More Drivers Now Killed Under the Influence of Drugs than Alcohol

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Plutonius, May 31, 2018.

  1. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #1
    A report just came out showing that now in driving deaths, more people were under the influence of drugs than alcohol.

    With alcohol, at least the driver can be tested for it with a breathalyzer and the driver can be taken off the road. Do you think the drug impaired drivers are a danger and what can we do to keep drug impaired people off the roads ?
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  3. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #3
    This doesn't come to a surprise. What's sad is, drugs just like alcohol will impair your driving. No need to justify it. With Uber or lyft, I cannot believe people still take the risk of driving under the influence.
     
  4. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #4
    People who kill someone driving under the influence should be charged with murder.

    Enough of this. There's no excuse anymore - if you drive drunk or high, you are attempting murder.
     
  5. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #5
    As long as there is strong evidence towards the suspect, I agree.
     
  6. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #6
    Alcohol is a drug.

    Simply saying "influence of drugs" means nothing. More people had wrecks under the influence of cocaine than alcohol? Under the influence of cough syrup than alcohol?

    What's the 1 = 1 story? Or does the story only work if it's the sum of every other option, compared to the singular of another?
     
  7. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    I don't think there is a roadside test. I think all of the available tests involve a sample of something such as urine or hair being sent off to a lab and you get results in a couple of days. I know that has been a major concern of marijuana legalization, and people are working on developing roadside tests for marijuana at least, but I haven't heard of anyone that has been successful yet.
     
  8. Rum_Becker Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    Give them a bag of chips, if they eat them arrest the suspect.:)
     
  9. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #9
    I call BS on the report. Marijuana can stay in your system for 30 days. So somebody who smoked a bowl on a Saturday night has a wreck 2 weeks later will still test positive for Marijuana and will be counted as impaired when they are not.
     
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #10
    Um, lets try a little critical media analysis here.

    The article is astonishingly short, specifically calls out drunk driving as the counterpoint to be measured against, then never defines what “drugs” means at all. “Drugs” are mentioned numerous times without any definition yet marijuana is casually thrown in, easily leading one to the assumption that marijuana is the “drugs” constantly being mentioned.

    Now, this is in the context of a nation in the middle of a full blown opioid crisis. Not a peep about prescription drugs or their street alternatives (prescriptions to addictive drugs run out) involvement in crashes.

    Keep in mind that this analysis of the report never even named the actual report or links to it. But it goes out of its way to mention new technologies that can test for impairment (regardless of the notion of testing impairment based on levels of substances in saliva is a false premise) and that it should be quicker and easier to get warrants. It then mentions the need to “educate prosecutors and judges on drug-impaired driving”.

    This is a blatant drug war propaganda “article”, through and through. Not even a good one. Usually if you’re going to construct a narrative around a report (the nugget of truth that you build off of) you’d at least link to it or name it. I don’t doubt that the actual report has useful information validly collected within it. But to spend a couple hundred words framing what an official report says, without providing any way for the reader to find that report, that’s not even remotely journalism.

    We can see from some of the responses in the thread that the requested reaction has been triggered, so maybe it’s an effective piece after all.
     
  11. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #11
    Even if that’s the case the unwinnable war on drugs is a waste of time and money. Just legalize everything, tax it and let stupid people voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool.
     
  12. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    It did name the report and while it should have linked to it I did the homework for you and here is a link: https://www.ghsa.org/resources/DUID18

    --- Post Merged, May 31, 2018 ---
    The problem comes about when the stupid people kill someone else instead of removing themselves from the gene pool.
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #13
    Care to point out where it named the report? I just reread it again and nowhere does it name the report. It gives the name of one of the authors and the publishing organization but again breadcrumbs are not the same.

    And *again* I’m not questioning the report itself. What I’m questioning is this half assed narrative-shaping article from a questionable source. This reeks to me of a pr campaign that pushes money for the development and acquisition of drug testing devices coupled with another new wave of carceral laws based on the results of those devices. In other words, a commercial for insisting that we fund equipping police with these devices, simply to sell these new types of devices. After developing them with public taxpayer grants of course.
     
  14. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #14
    It gives the name of the organization that published the report and from there 2 seconds on google takes care of the rest. I do agree that they should have included a link in the OP’s article.
     
  15. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #15


    Testing positive for MJ does not equate under the influence. MJ stays in your system for 2 weeks to a month depending on the test used.
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #16
    That’s not the point of the piece nor the point of the post you’re again responding to. Of course you can easily find it (I did before I even posted). The point is the narrative being pushed under the guise of just objectively summarizing the report, which it does not. A high school paper teacher wouldn’t let this run in its current state, why do you think this outlet did?
     
  17. Plutonius thread starter macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #17
    The problem is that it's often non-impaired people in other cars that die when people drive impaired :(.
     
  18. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #18

    A good reason we need self driving cars then
     
  19. Hater macrumors 6502a

    Hater

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2017
    Location:
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    #19
    How did they test drivers for being drunk behind the wheel before breathalyzers were developed?
     
  20. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #20
    I used to look forward to the idea of self-driving cars, mainly because I frequently drive across at least half the country. But I'd always want to retain the ability to directly drive a car if I so choose to. Maybe I'll be wrong (hopefully), but I anticipate a big public divide over driving rights in the future (think: current debate over guns, but applied to cars).
     
  21. MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #21
    This is typically what happens today, usually termed manslaughter. I tell people all the time, imagine going through a 4 way intersection and the light is green, someone blows a red and hits you. In that scenario, you are not at fault. Now add an over the limit alcohol level into your system, you are now at fault because you shouldn’t have been there in the first place! IANAL but I am sure if there are any lawyers here, DUI / DWI or whatever your state calls it is something that changes the rules and when someone gets hurt, your life gets ruined.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #22
    In fairness, they did mention the report and the author, so I found it quite easily, and the report does note that "among drug-tested fatally-injured drivers in 2016, 38 percent tested positive for some form of marijuana, 16 percent tested positive for opioids, and 4% tested positive for both marijuana and opioids."

    The report also notes that it's using the NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System, and that "testing rates vary considerably by state, from very low (2 percent) to very high (96%)."

    The report also noted notes that while 43.4 percent of those tested for narcotics were found drug positive, this is actually rather close to the rate for alcohol, at about 38.1 percent.

    But, it's also clear that the report draws out not only tools that could be used to prosecute drug users, but encourages prosecutors to do so.

    As the report notes:
    I did not know that 14 states had allowed officers to secure saliva to test for drugs. I suspect that these suffer the same problems as other drug test kits.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    People who can currently drive will be grandfathered in. So I’d be very surprised if this was an issue.
     
  24. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #24
    So of those who did not get a license before self-diving cars were the default?
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #25
    I don’t know why I keep having to write this. The report is not what I was examining.
     

Share This Page