21–30 of 523 posts
I am curious what percentge of the general populous test positive for THC. It would give better context to a dead drivers testing positive for THC.
> It would give better context to a dead drivers testing positive for THC. No it wouldn't. People make those excuses because it's weed, but you would have never posted that on an article about alcohol.
Why did you automatically assume the point of bias?
I am curious what percentge of the general populous test positive for THC. It would give better context to a dead drivers testing positive for THC.
> It would give better context to a dead drivers testing positive for THC. No it wouldn't. People make those excuses because it's weed, but you would have never posted that on an article about alcohol.
A similar result about alcohol would be the (hypothetical) statement that the rate of drunk drivers in fatal accidents was constant before and after the enactment of Prohibition.
I do agree that the fact that fatal THC% stays constant before and after legalization is a surprise.
Is there a full study somewhere? I'd expect them to screen for other psychoactive substances as well, of which I see no mention here.
https://journals.lww.com/journalacs/fulltext/2025/11001/trau...
I am curious what percentge of the general populous test positive for THC. It would give better context to a dead drivers testing positive for THC.
> It would give better context to a dead drivers testing positive for THC. No it wouldn't. People make those excuses because it's weed, but you would have never posted that on an article about alcohol.
Based on the headline, I was guessing it was any amount of positivity, and may be close to the population level, but it's actually impairment levels of THC: > In a review of 246 deceased drivers, 41.9% tested positive for active THC in their blood, with an average level of 30.7 ng/mL — far exceeding most state impairment limits. Since COVID in CA, it feels like driving has become far more dangerous with much more law…
reading the paper, I’d say this is a case of hoofbeats meaning horses- people are just getting high and crashing.. Although, this seems like a case where the average is very vulnerable to a ‘spiders georg’ type distortion, especially because of the tolerances people build.
Feels like a low sample size, but I'm not statistician or doctor. That said, almost everyone I know that consumes THC has no qualms driving while doing it, and many of them also at work. It's a huge peeve of mine.
I wonder how many of these people were under the influence of alcohol and other substances.
I am curious what percentge of the general populous test positive for THC. It would give better context to a dead drivers testing positive for THC.
> “An average level of 30.7 ng/mL generally means those people must have consumed marijuana at some time close to driving. This isn’t about residual use; it’s about recent consumption.” If we are at 40% of the population being high at any given moment I think we are having extremely serious societal problems around mental health. Occasional use is not a big deal IMHO, but if a person is spending 40% of waking hours i…
An issue with having the legal limit at ~2-5ng/ml is that it makes habitual users be over the limit if they have smoked recently or not.[0] Making the prohibition seem unserious to some, not about safety but about punitive control, and in turn making it matter less if you smoke and drive as you are taking the risk of getting into trouble in any case. The impairments of driving under the influence of alcohol have been…
For drunk drivers it’s rather easy to assess whether someone is impaired. With marijuana it’s not. So until we have a valid method of testing if someone is “too stoned to drive” we have to push back on any attempt to classify marijuana users as ineligible to drive.