Marijuana legalization associated with a decrease in traffic deaths

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is interesting, and worth a serious look, IMO.

Abstract:

To date, 17 states have passed medical marijuana laws, yet very little is known
about their effects. The current study examines the relationship between the
legalization of medical marijuana and traffic fatalities, the leading cause of death
among Americans ages 5 through 34. The first full year after coming into effect,
legalization is associated with an 8 to 11 percent decrease in traffic fatalities. The
impact of legalization on traffic fatalities involving alcohol is larger and estimated
with more precision than its impact on traffic fatalities that do not involve alcohol.
Legalization is also associated with sharp decreases in the price of marijuana and
alcohol consumption, a pattern of results consistent with the hypothesis that
marijuana and alcohol are substitutes. Because alternative mechanisms cannot be
ruled out, the negative relationship between legalization and alcohol-related
traffic fatalities does not necessarily imply that driving under the influence of
marijuana is safer than driving under the influence of alcohol.

Full paper:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/bchansen/MML_Alcohol_Consumption.pdf

So, I think it's bullshit that this board has an entire topic that directly affects many of our lives, and is more or less afraid to discuss because one member insists on hijacking every conversation about it. Since I and a number of other people live in states where marijuana, medical or otherwise, is legal, I'd like to be able to simply share and talk about these findings and what they may mean. With that in mind, I would like to ask RWHN to please just leave this thread alone, or, if you must post, please refrain from endlessly repeating your disagreements merely to disagree, and provide citations for your assertions. The rest of you, I would ask you to please refrain from baiting, taunting, or mocking RWHN in this thread.

Thank you.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Not sure if the difference is caused by

1.  People aren't as impaired by marijuana (doubtful, but I don't know), or

2.  People aren't as inclined to go places when they're stoned (more likely, in my opinion).

But an 8-11% drop is pretty damn significant.  I am assuming that injuries have also declined.  I am wondering, aside from the human cost of these accidents, what sort of financial differences exist? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just went through the paper again, and the difference when only impaired accidents are considered is pretty damn huge.

Also, this:

These results help explain why the California Beer & Beverage Distributors donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, a committee organized to oppose a recent California initiative legalizing marijuana (Grim 2010).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Just went through the paper again, and the difference when only impaired accidents are considered is pretty damn huge.

Also, this:

These results help explain why the California Beer & Beverage Distributors donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, a committee organized to oppose a recent California initiative legalizing marijuana (Grim 2010).

The idea that alcohol is sometimes used as a substitute for marijuana is one that I was aware of, and I know a number of people who only drink when pot is for some reason unavailable to them, but I don't know if there is previous data to support that. It will be interesting to see what happens to alcohol consumption in states where marijuana is legalized for recreational use.

I'm also interested in what factors might be contributing to the decrease in fatal alcohol-related accidents. Is it that fewer people are drinking and driving because they're getting high instead, and high people are less likely to drive? Is it safer to drive under the influence of marijuana than alcohol? Is it that people are consuming both alcohol and pot, and, as above, choosing not to drive? SO many unanswered questions.

If it does turn out that marijuana legalization takes a significant bite out of the alcohol market share, we can expect to see the alcohol companies really pouring money into anti-legalization campaigns.

[East Coast Hustle]

Interesting. I can't endorse driving high, but extensive personal and anecdotal experience tells me that it's nowhere near as bad as driving drunk.

I'm more likely to believe that when pot is legally available, more people choose to spend their discretionary income on that rather than on alcohol which, if nothing else, would logically correspond to a decrease in alcohol-related accidents. Whether or not they're less likely to drive impaired than someone who's drunk, I don't know.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

My own observations suggest that alcohol makes you take more risks and marijuana makes you more inert. If youre drunk youre more likely to say lets in somewhere and do something moronic but he youre high you want to sit around listen to music and talk about what seem to be the deep thoughts youre having.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My own observations suggest that alcohol makes you take more risks and marijuana makes you more inert. If youre drunk youre more likely to say lets in somewhere and do something moronic but he youre high you want to sit around listen to music and talk about what seem to be the deep thoughts youre having.

I've seen that too, so anecdotally that's an indication that there's maybe something there, but the neat thing about some states legalizing it is that there can be actual data collection that allows us to see what's going on, rather than just speculating.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

From what I've seen, stoned drives tend to be excessively cautious. They are the guys you see hugging the curb and going 20 mph. While obnoxious and not terribly safe, it's significantly less dangerous than alcohol impaired driving. (entirely anecdotal, YMMV, etc.)

[rong]

a decrease in traffic fatalities could be due to an increase in non-fatal traffic accidents. 

i.e. there may be just as many (or more) accidents, but now they are less severe because stoned drivers are more cautions than drunk drivers.

I believe there are many people who drink excessively because they can't use marijuana out of fear of losing their jobs.

[Salty]

Just anecdotal, but when I did drive a car I really hated driving without being high. Most people I know drive high, whilst smoking even.

It's nowhere near the same as driving drunk.

Driving drunk impairs your ability to drive, every time. Weed does not.

It does not because it does not completely rob you of judgement, nor does it have the same effect on balance and coordination.

Stoned drivers are not necissarily cautious, imo. It simply doesn't interfere with the process the same way.

Sure, you take someone who never smokes weed, give em a big ol dose, and they'll probably hug the curb and be dumbasses. But most stoners are fully capable of functioning in just about any condition, generally.

I know lots and lots of stoners, pretty much everyone in my social circle. The idea that none of them would drive when high is silly.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But most stoners are fully capable of functioning in just about any condition, generally.

Not me.  One hit of Toledo Windowbox garbage and I'm a walking fuckup for hours.

[AFK]

Just went through the paper again, and the difference when only impaired accidents are considered is pretty damn huge.

Also, this:

These results help explain why the California Beer & Beverage Distributors donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, a committee organized to oppose a recent California initiative legalizing marijuana (Grim 2010).

The idea that alcohol is sometimes used as a substitute for marijuana is one that I was aware of, and I know a number of people who only drink when pot is for some reason unavailable to them, but I don't know if there is previous data to support that. It will be interesting to see what happens to alcohol consumption in states where marijuana is legalized for recreational use.

I'm also interested in what factors might be contributing to the decrease in fatal alcohol-related accidents. Is it that fewer people are drinking and driving because they're getting high instead, and high people are less likely to drive? Is it safer to drive under the influence of marijuana than alcohol? Is it that people are consuming both alcohol and pot, and, as above, choosing not to drive? SO many unanswered questions.

If it does turn out that marijuana legalization takes a significant bite out of the alcohol market share, we can expect to see the alcohol companies really pouring money into anti-legalization campaigns.

Speaking from first hand knowledge, and having direct conversations with them, they aren't worried about competition and market share.  They are pissed about the "weed is safer than alcohol"'meme. 

And I do have an opinion about the OP, but due to a lack of time, I will hang back for now.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Speaking from first hand knowledge, and having direct conversations with them, they aren't worried about competition and market share.  They are pissed about the "weed is safer than alcohol"'meme. 

Because it effects their advertizing (and thus market share), or because they are true believers in their product?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A. I somehow don't think it would be a safe bet to take the alcohol lobby's stated motivations at face value.

B. As far as all medical evidence so far suggests, weed is, in fact, safer than alcohol. How is that controversial? Potentially detrimental to the alcohol industry's bottom line in areas where marijuana is legal, certainly, but hardly controversial.

[AFK]

Speaking from first hand knowledge, and having direct conversations with them, they aren't worried about competition and market share.  They are pissed about the "weed is safer than alcohol"'meme. 

Because it effects their advertizing (and thus market share), or because they are true believers in their product?

It's more, in their eyes, about MPP talking smack about their products.  Which certainly could impact sales, but they said that legalization hasn't impacted them at all from a strict competition point of view.

They believe it is an irrelevant comparison.  I agree with them, but for different reasons.

Not because their product is safe, and they know where I stand on that. But because it distracts and obscures the real, documented dangers of marijuana, on its own merits.