Marijuana

'Drugged' Drivers Who Aren't

One reason a link between marijuana and car crashes is hard to verify

|

Last year, during a congressional hearing on the threat posed by stoned drivers, a representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was asked how many crash fatalities are caused by marijuana each year. "That's difficult to say," replied Jeff Michael, NHTSA's associate administrator for research and program development. "We don't have a precise estimate." The most he was willing to affirm was that the number is "probably not" zero.

Michael knows something that grandstanding politicians and anti-pot activists either do not understand or refuse to acknowledge: Although experiments show that marijuana impairs driving ability, the effects are not nearly as dramatic as those seen with alcohol, and measuring the real-world consequences has proven very difficult, as demonstrated by a landmark study that NHTSA released on February 6. In "the first large-scale [crash risk] study in the United States to include drugs other than alcohol," NHTSA found that, once the data were adjusted for confounding variables, cannabis consumption was not associated with an increased probability of getting into an accident.

Some news outlets accurately reported that result, and some did not, apparently because some reporters actually read the study, while others were content to skim NHTSA's press release. Such carelessness misleads policy makers who are grappling with the issue of how to determine when people are too stoned to drive. It also aids pot prohibitionists, who cite the prospect of more blood on the highways as an important reason to resist legalization.

The NHTSA study included more than 3,000 drivers who were involved in crashes during a 20-month period in Virginia Beach, Virginia, plus 6,000 controls who drove in the same area during the same period but did not get into accidents. As usual, the study found that alcohol use was strongly correlated with crash risk. After adjustment for confounding, the crash risk for drivers with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent was twice the crash risk for sober drivers; it was six times as high for drivers with a BAC of 0.10 percent and 12 times as high at a BAC of 0.15 percent. But the picture for marijuana was quite different.

Over all, drivers who tested positive for active THC were 25 percent more likely to be involved in crashes. But once the researchers took sex, age, and race/ethnicity into account, the risk ratio shrank from 1.25 to 1.05 and was no longer statistically significant:

This analysis shows that the significant increased risk of crash involvement associated with THC and illegal drugs…is not found after adjusting for these demographic variables. This finding suggests that these demographic variables may have co-varied with drug use and accounted for most of the increased crash risk. For example, if the THC-positive drivers were predominantly young males, their apparent crash risk may have been related to age and gender rather than use of THC.

Further adjusting for alcohol consumption made the crash risk of cannabis consumers equal to that of drivers who tested negative for alcohol and all other drugs. In other words, the analysis, which NHTSA described as "the most precisely controlled study of its kind yet conducted," provides no evidence that marijuana use increases crash risk. That result, the authors note, is similar to what the best-designed previous studies have found: a small or nonexistent increase in crash risk.

Several reporters understood this crucial point and communicated it to their readers. In a story headlined "Feds: No Link Between Pot and Car Crashes," The Hill's Jesse Byrnes reported that "marijuana use has not been found to increase the risk of car crashes, according to a new federal report." Under the headline "U.S.: Pot Use Doesn't Increase Crash Risk," David Shepardson of The Detroit News reported that "a government study released late Friday found no evidence that marijuana use leads to a higher risk of getting into a traffic crash." CBS NewsHuffington Post reporter Matt Ferner, and Washington Post drug policy blogger Christopher Ingraham correctly noted the uncertainty about marijuana's impact on highway safety, emphasizing that alcohol poses a much clearer and more serious risk.

By contrast, USA Today reporter Chris Woodyard summarized the Virginia Beach study this way:

[The study] showed that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in crashes. But it also points out that marijuana is smoked mostly by young men, the group with the highest propensity for accidents anyway.

That is a misleading way of describing the results, since controlling for demographic variables and alcohol use eliminated the association between marijuana and crash risk. Compounding the misimpression left by this gloss, Woodyard played up another study that NHTSA released the same day: the National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers, which found that the share of weekend nighttime drivers who tested positive for alcohol fell from 12.4 percent in 2007 to 8.3 percent in 2013–14, while the share who tested positive for other drugs rose from 16.3 percent to 20 percent. Marijuana saw the biggest increase, from 8.6 percent to 12.6 percent.

Here is how the headline over Woodyard's story summed up those results: "Study Finds New Driving Threat From Dopers, Druggies." Since the case-control study showed (once confounders were taken into account) that "dopers" and "druggies" were no more likely to get into crashes than abstainers, the nature of the threat trumpeted by USA Today is rather hazy.

Washington Post reporter Ashley Halsey III made a similar error in a story headlined "Fewer People Driving Drunk, but Drug Use on the Road Is Rising":

There are fewer drunk drivers on the road, but their place has been taken by people high on marijuana and prescription drugs….NHTSA conducted a second study to determine whether smoking marijuana increased the risk of crashes. They found that it did but, adding a caveat, said that pot smoking is most common among a group already at high risk for crashes: young men.

It is simply incorrect to say NHTSA's case-control study found that "smoking marijuana increased the risk of crashes," since the study found no such thing. Furthermore, it's a mistake to describe the drivers who tested positive for any amount of THC as "people high on marijuana." As NHTSA notes, "Drug tests do not necessarily indicate current impairment," since "detectable blood levels may persist beyond the impairing effects." And "whereas the impairment effects for various concentration levels of alcohol in the blood or breath are well understood, there is little evidence available to link concentrations of other drugs to driver performance." Hence "specific drug concentration levels cannot be reliably equated with a specific degree of driver impairment."

That observation is obviously relevant to the debate over how to define driving under the influence of marijuana. Colorado and Washington, the first two states to legalize marijuana for recreational use, settled on an arbitrary standard (five nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood) that criminalizes driving by many regular cannabis consumers, even when they are not impaired. Other states have gone further in the wrong direction, adopting a completely unscientific "zero tolerance" rule that effectively makes it illegal for pot smokers to drive, whether or not they are intoxicated.

The mistaken equation of "marijuana-positive" drivers with stoned drivers also plays a conspicuous role in the debate over legalization. A study reported in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence last year, for instance, found that "the proportion of marijuana-positive drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes in Colorado has increased dramatically since the commercialization of medical marijuana in the middle of 2009." Prohibitionists like former drug czar Bill Bennett and anti-pot activist Kevin Sabet latch onto such findings as evidence that legalization will result in more traffic fatalities. But as the authors of the Colorado study explained, "this study cannot determine cause and effect relationships, such as whether marijuana-positive drivers contributed to or caused the fatal motor vehicle crashes." Since traces of marijuana can be detected in blood or urine long after the drug's effects wear off, they added, "The primary result of this study may simply reflect a general increase in marijuana use during this same time period in Colorado."

The fact that drivers commonly identified as "drugged" may actually be sober (along with marijuana's relatively small impact on driving ability) could help explain why it is so hard to measure marijuana's contribution to traffic accidents. If many or most of the drivers who test positive for THC (as in the Virginia Beach study) or marijuana metabolites (as in the Colorado study) are not in fact impaired, they may conceal the impact of those who are. "While the findings of this case control study were equivocal with regard to the crash risk associated with drug use by drivers," NHTSA warns, "these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free." In other words, the fact that THC-positive drivers are no more accident prone, as a group, than THC-negative drivers (after adjustment for confounding) does not mean it is smart or safe to get behind the wheel when you are actually stoned.

At the same time, the differences between the way alcohol affects driving and the way marijuana does, confirmed once again by the Virginia Beach study, suggest that the concerns voiced by Bennett and Sabet may be entirely misplaced. To the extent that more cannabis consumption is accompanied by less drinking, legalization might actually reduce traffic fatalities, as indicated by a 2014 study of accident trends in states with medical marijuana laws. That happy outcome is by no means assured, since it depends on whether marijuana and alcohol, on balance, prove to be substitutes (meaning that more consumption of one leads to less consumption of the other), as opposed to complements (meaning that consumption of the two rises in tandem). But the possibility surely is worth considering with an open mind. Demonizing "dopers" and "druggies" as deadly threats to highway safety, whether or not they drive while impaired, is hardly conducive to that sort of rational inquiry.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

Advertisement

NEXT: In Praise of Mediocrity

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m a Scientist with a strong interest in Cancer research. The clinical evidence of the value of Marijuana as a life saving medicine is now so strong that the need to remove Marijuana from Schedule 1 has become a moral imperative. Google Medical Marijuana testimonials. Google Medical Marijuana Cancer Patient Testimonials.

    This weekend over 3,000 American died, in pain, of Cancer. Every day after that, 1,500 more Americans will die, after suffering horribly, from it. Every single minute another American dies of Cancer. Every American Cancer patient deserves the right to have safe, legal, and economical access to Medical Marijuana. Every single one.

    Americans who need Medical Marijuana shouldn’t be used as “Political Footballs” Please call the Whitehouse comment line at (202) 456-1111 and ask that the President take immediate action to remove Marijuana from Schedule 1 so American Physicians in all 50 states can prescribe it.

    Oncologists have know it for more than a quarter of a Century that Marijuana is a “wonder drug” for helping Cancer patients.

    The American Society of Clinical Oncologists wants Marijuana removed from Schedule 1. So does the American Medical Association, the professional society of all Physicians. A strong majority of Americans want Physicians in all 50 states to be able to prescribe Medical Marijuana. So do their Physicians., Cancer patients can’t wait.

    1. Back off man. He’s a Scientist.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryY60SExFYA

    2. Scientist, I agree. Not to mention the thousands of slackers at the beach and the mall who just wanna catch a buzz.

      What you gonna do about it? What do you suggest?

      1. Let the slackers at the beach and the mall catch a buzz too.

    3. I understand you are a Scientist.

      I am very curious whether you recently had adventure with pirates.

    4. The problem is that your fellow scientists are more than willing to say whatever they think the Party wants to hear. The history of pot study is nothing, if not an example of “scientists and researchers” volunteering to be political tools.
      One very viable argument against global warming is that in 1967, 95 percent of scientists were happy to say pot caused birth defects… and, no doubt, anything else the Party wanted said.

      1. “in 1967, 95 percent of scientists were happy to say pot LSD caused birth defects”

    5. Are you a professor, too? Can you get us off the island?

    6. One small problem. There’s no such thing as the American Society of Clinical Oncologists. It’s Oncology. You would think a member of an organization would know it’s name.

      I call bullshit

      There are plenty of legitimate reasons to discuss marijuana legalization. Don’t make up stuff please.

    7. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
      This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.wixjob.com

  2. Who the hell wants to drive on dope? That shit makes me tired. Speedy ecstasy or coke, thanks.

    1. I wouldn’t drive on dope. I’d stop and pick it up.

  3. So working at Reason = government worker holidays?

    1. They are practicing for when the first Libertarian government takes office.

  4. Or we,could, you know, go back to arresting people only when they show.signs of driving dangerously,as captured on a dashcam. That would solve the various civil rights issues with sobriety points. It would also put the drug/breath test industry AND hysterics like MADD out of business.

    I suggest we mulch them.

    1. Here, here!

      Personally, when I drive after smoking, I’m actually a better driver. It’s an odd combination of serenity and paranoia. I’m more relaxed, yet am particularly aware the traffic laws so I won’t draw attention to myself. To this day I’ve never had a speeding ticket.

      Just trying to do my part to keep auto insurance rates reasonably low. You’re welcome, America.

      1. Lots of drunk people think they’re great drivers. I’m sure you’re no different.

        1. I have a track record to back up my driving skills while under the dangerous influence of the demon weed. No speeding tickets, no accidents, no moving violations of any kind. So pretty please, with sugar on top, fuck off.

  5. Or we,could, you know, go back to arresting people only when they show.signs of driving dangerously

    Whoa, whoa, whoa!

    Next you’ll tell me we should allow drunken blindfolded children to randomly fire automatic weapons while whirling on a merry go round in a crowded park, as long as they don’t actually hit anyone.

    1. The guns provide propulsion when fired in the appropriate direction. Also, younger kids should practice with Roman candles before graduating to Uzis.

  6. If the effect of something is so small that you can’t reliably reproduce and demonstrate it in studies, it shouldn’t be the basis of legislation. That’s true for drug legislation just like environmental legislation.

    1. Yes, and the history of pot research basically just shows that “scientists” will say anything they think the government wants said.
      They’ve earned my distrust.

    2. It seems like part of the issue is that there is no way to clinically test for impairment. I don’t think anyone wants impaired drivers on the street, but there’s no way to test for it without roping in a large number of false positives.

      So until we can tell the difference objectively, we have to leave it alone. Of course, getting a bureaucrat to leave anything alone is another story. (sigh)

  7. *** Make Money With Face.Book Account – 500 Dollars Everyday ***
    is on Facebook.No Experience Necessary
    To connect with *** Make Money With Face.Book Account – 500 Dollars Everyday ***, sign up for Facebook today. for more detail visit link…
    ?????????????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  8. I’ve never encountered rational criticism about marijuana. When I was a kid, we were told it grew breasts on males. When that didn’t pan out, pot caused birth defects, severe lung damage, and cancer. I do believe it’s all been about the counter-culture that popularized pot in the sixties. It certainly has never been about pot.
    At any rate, “the establishment” does not seem to realize that they have no credibility on the subject. After decades of bizarre headlines, watching one obvious lie after another, I could not be less interested in new studies on pot. These “scientists” will say anything they need to say for, I assume, research grants. The press has been delusional about pot, as all good Americans should be. It’s just getting old.

    1. Until the scientists have a test that can tell the difference between a person who’s stoned now and a person who was stoned four days ago; these studies are a waste of money.

      Of course, wasting our money is what government does best.

  9. More evidence that prohibitionists are just monsters. The facts are never with them yet they persist. Prohibitionist creed: Freedom be damned, pot must be banned.

  10. Demonizing “dopers” and “druggies” as deadly threats to highway safety, whether or not they drive while impaired, is hardly conducive to that sort of rational inquiry.

    The people doing the demonizing aren’t interested in rational inquiry. All they know is some people are making choices they disapprove of, and that they can’t abide.

  11. Too bad they didn’t include data showing how many of those people in the studies tested positive for prescription drugs.

    *This post -not- sponsored by Big Pharma.

  12. I think all drugs should be legal. That said, I question this study. First of all, “risk” is not the same thing as a “cause”. One cannot study car accidents and then gather any kind of meaningful conclusion about whether THC played a role in it without having some way to observe its effect and how it CAUSED a crash. This study is a brand of statistical analysis that is often used when one wants to find a correlation that conveniently affirms a previously held notion. Finding risk correlations is a find hobby for amateur statisticians with political motivations, but it does not determine any sort of direct link between pot usage and accidents any more than it exonerates pot as a cause of crashes.

    Why do we have to prove that pot use doesn’t cause car accidents in order to legalize pot? Any number of legal substances, including alcohol, can impair drivers and cause accidents. When accidents happen, it doesn’t matter what drug, if any the driver was on, the driver is still responsible for the accident as far as the law is concerned. If pot legalization arguments continue to rely on shoddy statistics, then these arguments will be lost.

    1. The great thing is, there’s no reason to even wonder about causation, when there’s no correlation between pot and car crashes.

  13. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    …. http://www.wixjob.com

  14. Dude do you know how cool that is gonna be?

    http://www.AnonWeb.cf

  15. Well, the gov’t funded studies on climate might be biased toward whatever results create continued funding, but the gov’t funded “research” on cholesterol sure hit it out of the park decades ago, right?

  16. $$$ rolex cash system $$$
    how to turn $10 into $10,000 in 7 days online
    discover a bullet-proof,5-step
    formula for injection your bank
    account with absurds windfalls
    of cold hard cash
    Feel FREE To Check This Out Here:.. … http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  17. You are only using accidents as the metric to measure the impact of stoned driving. It’s not just accidents. Stoned drivers drive at slower speeds and are slow off the green light, causing extra congestion and delay.

    1. “Extra congestion and delays” – That’s really reaching for something to criticize there.

      I’m assuming that you’re honest so you surely have data with average time to X speed from a stop at a green light, from a study that has somehow compensated for the problem of distinguishing “stoned now vs stoned 4 days ago” mentioned above, which allows you to actually say that. Because otherwise you’re making it up out of thin air, and what kind of person would do that?

  18. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  19. my co-worker’s aunt makes $84 every hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 7 months but last month her pay was $15545 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit this site…………

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  20. Sounds like an excuse to draw your blood without consent.

  21. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  22. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself……….
    ???????? http://www.Work-Mill.Com

  23. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself……….
    ???????? http://www.Work-Mill.Com

  24. my roomate’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for six months but last month her check was $20790 just working on the computer for a few hours.?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  25. The buckyballs effectiveness to alleviate stress is essential to its design, individual magnetic balls form your buckyballs and gives it a design unlike any other Like other stress relief tools, your buckyballs can be molded, shaped, twisted, contorted, and crushed to ease stress and soothe mood buckyballs is unique from other stress relief tools because you can demolish the buckyballs and put it back together effortlessly.

  26. I find it interesting that the author uses mostly percentages, then uses a ratio in an attempt to try to hide that drugged (those using marijuana) drivers driving was, in fact, impaired, by 25%- 5% (& this is after they adjusted for age, weight, race/ethnicity, etc.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.