What's going on Canada?
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
π Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknownπ» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
π£οΈ Politics
π Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
So the biggest negative about the legalization of cannabis is an increase in hospital admissions due to inadvertent edible use. And more children-young adults admitting they consumed cannabis. Though i wonder if relaxed views on its use prompted more under aged people to truthfully admit to its use then an actual increase in use.
There is need for adults to better monitor their drugs but other then that it seems to be a massive success.
but other then that it seems to be a massive success.
We can't ignore how it's impacted traffic safety, though.
DUI, for example, seems to have skyrocketed since legalization. , while drunk driving didn't budge.
It's a very specific measure in the data you published, and the capacity to get a statistically unbiased measure pre-legalization would be difficult due to availability and protocol around THC testing.
Although I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that it's something that needs to be very carefully studied and monitored and legislated around... The answer to the question "are the roads more or less safe before or after legalization?" Is "They are equally safe within statistical margins"
βThey are equally safe within statistical marginsβ
From the context of road safely, this would mean that the roads are not safe, since we still have an overwhelming number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. But I digress.
To the point of cannabis-related DUI, the link above suggests that impaired driving as a factor to accidents went down 7.7%, while the stats breaking down DUI (the link I posted) still suggests that cannabis-related DUI has gone up by quite a bit.
Would DUI numbers be even lower had cannabis not been legalized? Your guess is as good as mine.
A few rather annoying complications to gathering these stats over the last five years, however, involve COVID and underreporting.
For instance, did officers test people less often because of the risk of close contact during the 2020-2021 pandemic? We know that there were fewer drivers on the road, too, so the numbers can't really be used as a reliable marker one way or the other. Fewer drivers = fewer accidents (but fewer accidents doesn't mean fewer impaired drivers.
For Toronto at least, more people were caught driving under the influence year-over-year during the same time period.
We also know that DUI charges weren't even being pursued due to backlogs.
To me, it seems that there may have been far more people driving under the influence than the stats lead us to believe.
The study I linked also suggests that many samples are obtained quite a while after an accident. So the actual level of drugs in someone's system is also being reported much lower than it would have been at the time of the accident. Couple this with the above point, and things looked much safer than they actually were.
We can control for less people on the road by looking at stats per-million km driven. And again, we're not seeing any meaningful movement.
And to the points around "maybe the true cases of people above the limit were EVEN HIGHER due to fear of testing around Covid" or "Maybe the actual THC content was EVEN HIGHER because of the time delay" they both actually drive to the same point:
If we're seeing way more people with THC in their system maybe more than we even know, and at levels of concentration higher than we can even test... Then why aren't we seeing significant increases in accidents or fatalities per million kms? We CLEARLY see these patterns w/ alcohol. Why not THC? Why the disconnect?
If anything, your arguments only make me think that THC levels that we're seeing are safer than previously understood w.r.t operating a motor vehicle.
Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting relaxing them. I'm just pointing out that the "skyrocketing" THC DUIs aren't materializing.
Or at least I'm not seeing them in the data in front of me
Also, full disclosure, I am not a smart man
If I'm missing a link or misreading something somewhere, let me know. I'm not married to my evaluation. I'm just trying to come to the same conclusion about safety as you and can't seem to independently get there.
You're asking good questions, and perhaps in time (and with more data), we can better account for what's going on.
One thing to always keep in mind when you look at traffic incident stats is that certain things change over time.
For example, additional measures to make roads safer, better technology in vehicles, more effective emergency medicine, and new laws are constantly been put in place to reduce accidents (and fatalities).
Why do I mention this? Because we could very well have more DUI drivers on the road who may have THC levels high enough to be legitimately impaired, but these other factors are balancing out the risk of those impairments.
This could explain why we're catching more DUI drivers, but seeing fewer DUI crashes or fatalities.
Or the simplest answer, thc doesn't impair your motor skills or judgement to nearly the same level alcohol does.
Surely that depends on the dosage. I don't know how drunk/stoned people are when they decide they are sober enough to drive. It is possible that alcohol makes that self-assessment particularly poor, but I haven't seen any data yet. I'd love to learn more.
Yup, just imagine the gall it'd take to look at the US prison system full of drug arrests and think, "Well, it's working alright for them."
I am so elated that a safe hallucinagen is no longer restricted and causing social woes.
Cannabis isn't a hallucinogen. You could call it a "recreational drug" when not used for medical purposes.
Every drug is a recreational drug when not used for medical purposes.
Sure. Did you think I was implying otherwise?
I thought you were implying that hallucinogen and recreational were two types of drug. So yeah, kinda.
I see. I was just using an umbrella term.
Cannabis is traditionally classified as a hallucinogen. For example, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) considers it as such.
I clearly need to get better weed then... I don't see, feel, hear, taste, or smell anything that's not there when I've had some gummies. All I get it a good night's sleep.
Well for one I now have access to cannabis oil that helps me relieve anxiety and sleep as lot better. So personally it's great.
Where it's not so great is where governments have been too restrictive and people had to circumvent these restrictions. For things like growing it at home or edibles in Quebec for example.
My partner gets 20 mg gummie from the black market that work amazing for her for sleep. 100 gummie for $100. Can't get gummie for that price, or with that dosage from the gov't, so she'll never buy from them.
I understand the issues with edibles and kids, but the gov't isn't going to win this so they may as well figure out how to move forward if they want to make an actual dent in the black market.
Just make the packaging look like it's medication with a big scary warning sign on it. And make the gummies a boring color. It's as simple as that.
And if the dosage is too high, simply reduce it by half. Let people take two if they need to.
The take two thought peocess is probably what caused some of the mess.
Oh, well just keep it low so there's less risk to kids, but now we gotta eat a whole damn chocolate bar if we want it in chocolate bar form.
If we can't get the dosage we want in the size and form factor we want, people will just keep getting it on the black market rather than gorge themselves unnecessarily
I'm way outside of the loop on this as I don't use cannabis in any form, but if I get what people are saying the dose on the edibles means that you wouldn't eat a typical serving of candy to feel the effects?
That sounds both stupid and dangerous to me. I'd think some of the reason you'd eat the candy is for the texture and flavour, so why wouldn't they be dosed in a way that they expect you to eat the whole bag as a snack?
I can't imagine buying a bag of sour patch kids and being told I can only eat three of the candies out of it.
If you want to eat a whole chocolate bar to get high, you can go ahead and buy a dosed bar appropriately, but a lot of people don't want to do that. And 1 bar might not even be enough as people have different tolerances.
On the black market, things can be dosed so you can maybe do it in 2-3 squares of a 16 square chocolate bar. You can get high, but also don't need to eat an unhealthy amount of sugar. We don't want to be encouraging a chocolate bar a day for some people.
Valid point on the "one a day" possibility. I never considered it that way.
Oh there's one other interesting point which I believe can be an issue sometimes.
When you dose a bag of gummies at 10mg, I'm not sure where things stand on the dose of each gummy vs the bag. I think I've heard stories of unpredictable doses if not the whole serving. That would be the same risk for high or low dose as well.
But when you get into something like a brownie or cookie, which is sold as a single item you would intend to eat all at once, you don't have that issue. But they can't make a single cookie or brownie with a high enough dose.
I'm not actually sure how much of a problem that is in reality, but it's a minor consideration if doses are broken up.
This doesn't sound like mixed results. Get rid of the kid friendly packaging and you'll lower the overdoses with kids. I'd like to see if alcohol consumption changed during this period.
What province sells it in kid friendly packages?
We have a hard time hiring workers because we have a zero drug policy and nobody can pass a piss test.
I once applied to a job that tested for alcohol and nicotine and I thought that was pretty nuts.like they only hire straight edge people? They must be hurting for employees often.