\n<\/p>\n
Historically, in every single jurisdiction on earth where legalization was pursued and achieved, without exception, there were cannabis opponents spreading anti-cannabis myths and half-truths to try to deter voters or lawmakers from supporting reform.<\/p>\n
One of the most popular areas of focus for cannabis opponents was, and presumably always will be, impaired driving. The talking point can come about in a variety of forms, however, the main premise of the talking point regardless of how it manifests itself is this \u2013 that if cannabis laws are reformed there will be terror on the roadways in the form of increased vehicle crashes.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately for cannabis opponents, and fortunately for rational-thinking people worldwide, the data does not support opponents\u2019 claims. A recent study out of Canada highlights what really happens (or doesn\u2019t happen) after a nation legalizes cannabis for adult use. Below is more information about it via a news release from\u00a0NORML:<\/p>\n
Sherbrooke, Canada:\u00a0<\/strong>Neither the passage of adult use marijuana legalization nor the growth of retail cannabis sales is associated with any increase in motor vehicle accidents, according to\u00a0data\u00a0published in the journal\u00a0Drug and Alcohol Review<\/em>.<\/p>\n Canadian investigators assessed trends in traffic crashes in Toronto in the years prior to and immediately following the adoption of adult-use legalization.<\/p>\n They\u00a0reported: \u201c[N]either the CCA [Canadian Cannabis Act] nor the NCS [number of cannabis stores per capita]\u00a0is associated with concomitant changes in (traffic safety) outcomes.\u00a0\u2026\u00a0During the first year of the CRUL\u2019s [cannabis recreational use laws]\u00a0implementation in Toronto, no significant changes in crashes, number of road victims and KSI [all road users killed or severely injured]\u00a0were observed.\u201d<\/p>\n The findings are consistent with those of other Canadian studies. One study, published last year in the journal\u00a0Drug and Alcohol Dependence<\/em>, \u201c\u00a0found\u00a0no evidence that the implementation of the Cannabis Act was associated with significant changes in post-legalization patterns of all drivers\u2019\u00a0traffic-injury ED [emergency department] visits or, more specifically, youth-driver traffic-injury ED presentations.\u201d<\/p>\n Another study, published earlier this year, similarly\u00a0concluded, \u201cOverall, there is no clear evidence that RCL [recreational cannabis laws] had any effect on rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for either motor vehicle or pedestrian\/cyclist injury across Canada.\u201d<\/p>\n Full text of the study, \u201cDid the cannabis recreational use law affect traffic crash outcomes in Toronto? Building evidence for the adequate number of authorized cannabis stores\u2019 thresholds,\u201d appears in\u00a0the journal<\/em>\u00a0Drug and Alcohol Review<\/em>.\u00a0Additional information is available from the NORML Fact Sheet, \u2018<\/em>Marijuana and Psychomotor Performance.<\/em>\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n