Oh Chris....

[vraiblonde]

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...led-under-the-influence-of-drugs-than-alcohol

More Drivers Killed Under the Influence of Drugs Than Alcohol

A new report found fatally injured drivers are increasingly under the influence of one or more drugs.

 

[Hijinx]

There is a lot of drugs out there.

Lots of stuff mixed in.

The drug users are always looking for a higher high. The SOS get old and they need more to get off on.
If drugs were legalized what would stop them from mixing for that greater high?
Or would they just shoot up more often?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

These sorts of stories have come out at least once a year since marijuana started become state-legal. Testing positive for a substance that can stay in one's system for days or months does NOT equate to them being impaired when involved in an accident.

AAA knows this:

Also, results of this study do not indicate that drivers with detectable THC in their blood at the time of the crash were necessarily impaired by THC or that they were at-fault for the crash; the data available cannot be used to assess whether a given driver was actually impaired, and examination of fault in individual crashes was beyond the scope of this study.

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PrevalenceOfMarijuanaInvolvement.pdf

The NHTSA knows this:

Caution should be exercised in assuming that drug presence implies driver impairment. Drug tests do not necessarily indicate current impairment. Also, in some cases,
drug presence can be detected for a period of days or weeks after ingestion.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alcohol_Crash_Risk.pdf

 

[Hijinx]

These sorts of stories have come out at least once a year since marijuana started become state-legal. Testing positive for a substance that can stay in one's system for days or months does NOT equate to them being impaired when involved in an accident.

AAA knows this:

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PrevalenceOfMarijuanaInvolvement.pdf

The NHTSA knows this:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alcohol_Crash_Risk.pdf

A good reason not to use drugs.

 

[Gilligan]

These sorts of stories have come out at least once a year since marijuana started become state-legal. Testing positive for a substance that can stay in one's system for days or months does NOT equate to them being impaired when involved in an accident.

AAA knows this:

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PrevalenceOfMarijuanaInvolvement.pdf

The NHTSA knows this:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alcohol_Crash_Risk.pdf

Better get busy and go straighten all those folks out! PS: You stoners need to learn how to drive better.

 

[black dog]

These sorts of stories have come out at least once a year since marijuana started become state-legal. Testing positive for a substance that can stay in one's system for days or months does NOT equate to them being impaired when involved in an accident.

AAA knows this:

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PrevalenceOfMarijuanaInvolvement.pdf

The NHTSA knows this:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alcohol_Crash_Risk.pdf

If you were a insurance company, would you knowingly insure folks that smoked weed?

 

[Kyle]

If you were a insurance company, would you knowingly insure folks that smoked weed?

His answer will automatically be something to do with alcohol.

 

[Gilligan]

His answer will automatically be something to do with alcohol.

Either that, or simply a rant about how clearly he articulates his positions but yet nobody understands them.

 

[MR47930]

These sorts of stories have come out at least once a year since marijuana started become state-legal. Testing positive for a substance that can stay in one's system for days or months does NOT equate to them being impaired when involved in an accident.

AAA knows this:

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PrevalenceOfMarijuanaInvolvement.pdf

The NHTSA knows this:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alcohol_Crash_Risk.pdf

If there were a way to test for MJ like there was for alcohol I guarantee these numbers would plummet. Of course more people tested positive for weed, it’s becoming more widely available and legal, and can be screened for ~30 days after use. I’ll bet more people with automatic transmissions get in accidents as well...

 

[Chris0nllyn]

If you were a insurance company, would you knowingly insure folks that smoked weed?

Sure, why not?

My job as a hypothetical insurance adjuster (I assume that's what you mean by "if we a[n] insurance company") would be to assess risk and charge a premium based on that risk assessment. If that person's choices or actions or job or home or whatever put them at greater risk, I charge more. Certainly this is my personal choice as I'm not aware of this question on any insurance form I've filled out (but it's been awhile). This also means that someone else may not like people who smoke weed and may choose to not sell them coverage. They should be able to do that (I don't know the laws surrounding this sort of thing off hand, but barring that....) and someone else who may not like gay people, or black people, or whomever should be able to refuse service with a customer. Do I think that's a stupid business decision and makes you an all-around ####ty person? Yes, but that doesn't mean I believe in taking away your right to do so.

Realistically, an insurance company doesn't care much about people's choices in life but use those choices such as driving fast and too many speeding tickets, wrecking your car, getting fat and unhealthy, cutting a tree down onto your house, etc. to understand the risk associated with those choices (is there enough "choices" in there?) and respond accordingly by charging higher premiums to those they feel more likely to use the insurance. Asking if I would insure them is like asking if you'd insure someone who drives a car, or eats McDonalds, or owns a chainsaw. Of course, it would be a bad business decision not to as I'm in this business to make money on people who, for whatever reason, insure themselves or goods, not care why they need it.

 

[This_person]

These sorts of stories have come out at least once a year since marijuana started become state-legal.

Just as a point of clarity, states cannot make something "legal" the federal government has made illegal. They can choose not to enforce federal law, but it is not legal in any state because the federal government has said it is not, and the states are subject to federal law.

As I have said, intentionally not enforcing federal law is a great reason to impeach the AG. That the president declared openly to the AG that the AG is not allowed to do his job, the AG should resign and the president should be impeached.