A new study saying driving while intoxicated with marijuana may be safer that driving with alcohol points to some serious questions about the design of scientific studies, as well as media reporting of them. Meanwhile, Congress is making moves that in effect escalate the War of Drugs again, making the various K-9, Spice and bath salt compounds into Schedule 1 drugs, thus making it harder to the brain research these drugs were created to do.
Transcript (edited):
HOWARD: Welcome to the CNS Podcast featuring Dr. Darryl Inaba, research director for CNS Productions, I am Howard LaMere. We’ve got a lot to look at today – one of the stories has to do with a study that infers that medical marijuana is linked to a reduction in drunken driving fatalities. We’ve talked a little about this and conclude that the study is either flawed or very preliminary. So, Darryl, fill us in.
DARRYL: Well, on the surface this sounded like great news for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana because many other studies pointed to the potential risks smoking pot can cause to driving – increasing accidents and fatalities.
HOWARD: Which has what to do with this topic exactly?
DARRYL: The study was framed as an economic study, but I am suspicious of how they got involved with it, the lead authors are from the University of Colorado. They looked at data retrospectively, at the national household survey on drug use and health along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Based upon that, they looked at the 13 states and the District of Columbia that enacted medical marijuana laws and determined that the implementation of medical marijuana resulted in an overall 9% decrease in traffic fatalities. Their conclusion – having marijuana available makes driving safer, not more risky. On the surface that sounds like really interesting news. Their theory was that when states have medical marijuana available, people smoke more weed and are less likely to drink and therefore, they are safer drivers – that pot smoking drivers are safer. Well – immediately almost everybody who is on the other side (concerned about driving and marijuana) attacked the study as being totally flawed. For one thing, the study ignores that states every state, including those that were studied have been cracking down aggressively on drunk driving. In Oregon one of our officers has the highest number, of drunk driving convictions in the whole state and he is really proud of his ability to really hone in and know when to go after a drunk driver. The whole nation has gone after drunk drivers and the rates of DUI and traffic fatalities has dropped – so much that I think the latest report from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health indicated more adolescents died from prescription drug overdoses than the number of alcohol related driving fatalities. That has never happened before in the history of this country – since the advent of automobiles. So, the study’s opponents say that the authors totally ignored the fact that this has been the trend for awhile. In those states that they reported a decrease, the rates of traffic fatality deaths had been steadily decreasing long before the study was conducted. And the findings don’t really confirm that the decrease is due to the use of marijuana link so much as it might have been the result of a crackdown on drunk drivers. Also the critics of the study point out that there are many, many reports some epidemiology reviews and others that are showing that marijuana .use of marijuana and its THC can really impair a persons driving ability. We discovered this early in the 60s. Research at University of California – San Francisco in the 70’s showed that even what users perceived as bunk weed or backyard weed or non-potent weed had an impact on a persons motor coordination skills, an impact on their depth perceptions, on their timing abilities – all things that could affect someone’s driving ability. So with all of that, I think there should be a close examination of the recent study that came out and we need challenge headlines that say smoking marijuana is safer than . is safe theyre not saying its safer, theyre saying it is safe to drive under the influence of marijuana.
HOWARD: Well, Im not going to weigh in as a professional here about which is better or which is worse lets just leave it at theyre both going to reduce your capacity to drive impeccably. I think this is what is considered flawed science.
DARRYL: It brings into question all the science because everything has to be looked at in terms of methodology, in terms of statistical analysis, in terms of projection and things like that. But just from my experience in the field, people who smoke pot don’t cut down on their drinking. I dont know where that idea comes from. Its pretty common, that when you get stoned out, a beer or a shot of booze goes in pretty much to help calm you back down. A lot of people start off the evening combining the 2 drugs. And in studies of driving fatalities it has been found that a person testing positive marijuana and alcohol, and maybe other drugs, was twice as likely to be involved in traffic fatalities than those people who just had other drugs in their system. The synergistic or the additive toxic potential that marijuana adds to other drugs can impair driving even more. So to say that driving under the influence of marijuana is safer is more than premature, I think its irresponsible.
HOWARD: So were not just talking about bad science here. Were definitely pointing the finger at the media also. The media has changed a lot in the last few years, blogs have taken over the role of traditional journalism. Today anyone with a computer website or access to the internet can essentially become a “reporter” and have their own blog – if they do it with enough frequency they gain credibility. And so it calls the credibility of all journalism into question. Were talking about poor science and a poor excuse for journalism.
DARRYL: Every day I get tons of emails from friends and colleagues, they send me some real interesting stuff, maybe some science stuff, maybe an interesting story on a historical person, historical event that very inspiring, and I forward these on to friends and colleagues. I get so many I often dont have time to check everything out – I dont claim theyre true, I just send them to other people to look at and lots of times I’ll get a response from a colleague who took the time to verify the information on one of the fact check websites and found the information to be totally false. So much of that goes on and so much of our society relies on blogs and Twitter tweets. Something in an email looks legitimate we assume it is legitimate, but rarely take the time to check it out – Im guilty of that. Although, when we discuss things here – I like to look at as many sources as possible. But, if Im just doing my daily email run through, Im not going to be really doing a fact check on it.
HOWARD: Right. I think it is worthy of the discussion we just had here. What else is in that big pile of papers there. What piques your interest?
DARRYL: A lot of things pique my interest this week including information from professional journals, addiction journals, journals of pharmacology and toxicology. But one of the things I found interesting is about Congress preparing to enact laws that escalate the war on drugs. And this was on the weed blog, but Ive seen it from other sources, like The (San Francisco) Chronicle and its clear that in a very little footnote, Congress is setting up or trying to enact a couple of new laws on drugs. One of them is just a total fear reaction just a total reaction to the Spice and the K2 synthetic marijuanas and the synthetic bath salts the cocaine synthetic stimulants that are out there.
HOWARD: Which weve been talking about for several months now.
DARRYL: Right. And 40 states have enacted laws that restrict them to some extent, but Congress is looking at reclassifying 40 of these chemicals as schedule 1 illicit substances. And I agree, although this did come from the weed blog, a site that is very sympathetic towards legalizing marijuana and other drugs. I agree with their assessment that this is just a knee jerk reaction that ignores the fact that these chemicals, especially the synthetic THC chemicals were being developed not for abuse and not for distribution. These products are a misuse of that research — a rip off of the published papers and the proprietary recipes. The research was conducted by legitimate universities and legitimate scientists as medical treatments to try to find the essence of the 60 odd psychoactive chemicals and the 400 other odd chemicals in the plant marijuana that could specifically treat conditions like chronic pain, narrow angle glaucoma, a bunch of other conditions, such as multiple sclerosis – about finding the essence – the reason the some of the molecules found in marijuana are so effective in treating these conditions and then to segment those molecules from the other 400 chemicals in order to create a reliable treatment with a reliable dose that will effectively treat these conditions without exposing the patient to the harmful effects of smoking. If these are reclassified as schedule I … research can still be conducted its going to hamper its going to create another barrier…. multiple barriers for legitimate researchers to develop them. So, if that law is enacted, it is going to again raise the costs of the war on drugs and will, I think be ineffective in controlling the illicit drug traffickers from developing their own chemicals and finding new chemicals that arent part of the 40 on the banned list and then pumping something out to the public that has more toxic effects than the original chemicals that were trying to banned. So, I agree with people who are criticizing this. The second law thats under consideration is even more bizarre and it raises lots of questions in my head. I dont know the reason behind it, but if passed, it would be illegal for an American to participate in any kind of drug work or drug research or drug distribution or any drug action in a foreign country where it is legal, if that action is illegal in the United States. Now, I dont get that. If youre not in this country if youre in England and youre .
HOWARD: Then theoretically the laws of England apply, not the laws of America theoretically
DARRYL: Thats what going to change with this bill. If youre an American doctor and youre participating in some of the legal provisions allowing heroin distribution to active patients in England, you are violating the law – even though youre working in a foreign country with a patient who is not a US citizen. I dont know how that would be enforceable, and I dont understand the reason behind it – something must have happened – but I cant see it.
HOWARD: And of course we dont know if that is going to happen – Congress cant do much of anything. They cant agree to even disagree. So, if they do pass this then that really raises some curious questions as to what priorities are.
DARRYL: I think the one place where Congress seems to come together is the fear mongering with drugs. It seems to me that the emphasis on the war on drugs is more prevalent in the current administration than in past administrations. Everyone thought the current administration would be more liberal, but there seems to be a crackdown on medical marijuana across the country although the federal government denies involvement by saying its local, state activity. They cracked down on medical marijuana providers in Oregon because they were trafficking to other states. Well, why should Oregon take action? Seems the destination states should be cracking down, not us. It just speaks to me that there is more federal involvement than is evident. All of these things add a cost to an already grossly expensive war on drugs – an effort that is grossly ineffective because it focuses on keeping drugs out of the hands of people and off the street rather than funding treatment and prevention, which has been shown to be effective. We keep spending on the supply side of the equation which is less and less effective. That confuses me. I dont get this.
HOWARD: Well, weve explored some interesting questions today – I dont think weve come up with definitive answers but it’s important to talk about these issues. Thats about all the time we have today. Thanks to our listeners, and if you have comments or questions or suggestions, feel free to drop us an email info@cnsproductions.com. Please check back soon for the next in the series.