Tweet
I'm looking at 2007 stats for California and I see on page 5 the results of the SAMSA survey for drug and alcohol use in California alongside single driver fatal crashes and I learn that approximately 6.5% of Californians are (were in 2007 anyway) fairly regular consumers of pot and that 6.6% of single driver traffic fatalities "involved" pot, whatever that means. The total number of pot "involved" fatalities was 117, so does that mean 1 person may have died because of pot smoking drivers? My math aint too good these days but if 6.5% of Californians smoke pot and 6.6% of traffic fatalities involved pot, driving under the influence of pot may be responsible for that .1% difference, thats 1 person, right?
Another graph shows Maine had 161 traffic fatalities and not one involved pot. How does that work? But the box with the SAMSA data is interesting, all the other drugs showed a significantly higher % of involvement in traffic fatalities whereas pot was very close to the statewide rate of use.
Anyone with newer data? These guys are predicting some big increases in pot related fatalities, but they dont seem to understand that if a higher % of the population uses pot, then obviously pot will be "involved" in a higher % of traffic fatalities - that doesn't mean anything.
Comment