Huh. I suspect there are many more people who drive having taken cold meds than who drive have imbibed weed yet the 18% of fatal crash number is not for cold meds. Amount, dose, matters.
Societally alcohol impaired driving has apparently decreased. Did those studies control for changes in alcohol impaired driving in each state during that time?
I am NOT arguing against weed being legal. I agree that in many ways alcohol causes very significantly more problems, inclusive of more accidents, and I would not support its prohibition either. I also suspect more who drink then drive, while more who get buzzed are doing so at home or where they are staying for the night.
I’m reading the study you cited (which is related to the data I’ve seen in other contexts) and it looks to me like the total number of people tested to have illegal drugs was comparable to the total number of people tested who were positive for “medications”, of which cold meds is only one component. (That also includes anti depressants, medical opioids, and several others.)
Day Illegal-only 172 9.3
Medications-only 238 10.7
Illegal & Medications 44 2.3
Total drug-negative 1,537 77.7
Total drug-positive 454 22.3
Night (Ref)
Illegal-only 745 13.2
Medications-only 396 7.4
Illegal & Medications 104 2.0
Total drug-negative 4,662 77.5
Total drug-positive 1,245 22.5
Yes, most of the comparisons were between nearby states that were deemed similar except for their cannabis laws, and how their data changed with respect to each other when the cannabis laws changed. Only a few looked at one state over time. Remember, these were studies of the impact of legalizing cannabis, not studies of the impact of driving under the influence of cannabis.
Now, maybe there’s not a lot of immediate impact, but over time the greater acceptance of cannabis leads to more people driving while impaired. But the same social pressure that lead to a designated driver for booze tend towards the same for weed.
Also, recreational legalization had barely begun in 2014 (a couple of states in 2012) so I’m dubious that the change from 2007 to 2014 was due to legalization.
Okay, for some reason, most of those links didn’t work on my phone, but they do work on my laptop…
That same table shows that the frequency of “tested positive for drugs” increased from 25% to 42% over the same time interval. Which is weird, since the roadside study (of living drivers) showed a much smaller increase of 12.4% to 15.1%. I wonder if part of that increase in dead drivers is due to more sensitive testing, which is mentioned in the roadside study as something they adjusted for, but not mentioned in the fatality data. Hmm, that fatality study cites FARS as their source. FARS (the Fatal Accident Reporting System) is awesome, in that it has data on almost every fatal vehicle incident in the US, but it doesn’t have the detail to normalize for changes in the sensitivity of drug tests, it pretty must just has a tag for yes/no for each data item. That’s almost certainly a piece of the story.
It seems plausible that there’s been some increase in drug use with legalization, but I think the numbers you cited are misleading.
A couple years. Colorado and Washington were the first two, voting to legalize it at the same time (2012). Oregon and Alaska did it in 2014.
There is a border effect, although that’s only in a couple towns. When Oregon legalized it, cities or counties where they voted heavily against legalization were allowed to opt out of having shops and grow operations. Virtually the entire east side of the state did so. All except the little town of Huntington.
Huntington is on the border with Idaho, although to get there from Boise, you have to drive on I-84 to the border (maybe an hour drive) plus another 30 miles north along the freeway. Huntington decided to allow sales and two pot shops opened up there. And did some landoffice business from all the Idaho potheads.
This did not go unnoticed in Ontario OR, the town at the point where I-84 crosses the Snake River from Idaho. So it’s a half hour drive closer to Boise and also a much larger town. After a few years, Ontario changed their minds and decided to allow sales there too. The last time I googled it, there were some 14 pot shops in Ontario. I’m not sure if the ones in Huntington are still open.
BTW, (bit of a hijack here) Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette has also opened a clinic in Ontario in the last couple years. Yet another border effect.
It’s been legal here in Canada for almost exactly 6 years now. As it turns out, a whole lot of people were already smoking it prior to that, and just kept it quiet. So the actual impact has been negligible. As you say, they were already doing it anyways.
When I was younger, I was a HUGE fan of the weed, but for the past couple of decades have only smoked VERY occasionally. I have long supported legalization of all substances, including pot.
Having said that, and having achieved part of my objective, I admit that I am less than thrilled at what I perceive as a greater number of folk being stoned a greater percentage of the time. Most people are stupid enough on their own merits, without being stupid AND stoned.
No data, just my impression. You would always run into the occasional retail or fast food clerk or group of teens who were obviously stoned, and would occasionally smell it in public. But now, my perception (possibly mistaken) is that it is much more common. I’m trying to think of an instance that I have driven down Harlem in Oak Park, IL (where at least one poster in this thread live) and have NOT smelled it wafting from neighboring cars. But hell, I have smoked while driving countless times myself. Not a sign of the apocalypse.
And here’s a ridiculous concern. A PART of the appeal of pot was the illicit nature, and the appeal to a limited demographic. I admit this is stupid on my part, but pot is a tad less appealing when large numbers of old suburban men and women (of which I am one) are lighting up/chewing gummies.
No, not at all the end of civilization. Just a couple of thoughts. It is SO WEIRD to be able to step into a dispensary and just comparison shop for whatever you wish…
Thanks for the clarification on the timing of Oregon’s move to fully legalize cannabis, including for recreational use.
I was aware of the border effect, though only barely. I have no reason to spend time in the eastern part of Oregon and treat it sort of like another planet. A hostile one.
If Idaho wants to cede the tax revenue to us, that’s cool.
Also knew about the Ontario Planned Parenthood clinic for which I am glad, but as you point out, that’s a discussion for a different thread.
There was an earlier border effect that involved western Oregon. Washington legalized mj a couple years before Oregon. During that time, pot shops along the border, especially those in Vancouver (across the border from Portland), did lots more business than those in the rest of Washington. Once pot shops opened in Oregon, that extra business disappeared.
There’s some border effects in Colorado as well, although I’m not that familiar with the details. I do remember that Nebraska once sued Colorado because Nebraskans were bringing dope back from trips across the border. The suit was unsuccessful.
One thing about legalization in Canada: since it was an act of the federal government, the legalization was ‘complete’.
Cannabis stores could be above-board and squeaky-clean. There is one in Union Station in Toronto, in the mall level coming from the subway, right next to the liquor store.
Cannabis stores could have access to all the standard banking services, etc, and pay all the usual taxes, etc. Because cannabis is still illegal on the federal level in the States, I understand that banking access for the cannabis industry is still an issue?
That’s correct, every dispo I’ve ever visited (couple of states, maybe three) is cash-only. They may advertise as accepting debit, but that just means they have an ATM on site, for hella fees.
I worked at a dispo for a year, during the pandemic. (Essential business, because medical is a thing in Michigan.)
Absolutely ridiculous amounts of twenties, every day.
Insurance is, too. The insurance industry would love to service this giant new business. Unlike other “new stuff”, like when cyber security was new, this is a rush the insurance industry understands well. It already writes crop insurance, retail, pharmaceuticals, and liquor liability. There’s nothing new here to the insurance industry other than vast sums of money. But federal law makes it tough.
I saw a noticeable change when it was decriminalized which was the precursor to legalizing it. People who ride motorcycles probably experienced it first. It’s quite noticeable when behind a car of active smokers.
It’s also easy to tell when someone wafts into a bar with glazed eyes and a smell of skunk. As is always in history, civilization is full speed ahead.
My WAG is that argument for legalization was correct - when it was illegal we saw an interesting thing: teens smoked cigarettes less and weed more. The explanation that made sense at the time was that it was easier to control and regulate a legal taxed product like cigarettes. Weed being illegal was actually more easily available. A word to a connection and the product was delivered to you after school or in the bathroom. Now the illegal market is diminished and the legal sources are both good at checking age, and at a higher price point to the consumer.
Overall though the point made humorously by @Alessan is real: teens are less likely to engage in a host of risky behaviors. Teen pregnancy is down, more are choosing to stay abstinent longer, less drunk driving, so on.
‘‘Tis true. I appreciate the data @puzzlegal provides. I have a hard time however squaring it with what I smell and the driving I see, which as someone who cycles somewhat frequently I am very aware of.
