The Impact of Marijuana Legalization on Vehicular Trauma

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) Vol. 10; no. 12; p. e3671
• Main Authors: Keric, Natash, Hofmann, Luke J, Babbitt-Jonas, Rachelle, Michalek, Joel, Dolich, Mathew, Khoury, Leen, Perez, Javier Martin, Cohn, Stephen M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Cureus Inc 03-12-2018; Cureus
• Subjects: Decriminalization; Drug legalization; Marijuana; Other; Traffic accidents & safety; Trauma centers; United States > US; California; marijuana; drugged driving; alcohol intoxication; motor vehicle collisions; trauma injury; marijuana legalization
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.3671
• EISSN: 2168-8184

Background Drugged driving, or driving under the influence of any drug, is a growing public health concern, especially with the recent legislation legalizing marijuana use in certain states in the USA. We sought to gain a better understanding of the surgeons' perspective regarding marijuana (MJ) and alcohol (ETOH) and the relationship of recent laws to identification of MJ and ETOH in trauma victims. Methods Members of a national trauma surgical organization were asked to participate in an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved, web-based survey which centered on attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs regarding ETOH and MJ as they related to injury. Two Level I trauma center registries (located in TX and CA) were queried for the incidence of motor vehicular collision (MVC) and the presence of ETOH (defined as > 0.08 g/dL) or MJ from 2006 thru 2012. Results A total of 127 trauma surgeons participated in the survey. The majority were male (84%, n = 107) and with a median age of 52. Most were in surgical practice for greater than 11 years (78%, n = 99) and worked at a Level I trauma center (78%, n = 99) in an academic institution (65%, n = 83). MJ was illegal in the states where most of the participants were in practice (79%, n = 100), but 90% (n = 114) of respondents from states where MJ is legal stated they have not seen an increase in MVC since MJ was legalized. At the TX trauma center, only 4% of patients involved in a vehicular trauma tested positive for MJ, 21% of patients had the presence of ETOH, and 3% had both. For both MJ and also ETOH, the incidence remained the same each year. In CA, there was little yearly variation in the incidence of patients that tested positive for MJ (23%), ETOH (50%), and both (7%). In addition, the incidence of MJ was essentially unchanged after the decriminalization law was passed in 2010. Conclusion The prevalence of cannabis and alcohol varies among the states studied, TX and CA. The impact of decriminalization of marijuana did not seem to affect the incidence of drugged driving with marijuana in CA.