It seems that statistics can always be twisted to make whatever point the group is trying to make and this article is no exception. http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/fatal-car-crashes-involving-pot-use-have-tripled-in-us-study-finds-1
What this study fails to address, is how many of those who were determined to be “drugged driving” had active THC metabolite versus those who had inactive THC metabolite in their system. It’s interesting because inactive THC metabolite has no impairing affect on a driver. It was once explained to me by a now retired lab analyst that driving with inactive THC metabolite in your system is no more dangerous than driving after drinking water.
So why does this study not specify whether the THC found in the drugged drivers was active or inactive? Because they are trying to argue that drugged driving is more of a problem than maybe it really is. Chances are it’s because the primary metabolite of THC stays in the human body for days, weeks, maybe a month or more. If inactive THC test results were included in the definition of a drugged driver, it would significantly increase the percentage of drugged drivers, thus leading to a falsely high percentage of cases with so called “drugged drivers.”
I certainly don’t agree that it’s OK for someone who is high and impaired by marijuana to be driving, but likewise, I also don’t think it’s OK for statistics to be intentionally misstated in order to mislead the public about the potential problems associated with marijuana use and driving. As more states legalize marijuana, laws and tests will need to be developed to properly distinguish between “drugged drivers” who are actually impaired, versus someone who legally imbibed in recreational marijuana in a responsible manner, and just happened to be driving their car at a later time when they are no longer being affected, but while the THC metabolite still remains in their system.