Some Drugs Driving

It doesnt mean it makes a difference to fatalities or accidents however.
Image via Wikipedia

One of the problems with current drug policy (and is clearly evident in the drugged driving debate) is that drug substitution occurs. This is a two way street. (ask an economist!) Just as one can drive people to more harmful options, so too can we promote less harmful options by simply removing the impediments.

Cannabis is a least harmful option. As much as some folk will gnash their teeth and say, no drugs are good… (and they may even be right) from a social policy perspective, enforcement is a least efficient way to manage the problem and may, as in the case with cannabis, be an impediment to ‘credible education messages’.

This is highly evident when one ‘models’ what would happen if we could eliminate alcohol on the road by substituting with cannabis. Road deaths (and other harms) would plummet. This is not to argue that cannabis should be compulsory, rather it helps us understand that, if a less harmful option is better than a more harmful option, and that leads to less deaths/accidents IT MAY WELL BE that the death that it saved was the very death that some individuals for whom the harm has been acute (and I share their heartache) would not have experienced that grief.

We have an obligation to solve problems with the least amount of invasive procedures as we can. It doesnt stack up, that just because we can (use Police) we must.

Look at how much we have changed societal response to drink driving through social mores around Sober Drivers etc.

Policing/Enforcement doesn’t deserve all the credit (as much as they may wish to take that credit to justify continuation of policy enforcement).

Accidents occur without cannabis, there mere presence (in a zero tolerance model) does not make it ‘responsible’.

Cannabis consumers (who drive, but not necessarily are stoned) do not make the unwise choices to drive that alcohol drivers make at relative degrees of intoxication. And that is a massive head start in harm limitation.

But that requires a society that has moved beyond intolerance. Regretably our drug laws are structured to enable the very worst in people. Even the ones who make moral (or otherwise) choice not to use cannabis… tiredness, distraction, stress and use of ‘legal drugs, prescribed or otherwise’ are NO LESS RESPONSIBLE for the outcomes of their behaviors.

It is wrong that we should hide behind our foibles and responsibilities while casting dispersions upon that of which they know little.

A more informed debate, founded in good social science should have been held. It is regrettable that our Expert Advisory Committee (on Drugs) has been expediently weighted by ‘enforcement’ over health.

No good will come of this.

Blair Anderson ‹(•¿•)›

Social Ecologist ‘at large’
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://blair4mayor.com
http://efsdp.org

ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Driving Us Mad With Data

Image via Wikipedia

Driving us mad with data

posted on MEDICAL NEWS TODAY by Blair Anderson on 02 Jan 2005 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com

Re drugged driving item

If you had a research brief to determine how many users are drivers, rather than drivers are users, and the brief required a high standard of self report, then best this drug of prevalence be re-accounted in the epidemiology data.

The fact that cannabis or marijuana as it is disparagingly referred, appears in research as a low contributor to traffic incidence and injury .

Furthermore cannabis attributes as a medicine appears to contribute less dangerous driving effects than many prescription drugs, let alone alcohol.

Use and thus displacement of other harms, including alcohol related harms to others unrelated to driving may on a cost – benefits analysis prove to be very enlightening.

Image by publik15 via Flickr

All indications are that this important data is being masked by the endless chatter about the evilness of impaired “dual diagnosis” drivers.

In our headlong rush to enforced civility we may be overlooking the benefits to society at large of having for the greater part wilful compliance supported by credible public health preventative messages. It has been identified that cannabis prohibition gets in the way of applied Ottawa “Where there are impediments to health promotion, remove them.” principles.

There may well be substantial social capital in a beyond prohibition model.

Such capital will never be found while the current paradigm based on ‘some chemicals are inherently evil’ holds dominion over the data and how it is presented to the public.

No self respecting social scientist seems willing to dare question cannabis’s unique role or its attendant potentials. There are many drug law reform minded readers who will recognise that cannabis prohibition is a public health anathema responsible for many (most) outcomes and costs it was intended to limit. However, few will recognise the role and importance to the drug war its illicit status is to keeping cannabis vilified.

As a drug of relatively little social harm its prevalence serves prohibitors well, Legislators, Politicians, Health Nazi’s, Moral wowsers and a host of other stakeholders can, as in the driving data, and its interpretation blame cannabis for everything that is wrong.

Suggestion of reform is meet with ‘it is the thin edge of the wedge” – yet according to the alcohol and other social cost data where we cost in those innocently hurt into the driving data it begins to become apparent.

The double standards in drug policy ARE identified as a likely impediment to credible health promotion. Reform may well be the thick end of the intoxicating solution space than any thin edged dangerous wedge. “Enable Education” is the key phrase I read into both the recent Canadian Senate Inquiry and the New Zealand Health Select committee Inquiry of 1998 (http://mildgreens.com/inq1.htm)

Image by Adam Foster Codefor via Flickr

Neither report supports a case for maintaining a drug by drug approach to management of abuse and misuse. On road or off. While both reports acknowledge the need for further and continuing research and reference driving research in particular , the reader of the driving data and media reports where cannabis ‘driving’ has been cited could be forgiven for being fearful.

A fearful driver, is more likely to support random drug testing and not question the efficacy or efficiency. Yet any A&E primary care will attest to the daily alcohol related mayhem, while we, the public are asked to react emotionally to incomplete data in reports such as “has been been taken into custody on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana”. (see Mourners wonder why four had to die in wreck, Crash on Interstate 5 devastates 3 families : http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?j252830682&w=662120

While it may not hold true in this case, statistics suggest if alcohol was involved, it, not cannabis, would have been the leading contributor to non-performance or driving deviancy leading to this sorry tragedy.

We will never get a handle on prevalence of social tonics of an illicit nature while it is predicated on that cannabis is not a soft drug and thus deserving of zero tolerance while alcohol has a proven impairment baseline and yet self report carries no negative consequences. (cannabis only requires presence of metabolites, there is no proof of impairment. )

Image via Wikipedia

Testing urine for cannabis [metabolites] is like licking someones exhaust pipe to see if they have been speeding yesterday.

When tiredness is made illegal doubtless no one will be be tired either.

Read the news article that this opinion was posted about: Impaired driving will affect 30% of Americans during their lifetime
Related articles by Zemanta

• If The War on Drugs Is a Success, What Does Failure Look Like? (mydd.com)
• Texting While Driving?? (ocscrubs.blogspot.com)

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion