Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

facs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 523 posts

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#461

Post by danaris »

SoftTalker wrote: post #320
hattmall wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's seat belts. People who die in wrecks are overwhelmingly not wearing seat belts. I would think marijuana users as a group probably have average seat belt usage, but people who don't wear seat belts probably have much higher than average marijuanna usage. Roughy 92% of people wear seat belts. But that 8% of people that don't wear setbelts makes up 50% or more of all fatalities. From my personal experience it seems…

Is this a joke? The people who don't wear seatbelts are in my observation old folks who grew up without them or before using them was mandatory. It's just their habit. I've almost never seen a person under about age 40 not using a seatbelt.

While I do not commonly ride in cars driven by people outside my family, my experience has been quite the opposite: when I do ride in cars with older people, they buckle up as a matter of course, while when I ride with younger people, they are much more likely not to.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#462

Post by cluckindan »

JK-Swizzle wrote: post #306
avereveard wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the conclusion you'd also expect 40% of the population using it.

I would expect there to be significant overlap between the demographics of those who more commonly get in accidents and those who use THC. Based on nsc.org, it seems like the majority of car accidents are with drivers 25-34 years old, and occur more frequently late at night on weekends. That generally matches the profile of the stereotypical THC user. It is hard to find good numbers of THC use. Remember that not all…

So in other words, people with a less risk-averse personality are more likely to engage in risky behaviors

”That generally matches the profile of the stereotypical THC user”

Got a source for that claim?

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#463

Post by carlmr »

golem14 wrote: post #417
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, weed smells like a skunk. Which makes it really annoying to be around people who smoke, that stuff is really unpleasant to have to smell. Honestly I don't know how people can stand to smoke it with how bad it smells.

Am I the only one that doesn't find skunk smell not so horrid as it's generally made out to be? It's very strong, yes, but between skunk and asa foetida, it would be hard to choose ;)

Asa foetida is way worse than skunk

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#464

Post by graycat »

I have it on good authority and a lot of data that over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for recently having (i) breathed air containing oxygen, (ii) drank tap water (iii) were wearing shoes, (iv) had used those shoes to get to the car, ...

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#465

Post by danaris »

Aurornis wrote: post #159

Some helpful context: The number of Americans age 12 and older who report using any marijuana product at least once in the past year is around 20% (Source https://apnews.com/article/marijuana-cannabis-alcohol-use-di... ) if I use one of the highest reported use numbers I can find. Even if you dismiss all of the questions brought up in these comments like the use of mean levels instead of median, not accounting for to…

> 40% having significant THC in their blood is a stunning statistic no matter how you look at it.

Yes, it is a stunning statistic.

So much so, that in itself it makes it worth questioning the results of this study.

If 40% of fatal crash victims had THC in their bloodstream, and only 20% of the general population did, that would imply a 100% increase in chances of dying in a car crash from having smoked marijuana. That's an absolutely massive risk factor, the kind you would expect to show up very, very clearly in any kind of statistical analysis of car crashes.

But the other thing I've seen a bunch of people cite in this discussion is that there has been no statistically significant increase in fatal crashes following marijuana legalization.

That would imply that either there was no statistically significant increase in drivers high on marijuana since legalization, or there was no statistically significant increase in the likelihood of causing a fatal crash from being high on marijuana.

Based on our knowledge of human nature, the former seems incredibly unlikely (yes, there would surely be some people who would have been smoking pot before who just stopped hiding it as much, but there would also, just as surely, be many people who had been interested in getting high before, but who had been intimidated by its legal status or had no idea how to find a dealer until there were dispensaries opening in every town).

The latter directly contradicts the implication of this study—but this is only one study, and may have methodological issues that we are unaware of.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#466

Post by vel0city »

discreteevent wrote: post #447
eimrine wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either O B E Y or do what you named as "more work". Different person chooses different way of dealing with annoyances.

Don't fool yourself. In the end you have to obey the laws of physics and the punishment is extremely harsh and permanent.

I never agreed to be bound to some "law of conservation of momentum"! I'm a free person!

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#467

Post by okdood64 »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #303
Aurornis wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never been a smoker, but I’ve known a lot of friends who went through periods of smoking multiple times per week or even daily for periods of time. Every single one of them denied impairment during those periods. Often vehemently so, belittling anyone who suggested they might be impaired as having succumbed to propaganda. Every single one of them remarked that they were sharper, more alert, and had better memory…

> Every single one of them denied impairment during those periods. Often vehemently so, belittling anyone who suggested they might be impaired as having succumbed to propaganda. isn't that just common addiction response? "no, nothing's wrong with me. my drugs aren't the problem - you are the problem"

I think most addicts when not high/drunk/fucked up off their substance of choice would admit that they they are more impaired and not good to drive when they are on their substance of choice.

But you'll still find some small percentage of them claiming they wouldn't be impaired.

Source: have actually spend a lot of time around addicts.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#468

Post by randerson »

littlestymaar wrote: post #435
randerson wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were to catch and jail just 1% of license-less drivers, in a visible way, it would be a deterrent to the other 99%. But the rate of being caught & punished is negligible (at least in the states I've lived in) so people know they'll get away with it. I previously lived in a country where the cops set up random roadblocks to check everyone's license & registration and look for signs of intoxication. When there'…

> If they were to catch and jail just 1% of license-less drivers, in a visible way, it would be a deterrent to the other 99%. But the rate of being caught & punished is negligible (at least in the states I've lived in) so people know they'll get away with it. 1% is actually negligible, and would not have a deterrent effect. In fact I wouldn't even be surprised if the effective prosecution rate was somewhat higher tha…

Alcohol will likely always be a factor in the worst accidents. But France is doing something right because your fatal accident rate per capita is one third that of America's [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#469

Post by randerson »

immibis wrote: post #444
randerson wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were to catch and jail just 1% of license-less drivers, in a visible way, it would be a deterrent to the other 99%. But the rate of being caught & punished is negligible (at least in the states I've lived in) so people know they'll get away with it. I previously lived in a country where the cops set up random roadblocks to check everyone's license & registration and look for signs of intoxication. When there'…

How much of a deterrent can the police possibly impose that would outweigh the deterrent for not driving illegally, which (in your country) is being starving and homeless?

The cops will never deter everyone from breaking the law, but they don't have to. They just need to deter a large enough % of the population to have a positive effect.

Driving while intoxicated is not a crime of desperation. Even celebrities are often caught for DUI despite being able to afford a full-time limo driver.

Most people who drive intoxicated have jobs and reputations they'd prefer to keep, and families at home they would rather not be separated from or have to explain an arrest to.

And to be clear, we can't solve all the problems with a single measure. I'd like to see not just better law enforcement, but also a social safety net that ensures nobody is ever starving or homeless.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#470

Post by mattmaroon »

ambicapter wrote: post #335
mattmaroon wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this paper specifically rules out legalization as cause because the numbers didn’t significantly increase after legalization.

How does this rule anything out? It is totally possible actual usage of THC didn't increase after legalization. It wasn't one of the hardest things to find when it was illegal.

I think you’re misunderstanding. The paper says that the rates of dead drivers having THC in their system above the threshold did not change significantly after legalization. So legalizing isn’t the culprit, exactly for the reason you cite: people could get it just fine before.
Post reply on HN