Abstract
While cannabis is the most frequently found illegal drug in drivers killed or injured in motor vehicle collisions, little is know about driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) in the general population. We report information on the incidence of DUIC in a representative sample of the Ontario adult population. Among all drivers, 1.9% reported DUIC in the previous 12 months. Several factors influenced the likelihood of reported DUIC, including gender, age, marital status and education level. Among cannabis users, DUIC appeared to be a relatively common behaviour; 22.8% reported DUIC, and the probability of the behaviour was significantly influenced by gender and education level. As well, DUIC and drinking-driving were strongly related in this sample. These data underscore the need to obtain more information on this behaviour, including a more complete understanding of any risks involved.
Résumé
Le cannabis est la substance que l’on retrouve le plus souvent dans le sang des conducteurs tués ou blessés dans des accidents de la route. Cela dit, nous en savons très peu sur la conduite avec facultés affaiblies par le cannabis dans la population en général. La présente étude fournit des renseignements sur l’incidence de la conduite avec facultés affaiblies par le cannabis dans un échantillon représentatif d’adultes ontariens. Sur la totalité des conducteurs, 1,9 % ont signalé avoir pris le volant sous l’influence du cannabis au cours des 12 mois précédents. Plusieurs facteurs influencent l’incidence de la conduite avec facultés affaiblies par le cannabis, notamment le sexe, l’âge, l’état civil et la scolarité. Parmi les usagers de cannabis, la conduite avec facultés affaiblies par le cannabis semblait être un comportement relativement répandu; 22,8 % des usagers ont signalé l’avoir fait, et ce comportement était grandement influencé par le sexe et la scolarité du répondant. De plus, la conduite avec facultés affaiblies par le cannabis et la conduite en état d’ébriété étaient étroitement liées au sein de l’échantillon à l’étude. Ces données soulignent l’importance de recueillir plus de renseignements sur ce type de comportement. Il faudrait entre autres mieux comprendre les risques qui y sont associés.
References
- 1.Ferrara SD, Giorgetti R, Zancaner S. Psychoactive substances and driving: State of the art and methodology. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving. 1994;10:1–55. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Peel HW, Jeffrey WK. A report on the incidence of drugs and driving in Canada. Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal. 1990;23:75–79. doi: 10.1080/00085030.1990.10757452. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cimbura G, Lucas DM, Bennett RC, et al. Prevalence and toxicological aspects of drugs detected in 484 fatally injured drivers and pedestrians in Ontario. J Forensic Sciences. 1982;27(4):855–67. doi: 10.1520/JFS12203J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Donelson AC. Cannabis and alcohol use among drivers and pedestrians fatally injured in traffic crashes. In: Noordzij PC, Roszbach R, editors. Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety - T’86. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1987. pp. 271–74. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Stoduto G, Vingilis E, Kapur B, et al. Alcohol and drug use among motor vehicle collision victims admitted to a regional trauma unit: Demographic, injury and crash characteristics. Accid Anal Prev. 1993;25(4):411–20. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(93)90070-D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Chaing CN, Barnett G. Marijuana effect and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol plasma level. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1984;36:234–38. doi: 10.1038/clpt.1984.168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kapur B. Drug-testing methods and interpretations of test results. In: Macdonald S, Roman P, editors. Drug-testing in the Workplace. New York: Plenum Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Jonah BA. Age differences in risky driving. Health Educ Res. 1990;5:139–49. doi: 10.1093/her/5.2.139. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Brookoff D, Cook CS, Williams C, Mann CS. Testing reckless drivers for cocaine and marijuana. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:518–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199408253310807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mann RE, Anglin L, Vingilis E, Larkin E. Self-reported driving risks in a clinical sample of substance users. In: Dutzelmann H, Berghaus G, Kroj G, editors. Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety - T-92. Cologne, Germany: TUV Rheinland; 1993. pp. 860–65. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mann RE, Anglin L, Rahman S, et al. Does treatment for substance abuse improve driving safety? A preliminary evaluation. In: Kloeden C, Maclean A, et al., editors. Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety - T-95. 1995. pp. 817–21. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chipman ML. Risk factors for injury: Similarities and differences for traffic crashes and other causes. Accid Anal Prev. 1995;27:699–706. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(95)00013-P. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Vincent I. Globe and Mail. 1998. Enforcers challenge cannabis liberation movement. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jessor R. Risky driving and adolescent problem behavior: An extension of problem behavior theory. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving. 1987;3:1–11. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jonah B. Psychosocial characteristics of impaired drivers: An integrated review in relation to problem behaviour theory. In: Wilson RJ, Mann RE, editors. Drinking and Driving: Advances in Research and Prevention. New York: Guilford Press; 1990. pp. 13–41. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Vingilis ER, Adlaf EM. The structure of problem behaviour among high school students: A confirmatory factor analysis. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice. 1990;5:151–60. doi: 10.1093/her/5.2.151. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Macdonald S, Mann RE. Distinguishing causes and correlates of drinking and driving. Contemporary Drug Problems. 1996;23:259–90. doi: 10.1177/009145099602300206. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Donovan DM, Marlatt GA, Salzberg PM. Drinking behavior, personality factors and high-risk driving: A review and theoretical formulation. J Studies on Alcohol. 1983;44:395–428. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1983.44.395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Simpson HM, Vingilis E. Epidemiology and special population surveys. In: Ferrara SD, Giorgetti R, editors. Methodology in Man-Machine Interaction and Epidemiology on Drugs and Traffic Safety. Padova: Addiction Research Foundation of Italy; 1992. pp. 51–93. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Adlaf E, Ivis F, Bondy S, et al. Ontario Drug Monitor, 1996: Technical Guide. Addiction Research Foundation Research Document Series #132. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Adlaf E, Ivis F, Ialomiteanu A, et al. Ontario Drug Monitor, 1997: Technical Guide. Addiction Research Foundation Research Document Series. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Shah BV, Barnwell BG, Bieler GS. SUDAAN User’s Manual, Release 7.0. Research Triangle Park: Research Triangle Institute; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Smart RG. Marijuana and driving risk among college students. J Safety Research. 1974;6:155–58. [Google Scholar]