Support NeoGAF

[Movement]

Anyone else see this yet? I was actually a bit surprised to have them recommend I vote 'no' while providing basically no information other than misleading traffic stats. Seems like they care more about having to pay more accident bills than improving a broken crime system. Meh, I'm genuinely considering leaving them because of this, it is not who I'd like to give my money to.

A DANGEROUS MIX (not my emphasis)
As states look at legalizing marijuana, AAA research suggests risks for traffic safety

This election year, voters in five states will decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana use. Among them are California with Proposition 64 and Maine with Question 1. Any states that do will join the four others where the drug is already legal for recreational use. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety analyzed cannabis use by drivers in one of those states, Washington, and found that the proportion of drivers involved in fatal crashes who had recently used marijuana more than doubled after Washington legalized the drug for recreational use. In addition, there’s currently no easy way to test whether a driver is impaired by marijuana: Unlike alcohol, it can’t be determined by breath or blood tests.
Marijuana’s Effect on Driving

After alcohol, marijuana is the most common drug found in drivers who have been involved in traffic collisions.1 Marijuana’s main psychoactive ingredient, active-THC, affects key parts of the brain, which can lead to:
ThinkstockPhotos-462397857-construction-icons
Difficulty paying attention
ThinkstockPhotos-468724655-map-and-location-icons
Difficulty staying in traffic lane
ThinkstockPhotos-469630651-timer-Stopwatch
Slower reaction times
GettyImages-462568425-construction-icon-set
Difficulty judging distances
ThinkstockPhotos-469630651-timer-Hourglass
Slower decision-making
ThinkstockPhotos-469630681-travel-and-vacation-icons-Sunglasses
Reduced peripheral vision
ThinkstockPhotos-477419589-business-and-management-icons
Reduced coordination

Research results are mixed, but some studies have found that using marijuana as much as doubles a driver’s risk of crashing.2 Furthermore, research shows that drivers killed in crashes who tested positive for marijuana were 1.29 to 6.6 times more likely to have caused the collision.3
A Worrying Trend in Washington State

In 2012, Washington voters approved Initiative 502 to legalize recreational marijuana use for adults. It took effect in December of that year. AAA examined drug tests and fatal crashes among Washington drivers between 2010 and 2014 and found the following:
Percentage of Washington drivers involved in fatal crashes who had recently used marijuana

8%
in 2013
17%
in 2014

After legalization, the proportion of fatal crashes that involved marijuana more than doubled. While the data analyzed for the study did not include enough information to determine which driver was at fault in a given crash, the trend is troubling because the proportion of fatal crashes involving marijuana in Washington had been relatively stable between 2010 and 2013.
Determining Impairment Isn’t Easy

To combat marijuana-related crashes, some states have instituted “per se” legal blood limits on active-THC. Washington instituted one as part of Initiative 502, and four other states have them as well.
Per se limits make it a crime to drive with more than a certain amount of a drug in one’s system. Drunk driving laws are a well-known example: In the U.S., driving with a blood alcohol concentration above 0.08 percent is automatically a crime. That's because decades of research have established a well-understood relationship between how much alcohol is in someone's blood and their risk of crashing.
Per se limits work for alcohol, because we can reliably predict crash risk from blood alcohol concentration. They don’t work for marijuana, however, for several reasons:
Cellphone Icon

There’s no evidence that drivers definitively become impaired at a specific level of active-THC in the blood. Some individuals with high blood active-THC levels may not be significantly impaired, whereas others with low levels may still be severely affected.
Trends Icon

There’s currently no way to quickly determine active-THC levels. AAA found that it takes more than two hours on average to collect a blood sample, which means high active-THC levels may decline significantly before they can be measured.
Trends Icon

Marijuana is metabolized in the body differently from person to person. Frequent users can exhibit persistent blood active-THC long after active use, while occasional users may see their levels decline much more rapidly.

Per se legal limits on marijuana intoxication while driving are well-intentioned, but they’re not supported by scientific evidence. Instead, they’re likely to result in unsafe drivers being cleared and unimpaired drivers being convicted.

AAA opposes measures to legalize recreational marijuana use, and recommends a “no” vote on both California’s Proposition 64 and Maine’s Question 1. We have a genuine traffic safety concern related to the legalization of recreational marijuana use. It has taken generations to educate the public about drinking and driving and to strengthen the laws to reduce drunken driving. These measures would create new traffic safety issues and increase the problem of impaired driving.
The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety's recent research raises many concerns about whether we are prepared to address the traffic safety risks Proposition 64 and Question 1 pose. More studies are needed before making such a far-reaching policy change that could have unintended, but tragic, consequences for traffic safety

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Are they going to say no to alcohol as well?

 

[SocksAndShoes]

Of course they are.

 

[KrellRell]

Poor insurance companies, so hard done by.

 

[Omegasquash]

The thought of going anywhere while high never occurred to me, so I can honestly say I don't have any insight on "stoned driving".

That said, opponents of legalization in the what....9 states that have votes in November seem as though they're focusing on just that. Which seems disingenuous to me.

 

[notworksafe]

Seems like they care more about having to pay more accident bills than improving a broken crime system.

yeah no shit

 

[Struct09]

Their WA state statistic is quite misleading. They cite it as people who have "recently used marijuana", but the study is clear that it did not determine if the drivers were impaired, only that they had tested positive for THC. Since THC sticks around so long in someone's system you could read the results simply as more people in WA state are trying marijuana.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Are they going to say no to alcohol as well?

I'm sure they would if they thought it might happen.

 

[rjinaz]

The thought of going anywhere while high never occurred to me, so I can honestly say I don't have any insight on "stoned driving".

That said, opponents of legalization in the what....9 states that have votes in November seem as though they're focusing on just that. Which seems disingenuous to me.

Because it's easy. They are trying to convince people that will never smoke that it could effect them by putting dangerous drivers behind the wheel. I mean that's all it is. It's hard to appeal to these people in the usual ways like taxes because it brings in a lot of money.

So they go with the scare tactic.

 

[Glix]

Yeah. Nobody drives high now. No one.

 

[Cyan]

The Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: How Likely is the Worst-Case Scenario?

Reducing traffic injuries and fatalities is potentially one of the most important public health benefits from legalizing the use of recreational marijuana. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of marijuana, impairs driving-related functions ( Kelly, Darke, & Ross, 2004), but there is evidence that drivers under the influence of THC compensate for these impairments. For instance, they tend to drive slower and take fewer risks (Robbe & O’Hanlon, 1993; Sewell, Poling, & Sofuoglu, 2009). In contrast, drivers under the influence of alcohol trend to drive faster and take more risks (Burian, Liguori, & Robinson, 2002; Marczinski, Harrison, & Fillmore, 2008; Ronen et al., 2008). While driving under the influence of marijuana is associated with a two-fold increase in the risk of being involved in a collision (Asbridge, Hayden, & Cartwright, 2012), driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or greater is associated with a 4- to 27-fold increase in this same risk ( Peck et al., 2008).

Driving under the combined influence of alcohol and marijuana is especially dangerous (Sewell, Poling, & Sofuoglu, 2009). Therefore, if young adults viewed alcohol and marijuana as complements, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana could seriously jeopardize roadway safety. Fortunately, as noted above, studies based on clearly-defined natural experiments suggest that young adults, a group responsible for a disproportionate share of traffic accidents and fatalities (Eustace & Wei, 2010), typically substitute marijuana in place of alcohol. 8

Using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the period 1990-2010, Anderson, Hansen, & Rees (2013) examined the effect of legalizing medical marijuana on traffic fatalities. They found that legalizing medical marijuana was associated with a 13 percent decrease in fatalities involving alcohol. It is important to note, however, that their results do not necessarily imply that driving under the influence of marijuana is safer than driving und the influence of alcohol. Because marijuana is not typically consumed in public venues such as restaurants and bars, their results may reflect fewer impaired drivers on the road.

It seems intuitive that legalizing marijuana would increase accidents as there would be another vector for people to drive impaired. But what actually seems to happen is a substitution effect--once marijuana is legal, some people substitute its use for drinking, and since driving while high is less likely to get you into accidents/kill you or others than driving drunk (though still not recommended or anything), this actually reduces accidents.

In short, your insurance company is wrong. Legalized marijuana should actually make the roads safer.

Edit: Here's another study showing the same, though only the abstract is publicly available:

Data from the 1982 and 1989 Monitoring the Future Surveys are used to examine the substitutability of alcoholic beverages and marijuana among youths. Beer prices and minimum legal drinking ages are used as measures of the full price of alcohol, while an indicator of marijuana decriminalization and its money price capture the full price of marijuana. Results indicate that drinking frequency and heavy drinking episodes are negatively related to beer prices, but positively related to the full price of marijuana. The implications of this substitution for one of the consequences of youth substance abuse, driving while intoxicated, is examined using information on youth non-fatal accidents taken from the surveys and on youth fatal motor vehicle accidents constructed from the Fatal Accident Reporting System. These results indicate that the net effect of an increase in the full price of alcoholic beverages on the probability of a youth traffic crash is negative. However, the opposite is found for marijuana. That is, the results imply that the reduction in accidents resulting from substitution away from alcoholic beverages and other intoxicating substances to marijuana as its full price is lower more than offsets the increase in accidents related to marijuana use.

 

[SummitAve]

I would change insurance companies.

 

[benjipwns]

I was actually a bit surprised to have them recommend I vote 'no' while providing basically no information other than misleading traffic stats. Seems like they care more about having to pay more accident bills than improving a broken crime system.

Is this facetious? I can't tell.

 

[Movement]

I would change insurance companies.

As I said, I'm thinking about it, but that's a pretty major thing to do so I'd need to do some research into better alternatives that won't cost more than I already pay.

It sucks to be happy with them then receive this incorrect and misleading propaganda. Ad Cyan said, the actual result would save them money, based on decreased drunk driving. Which makes this either seem political or appeasing their old white base.

 

[PillarEN]

The law says you can't drive intoxicated. What difference does legal or illegal weed make anyways? The link isn't working for me OP.

 

[Jeels]

The Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: How Likely is the Worst-Case Scenario?


It seems intuitive that legalizing marijuana would increase accidents as there would be another vector for people to drive impaired. But what actually seems to happen is a substitution effect--once marijuana is legal, some people substitute its use for drinking, and since driving while high is less likely to get you into accidents/kill you or others than driving drunk (though still not recommended or anything), this actually reduces accidents.

In short, your insurance company is wrong. Legalized marijuana should actually make the roads safer.

Edit: Here's another study showing the same, though only the abstract is publicly available:

In an ideal world people just wouldn't get in a vehicle on any substance and just let their buddy drive or hail an uber.

 

[FStop7]

Drobot's fault

 

[SynthFetish]

I once worked at Target, they tried to tell me I had to attend a mandatory meeting telling me to vote no on a thing that would give unions more power.
I told them I wouldn't listen to their propaganda and that no employer has any right to try to influence how their employees would vote.

I fucking hate companies that try to overreach like this.

 

[Movement]

The law says you can't drive intoxicated. What difference does legal or illegal weed make anyways? The link isn't working for me OP.

I copy pasted the post, guess it's a personal link.

 

[benjipwns]

Which makes this either seem political or appeasing their old white base.

Or the state's insurance regulatory commission.

And being leery about doing anything due to the conflicts that will exist between state and federal law.

 

[QuantumBro]

As someone with a med card, I'm leaning towards a no vote on Prop 64. The medical system works fine as-is and I don't really see how turning it into a free for all would be better for anyone except large corporations since it's decriminalized throughout the state already.

It's probably going to pass though.

 

[Frozenprince]

80% of the reason I'm going out to vote is to vote yes on prop 4.

Legal weed on the ballots is gonna be huge in the states it's on in terms of generating turnout.

 

[Movement]

Or the state's insurance regulatory commission.

And being leery about doing anything due to the conflicts that will exist between state and federal law.

Fair point. Would be nice if they just said that, instead of instilling fear through misinformation.

 

[Frozenprince]

Oh right almost forgot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMGCTru6yI

 

[Cyan]

In an ideal world people just wouldn't get in a vehicle on any substance and just let their buddy drive or hail an uber.

Or climb into their self-driving car and get driven home. Yeah, of course I agree with you. But if we want to improve traffic safety, we have to look at real-world effects rather than what would happen if everyone did the right thing.

 

[Luschient]

As someone with a med card, I'm leaning towards a no vote on Prop 64.

Ahh, the ole "fuck you, got mine"?

 

[benjipwns]

Fair point. Would be nice if they just said that, instead of instilling fear through misinformation.

that's not really how a successful state propaganda campaign works

As someone with a med card, I'm leaning towards a no vote on Prop 64.

protected class privileges ftw, fuck all those who ain't got the king's stamp

 

[SugarDaddy]

I'd be curious to know if the studies they cited actually proved that the drivers were under the influence. THC stays in your system incredibly long, would it be presumptuous of me to assume they only proved THC was in their system, not that they were actually under the influence?

 

[Fulminator]

80% of the reason I'm going out to vote is to vote yes on prop 4.

Legal weed on the ballots is gonna be huge in the states it's on in terms of generating turnout.

yup

 

[The Lamonster]

I hope AAA is also lobbying against alcohol but with a thousand times intensity.

 

[Movement]

I hope AAA is also lobbying against alcohol but with a thousand times intensity.

Hint, they're not.

 

[Luschient]

If you end up cancelling, make sure you let them know exactly the reason why.

 

[Cyan]

I'd be curious to know if the studies they cited actually proved that the drivers were under the influence. THC stays in your system incredibly long, would it be presumptuous of me to assume they only proved THC was in their system, not that they were actually under the influence?

The studies they cite are right in line with the ones my source cites. And in fact they might be citing some of the same studies. They're just leaving out part of the story.

Driving under the influence of marijuana is more dangerous than driving sober (left out: though less dangerous than driving drunk). Making marijuana more easily available increases instances of driving under the influence of marijuana and of marijuana-related accidents (left out: it also decreases instances of driving drunk and of drinking-related accidents, and on net decreases accidents overall).

 

[Angry Grimace]

Prop 64 is up like 60-31. Even if every undecided went against it would still easily pass.

As someone with a med card, I'm leaning towards a no vote on Prop 64. The medical system works fine as-is and I don't really see how turning it into a free for all would be better for anyone except large corporations since it's decriminalized throughout the state already.

It's probably going to pass though.

Corporations aren't touching this until its not illegal federally (there's a reason marijuana outfits don't take credit) and it's not "probably" going to pass, it is going to pass. It's so far ahead there's almost no way it would fail; propositions aren't like candidates where they could somehow fuck up on the campaign trail.

 

[Username1198]

Hmmm I'll stick to driving to the moon in my moon car vs AAA thanks though

Don't listen to em op they trying to smoke all the weed greedy corporations

 

[ShaoranWright]

You should listen to them OP, insurance companies always act in your best interest.

 

[Frozenprince]

Prop 64 is up like 60-31. Even if every undecided went against it would still easily pass.



Corporations aren't touching this until its not illegal federally and it's not probably going to pass, it is going to pass. It's so far ahead there's almost no way it would fail.

Honestly I'd be stunned if a single one of these legalization props didn't pass.

 

[The Artisan]

fuck em.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Honestly I'd be stunned if a single one of these legalization props didn't pass.

I'm hoping legal weed will kill annoying weed culture.

 

[Frozenprince]

I'm hoping legal weed will kill annoying weed culture.

You and me both. Legal shops should hopefully cut down on the amount of horrible horrible head shops with the stereotypical stoner owner.

I give it another 2 years before it's just made federally legal and the drug war ends with a whimper.

 

[fart town usa]

Nonsense.

Personal responsibility. People can just as easily drive after drinking or drive under the influence of medications.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean people are going to start using it recklessly.

Remember prohibition? The crusade against marijuana has always been rooted in falsehoods and propaganda.

 

[subrock]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

 

[grumble]

Because it's easy. They are trying to convince people that will never smoke that it could effect them by putting dangerous drivers behind the wheel. I mean that's all it is. It's hard to appeal to these people in the usual ways like taxes because it brings in a lot of money.

So they go with the scare tactic.

Well if the impact of legalizing marijuana is that people will have easier access to more potent pot, and that people use it more often, and that more people use it, and that they do so less discreetly, then people have a point. No one is saying that you should operate heavy dangerous machinery while high (aka drive) and IF the above is true then it will increase accidents and hurt and kill innocent people. Having no ability to perform quick and easy testing is also a huge deal. The quoted research doesn't address that very well however.

 

[NoRéN]

Are they going to say no to alcohol as well?

.

 

[Secret Character]

As somebody who lives in Colorado, the legalization of weed has had nothing but positive effects on the state. Tax revenue is at a surplus because of it and it's earmarked for things like road and school repairs.

Yes, it's a pain to see how many dispensaries are in town, but those are just entrepreneurs trying to cash in on a huge industry.

It's really a stupid idea to vote against it. There have been nothing but net positives. I don't even smoke the stuff.

 

[fart town usa]

Well if the impact of over prescribing pharmaceuticals is that people will have easier access to more mood altering medications, and that people use it more often, and that more people use it, and that they do so less discreetly, then people have a point. No one is saying that you should operate heavy dangerous machinery while high (aka drive) and IF the above is true then it will increase accidents and hurt and kill innocent people. Having no ability to perform quick and easy testing is also a huge deal. The quoted research doesn't address that very well however.

Fixed.

 

[partyphone]

it's already trivial to obtain marijuana here. legalizing won't have much of an impact on how many people are using. and legalization has more benefits than leaving the law as is.

 

[USC-fan]

Since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows

The anti-pot group SAM recently pointed out that even before the first legal pot store opened in Washington state, the number of drivers in that state testing positive for pot jumped by a third.

The problem with these criticisms is that we can test only for the presence of marijuana metabolites, not for inebriation. Metabolites can linger in the body for days after the drug’s effects wear off — sometimes even for weeks. Because we all metabolize drugs differently (and at different times and under different conditions), all that a positive test tells us is that the driver has smoked pot at some point in the past few days or weeks.

As you can see, roadway fatalities this year are down from last year, and down from the 13-year average. Of the seven months so far this year, five months saw a lower fatality figure this year than last, two months saw a slightly higher figure this year, and in one month the two figures were equal. If we add up the total fatalities from January through July, it looks like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...at-near-historic-lows/?utm_term=.a0c1db463838

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

I once worked at Target, they tried to tell me I had to attend a mandatory meeting telling me to vote no on a thing that would give unions more power.
I told them I wouldn't listen to their propaganda and that no employer has any right to try to influence how their employees would vote.

I fucking hate companies that try to overreach like this.

I was walking down a Target aisle a few months ago, and there was a group of about 4 or 5 Target employees huddled together talking, and I overheard one of them say "that's why we need to start a union", and another one responded, "shut up, you idiot, you're gonna get fired for talking like that!"

 

[BennyBlanco]

YI give it another 2 years before it's just made federally legal and the drug war ends with a whimper.

You're tripping.

Nonsense.

Personal responsibility. People can just as easily drive after drinking or drive under the influence of medications.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean people are going to start using it recklessly.

Remember prohibition? The crusade against marijuana has always been rooted in falsehoods and propaganda.

Exactly. I could go buy a bunch of robitussin right now at CVS and lose my mind behind the wheel.