Pubdate: Fri, 03 Jun 2016
Source: Calgary Herald (CN AB)
Page: DR2
Copyright: 2016 Postmedia Network
Contact:  http://www.calgaryherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/66
Author: David Booth

'HIGH DRIVING' HYSTERIA IS LITTLE MORE THAN HALF-BAKED
PARANOIA

The National Post recently scandalized its famously conservative
readers with a headline claiming that "about half of Canadians who
drive while high insist pot doesn't impair them."

The article - When is stoned too stoned? - further sensationalized the
"crisis" by noting: "nothing would make (20 per cent of those
surveyed) stop driving while stoned."

With the Trudeau government poised to legalize marijuana, it was
enough to send neo-cons into paroxysms of paranoia, fearing our roads
would be turned into killing fields by the demon weed.

It didn't help matters that CNN Money also ramped up the hype by
noting the number of fatalities involving drivers who had consumed
marijuana had doubled since Washington state legalized pot for
recreational consumption. About time, then, that many jurisdictions
are quickly instituting alcohol-like limits to the THC content one can
have in the bloodstream and still be allowed to drive.

The only problem is that the stoners might have it
right.

Marijuana, by most measures, is not in any way the scourge that
alcohol is. We may indeed be perfectly competent to drive while
"baked." At the very least, the methodology currently being employed
to identify those impaired by excessive THC consumption may be grossly
ineffective and, at worst, prejudicial.

The problem with trying to weed out those too toasted to drive is
two-fold, namely: the testing is faulty and, perhaps more surprising,
the evidence that getting high will result in more automobile
accidents - as it does so conclusively for alcohol - is very thin indeed.

For one thing, the current testing regime is flawed. Essentially
following the protocol employed to measure alcohol impairment, current
restrictions are based on limiting the amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) in your bloodstream while driving. Besides the compete lack of
consensus on how much THC is too much (current limits under discussion
range from one nanogram per millilitre of blood to five ng) there
doesn't seem to be any direct correlation between increased levels of
THC in the blood and traffic fatalities.

Even Peter Kissinger, chief executive of the American Motorists
Association, one of the organizations for marijuana prohibition, says
"It's simply not possible today to determine whether a driver is
impaired based solely on the amount of the drug in their body."

The problem, say medical experts, is that THC, unlike alcohol, can
stay in your bloodstream for weeks, long after any effects have worn
off. Jolene Forman, a staff lawyer for the Drug Policy Alliance, a
drug-reform advocacy group, told the New York Times that using
roadside THC blood tests to prove impairment is "equivalent to a test
that shows that you had a glass of wine three nights prior." Indeed,
the main reason to implement a blood test for THC content would seem
to be that constabularies find an easily quantified objective
restriction more convenient than a subjective test for impairment.

And, it is in the area of just how "impaired" one is that the
reasoning behind marijuana restrictions gets even murkier.

While there is little doubt that THC somewhat impairs certain motor
skills - for instance, compromising the ability to steadily walk
heel-to-toe - numerous driver simulation studies have shown that those
driving under the influence of marijuana, in complete contrast to the
aggressive driving habits of those under the influence of alcohol,
compensate by driving more cautiously.

The University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, for instance, found
that, after smoking a "marijuana cigarette," 85 subjects in a
double-blind study performed virtually the same after smoking cannabis
as they did sober, with "no differences found during the baseline
driving segment (and the) collision-avoidance scenarios."

Indeed, a Canadian senate study showed that while "evidence of
impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by
studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road
observation" these results "do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in
terms of performance effectiveness, since few studies report increased
accident risk."

And no less than the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration concluded that once you factor out age, gender, race
and alcohol use, "drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no
more likely to crash" than those who were stone-cold sober. The one
notable exception is the combination of alcohol and cannabis, which
seems to exacerbate the effect of both.

That senate study suggested lowering the alcohol limit to 40
milligrams of alcohol - as opposed to the current limit of 80 mg - per
100 millilitres of blood, in the "presence of other drugs, especially
.. cannabis."

Even more telling is that, according to a University of Chicago study,
marijuana use may reduce accidents. According to Medical Marijuana
Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption, the 19 states that
have legalized marijuana saw "an eight to 11 per cent decrease in
traffic fatalities" in the first full year after the medical marijuana
laws were passed.

The hypothesis is that drivers are substituting marijuana for alcohol,
Ottawa's Traffic Injury Research Association theorizing that "these
sharp declines may be due to the decreased number of alcohol-impaired
drivers on the road as a result of the legalization of medical
marijuana." Whatever the case, it turns out the reason more
Washingtonians are dying in car accidents with THC in their
bloodstream isn't so much that pot consumption is causing more
accidents but simply that more people are smoking pot.

Nonetheless, it's not difficult to see there's still a cautionary note
of ambivalence in the medical/ safety community about disregarding the
potential dangers of marijuana consumption on driving safety.

Despite (at least) some evidence that smoking marijuana presents
little additional risk of being in an accident, no one wants to sound
pro-ganja.

Indeed, reading between the lines in these numerous studies, one gets
the impression that most of the authors don't seem so much worried
about the effects of marijuana while driving as the blowback from not
being worried about the effects of marijuana while driving.

Note: This article in no way promotes the consumption of marijuana 
before, during or, for that matter, after driving an automobile. It 
does not, in fact, promote the use of cannabis at any time. Indeed, 
although the author readily admits to misspending his youth (back in 
the days when Thai Stick ruled the THC world), except for a weekend 
of reminiscence in Amsterdam some 20 years ago, absolutely no illicit 
substances have found their way into his bloodstream since graduating 
from university in 1983. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D