Cannabis Law and Collisions
Candor Trust
 
Interpretation of the relationship of legal status of other drugs than alcohol to road safety levels is problematic, due to a lack of data. What is apparent is that 30-50% of deceased drivers in modern societies have drugs in their blood, of which alcohol is causing a little over half of the related trauma problem, and treatment for drug drivers is not being accessed through Courts conferring discriminatory treatment versus drink drivers.
 
Pursuant to decriminalisation in parts of Australia cannabis use has become less unacceptable (10% now say it's OK). W.A. decriminalised marijuana use several years ago, only adding random drug testing of drivers in October 2007. W.A. has fared worse in road safety death reduction per capita than States which have not decriminalised, some of which also drug test drivers and have reported reduced prevalence of drug impaired driving.

Clearly prevalence of drug impairment among live and deceased Australian drivers is a harm indicator that would be good to discuss not only in the context of classifications, but also with regard to any permutations added by the respective levels of relevant education and DUID policing in various States. Unfortunately few reliable Police statistics pertaining to their yearly random or suspicion based tests and testing targets are identifiable.
 
Reinarman et al (2001) have tested the premise that punishing cannabis use deters use and thereby benefits public health, finding no evidence among a sample of experienced Dutch and American users to support that criminalization  reduces use or that decriminalization increases use. However MacCoun and Reuter found while depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not of itself increase cannabis, the Dutch experience suggests commercial promotion and sales increase cannabis use.
 
One aim of prohibition has been to up prices, but this hasn't been successful with cannabis as affordability is good. Policies more tolerant of personal use could facilitate regulation of demand by the imposition of punitive taxes (along the line of tobacco control) but ability to homegrow reduces saliency. Whether the price factor would impact road safety is questionable, as alcohol taxes rank low in potency as a mean to address DUI.
 
The Economist J Williams has examinied the effects of price and policy on marijuana use in Australia. He found that every age group is price sensitive (and alcohol experience is similar), decriminalisation is only associated with an increases in the prevalence of use by males over the age of 25. This group contains a high risk fordrug crashes demographic.
 
Altered status does have potential to reduce the glamorisation and excitement factor for youth and novice drivers contemplating or involved in rebellion by drug use, and Police and Court time and drug hunting resources could be freed up to concentrate more on demand reduction and on trouble shooting anti social victimising drug use, including impaired driving, and evaluating and improving anti measures. Are resources best used on helicopters spotting plantations or on removing drug drivers from our roads?
 
A possible disadvantage of cannabis decriminalisation could be that Police would have less inroads to discover methamphetamine labs - many were stumbled on as the result of cannabis investigations last year. More Clan labs operating would be just as noxious to road safety interests as the prevalence of irresponsible cannabis use.
 
An important is unknown whether the current reductions in youth use in NZ under prohibition and community worker efforts would continue under a changed status, and also whether generally reduced use is any true indicator of reduced harm (Peele) as the question is whether it is problem users quitting or not establishing dependency. Reducing use under discretionary fines and diversion programs suggests that -  if it aint broke (in our road safety risk group) why fix it. Well reducing youth use sounds good NZ still has high cannabis involvement in youthful road tolls..
 
It is worrrying that males in a high road risk age group could increase use and and dependency which does link to drug driving frequency. As statistics indicate dependency frequently occurs in the context of poly drug use so exacerbating this groups extant high road safety risk. Small groups like recidivist drink drivers cause disproportionate harm. Substantially increased resourcing of any random drug testing regime may be required to control the additional traffic problem on the roads.
 
While the increased use rates in the risk group of drivers could occur overnight and likely would here in New Zealand, given the poor level of risk acceptance that surveys among cannabis users have shown, the experience with drink driving have shown that it takes years of random tests to bring about widespread behavioural change. Yet the technology is only beginning to now reach required forensic standards, as we experience huge increases in deceased drivers who smoked so recently as to be impaired.
 
Candor finds no evidence cannabis availability under liberal regimes reduces use of other illicit risk drugswith road safety benefit, or offers relief from extant drink driving rates. A free market could tend more to enabling the mixing of cannabis, alcohol and other illicits with ill impact on road safety. The assertion that freeing up of Police resources to go after hard drug dealers with a reduced supply being the theorised long term outcome, thereby reducing polydrugging which is a road safety issue, is a red herring. Due to the wide availability of alcohol, which is the most common drug drivers fatally mix with cannabis.
 
While decriminalisation does not appear to greatly increase use of the most used illicit road risk drug, and could enable better education and dependency management with long term gains,altered status may be particularly deleterious to the road safety of males 25-45 and their victims, in the time it would take to set up responses. Prospective road safety impacts of decriminalising would take years to assess, in the real world local context. New Zealanders drive more than tourists in Amsterdam and the Dutch have a far more comprehensive road safety program and safer roads and vehicles. Australian road safety impacts of legal liberalisation are of more interest to us, and perhaps to the U.S.A.
 
The current model has a negative effect upon ability to freely communicate education messages, and adds an unhelpful stigma we believe to anybody seeking help or directed to it for any other than licit drug issues. A shift away from the current cannabis prohibition model may not set back road safety, given time, but could well increase the impaired driving toll in the medium term, dependent upon whether sufficient monitoring, education and rigorous enforcement of drug driving are provided. Eager drug policy reformers seem happy to place the horse before the cart and test lofty theories with wide ranging implications. On the road safety front they are not yet welcome to do so.
 
Candor recommends against any change in cannabis legal status until sufficient road safety data is gathered to show benefits of decriminalisation, and transport safety systems for harm reduction are well in place. Candor would not wish to see commercial promotion and sales as per the Netherlands model or increased drug use in males over 25, as occurred with the Australian decriminalisation model. Vienna delegats must consider the rights of non drug users, which aren't inconsistent with rights of drug users to safety.
 
ENDS

© Scoop Media