car accidents with thc

AAA Says “THC Prevalence in Fatal Crashes” Has Doubled – What Does That Mean?

According to a recent study published by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety – the number of drivers who have been in an automotive accident and tested positive for THC increased two-fold since marijuana was legalized in Washington back in 2012.

According to their data, “drivers who have been in a fatal accident and tested positive for THC doubled since December 2012” [Source]

Now I understand that some of you cannabis activists out there are probably frothing at the mouth. “HOW DARE THEY! CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CUASATION!” and I hear you loud and clear. We’re on the same team here.

This is exactly the same point I was about to make. In fact, if we take a closer look at the data we might understand what it’s really trying to tell us.

It Tested “Prevalence” and not “Impairment”

I always tell people “Words matter” for the simple reason that – they do! Semantics dictates the way we live and either enables us or limits our behavior. When we read “prevalence of THC” but think “Impairment” – we might be prompted to create stricter laws against “stoned drivers”. Why? Because we would assume that these “low life pot smokers are shooting up their dope and getting behind the wheel” are a danger to society!

It’s okay if you want to smoke your whacky-tobacky, but don’t drive! That’s everybody’s space!

And so – we find that it’s justifiable to look the other way when they pass some other draconian laws that repress individual freedoms by creating a legal differentiator within the consumption habits of the masses.

But I digress…

The reason words matter is because when the idea of prevalence is mistaken for impairment – organizations like SAM lobby to keep cannabis out of the legal system of goods.

Prevalence only means that the person involved in the fatal accident had consumed cannabis or a cannabis related product within the past 30-90 days. In most cases, within a month. However, this doesn’t mean that the person died because they smoked marijuana and drove. It only means that at “some point” during these past 90-days they consumed cannabis.

This is because THC is a lipophilic molecule – meaning, that it attaches itself tissue and other lipids in your body. This can stay there for quite some time.

Even within the same study did the AAA mention; The study did not attempt to determine if marijuana contributed to the crashes included in its latest research. It focused only on the prevalence of drivers who tested positive for active THC [source].

In other words, they admit that there is no causation involved. However, mark my words – this study will be cited by some backwards politician sometime later this year. On that day – you’ll smoke a joint and remember that Reginald Reefer is some kind of red-eyed future seer.

What the “Study Suggests”

And this is why I always report on these kinds of studies. To unmask the insanity behind the proposals. For example;

“AAA believes that states that have legalized the drug should not rely solely on an arbitrary legal limit to determine if a driver is impaired. They should adopt a two-pronged approach that requires both a positive test for recent marijuana use and checks on the behavioral and physiological evidence of driver impairment…”

…because this is exactly how they treat every other substance on this planet. I don’t see the same level of scrutiny when it comes to people who are drunk. We utilize “legal limits” and then either revoke someone’s license, or send them to jail depending on the severity of their crime.

Why would we need to have cannabis users undergo a battery of tests just because “it’s difficult to judge impairment”.

I’m not advocating that cannabis users should be driving around stoned. Nobody should really be driving around in a high-speed and weighty mechanical monster while under the influence of anything. We should respect our fellow human being by avoiding driving high.

However, we also don’t need arbitrary laws that will place a biased and excessive discriminatory legal process that will target a group of people “based on their consumption choices”. We’re trying to get away from prohibition and while I understand we need to set a standard for safe consumption and safety education – draconian laws will not work.

Conclusion

It’s important always get in front of these types of reports before it evaporates into the “mass consciousness” of humanity. This is exactly how cannabis myths are made – by some ambiguous study that was misinterpreted and repurposed to support a narrative aimed at limiting individual freedoms.

When you hear this study come up – and you inevitably will – simply point the person arguing that “legalizing weed kills” to this article. When they understand the true semantics of the research, they will understand that all the data is telling us is that roughly 1 in 5 adults in the US consume cannabis consistently.

That’s roughly 60,000,000 people. You are not alone =)

DRIVING STONED, A REAL PROBLEM? READ MORE..

IMPAIRED EVEN WHILE SOBER DRIVING STUDY, CLICK HERE.

OR..

HOW HIGH IS TOO HIGH TO DRIVE, A NEW LOOK, CLICK HERE.

OR..

WHAT THE POLICE CAN AND CAN'T DO WHEN THEY PULL YOU OVER.