancy results from the AP considering all drivers who were killed when not every driver killed was drug tested. The USA Today considers the “tests on motorists killed”, thereby discounting the roughly 40% of killed drivers who were never drug tested. Whatever – 20% of all drivers or 33% of all drivers tested – they’re dead, they drove, there’s drugs, be afraid!
The AP then follows with a second paragraph that points out the obvious logical fallacy of “correlation = causation” – just because dead drivers had drugs in their system doesn’t mean drugs caused the accident that killed them - something the USA Today article never addresses:
However, while AP doesn’t get around to distinguishing what exactly “drugs” refers to until paragraph seven, USA Today opens by explaining we’re talking about all drugs, prescription and recreational:
Nobody recommends driving while impaired by drugs – legal or illegal. NORML has maintained this as a core Principle of Responsible Use for years. But there are many legal prescription drugs that will cause impairment that bear the warning “Until you know how you may be affected by this drug, do not drive or operate heavy machinery,” which suggests to me that once you do know how it affects you, it’s your judgment call. In fact, one of those drugs is prescription dronabinol, the synthetic cannabinoid THC marketed as “Marinol”.
AP’s seventh paragraph also points out that presence of a drug in your system may have no bearing on whether that drug was impairing you in the first place:
Cannabis metabolites can be detectable in urine for weeks and THC itself can be detected blood for at least six hours. Most illegal drugs can be detected for a few days in urine and a few hours in blood. Prescription drugs are just as varied. So we’ve got 20% or 33% of killed drivers who had a drug in their system that may or may not have contributed to the crash that killed them and they may or may not have taken that drug before driving.
For comparison’s sake, USA Today links to the stat that drowsiness was a factor in 17% of all fatal crashes. You just may be more likely to die in a crash caused by lack of a nap as by taking the pill to get a good night’s sleep. Are you scared yet? Well, you should be, because the whole point of scaring you about the drugged drivers is the push for nationwide zero-tolerance DUID laws. Back to the USA Today:
Since they can outlaw the illegal drugs and there is no political cost in doing so, they will. These “zero tolerance” laws means if they detect any metabolite of any illegal drug, you are guilty of driving impaired. Since that joint you smoked could be detectable long after its effects had worn off, you’d be an impaired driver in the eyes of the law even if you were completely sober and unimpaired. Since marijuana is detectable for much longer periods than most any other drug, legal or illegal, “zero tolerance” laws amount to witch hunts for cannabis consumers behind the wheel.
The irony here is that compared to the threat from drinking drivers, drowsy drivers, texting drivers, and prescription drugged drivers, the threat from drivers using cannabis is negligible. Just last week we took a look at a study in the Netherlands that showed that experienced users can develop a tolerance to the psychomotor impairing effects of cannabis. This summer we examined a study performed in Iowa and Connecticut that showed cannabis-using drivers performed as well on a driving simulator after smoking marijuana as they did before smoking marijuana. (If you’d like the full examination of marijuana and driving, please see Paul Armentano’s impeccable white paper, Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review.)
As for the prescription drugs, there isn’t much political benefit in threatening a majority of your constituents, especially the older ones who do most of the voting, with a DUI charge for the pills they’re required to take every day. Also consider the lobbying money and clout of Big Pharma that won’t look kindly on strict new driving laws that might cause people to use less pills.
No, the per se limit on prescription drugs isn’t coming to your state anytime soon… but maybe the end of driving privileges for cannabis consumers in your state is. The seventeen states with current per se DUID laws are:
Arizona (except for medical marijuana patients), Utah, South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, Delaware, and Georgia already have these zero tolerance laws for any THC or metabolites of THC – if you toked within the past week, you could already be an impaired driver.
Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island have zero tolerance for THC in the blood – if you toked before bed you might be an impaired driver in the morning.
Nevada and Ohio consider you impaired if they detect 2 nanograms (2 billionths of a gram) of THC per milliliter of blood (2ng/ml) and Pennsylvania raises that limit to 5ng/ml.
Virginia, Minnesota, and North Carolina have zero tolerance laws for drugs that do not include cannabis or its metabolites.
