Stoned Drivers: The Case Against Panic

Pot prohibitionists undermine their own warnings about legalization and car crashes.


If marijuana is legalized, John Mica warned at a recent congressional hearing, there will be blood. "In the last dozen years," the Florida Republican said, "we've had [half] a million Americans slaughtered on the highways…and half of those fatalities are related to people who are impaired through alcohol or drugs." Legal pot will compound this "phenomenal devastation," he said, since "we are going to have a lot more people stoned on the highway."

Mica, a proud pot prohibitionist who chairs a subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, convened the hearing to raise an alarm about the deadly threat that legalization poses to anyone navigating the roads and highways. But by the end of the hearing, anyone who was paying attention recognized that his grim prophecies have little basis in fact.

Start with the "phenomenal devastation" that Mica described. When asked how many of those deaths can be attributed to marijuana, Jeff Michael, associate administrator for research and program development at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), replied, "That's difficult to say….We don't have a precise estimate." The most he was willing to affirm was that the number is "probably not" zero.

Michael was much more confident on the subject of alcohol-related traffic deaths. In 2012, he said, based on data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), "10,322 people died in crashes in which the driver had a blood-alcohol [level] above the legal limit." NHTSA counted 33,561 traffic fatalities that year, so accidents in which alcohol probably was a factor accounted for 31 percent of the total.

What about marijuana? A 2010 NHTSA analysis found that 18 percent of fatally injured drivers tested positive for drugs other than alcohol in 2009. A total of 3,952 drivers tested positive for psychoactive substances that included prescription and over-the-counter medications as well as illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and PCP. That number is often mistakenly cited as an estimate of deaths caused by drugged driving each year. But some of those drivers also tested positive for alcohol, and even those who had not been drinking were not necessarily impaired by drugs. As NHTSA warned, "drug involvement does not mean the driver was impaired or that drug use was the cause of the crash."

That point is especially important when it comes to marijuana, since the test results used by FARS indicate the presence of metabolites that linger in blood and urine long after the drug's effects wear off—"up to 30 days after use" for frequent consumers, as Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) noted during Mica's hearing. Those test results indicate that the driver was a cannabis consumer, but they do not indicate whether he was under the influence at the time of the crash, let alone whether marijuana contributed to the accident. They are about as useful as an alcohol test indicating that a driver drank a beer at some point in the previous month.

You can begin to see why Michael, the NHTSA official, did not want to hazard a guess as to the number of marijuana-related traffic fatalities. Mica and Fleming, who came to make the case against legalization even though he is not a member of Mica's subcommittee, were not so cautious, repeatedly citing increases in the number of dead drivers testing positive for marijuana as evidence of a growing threat posed by drugged driving. One of the studies mentioned by Fleming, focusing on FARS data for Colorado, found that the percentage of "marijuana-positive drivers" rose from 4.5 percent in early 1994 to 10 percent at the end of 2011, a period that included the commercialization of medical marijuana in that state. But the study, which was reported in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence last April, included a crucial caveat:

THC metabolites are detectable in an individual's blood or urine for several days and sometimes weeks for heavy marijuana users….This study cannot determine cause and effect relationships, such as whether marijuana-positive drivers contributed to or caused the fatal motor vehicle crashes. Colorado may have an increased number of drivers, in general, who were using marijuana, not just an increase in the proportion who were involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes….The primary result of this study may simply reflect a general increase in marijuana use during this same time period in Colorado.

The two other sources cited by Fleming and Mica, the aforementioned 2010 NHTSA report and an analysis of FARS data published by the American Journal of Epidemiology in January, included similar warnings.

Notably, total traffic fatalities fell during the periods covered by all three studies, which seems inconsistent with the notion that less repressive marijuana policies make the roads more dangerous. In Colorado, the downward trend in fatal crashes has continued since marijuana was legalized for recreational use at the end of 2012. Total fatalities fell in 2013 and in the first seven months of this year.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicate that drugged driving is, if anything, less common than it was a decade ago. In 2012, 3.9 percent of respondents reported driving under the influence of an illegal drug in the previous year, down from 4.7 percent in 2002.

Mica's hearing highlighted another crucial gap in our knowledge about the connection between marijuana and traffic accidents. "The available evidence does not support the development of an impairment threshold for THC which would be analogous to that for alcohol," Michael testified. "With alcohol, we have a considerable body of evidence that can place risk odds at increasing levels of blood alcohol content. For example, 0.08 [percent] blood alcohol content is associated with about four times the crash risk of a sober person….Beyond some broad confirmation that higher levels of THC are generally associated with higher levels of impairment, a more precise association of various THC levels and degrees of impairment [is] not yet available."

If so, you might wonder, what is the basis for seemingly precise and scientific standards such as the one recently adopted by Colorado and Washington, which says a driver is guilty of driving under the influence of a drug (DUID) if his blood contains five or more nanograms of THC per milliliter? Critics of that rule wonder the same thing, especially since it's clear that many regular cannabis consumers can drive safely at levels far above five nanograms. The best that can be said for the five-nanogram cutoff is that it's preferable to a "zero tolerance" standard, which essentially makes it illegal for all pot smokers to drive, whether they are impaired or not.

There is a similar problem with roadside saliva tests, which Mica talked up at the hearing as a possible solution to the problem of identifying stoned drivers. According to Mica, the tests "can tell you if anyone has used marijuana within four hours." But as Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) noted, citing NHTSA, "Marijuana intoxication is short-lived. Peak acute effects following cannabis inhalation are typically achieved within 10 to 30 minutes, with the effects dissipating quickly after about an hour." So even the saliva test favored by Mica would mistakenly identify unimpaired drivers as public menaces.

Michael said NHTSA is working to fill these gaps. A before-and-after roadside survey of drivers in Washington will try to determine if the percentage under the influence of marijuana goes up after legalization. Michael said NHTSA is also working on "a new study which compares the crash risk of drivers using drugs to those with no drugs in their system," which is "the first such investigation of drug crash risk in the United States." A third study, which Michael did not mention, is using a sophisticated driving simulator to measure how different THC levels affect driving ability.

Although more research is needed, it is already clear that marijuana impairs driving less dramatically than alcohol (which is why some researchers believe that legalization might actually reduce traffic fatalities, to the extent that people substitute marijuana for alcohol). According to a 1993 NHTSA report that Connolly quoted, "The impairment [from marijuana] manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

Connolly tried to put the risk posed by marijuana-impaired driving in perspective, noting that alcohol, speeding, fatigue, and distractions such as cellphones and unruly children all seem to pose greater dangers. "No one's arguing that it's a good idea" to drive after smoking pot, he said, "but the fact of the matter is, we don't have a lot of data" to support the fears of prohibitionists like Mica and Fleming.

Another crucial point made by Connolly: Even if stoned drivers pose a significant threat to public safety, it does not follow that forcibly suppressing marijuana consumption is the right way to deal with that threat, any more than forcibly suppressing alcohol consumption is the right way to deal with the threat posed by drunk drivers. "Opposing prohibition of alcohol" is not "an endorsement for drunk driving," Connolly observed. Likewise, "discouraging the inappropriate use of drugs need not—perhaps should not—involve total prohibition and criminalization." I would have left out the perhaps, but otherwise he's on the right track.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.

NEXT: The Andrew Jackson of the Middle East

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think it laughable the Pro-Pot Rubes that seem to forget that there will be two legal intoxicants legal. We should see a rise in Dope use and we should see a rise in Dope related accidents. Let’s not include the problem of alcohol and dope in combination. The lawsuits will be starting in a few years where the “accident causer” is not above the limit in either but still are impaired and cause lose of live and property damage. They say we will have robot cars by 2025 which should fix that problem so I say let’s legalize everything… but I don’t think the taxpayer should be on the hook for anyone’s treatment.

    1. “I don’t think the taxpayer should be on the hook for anyone’s treatment.”
      If this was the case then most of the prog arguments concerning why the state must nanny you would disappear.

      Progs have us in the mother of all catch 22’s

    2. 1) What evidence do you have that making an illegal activity legal will suddenly cause an increase in that activity?

      2) What evidence do you have that pot causes traffic accidents or that fewer people will drive stoned if it is illegal?

      3) Why does any of that matter? Making impaired driving illegal is criminalizing potential harm. It’s like banning guns or forward facing car seats.

      1. The answer to all three is “BECAUSE TEH FEEEELLLLZZZZ!!!1!!!111!!!

      2. Prohibition is evidence that legalization will increase demand for marijuana. There is no way to know the effects that increased marijuana use will have because it hasn’t been tested.

    3. Dude, lay off the Dope. You’re kind of all over the place.

      1. Forget it, man – he’s rolling.

    4. Try again when you’re sober enough to use proper grammar, capitalization, and can form a coherent thought.

    5. Did you miss the section where it said the effects of marijuana are basically obsolete after an hour? So a guy sitting at the bar has 5 or 6 beers and he is toasted for at least 2 or 3 hours. BTW, I am a retired breathalyzer technician. His driving is impaired. The guy prefers pot because it doesn’t give him a hangover, but its illegal, so he doesn’t use it because he could lose his job. Pot becomes legal and he uses that to relax after work instead. Generally, he goes home and has a bowl while watching television and eating everything in the house. But he’s not on the road. Even if they open smoking lounges, if he waits 45 minutes to an hour after smoking, his driving should be back to normal.
      All that and he wakes up clear headed as well.
      If the entire country goes legal, you will see many alcohol related deaths diminish and you won’t see pot related deaths increase.
      Pot heads are too darn lazy to drive around high. They don’t miss work due to hangovers, and they don’t become obnoxious like many drunks do. They just smile and wave and ask if you want a toke.

  2. Here is the latest propaganda approach from the prohibitionists:

    1. Want to stop Car accident related fatalities?

      Quit making traffic cops revenue collectors and start using them as they were intended. “to serve and protect”

      How many speeding cars, tailgaters, getting cut off or drivers weaving in and out of traffic do you see when a police car is cruising along side you?

      How about when he is hiding behind a tree?

  3. The mideast is falling apart and what’s Reason’s lead story? Pot. Is that *really* the most important news item?

    1. Pot, Mexicans and ass sex are all equally important.
      The Middle East may be falling apart, but it is also extrememly boring.

    2. So the only thing they should publish should be anything concerning the middle east and everything else should be ignored? Really?

      1. Nope, definitely not the only thing. Sorry, I thought I asked if this was the most important, and should be the lead story.

        Oh yeah, I did.

        Or do you think stoned drivers is more important than the possibility that this administration may send troops back into Iraq?

        1. It’s not the ‘lead’ story near as I can tell, it’s just the last added story and thus is top of the list.

  4. Lack of data is not the same as negative data.

    1. But lack of data is the same thing as saying there is no positive data (at this point). It seems to me that, if we’re going to have laws meant to stop potential negatives, they should be designed on the basis of those negatives actually being demonstrable in the real world.

      The prohibitionists would have a point if getting high and driving could be shown to cause accidents often. As it stands now, though, such evidence doesn’t exist, and, as mentioned in the article, there are certain features of the studies that actually cast doubt upon the notion that driving high is any worse than driving while doing a plethora of other things.

    2. I have no data that says you are not the next Hitler, so we should kill you just in case.

  5. “10,322 people died in crashes in which the driver had a blood-alcohol [level] above the legal limit.”



    1. While these accidents are happening,It takes some 20 police officers to run a DWI checkpoint. At a time of night when drunks are driving all over, 20 cops are arresting drunks parked in line waiting for their fate.

      No revenue, driving around notorious areas looking for weaving cars!

      All new DWI laws have done is create a vast money making network and the fatalities from drunk driving.

      Since the DWI laws have been stiffened and enforcement increased, fatalities have gone down right with total fatalities and actually Rising in the last 3 years.

      Dui arrests have increased by 223% since 1970.

  6. All I have is my own 36 (going on 37) years of research to go by. . .

    In that time, I have driven while stoned – from mildly high to absolutely baked – on more occasions than I care to recall.
    I’ve never been in an accident more severe than a fender-bender (4 of those since I started driving at age 14 – I’m now less than a month from 50)- and none of those occurred when I was stoned. Most of my younger years of driving – that is, when I was the least experienced as a driver *and* a pot smoker, were in high-performance vehicles – V8-powered muscle cars, specifically.
    Of the people I know who partake and drive. . . only 1 has ever been in an accident while stoned – he hit a patch of sand while turning from one country road to another, and hit a stop sign. This I know, because I was in the back seat with my girlfriend at the time.

    In related news. . .

    There have been studies, from Australia to the US to Europe, indicating the risk of a stoned driver causing an accident compared to sober or drunk drivers.
    Assigning a Risk Assessment of 1 for a sober driver. Drunk drivers earned an RA of between 3 and 8 (depending on which state/country the study was performed in) – meaning 3-to-8 times *more* likely than a sober driver. Stoned drivers earned an RA between 0.3 and 1.2 – meaning as little as 1/3 as likely, to a maximum of 1.2 times more likely.

    The moral of the story is – there are already people driving while stoned – and the hysterically-hyped bloodbath has yet to ensue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.