Marijuana

A Study Finds That Crash Injuries in 5 States Rose After They Legalized Marijuana Use but Not After They Allowed Marijuana Sales

Adding to the puzzle, another study from the same organization found "no increased crash risk" associated with cannabis consumption.

|

A new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that injury crash rates rose by about 7 percent in five states after they legalized recreational marijuana use. But there was no statistically significant increase in traffic fatality rates, and state-licensed recreational sales had no apparent impact on injury rates. Meanwhile, another IIHS study found that "drivers who used marijuana alone were no more likely to be involved in crashes than drivers who hadn't used the drug."

Given these mixed and counterintuitive results, the take offered by IIHS President David Harkey is misleading. "Our latest research makes it clear that legalizing marijuana for recreational use does increase overall crash rates," Harkey said in a press release. "That's obviously something policymakers and safety professionals will need to address as more states move to liberalize their laws—even if the way marijuana affects crash risk for individual drivers remains uncertain."

The fear that marijuana legalization leads to more car crashes is based on the expectation that legalization increases use, resulting in more stoned drivers on the road. But if so, you would expect to see some impact from newly legal commercial distribution, and the IIHS study found no evidence of that. In fact, the researchers report a slight decrease in injury crash rates after state-licensed retailers opened, although that change was not statistically significant.

Furthermore, the effect of legalization on road safety depends crucially on "the way marijuana affects crash risk for individual drivers," and the second IIHS study suggests that marijuana use does not increase crash risk. As the IIHS notes, that result is "consistent with a 2015 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]," which "found that a positive test for marijuana was not associated with increased risk of being involved in a police-reported crash."

The IIHS researchers compared injury crash rates in five states that legalized marijuana (California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) to trends in five Western states (Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) where recreational use was not legal during the study period. They found that legalization of recreational use was associated with "a statistically significant 6.6% increase in injury crash rates and a nonsignificant 2.3% increase in fatal crash rates." But after retail sales began, injury crash rates fell slightly, reducing the increase following legalization to 5.9 percent. The overall increase in fatality rates was 3.8 percent, which was still statistically insignificant.

Those averages conceal considerable variation between states. "The effects of legal marijuana use and sales on injury crash rates ranged from a 7% decrease to an 18% increase," the authors report. "The effects on fatal crash rates ranged from an 8% decrease to a 4% increase." None of the changes in fatality rates was statistically significant.

Even assuming that legalization increases the number of stoned drivers, its net impact on crash rates is not as straightforward as people tend to assume. Laboratory studies indicate that marijuana has a much less dramatic impact on driving ability than alcohol does. Marijuana users are not only less impaired than drinkers but more aware of their impairment, taking precautions such as driving more slowly and maintaining more distance between vehicles.

Such compensatory behavior might help explain why the IIHS study found no significant impact on fatal crashes. "It is reasonable to expect that such behaviors will reduce the severity of crashes that result," the authors note. "In that sense, past research suggests that fatal crash rates may be less affected by marijuana legalization than less severe crash rates. That is, the compensation exhibited by marijuana-impaired drivers, especially lower speeds, may not be sufficient to avoid a crash, but it may be enough to reduce the severity of that crash."

Another consideration: To the extent that newly legal marijuana replaces alcohol, that substitution would tend to have a positive impact on road safety. The IIHS researchers note that "laws allowing the distribution of marijuana for medical purposes have been associated with an 8% to 11% reduction in traffic fatality rates—possibly because drivers are substituting marijuana for other, more impairing substances." The implication of that framing is that marijuana might replace medications that have a bigger effect on driving ability. But in states with relatively loose rules for medical use, doctor-approved marijuana may also have replaced alcohol as a recreational intoxicant.

The second IIHS study underlines the point about the relative riskiness of stoned vs. drunk driving. The researchers looked at patients who were treated for crash-related injuries at three hospitals in Denver, Sacramento, and Portland, Oregon. In addition to asking the patients about drug and alcohol use prior to their accidents, they tested blood samples. Comparing the patients to a control group, they found "no increased crash risk associated with [marijuana], except when [it was] combined with alcohol."

As the IIHS notes, "studies of whether marijuana itself makes drivers more likely to crash have been inconsistent." Two meta-analyses published in 2012 found that cannabis consumption roughly doubles the risk of a crash. A 2018 meta-analysis of 26 studies estimated that marijuana use increases the risk of a crash by 18 percent to 32 percent. By comparison, a 2016 study sponsored by NHTSA found that a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent, the current DUI threshold in almost every state, was associated with a fourfold increase in crash risk, while a BAC of 0.10 percent, the old cutoff, nearly sextupled the risk.

While marijuana's contribution to car crashes remains unclear, the results of the IIHS hospital study are consistent with what NHTSA found in 2015, when it looked at accidents in Virginia Beach, Virginia. In that study, which the agency described as the "largest and most comprehensive" of its kind, marijuana use was not associated with an elevated crash risk once other variables were taken into account.

The NHTSA researchers matched each of 3,000 drivers who were involved in crashes with two drivers who were not but who were on the road in the same location on the same day of the week at the same time and traveling in the same direction. The initial analysis found that drivers who tested positive for THC were 25 percent more likely to be involved in crashes. But that difference disappeared once the researchers took into account age, gender, race/ethnicity, and alcohol use.

Those results suggest that recent cannabis consumption could be an indicator of other variables that independently affect crash risk. "If the THC-positive drivers were predominantly young males," NHTSA noted, "their apparent crash risk may have been related to age and gender rather than use of THC."

Michael White, an Australian psychologist who keeps track of research on marijuana and driving, thinks that observation may explain the results of other studies that did not adjust for confounding variables. "What they report as a marijuana effect might well be a young man effect," he says. Young men are especially likely to be cannabis consumers and especially prone to crashes even when they are perfectly sober. Furthermore, the sort of young men who think nothing of getting behind the wheel right after smoking pot are probably more reckless than the ones who decide that's not such a good idea.

There is some evidence that marijuana and alcohol together impair driving ability more than either alone, although not all researchers agree on that point. If marijuana legalization makes the joint use of both intoxicants more common, that might help account for the increase in crash injuries that the IIHS found.

In the hospital study, the IIHS notes, "13 percent of the crash-involved drivers tested positive for marijuana only, compared with 16 percent of the control set." But "the reverse was true for the combined use of marijuana and alcohol," with "5 percent of the crash-involved drivers and [less] than 1 percent of the control drivers testing positive." The IIHS says "those combined-use numbers could help explain why crash rates have increased." It suggests that "legalization may be encouraging more people to drink and use marijuana together."

If so, that still would not explain why easy availability of marijuana from state-licensed outlets had no apparent effect on crash injuries. Do people go wild once they can no longer be busted for pot possession, recklessly driving after drinking and toking, then calm down after they can actually walk into shops and legally buy marijuana? Maybe new cannabis consumers learn the dangers of such behavior from experience, but how many new cannabis consumers are there when the only sources of marijuana are home cultivation and the black market?

The IIHS researchers do not really grapple with that puzzle. But they do warn that their results should not be overinterpreted.

"Even if legalization leads to a higher prevalence of driving after marijuana use, the increased crash rates may be due to other, unobserved factors," they say. "Marijuana users may be riskier drivers even when not impaired, and the legalization of marijuana may encourage more travel by these risky drivers. For example, marijuana users in counties that do not allow retail sales may drive to counties where such sales are permitted. Some states have used the legalization of marijuana as part of their tourism promotions, bringing in more potentially risky drivers. Thus, the results of this study do not necessarily imply that marijuana use before driving increases the risk of a crash."

NEXT: Federalizing Elections Doesn't Make Much Sense and Won't Save Democracy

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. did he have something on the Clintons?

      1. Don’t know, but he tweeted awhile back specifically saying he’d never commit suicide, and if they claim he did they’re lying.

        1. He was supposedly facing 30 years!! Our laws are fucking insane. We all suffer from the cruelty. It teaches cruelty. And it’s a psychological problem because people can’t experience the torture they impose on others. In fact it’s generally the opposite and people think others are getting away with something. I would destroy every fucking prison. Build something fucking useful. Sure if you commit violence then you go to.a place like Angola which is a farm prison.

          1. Ok Jacob. We know drugs are you Jazz and stuff and you hate prisons and rather have forced work camps like some regimes we know of, but your conservative derangement syndrome could really be resolved by now. Meant to tell you this for a while. Just because Bill O’Reilly showed you who’s boss a few years ago on Fox News doesn’t mean you have to remain the dark Lord of Vader forever. Is your therapist that bad?

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

  1. The IIHS researchers compared injury crash rates in five states that legalized marijuana (California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) to trends in five Western states (Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) where recreational use was not legal during the study period. They found that legalization of recreational use was associated with “a statistically significant 6.6% increase in injury crash rates and a nonsignificant 2.3% increase in fatal crash rates.” But after retail sales began, injury crash rates fell slightly, reducing the increase following legalization to 5.9 percent. The overall increase in fatality rates was 3.8 percent, which was still statistically insignificant.

    This is all very hard to parse, because… there are OTHER things going on in parallel to ‘legalizing marijuana/sales’ that could contribute to both increases and decreases of accident/injury rates.

    1. What? Doesn’t it go without saying that anything bad that happens anywhere in the general vicinity of cannabis was caused by the cannabis?

    2. Yes it is, but if they do their statistics right (say like scientists do with high energy physics experiments), the numbers of several states with varying laws should be able to provide good information.

      No idea how thorrough the statistics were in this case, but since the IIHS has no incentive to be biased (?), I assume they are right. Why not?

    3. “This is all very hard to parse, because… there are OTHER things going on in parallel to ‘legalizing marijuana/sales’ that could contribute to both increases and decreases of accident/injury rates.”

      Exactly. Correlation does not mean causation.

      1. Marijuana needs to be used wisely
        You need to know which strains to smoke at certain times
        I advise everyone not to drive drunk and high
        Legalizing marijuana opens up new opportunities
        It is very important to study the effects of marijuana
        But do not forget, everything must be done in moderation

    4. This. Kind of. Problem is when you drill down, most of the increase is attributable to two states – Oregon and Colorado. IDK Oregon. But really ‘Colorado’ was a relatively artificial boundary re pot legalization. It mostly occurred in Denver, Boulder, and the mountain towns. Is that roughly where the accident increases occurred?

    5. I think they admit to that at the end. Most social science needs to be taken with large grain of salt.

  2. Indiana woman gets probation in first Capitol riot sentencing
    Pete Williams 1 hr ago

    WASHINGTON — A 49-year-old woman from Indiana who came to Washington with her hairdresser friend was put on probation Wednesday in the first sentence stemming from the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

    With the number of people arrested approaching 500, it was the first of what government officials said would likely be similar proceedings for the hundreds of people who also face low-level charges.

    Anna Morgan-Lloyd pleaded guilty to a single charge of illegally demonstrating in the Capitol building. In return, the government dropped three other charges, all of them misdemeanors. She was sentenced in federal court in Washington, D.C., to three years of probation and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service and pay $500 in restitution.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/indiana-woman-gets-probation-in-first-capitol-riot-sentencing/ar-AALmtk4?ocid=msedgntp

    Sorry lady, you were Conned by the Con Man. but you got out light since you weren’t one of the nuttier ones.

    1. Obsessed TDS pile of human garbage.

      1. Trump, that lying white trash piece of shit, is still telling his cult that he won the election and it was subsequently stolen from him. And the Trump Cult still believes and listens to him.

        Trump and his cult need to be insulted daily until it stops.

        1. Exactly. Trump and his fan boys are loud mouth bullies and if there’s one exception to my rule of being nice it’s dealing with bullies.

          1. Ok Jacob. We know drugs and killing conservatives using the police is your Jazz and stuff, but your TDS could really be resolved by now. Meant to tell you this for a while. Just because Bill O’Reilly showed you who’s boss a few years ago on Fox News doesn’t mean you have to remain the dark Lord of Vader forever. Is your therapist that bad?

          2. Sullum, you’re buddying up to Buttplug, a self professed viewer of child porn. Who even posted links to that shot here. In other words a typical democrat, and worthy Biden supporter.

    2. WTF? She took part in an ARMED INSURRECTION — and only got probation?!

      I mean, as a Koch / Reason libertarian I’m normally on board with the #EmptyThePrisons agenda. But not in this case. Life in prison would be reasonable.

      1. #DefundYourPolice
        #SuperFundMyPolice

    3. Dee, DOL, and Lying Jeffy hardest hit.

    4. You mean there were no charges for trying to overthrow the government? But the way you progs talk, if one of them got ahold of Pelosi’s gavel it would confer onto them the Speakership. Kind of like wielding Mjolnir. Isn’t there a runic inscriptions that reads “Whosoever holds this gavel, if they be worthy, shall possess the power of Pelosi”?

  3. Most pot smokers also drink alcohol so most of their accidents are probably listed as alcohol since its easier to detect

    1. The combination was part of the research, and one of the few clear findings was that it really increases the risks. Therefore, without having read the original papers, we can assume that they have screened for that, and only counted cases where a blood test was done for both substances.

      By the way, alcohol consumption is no longer detectable after 12 hours, while THC remains detectable for weeks for regular users.

      There are bound to be many more false positives (also included in this resaerch) for THC than there are for alcohol. This makes THC look worse in the statistics than it really is.

  4. “…A Study Finds That Crash Injuries in 5 States Rose After They Legalized Marijuana Use…”

    F-ing DUH!

  5. Science:
    Meanwhile, another IIHS study found that “drivers who used marijuana alone were no more likely to be involved in crashes than drivers who hadn’t used the drug.”

    Politics:
    “Our latest research makes it clear that legalizing marijuana for recreational use does increase overall crash rates,”

    Go figure.

  6. Did they break down the data by demographics such as female pot smoker drivers and Asian pot smoker drivers?

  7. But according to the US Government documentary Refer Madness, marijuana smoking causes violence, sexual assaults, insanity and much worse.

    1. On the other hand, to be sure, that great scientist Donovan stated “a violent hash smoker shook a chocolate machine, involved in an eating scene”

  8. Aggressive driving, i.e. tailgating, speeding, darting in and out of lanes are the probably the main causes of accidents and cannabis would seem to reduce the occurrence of that kind of behavior so I might guess marijuana could marginally improve safety.

    1. Ok Jacob. We know drugs are your Jazz and stuff and you’re really concerned about traffic accidents going down if it means you can get higher, but your conservative derangement syndrome could really be resolved by now. Meant to tell you this for a while. Just because Bill O’Reilly showed you who’s boss a few years ago on Fox News doesn’t mean you have to remain the dark Lord of Vader forever. Is your therapist that bad?

  9. A number of years ago I read an NHTSA “study” which concluded that cannabis addled driving increased risk of collision by 5% after adjusting for confounds. Drinking alcohol increased that risk by 600%. Ironically it also asserted that drinking alcohol by itself was the biggest menace to highway safety with drinking alcohol mixed with another substance increasing the risk of collision by only 550%!

  10. > Given these mixed and counterintuitive results…

    Not at all counterintuitive; stoners drive very slowly–stoners do EVERYTHING very slowly. So, you still have accidents, but nobody gets hurt. ????

    1. If the accidents are pot users being rear-ended (and the other driver at fault!), serious injuries are less common than with other kinds of accidents at the same speeds. If they’re single-car accidents with the pot users losing control and going off the road _slowly_, injuries are also unlikely.

  11. What the studies don’t really tell us is where the individual was using the intoxicant. Alcohol can be used in the home but is also available on the road at bars. I am not aware of too many marijuana bars. Now that does not rule out getting high at a friend’s home and driving home, but same is true for alcohol. I think that overall there is less likelihood a person would need to follow up intoxication by driving home.

    Just a thought.

  12. Don’t trust IIHS studies on highway safety. They are usually corrupted by an agenda.

  13. I would expect legalizing retail sales to reduce incidents of marijuana impaired driving because of the way marijuana culture works. In marijuana culture, when one procures from an illegal dealer, custom dictates that the buyer smoke with the seller, leading the buyer to drive home potentially impaired. In the legal retail environment, there is no such expectation.

  14. Whatever the effect actually is, it’s small, smaller than such factors as driving home from work tired, adjusting the radio, or having passengers, and it’s about as likely to be slightly below zero as slightly above it. Compared to the accident rates resulting from from alcohol, it’s basically zero.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.