Are Stoned Motorists Driving Amok in Post-Legalization Colorado?

"Marijuana-related" crashes are not necessarily related to marijuana.


National Advanced Driving Simulator

The latest report on marijuana legalization in Colorado from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA), published this month, features all the usual tricks aimed at portraying that policy change as a disastrous mistake, including a misleading presentation of data on traffic fatalities. RMHIDTA, a federally supported anti-drug agency that is determined to paint legalization in a negative light (which it is legally required to do, as NORML's Paul Armentano points out), wants people to believe Colorado's roads are full of dangerously stoned drivers, who are maiming and killing people left and right. But the numbers it uses to create that impression are not an accurate measure of the harm caused by marijuana-impaired motorists.

"Marijuana-related traffic deaths when a driver tested positive for marijuana more than doubled from 55 deaths in 2013 to 123 deaths in 2016," the report says. "Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased 66 percent in the four-year average (2013-2016) since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana compared to the four-year average (2009-2012) prior to legalization." But contrary to what you might think, "marijuana-related" does not necessarily mean related to marijuana. "This report will cite datasets with terms such as 'marijuana-related' or 'tested positive for marijuana,'" a note at the end of the introduction says. "That does not necessarily prove that marijuana was the cause of the incident."

In the case of car crashes, drivers who "test positive for marijuana" include people whose blood contains inactive metabolites or THC levels too low to cause impairment. RMHIDTA muddies this point with a quote from a Denver Post story published last August: "In 2016, of the 115 drivers in fatal wrecks who tested positive for marijuana use, 71 were found to have Delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their blood, indicating use within hours, according to state data. Of those, 63 percent were over 5 nanograms per milliliter, the state's limit for driving." Another way of putting that: Most of the drivers (61 percent) either had no active THC in their blood or had less than five nanograms per milliliter, which is the level at which Colorado juries may infer that a driver was impaired.

That inference, which is rebuttable, will often be mistaken, as many people are perfectly capable of driving safely at THC blood levels far above Colorado's arbitrary cutoff. In other words, even the minority of "marijuana-positive" drivers who exceeded the five-nanogram THC threshold were not necessarily impaired at the time of the crash. Because of wide variation in how people respond to marijuana, there is no scientific basis for a rule that equates any particular THC blood level with impairment.

The increase in "marijuana-positive" drivers since 2013 may reflect a genuine threat to public safety, or it may reflect general increases in cannabis consumption. As the number of Coloradans who use marijuana and the frequency with which they use it go up, so will the percentage of drivers whose blood contains traces of marijuana. That includes drivers involved in fatal crashes, even if marijuana played no role in those accidents.

A new review of the research on marijuana and driving by University of Adelaide psychologist Michael White provides further reason to be cautious about making the assumption that RMHIDTA wants us to make. White's 145-page report focuses on 11 epidemiological studies that used active THC as a measure of marijuana exposure, excluding studies that treated drivers with inactive metabolites in their blood as if they were under the influence. After taking into account various sources of bias and confounding, he concludes "there is no good evidence" to support the hypothesis that marijuana use increases the risk of a car crash. "If cannabis does increase the risk of crashing," White says, "the increase is unlikely to be more than about 30%."

By comparison, research indicates that a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 percent quintuples the risk of a car crash—an increase of 400 percent. White's upper estimate for the crash risk associated with cannabis consumption is based on a 2016 meta-analysis by Ole Rogeberg and Rune Elvik. He says Rogeberg and Elvik "expos[ed] serious over-estimation biases in two earlier meta-analyses," although he notes that they erred by describing the subjects in the studies they included as showing evidence of "acute cannabis intoxication," since some tested positive only for nonpsychoactive cannabinoids and therefore might have used marijuana days or weeks before.

White also considers experimental studies of marijuana and driving, which involve lab tests, simulators, or driving on closed courses, to see if they provide supplementary evidence that cannabis intoxication contributes to crashes. While those studies do indicate that marijuana affects driving-related skills, he says, the impact on crash risk is not clear. White concludes that "modest decrements in the level of driving-related skills that are sometimes found in the laboratories that have studied the effects of cannabis on human performance are of little relevance to road safety."

White also questions the widespread belief that cannabis compounds alcohol-related impairment, saying the associations found in epidemiological studies can be explained by higher levels of drinking among people who combine pot and alcohol. Looking at the laboratory studies, he finds "the evidence that cannabis exacerbates the impairing effects of alcohol is rather weak." In particular, White doubts that "standard deviation of lateral position" (SDLP, a measure of weaving within a lane) has "much relevance to road safety as a measure of the exacerbating effect of cannabis on the impairing effects of alcohol."

Nor is SDLP necessarily a good indicator of marijuana's impact on crash risk independent of alcohol. A 2015 simulator study, for example, found that a THC blood level of 13.1 nanograms per milliliter had an impact on SDLP similar to a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent, the current DUI threshold in every state. "It is widely acknowledged by researchers in the field that users of cannabis are generally aware of any possible drug-related impairments," White writes. "It is likely that cannabis users deploy their attention to the main safety-related driving tasks at the expense of keeping strictly in the centre of their lane."

You may or may not agree with White's conclusions, but his discussion of the methodological obstacles to measuring marijuana's impact on road safety clarifies why the subject remains unsettled and contentious. His subtle and sophisticated analysis is a welcome rejoinder to the simpleminded propaganda typified by RMHIDTA's reports.

NEXT: Los Angeles, Seattle Want to Cut Down on Traffic by Cracking Down on Internal Combustion Engines

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 always figured if a drug deal went bad and someone got shot, the government told us it was drug related. Somehow I doubt the liquor store robberies are alcohol telated.

  2. My observations indicate most “driving amok” these days is due to cell phones, but it seems there’s no blood test for stupidity.

    1. If by ‘driving amok due to cell phones’, you mean creeping along at 1/3rd the speed limit and sitting idle through the entire green light, you and I agree.

      1. Not just that. How many wobble jockeys have you seen on the highway, weaving over the line and then jerking back into their lane? Usually that have a cell phone in hand.

  3. Marijuana-related incident on the rise since they started counting them. Who could possibly see that coming?

  4. From my personal observations, it appears that most stoned motorists are driving around at the blistering speed of about 9 mph. Truly running amok.

    1. Looking for a place to buy Doritos.

      1. Where can’t you buy Doritos???

  5. “Marijuana-related” crashes are not necessarily related to marijuana.

    I’m also fairly certain that a good number of alcohol-related crashed aren’t caused by alcohol. But it’s convenient to pretend they are when looking to increase the power of the state.

  6. The one’s driving amok are people like me that are trying to pass the stoned drivers. The stoned drivers are perfectly happy to sedately and legally drive at or slightly below the speed limit.

    There should be a law that forces people to take amphetamines before they get in their vehicle.

  7. No one should drive impaired, but actual impairment should be measured, not just exposure to a drug. I have developed a new public health app that measures actual impairment–it is called DRUID (an acronym for “DRiving Under the Influence of Drugs”) available now in the Apple App Store (Android version coming soon). DRUID measures reaction time, decision making, hand-eye coordination, time estimation and balance, and then statistically integrates hundreds of data points into an overall impairment score. DRUID takes just 2 minutes.

    Our website is

    Prior to DRUID, there was no way for an individual to accurately assess their own level of impairment. DRUID also demonstrates that it is feasible to measure impairment reliably by the roadside, not just exposure to a drug. It could also be a way for cannabis users who have developed tolerance to show they are unimpaired.

    DRUID was featured on NPR’s All Things Considered:…..-much-weed

    After obtaining my Ph.D. at Harvard, I have been a professor of psychology at UMass/Boston for the past 40 years, specializing in research methods, measurement and statistics.

    Michael Milburn, Professor
    Department of Psychology

    1. I’ve tried your application, and have no problem with any part of it except balancing on one leg.

      I’m 67, and haven’t been able to balance on one leg like that in years.
      Can most people over 65 really pass that test, or is everyone over 65 impaired?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.