Driving While Stoned: Issues and Policy Options

Q3 Social Sciences
M. Kleiman, Tyler Kirkland Jones, Celeste J. Miller, Ross Halperin
{"title":"Driving While Stoned: Issues and Policy Options","authors":"M. Kleiman, Tyler Kirkland Jones, Celeste J. Miller, Ross Halperin","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2018-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract THC is the most commonly detected intoxicant in US drivers, with approximately 13 % of drivers testing positive for marijuana use, compared to the 8 % that show a measurable amount of alcohol . Because cannabis use remains detectable for much longer than alcohol, and also for long after the driver is no longer impaired, the difference in rates does not show that stoned driving is more common than drunk driving. Nonetheless, cannabis intoxication while driving is on the rise and has been shown to impair reaction time and visual-spatial judgment. Many states, including those where cannabis sales are now permitted by state law, have laws against cannabis-impaired driving based on the drunk-driving model, defining criminally intoxicated driving as driving with more than a threshold amount of intoxicant in one’s bloodstream—a per se standard—as opposed to actual impairment. That approach neglects crucial differences between alcohol and cannabis in their detectability, their pharmacokinetics, and their impact on highway safety. Cannabis intoxication is more difficult to reliably detect chemically than alcohol intoxication. A breath alcohol test is (1) cheap and reliable; (2) sufficiently simple and non-invasive to administer at the roadside; and (3) a good proxy for alcohol in the brain, which in turn is (4) a good proxy for subjective intoxication and for measurable driving impairment. In addition, (5) the dose-effect curve linking blood alcohol to fatality risk is well-established and steep. None of those things is true for cannabis. A breath test remains to be developed. Oral-fluid testing can demonstrate recent use but not the level of impairment. A blood test requires a trained phlebotomist and therefore a trip to a medical facility, and blood THC levels drop very sharply over time-periods measured in minutes. Blood THC is not a good proxy either for recency of use or for impairment, and the dose-effect curve for fatality risk remains a matter of sharp controversy. The maximum risk for cannabis intoxication alone, unmixed with alcohol or other drugs, appears to be more comparable to risks such as talking on a hands-free cellphone (legal in all states) than to driving with a BAC above 0.08, let alone the rapidly-rising risks at higher BACs. Moreover, the lipid-solubility of THC means that a frequent cannabis user will always have measurable THC in his or her blood, even when that person has not used recently and is neither subjectively intoxicated nor objectively impaired. That suggests criminalizing only combination use, while treating driving under the influence of cannabis (however this is to be proven) as a traffic offense, like speeding.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2018-0004","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2018-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Abstract THC is the most commonly detected intoxicant in US drivers, with approximately 13 % of drivers testing positive for marijuana use, compared to the 8 % that show a measurable amount of alcohol . Because cannabis use remains detectable for much longer than alcohol, and also for long after the driver is no longer impaired, the difference in rates does not show that stoned driving is more common than drunk driving. Nonetheless, cannabis intoxication while driving is on the rise and has been shown to impair reaction time and visual-spatial judgment. Many states, including those where cannabis sales are now permitted by state law, have laws against cannabis-impaired driving based on the drunk-driving model, defining criminally intoxicated driving as driving with more than a threshold amount of intoxicant in one’s bloodstream—a per se standard—as opposed to actual impairment. That approach neglects crucial differences between alcohol and cannabis in their detectability, their pharmacokinetics, and their impact on highway safety. Cannabis intoxication is more difficult to reliably detect chemically than alcohol intoxication. A breath alcohol test is (1) cheap and reliable; (2) sufficiently simple and non-invasive to administer at the roadside; and (3) a good proxy for alcohol in the brain, which in turn is (4) a good proxy for subjective intoxication and for measurable driving impairment. In addition, (5) the dose-effect curve linking blood alcohol to fatality risk is well-established and steep. None of those things is true for cannabis. A breath test remains to be developed. Oral-fluid testing can demonstrate recent use but not the level of impairment. A blood test requires a trained phlebotomist and therefore a trip to a medical facility, and blood THC levels drop very sharply over time-periods measured in minutes. Blood THC is not a good proxy either for recency of use or for impairment, and the dose-effect curve for fatality risk remains a matter of sharp controversy. The maximum risk for cannabis intoxication alone, unmixed with alcohol or other drugs, appears to be more comparable to risks such as talking on a hands-free cellphone (legal in all states) than to driving with a BAC above 0.08, let alone the rapidly-rising risks at higher BACs. Moreover, the lipid-solubility of THC means that a frequent cannabis user will always have measurable THC in his or her blood, even when that person has not used recently and is neither subjectively intoxicated nor objectively impaired. That suggests criminalizing only combination use, while treating driving under the influence of cannabis (however this is to be proven) as a traffic offense, like speeding.
石破天惊的驾驶:问题与政策选择
摘要四氢大麻酚是美国司机中最常见的麻醉剂,约有13种 % 在大麻使用检测呈阳性的司机中 % 显示出可测量的酒精含量。由于大麻的使用比酒精的使用持续时间长得多,而且在司机不再受损后的很长一段时间内都可以检测到,因此比率的差异并不能表明醉酒驾驶比醉酒驾驶更常见。尽管如此,驾驶时的大麻中毒正在上升,并已被证明会损害反应时间和视觉空间判断。许多州,包括那些现在州法律允许销售大麻的州,都有基于酒后驾驶模式的禁止大麻受损驾驶的法律,将醉酒驾驶定义为血液中含有超过阈值量的麻醉剂(这本身就是一个标准)的驾驶,而不是实际受损。这种方法忽略了酒精和大麻在可检测性、药代动力学以及对公路安全的影响方面的关键差异。大麻中毒比酒精中毒更难用化学方法可靠地检测。呼气酒精测试(1)既便宜又可靠;(2) 足够简单和无创,可以在路边进行管理;以及(3)大脑中酒精的良好指标,这反过来又是(4)主观醉酒和可测量驾驶障碍的良好指标。此外,(5)将血液酒精与死亡风险联系起来的剂量-效应曲线是公认的且陡峭的。对于大麻来说,这些都不是真的。呼吸测试还有待开发。口腔液测试可以证明最近的使用情况,但不能证明损伤程度。血液测试需要训练有素的抽血师,因此需要前往医疗机构,血液中的四氢大麻酚水平在以分钟为单位的时间内急剧下降。血液四氢大麻酚不是使用近期或损伤的良好指标,死亡风险的剂量-效应曲线仍然是一个尖锐的争议问题。单独服用大麻(未与酒精或其他药物混合)的最大风险似乎更类似于免提手机通话(在所有州都是合法的),而不是在BAC高于0.08的情况下驾驶,更不用说BAC较高时迅速上升的风险了。此外,四氢大麻酚的脂溶性意味着,经常吸食大麻的人血液中总是会有可测量的四氢大麻醚,即使此人最近没有使用过,也没有主观醉酒或客观受损。这意味着只将混合使用定为犯罪,而将在大麻影响下驾驶(尽管这一点有待证明)视为交通犯罪,如超速驾驶。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Drug Policy Analysis
Journal of Drug Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Health (social science)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信