The Problem of “Driving while Stoned” Demands an Aggressive Public Policy Response

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Drug Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2018-11-27 DOI:10.1515/jdpa-2018-0012
P. Larkin
{"title":"The Problem of “Driving while Stoned” Demands an Aggressive Public Policy Response","authors":"P. Larkin","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2018-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Mark A.R. Kleiman and his colleagues (hereafter Kleiman) have done the public a service by highlighting the problem of “driving while stoned.” Drug-impaired driving is a serious national problem. Numerous drugs other than alcohol, whether legal or illegal—such as opioids, cocaine, tranquilizers, sleep aids, hallucinogens, and marijuana—degrade driving performance and increase the risk of highway morbidity and mortality. Other than alcohol, marijuana is the biggest problem because it is the most commonly used drug, and its use is increasing, given marijuana legalization. Two facts aggravate that problem: (1) marijuana is often combined with alcohol and (2) a marijuana-alcohol cocktail has an enhanced debilitating effect on safe motor vehicle handling. As the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy has noted, driving while impaired is a major public health problem. Kleiman is correct that identifying impairment attributable to substances other than alcohol is a difficult problem. Two twentieth century developments helped society reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and deaths: the passage of 0.08 g/dL blood-alcohol content laws, and the development of reliable, easily operated, hand-held Breathalyzers for roadside use. Unfortunately, we cannot successfully use that approach for impairing drugs other than alcohol. We do not know what amount of THC impairs a majority of drivers. In any event, we do not have a measurement device comparable to a Breathalyzer. Kleiman argues that, given those enforcement problems, we should use only administrative measures to penalize marijuana-impaired driving. I think that there is room for the criminal justice system. People who use marijuana and drive put others at risk of injury or death. Just as legislatures can force a factory to bear the risk of pollution-related injury, so too can a legislature force marijuana users to internalize any costs of their drug use. If you use marijuana, don’t drive for at least eight hours. Use public transportation. Take a cab. Call Uber. Walk. Ask a friend for a lift. Or just remain where you are. No one has a constitutional right to drink alcohol, to smoke marijuana, or to drive an automobile. Society hardly asks too much of its citizens to demand that they not do all three simultaneously or to delay driving for eight hours after either of the first two activities. That is not all. States should test every driver involved in a crash, particularly one involving a fatality, not only for alcohol but also for legal and illegal impairing drugs. Moreover, all 50 states fix 21 as the minimum drinking age and the minimum age for recreational marijuana use. Whatever administrative penalty the states impose for underage drinking and driving—such as license suspension—should apply as well to everyone under that age who tests positive for any illegal drug use. States should also report on a regular basis the data regarding motorists’ use of impairing drugs, including marijuana. There is also room for Congress to act. Because U.S. highways are arteries of interstate commerce, Congress can protect their use by commercial and non-commercial drivers alike by preventing interstate highways from being used by drivers who increase the morbidity and mortality risks of others. Congress can demand that the states use a portion of their federal highways funds to adopt safety or information-gathering measures like the ones suggested above. At a minimum, Congress should force states to fund the cost of learning what their marijuana legalization measures have wrought.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2018-0012","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2018-0012","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: 0

Abstract

Abstract Mark A.R. Kleiman and his colleagues (hereafter Kleiman) have done the public a service by highlighting the problem of “driving while stoned.” Drug-impaired driving is a serious national problem. Numerous drugs other than alcohol, whether legal or illegal—such as opioids, cocaine, tranquilizers, sleep aids, hallucinogens, and marijuana—degrade driving performance and increase the risk of highway morbidity and mortality. Other than alcohol, marijuana is the biggest problem because it is the most commonly used drug, and its use is increasing, given marijuana legalization. Two facts aggravate that problem: (1) marijuana is often combined with alcohol and (2) a marijuana-alcohol cocktail has an enhanced debilitating effect on safe motor vehicle handling. As the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy has noted, driving while impaired is a major public health problem. Kleiman is correct that identifying impairment attributable to substances other than alcohol is a difficult problem. Two twentieth century developments helped society reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and deaths: the passage of 0.08 g/dL blood-alcohol content laws, and the development of reliable, easily operated, hand-held Breathalyzers for roadside use. Unfortunately, we cannot successfully use that approach for impairing drugs other than alcohol. We do not know what amount of THC impairs a majority of drivers. In any event, we do not have a measurement device comparable to a Breathalyzer. Kleiman argues that, given those enforcement problems, we should use only administrative measures to penalize marijuana-impaired driving. I think that there is room for the criminal justice system. People who use marijuana and drive put others at risk of injury or death. Just as legislatures can force a factory to bear the risk of pollution-related injury, so too can a legislature force marijuana users to internalize any costs of their drug use. If you use marijuana, don’t drive for at least eight hours. Use public transportation. Take a cab. Call Uber. Walk. Ask a friend for a lift. Or just remain where you are. No one has a constitutional right to drink alcohol, to smoke marijuana, or to drive an automobile. Society hardly asks too much of its citizens to demand that they not do all three simultaneously or to delay driving for eight hours after either of the first two activities. That is not all. States should test every driver involved in a crash, particularly one involving a fatality, not only for alcohol but also for legal and illegal impairing drugs. Moreover, all 50 states fix 21 as the minimum drinking age and the minimum age for recreational marijuana use. Whatever administrative penalty the states impose for underage drinking and driving—such as license suspension—should apply as well to everyone under that age who tests positive for any illegal drug use. States should also report on a regular basis the data regarding motorists’ use of impairing drugs, including marijuana. There is also room for Congress to act. Because U.S. highways are arteries of interstate commerce, Congress can protect their use by commercial and non-commercial drivers alike by preventing interstate highways from being used by drivers who increase the morbidity and mortality risks of others. Congress can demand that the states use a portion of their federal highways funds to adopt safety or information-gathering measures like the ones suggested above. At a minimum, Congress should force states to fund the cost of learning what their marijuana legalization measures have wrought.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“石头边开车”问题需要积极的公共政策回应
摘要Mark A.R.Kleiman和他的同事(以下简称Kleiman)通过强调“醉酒驾驶”的问题为公众服务。吸毒驾驶是一个严重的国家问题。酒精以外的许多药物,无论是合法的还是非法的,如阿片类药物、可卡因、镇静剂、助眠剂、致幻剂和大麻,都会降低驾驶性能,增加高速公路发病率和死亡率。除了酒精,大麻是最大的问题,因为它是最常用的药物,而且随着大麻合法化,大麻的使用量正在增加。有两个事实加剧了这个问题:(1)大麻经常与酒精结合;(2)大麻酒精混合物对机动车安全驾驶有增强的衰弱作用。正如美国国家药物管制政策办公室所指出的,残疾驾驶是一个主要的公共卫生问题。克莱曼正确地认为,识别酒精以外的物质造成的损害是一个难题。二十世纪的两项发展帮助社会减少了与酒精相关的车祸、受伤和死亡人数:通过了0.08 g/dL血液酒精含量法,以及开发了可靠、易于操作的手持式路边呼吸分析仪。不幸的是,我们无法成功地利用这种方法来削弱除酒精以外的药物。我们不知道THC的含量会对大多数司机造成多大影响。无论如何,我们没有可与呼吸分析仪相媲美的测量设备。克莱曼认为,考虑到这些执法问题,我们应该只采取行政措施来惩罚因吸食大麻而受损的驾驶。我认为刑事司法系统还有空间。吸食大麻和开车的人会使他人面临受伤或死亡的风险。正如立法机构可以强制工厂承担与污染相关的伤害风险一样,立法机构也可以强制大麻使用者将其吸毒成本内化。如果你吸食大麻,至少八小时内不要开车。使用公共交通工具。坐出租车。打电话给优步。步行请朋友搭车。或者就呆在原地。任何人都没有饮酒、吸食大麻或驾驶汽车的宪法权利。社会几乎没有要求太多的公民要求他们不要同时进行这三项活动,或者在前两项活动中的任何一项之后将驾驶时间推迟八个小时。这还不是全部。各州应该对每一位参与车祸的司机,特别是一名涉及死亡的司机进行检测,不仅要检测酒精,还要检测合法和非法的有害药物。此外,所有50个州都将21岁定为最低饮酒年龄和娱乐性大麻使用的最低年龄。无论各州对未成年人饮酒和驾驶实施何种行政处罚,如吊销执照,都应适用于该年龄以下任何非法吸毒检测呈阳性的人。各州还应定期报告有关驾车者使用包括大麻在内的有害药物的数据。国会也有采取行动的空间。由于美国高速公路是州际商业的动脉,国会可以通过防止增加他人发病率和死亡风险的司机使用州际高速公路来保护商业和非商业司机的使用。国会可以要求各州使用部分联邦公路资金,采取上述安全或信息收集措施。至少,国会应该迫使各州为了解其大麻合法化措施的效果提供资金。
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 去求助
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
期刊最新文献
Frontmatter Don’t Let the COVID-19 Crisis Go to Waste: Breaking Through the Status Quo & Flattening the Opioid Epidemic Curve An Examination of Racial Disparities in Misdemeanor Marijuana Possession Arrests Following Reforms in Four U.S. Jurisdictions Did the 2018 Farm Bill’s Hemp Provisions Decriminalize Marijuana? Problematising ‘Recovery’ in Drug Policy within Great Britain: A Comparative Policy Analysis Between England, Wales and Scotland
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1