Drugged driving report shows high toll among young

istockphoto

(CBS) Drunk driving may get more attention, but driving while drugged also takes an enormous toll in the U.S. That's the word from the nation's drug czar, who along with Mothers Against Drunk Driving today launched a public awareness campaign to draw attention to drugged driving.

PICTURES - Drugged driving: 20 states with highest rates

"Research shows that drugs have adverse effects on judgment, reaction time, and motor skills - all vital requirements for responsible driving," Gil Kerlikowske, director of National Drug Control Policy, said in a written statement.

Maybe that's stating the obvious. But a new report Kerlihowske pointed to includes a stark and surprising fact: In 2009, 3,952 drivers fatally injured in car crashes tested positive for drugs. That represents 18 percent of all fatally injured drivers.

One in four fatally injured drivers who tested positive were under the age of 25, according to the report. And data from 2005 to 2009 show that 42 percent of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for marijuana were under 25, according to the statement.

Other highlights from the report:

21 Photos

Drugged driving: 20 states with highest rates

[claygooding]

Drug czar Kerli(Droopy Dog)mentions drugged driving every time he gets a microphone,,and we have categorically refuted his warnings with the very studies he uses to justify his warning America about illicit drugs and driving.
Why does he do it,,because of a push to get the states to enact per se drugged driving laws to enable the continued harassment and criminal enforcement against marijuana users,,continue the war on some drugs his office was created to keep alive.

Wake up America,,you are being played!

[kesterling2003]

Let's not forget to mention that examining these statistics in a vacuum is meaningless. If the intended inference is that the rates of "drugged" driving are increasing due to medicinal cannabis patient protection law that hogwash is easily discredited. We need look no further that the 2010 NSDUH survey published by SAMHSA which shows that between 2002 and 2009 there wasn't a single State that suffered a statistically significant increase in the incidence of "drugged" driving.
http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/205/DruggedDriving.htm

So why isn't California on the list? Oh now I see that if you look at the NSDUH study linked above California enjoyed a statistically significant reduction in the rate of "drugged" driving. Wow, 2002 to 2009 saw the number of Californians claiming the protection of the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act increase by a factor of 10 or more.

[pfroehlich2004]

It is also important to note that there is a negative statistical correlation between rates of marijuana use and motor vehicle fatality rates, i.e. states with higher rates of marijuana use tend to have lower motor vehicle fatality rates.

In fact, of the ten states with the highest rates of marijuana use (AK,CO,HI,MA,ME,MT,NH,OR,RI,VT), eight have motor vehicle fatality rates below the national average. Of the ten states with the lowest rates of marijuana use (AL,IA,KA,KY,MI,NJ,ND,PA,TX,UT), eight have fatality rates above the national average.

While nobody should be driving impaired, it is clear that the prevalence of marijuana use is largely irrelevant to traffic safety.

Source data: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/StatesFatalitiesFatalityRates.aspx

[pfroehlich2004]

Let's analyze one of these "shocking" statistics shall we?

"42 percent of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for marijuana were under 25"

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 6.98% of 12-17 year-olds reported past-month use of marijuana. The figure for the 18-25 age group was 17.30% and for the 26+ group, a mere 4.40%.

If one multiplies these percentages by the number of Americans in each of these age brackets, we find that people under 25 account for roughly 42% of all marijuana users.

So, roughly 42% of Americans who use marijuana are under 25, and a similar proportion of fatally injured drivers who test positive for marijuana are under 25. Not particularly shocking, is it?

The Drug Czar, of course, doesn't expect us to check the data and do the math. That just doesn't work in the age of Google.

2009 NSDUH: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k9State/AppB.htm#TabB.3

[BlackSwanScience]

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811415.pdf

The link above is to the overview of the study that the Drug Czar, and vicariously CBS, is citing. A brief skimming of paragraph two will find the answer to your question that these "in-depth" CBS reporters failed to discover.

Now I know what you're thinking. "Wow, I don't have time to search through that report to find the answer. I wish someone could help me out here by directing me to what I need to know." Well no worries, I'm posting the exact quote from the second paragraph for you, and these hard working reporters who must have missed it due to it being buried so deep in this 3 PAGE REPORT THAT HAS TWO PAGES OF GRAPHS, so you, and them, don't even have to take the time to search for it!

"It is important to note that drug involvement means only that drugs were found in the driver's system. Drug involvement does not imply impairment or indicate that drug use was the cause of the crash. Drug presence as recorded in FARS includes both illegal substances as well as over-the-counter and prescription medications, which may or may not have been misused. Unlike alcohol data in FARS, there is no measure of the amount of drug present."

So to answer your question and take it a step further. The data that is being fear mongered here DOES NOT STATE THAT ANY DRUG CAUSED THESE ACCIDENTS. The data merely states that in approximately 18% of all accidents in the United States the people in those accidents had metabolites of ANY LEGAL, ILLEGAL, PRESCRIPTION or O.T.C. DRUG IN THEIR SYSTEM. Not the drug itself mind you either, simply the metabolite that is produced by the body breaking down the drug. That fact is stated in the full report of the study but interestingly left out of the D.O.T. overview cited above.

I hope that clarifies any confusion this article may have created for you and anyone else who wishes to actually be informed of facts while reading the news.

[kesterling2003]

Alaska. Alaska. Alaska.

Today. Alaska. Petty possession. Petty Cultivation. De facto legal. Private residence. Alaska.

1990. Ballot Initiative. Merrywanna. Recriminalized.

2002.* Appeals Court. Law struck down. Ravin v. State. Back in force. Petty possession. Petty Cultivation. De facto legal. Private residence. Alaska.

2010. December. Federal government. SAMHSA. NSDUH. "Drugged" driving study. 2002*-2009 study period. Alaska. De facto legal. Statistically significant reduction. "Drugged driving."

http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/205/DruggedDriving.htm

Alaska. Alaska. Alaska.

*2002. Same year. Petty possession. Petty Cultivation. De facto legalization. Restored. "Drugged driving." "Statistically significant reduction." Alaska.

[guither]

This is extraordinarily poor journalism. The wording of these reports from the ONDCP should have been sending red flags up immediately. This is just fear-mongering by the Drug Czar, with CBS "reporters" acting as stenographers.

Take a look at the actual study that supplied the "stark and surprising" fact. It says: "It is important to note that drug involvement means only that drugs were found in the driver's system. Drug involvement does not imply impairment or indicate that drug use was the cause of the crash. Drug presence as recorded in FARS includes both illegal substances as well as over-the-counter and prescription medications, which may or may not have been misused. Unlike alcohol data in FARS, there is no measure of the amount of drug present." http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811415.pdf

That might have been a useful bit of information for this story, don't you think?

We all are for keeping impaired drivers off the road, regardless of the method of impairment. But scare stories based on manipulated statistics that divert attention from real problems do none of us any good, and could end up causing real harm. Shame on CBS for pushing this stuff.

[Saint_Andeol]

when they say "tested positive for drugs", do they mean the test indicated they were under the influence of the drug while driving, or that the drug merely appeared in their system?

marijuana can stay in your system for a couple weeks or more depending on the user. someone who smoked pot a week before getting in an accident would "test positive" for marijuana.

It's an important distinction, unfortunately, since anti-drug (and especially anti-pot) crusaders have been known to be dishonest when it comes to using statistics.

[kesterling2003]

Saint_Andeol, what you're missing is that the motto of the Know Nothing prohibitionist is "never let the facts get in the way of disseminating an effective piece of hysterical rhetoric."

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.