Rosekind, Ehsani and Michael published a June 2020 Commentary in JAMA Internal Medicine calling for more data to inform policies needed to reduce impaired driving fatalities. Although we are a strong proponent of more data for that purpose, we took issue with two of the authors’ specific recommendations:
- More crash risk studies like the NHTSA-sponsored Virginia Beach study, and
- Improved FARS data.
JAMA Internal Medicine published our disagreements and the authors’ response Nov. 16, 2020:… READ MORE
October 4, 2020 the Arizona Republic’s editorial board endorsed that state’s Proposition 207 to legalize, commercialize and tax recreational marijuana sales. Anyone has the right to disagree with our position that Proposition 207 should be defeated, but when they misrepresent the facts to support their position, we should respond.
Colorado authorized the use of marijuana tax dollars to temporarily fund a program at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s Forensic Toxicology laboratory, enabling them to test all DUI toxicology samples for drugs as well as alcohol. The laboratory issued summary results June 30, 2020 after completing the first year of this program. CBI performs about half of all the DUI lab tests in the state.
A favorite citation used by the marijuana lobby to promote the idea that marijuana doesn’t impair driving is one published in 2015 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.gov/behavioral-research/drug-and-alcohol-crash-risk-study). And when the study is cited, the results are usually badly misquoted. 
Two articles on the effect of recreational marijuana commercialization on traffic fatalities reached opposite conclusions in the June 22nd 2020 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine. Readers should understand the effect of study design differences before concluding that marijuana can be commercialized without an increase in traffic fatalities.