Law Commission Drug Harm Dodgers
Candor Trust

The Law Commission Report about issues arising from the existence of a dated drug control act makes a major error in equating social harm with dependent users, and provides flawed harm information as a result of the emphasis on legal frameworks. Most drunk and drugged drivers are not dependent, just irresponsible, so tweaking drug classifications and use penalties won't help reduce the major drug death epidemic.

Candor criticizes the issues paper as “a studied exercise in evasion or denial of the major illicit drug harm locus in New Zealand by social cost, which is ofcourse road crashes”. Incredibly just one or two dishonest paragraphs out of 400 pages are used to deal with the major drug harm locally. The true social cost of drug crashes has been grossly underestimated by the Governments highly criticized BERL report, however other indicators show it is phenomenal.

Within those paragraphs that the Commission has dedicated to the major drug harm in New Zealand, the Law Commission mischievously gives another lease of life is given to the dangerous old myths propagated by a couple of hippy era trained scientists, who just happen to also be card carrying cannabis legalisers.

It is alleged (based on a poor reference) by the Commission, that cannabis users are slower and more careful drivers than drunks. This is incorrect, irresponsible and grossly distorts the evidence. The risk of actually driving stoned on cannabis is furthermore under-reported at 2-3 x normal, in an apparent misguided effort to diminish the issues import.

All indicators are that cannabis is causal in more teenager road deaths than alcohol in NZ today. It is likely why New Zealand still had the highest recorded 'road deaths per 100,000 population' risk among 15 to 17 year olds, out of OECD member countries in 2007.

These harmful myths the Commission touts are well discredited. A French study, did once find that drivers “under the influence” of cannabis (defined as having greater than > 1 ng/ml blood) only had a relative accident risk of 2.5, but initial studies were flawed because they took in to the sample users who used up to a day ago. They weren’t effectively under the influence, hence the risk rating was artificially diluted. Low risks would appear for alcohol if studies included those who drank 24 hours ago.

The US Dept of Transport says severe driving impairment is observed with cannabis at the high doses found after recent use, and in combination with low dose alcohol. Drummer et al (2004) found that at blood concentrations >5 ng/ml in whole blood the risk increased up to 6.6x, similar to the risk rating of 7 at the 0.08 limit (DRUID).

Quality new research from Canada, the United States and even the NZ Drug Foundation does not affirm early studies, which suggested, based on testing in an unrealistic laboratory testing environment, that cannabis drivers are more careful. Overall todays’ research shows both alcohol and illicits are associated with a higher frequency of risky driving practices (speeding, passing, following, lane usage, right-of-way, turning and control-signal behaviours) for young drivers.

Cannabis use is the greatest predictor of a novice male driver crashing. It also doubles the given risk a driver might expected at any alcohol level. As more than half of deceased young drunk drivers in NZ have used cannabis, dual intoxication is undoubtedly the one significant easily alterable factor that ramped up their fatality odds. Cannabis is alcohols partner in road homicide, and it can just as well act alone. It's bad, and would be in Class A if the EACD considered road risk.

The Law Commission needs to step forward and issue an advisory that they have misinformed the public, by understating and misrepresenting the cannabis driving risk. It is hard to comprehend why they recommend a law to protect children from endangerment by P labs, yet they’re so blasé about dozens of kids being killed by cannabis drivers yearly. Debate and submissions ought to be based on a fair representation of the evidence, not one propagating well tended myths, that pander to aspirations of the more irresponsible drug law reformers.

Drug harms are not overblown as the Commission claims, they are just being covered up by the Commission, in a way that those reviewing liquor laws would never consider.

The only place that cannabis drivers are slower, more careful or lower risk than other drivers including drunks, aside from in the Law Commissions books, is when they land in the grave. By publishing such unfounded rubbish the Commission may earn green ribbons from Cheech, Chong and George Soros, but they won’t gain the respect of the road safety community.

If the Law Commission does not issue an apology or amend it’s issues paper urgently by editing out fairytales, then Candor will take steps to highlight the publications deceitfulness, in the interests of restoring Public Safety.

References and further information

Search of Substances Consumed and Comparison between Drivers Involved under the Influence of Alcohol or Cannabis Marie-Berthe Biecheler; Jean-François Peytavin; Traffic Injury Prevention, 1538-957X, Vol 9, Issue 1, 2008

Ramaekers, J.G., Berghaus, G., van Laar, M., & Drummer, O. (2004). Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 73, 109-119

Clapp JD, Shillington AM, Lange JE & Voas RB (2003) Correlation between modes of drinking and modes of driving as reported by students at two American universities. Acc Anal & Prev,35, 161-166

Being "at fault" in traffic crashes: does alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, or polydrug abuse make a difference? M Chipman et al University Toronto, Injury Prevention. 2003 Dec 9(4)

Preliminary results of Police and ESR control of drugged and drunk drivers study

Asbridge, M., Poulin, C. & Donato, A. (2005). Motor vehicle collision risk and driving under the influence of cannabis: Evidence from adolescents in Atlantic Canada. Accident Analysis & Prevention 37, 1025-1034.

ENDS

© Scoop Media