10 things wrong with the latest cannabis traffic study – Cannabis | weed | marijuana

We have another study that says cannabis-related traffic accidents have increased since Canada legalized cannabis.

The study, published in the JAMA Network Open, examined cannabis and emergency room visits for traffic accidents between 2010 and 2021 in Ontario.

“Our data raise concerns about a growing problem of cannabis-related impairment and serious traffic accidents,” said lead author Dr. Daniel Myran. “Since 2010, there has been a very, very large increase in cannabis involvement and traffic accident visits in Ontario.”

But did that happen? Or is this a case of increased reporting since legalization?

Let’s give Dr. When in doubt, trust Myran. Let’s say that cannabis-related traffic accidents have increased since legalization.

Does this study prove that?

By far not. There are at least ten things wrong with this latest cannabis traffic study.

Ten things wrong with the latest cannabis traffic study

In scientific research, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard. An RCT determines cause and effect. This latest study on cannabis traffic was not an RCT.

10. Lack of randomization

This observational study fails to establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between legalization of cannabis and visits to the emergency room for traffic accidents. Without randomization, the researchers cannot exclude confounding variables.

For example, whether legalization will make it easier for people to report their cannabis use. Unlike in the past, if you were in the emergency room for a traffic accident, there was no way you would admit to using illegal drugs immediately prior to the incident.

9. Causality in the Cannabis Traffic Study

This study examines different time periods (pre-legalization, legalization before food, “commercialization” of legalization) and changes in emergency room visits for traffic accidents. But as noted, the authors do not establish a clear causal relationship anywhere in the study.

Let’s repeat that. You may have had a different impression based on the media headlines and quotes from the main author. This study does not establish a causal relationship between cannabis legalization and increases in emergency room visits.

They ignore other factors entirely, such as changes in enforcement and public awareness. These are two important factors to consider. Law enforcement has far more tools at their disposal to detect stoned drivers than they did before 2018.

Also, busy folks who can no longer yell at people for not wearing masks need to turn their attention elsewhere. One way is to stun drivers who are suspected to be stoned. Even well-intentioned people could call the authorities if they believe a stoned driver is a danger to themselves or others on the road.

8. Control group

In this study, emergency room visits for alcohol-related traffic accidents are used as a control group. There are several problems with this. First, like the problem above, control groups can be influenced by external factors, such as changes in alcohol consumption behavior.

Second, without a truly sluggish control group, the authors can’t attribute the changes to cannabis legalization alone. A control group is intended to provide a baseline, or reference point, against which researchers can compare the effects of an intervention (or exposure).

For the control group of this study to be useful, the researchers need a control group that will not experience any changes from cannabis legalization. This is of course easier said than done. Therefore, observational studies like this use a “similar” control group.

The idea is to control as many variables as possible and balance out confounding factors. While this approach can help researchers draw conclusions, it cannot establish causality. It doesn’t justify some of the statements people are making about this study.

Ten things wrong with the latest cannabis traffic study

7. Data sources used in the cannabis traffic study

Like most studies, they rely on administrative and bureaucratic databases for their information. However, these databases can lead to distortions and inaccuracies. From under-reporting to misclassification. All of this affects the validity of the study.

For example, the study fails to identify which strains are more likely to ’cause’ traffic accidents. And what about the cannabinoid content? And how was some of this information collected? If I’m in a traffic accident but I have THC in my system from a food I ate 48 hours before, will the nurses check the cannabis box?

What if the police find a bunch of CBD joints in my car and I admit I was a smoker before the accident? Do hospital administrators know the differences between different cannabinoids and their effects? Or is everything just summarized under “cannabis”?

6. Ecological fallacy

One of the most outrageous claims of this study is to infer individual behavior from population-level data. This is known as the ecological fallacy, where someone makes inferences about individuals based on group-level data.

The researchers in this study did not consider individual factors, attitudes, and behaviors related to cannabis use and driving.

Depending on your philosophical worldview, methodological individualism is the only correct method of social science, making this cannabis traffic study even more useless than it already was.

5. Temporal confusion in the cannabis traffic study

This cannabis traffic study links cannabis legalization to an increase in traffic-related emergency room visits. However, some of their data is distorted by Covid restrictions affecting mobility, transport and health resources. In research circles we call this temporal confusion.

One of the best (and most common) examples is the link between ice cream sales and drowning on a local beach. You can observe that as ice cream sales increase, so does the number of drownings.

Suppose you were one of the authors of this cannabis traffic study. You would probably conclude that eating ice cream increases the number of people who drown. However, if you take the seasons into account, you will find that ice cream sales and the number of bathers increase in the summer.

It’s not ice that causes drowning. It is the weather that determines both variables. Now consider this study on cannabis traffic.

The surge in emergency room visits for traffic accidents involving cannabis occurred during the “commercialization” phase of legalization. But that also coincided with Covid-19 (March 2020 to December 2021).

During the pandemic, people changed their travel habits, work situations, relationships and behavior when seeking healthcare. These changes may have affected the likelihood of traffic accidents and reporting cannabis use.

Due to the temporal confusion, it is impossible to attribute the observed increase solely to cannabis commercialization. Without considering the impact of the pandemic, the study overestimates the impact of cannabis commercialization on traffic accidents.

4. Limited Scope

This cannabis traffic study focuses on the association between cannabis legalization and emergency room visits for traffic accidents. Other factors such as changes in road safety measures, increased construction work, increased traffic, poor driver training or public awareness campaigns are not addressed.

It also fails to take into account that substances such as cannabis or alcohol are direct causes of visits to the emergency room for traffic accidents. The ultimate cause is the irresponsible road management of the road owner.

Blaming cannabis is like blaming bullets for a mass shooting. You don’t blame the inanimate object. They condemn the conscious actor making the choice.

Ten things wrong with the latest cannabis traffic study

3. Generalizability

This study is specific to Ontario, Canada. It may not apply to regions with different legalization policies and traffic rules.

2. Sample Size

This cannabis traffic study and media headlines miss a crucial fact. Emergency department visits for traffic accidents involving cannabis are rare. They account for 0.04% of all visits. Not only does this not pose a problem, but the sample size is too limited for researchers to make these false claims.

1. Ethical considerations in the cannabis traffic study

As already mentioned, this study relied on administrative and bureaucratic databases for your information. Databases that can lead to distortions and inaccuracies.

In addition, the use of health data without informed consent raises ethical concerns. If you’re concerned about possible data breaches, you should lie to your doctor or healthcare professional.

Don’t want your cannabis use to be a statistic in the latest freezer madness study? Lie to your doctor or healthcare professional.

Of course, this leads to its own problems. For this reason, researchers should not use this data without informed consent.

And by no means should they draw causal conclusions from observational research.

Ten things wrong with the latest cannabis traffic study

Fun must be approved by your local health authority

This cannabis trafficking study might provide some insight into trends. But that would be all. An observed trend limited by methodology and confounding factors.

Therefore, you can safely ignore the headline “475% increase in cannabis-related traffic accidents” circulating in the corporate press.

There is no causal relationship between cannabis legalization and emergency room visits for traffic accidents in Ontario. Point.

Finding out the truth, however, was not the aim of this study. Like so much in modern “science,” the goal is to influence policy. The study concludes,

Our results suggest that measures to control access to cannabis products and businesses can help prevent cannabis involvement in traffic accidents.

In other words, our flawed study ignores the failure of street socialism. Instead, it suggests we need to rein in an already constrained cannabis market.

For your own good, of course.