Elsevier

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Volume 169, 1 December 2016, Pages 148-155
Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Review
International approaches to driving under the influence of cannabis: A review of evidence on impact

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.10.023Get rights and content

Highlights

  • More published evaluations of cannabis and driving countermeasures are needed.

  • Few evaluations of legal approaches to drug-impaired driving are cannabis specific.

  • Evidence-based per se limits for cannabis have been proposed, but debate is ongoing.

  • Roadside drug testing holds some promise for deterring driving after cannabis use.

  • Key differences in methods and indicators make relevant study comparisons difficult.

Abstract

Background

There are knowledge gaps regarding the effectiveness of different approaches designed to prevent and deter driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC). Policymakers are increasingly interested in evidence-based responses to DUIC as numerous jurisdictions worldwide have legally regulated cannabis or are debating such regulation. We contribute a comprehensive review of international literature on countermeasures that address DUIC, and identify where and how such measures have been evaluated.

Methods

The following databases were systematically searched from 1995 to present: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, and Criminal Justice Abstracts. Hand searching of relevant documents, internet searches for grey literature, and review of ongoing email alerts were conducted to capture any emerging literature and relevant trends.

Results

Numerous international jurisdictions have introduced a variety of measures designed to deter DUIC. Much interest has been generated regarding non-zero per se laws that set fixed legal limits for tetrahydrocannabinol and/or its metabolites detected in drivers. Other approaches include behavioural impairment laws, zero-tolerance per se laws, roadside drug testing, graduated licensing system restrictions, and remedial programs. However, very few evaluations have appeared in the literature.

Conclusions

Although some promising results have been reported (e.g., roadside testing), it is premature to draw firm conclusions regarding the broader impacts of general deterrent approaches to DUIC. This review points to the need for a long-term commitment to rigorously evaluate, using multiple methods, the impact of general and specific deterrent DUIC countermeasures.

Introduction

For decades, alcohol has been recognized as the psychoactive drug that is most associated with impaired driving. In recent years, increasing attention is being paid to other drugs and impaired driving, and accompanying legal and public health implications. Among illicit drugs, cannabis is the most commonly consumed in the world, although the prevalence of cannabis use is not evenly distributed as some regions, such as North America, report much higher usage rates than others (Degenhardt et al., 2008, UNODC, 2015, WHO, 2016). Furthermore, the legality of cannabis is shifting, as varied jurisdictions have legalized cannabis or are debating how to implement regulated cannabis markets, despite international drug treaties (Bewley-Taylor et al., 2016; Hall and Lynskey, in press). In the United States, for example, four states have legalized cannabis for recreational use, while 23 states have approved cannabis for medical use (Huestis, 2015). Given these shifts, legal and policy responses to driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) are also evolving and generating increasing public interest. Thus it is presently an important time to review literature on such responses, especially as there are gaps in our knowledge regarding the effectiveness of different approaches designed to prevent, deter, and reduce any potential harms associated with DUIC.

General deterrent approaches to impaired driving aim to dissuade the public or subgroups of people who may not have performed the behaviour, while specific deterrent approaches target those who have performed the behaviour or have been apprehended (Krismann et al., 2011). Efforts to prevent DUIC can reasonably be guided by and compared to approaches to prevent driving under the influence of alcohol (DUIA). Initial understanding of the effects of alcohol on basic driving skills and collision risk (e.g., Bjerver and Goldberg, 1950, Holcomb, 1938, Smith and Popham, 1951) led to the development of methods to assess the level of alcohol in the body, legal frameworks designed to achieve general deterrence, and educational and specific deterrent measures designed to reinforce the general deterrent impact of drinking-driving laws. Behavioural impairment laws, requiring assessment of behavioural symptoms of impairment, were implemented in many jurisdictions. However, it was not until the development and introduction of per se laws in the Scandinavian countries and subsequently in most other parts of the world − implemented through criminal or administrative law with the ability to make the probability of detection, apprehension, and sanctioning relatively swift and certain − that substantial reductions in rates of drinking-driving deaths (i.e., general deterrence) were observed (e.g., Byrne et al., 2016, Homel, 1994, Mann et al., 2001, Ross, 1973, Tippetts et al., 2005, Voas and Lacey, 1990). Per se laws that address DUIA set fixed limits for alcohol detected in the driver’s system (e.g., blood alcohol concentration [BAC] of 0.05%). Over the past few decades, per se laws, combined with public education and high-visibility enforcement, have been considered the cornerstones of effective general deterrence of DUIA, while behavioural impairment laws by themselves have been considered largely ineffective in achieving general deterrence (Mann et al., 2001, Voas and Lacey, 1990). Additionally, effective rehabilitative programs and incapacitative measures such as ignition interlock programs have added to the ability to reduce driver recidivism (i.e., specific deterrence) and thus to the overall impact of DUIA laws (Elder et al., 2011, Ma et al., 2015).

A central question for stakeholders and policymakers is the extent to which successful means to address DUIA are transferrable to DUIC. For example, can a per se or hybrid approach (e.g., behavioural impairment plus per se limits) similar to how many countries have addressed DUIA be effectively transferred to DUIC (e.g., Huestis, 2015, Solomon and Chamberlain, 2014)? Among many complicating factors is that cannabis has a very different pharmacological profile than alcohol. The main psychoactive component of cannabis is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and, although it can have a shorter detection window, its metabolites (namely, carboxy THC or THC-COOH) can be detected in blood or urine for many days after cannabis use, long after any signs of impairment (Bergamaschi et al., 2013, Wolff et al., 2013).

As more jurisdictions consider legal initiatives to address DUIC, and also other drugs and driving, there is increasing interest in the relevant research and questions regarding the impact of cannabis use on collision risk, whether there should be a THC legal limit or per se level for drivers, and impact of DUIC laws on road safety. In this paper, we provide an overview of DUIC and international approaches to this issue, and contribute to the literature a comprehensive review of evaluations of the impact of varied countermeasures.

Section snippets

Methods

Systematic searches to identify literature on evaluations of DUIC countermeasures were performed using the following databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, and Criminal Justice Abstracts. All databases were searched for literature published in English and from 1995 onward; no additional exclusion criteria were used. Various driving/driver-related terms were used and combined with cannabis/marijuana terms. (For complete search strategies, please contact the first

Prevalence of DUIC

Providing a global picture of DUIC prevalence is challenging given numerous factors, including regional differences in cannabis use and in data collection methods across studies (Walsh et al., 2008). Data from general population surveys suggest that the proportion of the population that reports DUIC is relatively low, and is lower than the proportion that reports DUIA. For example, Walsh and Mann (1999) observed that 1.9% of the adult population in Ontario, Canada reported driving within one

General deterrent approaches to DUIC

Less than 20 years ago, very few countries − Norway, a notable exception − had “established any systematic system to detect drugs other than alcohol among drivers suspected to be influenced” (Christophersen and Mørland, 1997, p. 126). Since then, numerous jurisdictions worldwide have introduced or are considering varied legal measures to prevent or deter drug-impaired driving and, in some places, DUIC specifically. Our comprehensive literature searches revealed that there are very few published

Specific deterrent and related approaches to DUIC

Relatively little evidence is available on the impact of specific deterrent measures on DUIC. A variety of punitive sanctions, including license suspensions, fines, and imprisonment are typically applied to those convicted of a DUIC offence. Several studies have described the number of cases processed for suspected DUIC, or characteristics of individuals apprehended when new drug-impaired driving laws are introduced (e.g., Davey et al., 2014, Jones, 2005, Steentoft et al., 2010, Vindenes et

Conclusions and future directions

Our understanding of and approaches to cannabis are, in some ways, changing rapidly. In recent years, evidence has emerged that cannabis use increases traffic collision risk. Governments are responding by considering or introducing legal measures to address DUIC at a time when some governments have legalized or decriminalized cannabis possession, or are considering doing so. This review of the literature, focusing on studies that have appeared since 1995, provides an overview of the road safety

Role of funding source

Nothing declared.

Contributors

Dr. Tara Marie Watson conceptualized the review, arranged the literature searches and reviewed new material, prepared the first full draft, and edited revised versions of the paper. Dr. Robert E. Mann conceptualized the review, and revised drafts of the paper and table. Both authors approved the final draft before submission.

Conflict of interest

No conflict declared.

Acknowledgement

Dr. Tara Marie Watson is funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Postdoctoral Fellowship.

References (98)

  • H. Gjerde et al.

    A comparison of alcohol and drug use by random motor vehicle drivers in Brazil and Norway

    Int. J. Drug Policy

    (2014)
  • R.L. Hartman et al.

    Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) examination characteristics of cannabis impairment

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2016)
  • A. Holmgren et al.

    High re-arrest rates among drug-impaired drivers despite zero-tolerance legislation

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2008)
  • R. Homel

    Drink-driving law enforcement and the legal blood alcohol limit in New South Wales

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (1994)
  • M.B. Johnson et al.

    The prevalence of cannabis-involved driving in California

    Drug Alcohol Depend.

    (2012)
  • C. Jones et al.

    Preventing cannabis users from driving under the influence of cannabis

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2006)
  • T. Ma et al.

    Working in tandem: the contribution of remedial programs and roadside licence suspensions to drinking and driving deterrence in Ontario

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2015)
  • R.E. Mann et al.

    The effects of introducing or lowering legal per se blood alcohol limits for driving: an international review

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2001)
  • J.G. Ramaekers et al.

    Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use

    Drug Alcohol Depend.

    (2004)
  • S. Salomonsen-Sautel et al.

    Trends in fatal motor vehicle crashes before and after marijuana commercialization in Colorado

    Drug Alcohol Depend.

    (2014)
  • A.S. Tippetts et al.

    A meta-analysis of: 08 BAC laws in 19 jurisdictions in the United States

    Accid. Anal. Prev

    (2005)
  • T. Van der Linden et al.

    Roadside drug testing: comparison of two legal approaches in Belgium

    Forensic Sci. Int.

    (2015)
  • W. Vanlaar et al.

    An evaluation of graduated driver licensing programs in North America using a meta-analytic approach

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2009)
  • V. Vindenes et al.

    Impairment based legislative limits for driving under the influence of non-alcohol drugs in Norway

    Forensic Sci. Int.

    (2012)
  • V. Vindenes et al.

    Drugged driving arrests in Norway before and after the implementation of per se law

    Forensic Sci. Int.

    (2014)
  • P.F. Waller

    The genesis of GDL

    J. Safety Res.

    (2003)
  • E. Wood et al.

    Delays in DUI blood testing: impact on cannabis DUI assessments

    Traffic Inj. Prev.

    (2016)
  • E.M. Adlaf et al.

    Drinking, cannabis use and driving among Ontario students

    CMAJ

    (2003)
  • P. Armentano

    Should per se limits be imposed for cannabis? Equating cannabinoid blood concentrations with actual driver impairment: practical limitations and concerns

    Humboldt J. Soc. Relat.

    (2013)
  • M. Asbridge et al.

    A Feasibility Study of Roadside Oral Fluid Drug Testing

    (2015)
  • M. Asbridge et al.

    Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis

    BMJ

    (2012)
  • M. Asbridge et al.

    Cannabis and traffic collision risk: findings from a case-crossover study of injured drivers presenting to emergency departments

    Int. J. Public Health

    (2014)
  • M. Asbridge

    Drugs and driving: when science and policy don’t mix

    Can. J. Public Health

    (2006)
  • M.N. Bates et al.

    Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes

    Epidemiol. Rev.

    (1999)
  • M. Bédard et al.

    The impact of cannabis on driving

    Can. J. Public Health

    (2007)
  • D.J. Beirness et al.

    A roadside survey of alcohol and drug use among drivers in British Columbia

    Traffic Inj. Prev.

    (2010)
  • M.M. Bergamaschi et al.

    Impact of prolonged cannabinoid excretion in chronic daily cannabis smokers’ blood on per se drugged driving laws

    Clin. Chem.

    (2013)
  • D. Bewley-Taylor et al.

    Cannabis Regulation and the UN Drug Treaties: Strategies for Reform

    (2016)
  • K. Bjerver et al.

    Effect of alcohol ingestion on driving ability: results of practical road tests and laboratory experiments

    Q. J. Stud. Alcohol

    (1950)
  • M. Boorman et al.

    The Victorian legislative framework for the random testing drivers at the roadside for the presence of illicit drugs: an evaluation of the characteristics of drivers detected from 2004 to 2006

    Traffic Inj. Prev.

    (2009)
  • R.F. Borkenstein et al.

    The Role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents

    (1964)
  • J.E. Brady et al.

    Prevalence of alcohol and other drugs in fatally injured drivers

    Addiction

    (2013)
  • J.E. Brady et al.

    Trends in alcohol and other drugs detected in fatally injured drivers in the United States, 1999–2010

    Am. J. Epidemiol.

    (2014)
  • M.L. Chipman et al.

    Being at fault in traffic crashes: does alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, or polydrug abuse make a difference?

    Inj. Prev.

    (2003)
  • R.P. Compton et al.

    Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk

    (2015)
  • Cook, S., Shank, D., Bruno, T., Turner, N.E., Mann, R.E., Self-reported driving under the influence of alcohol and...
  • Cook S., Simmons T., Bruno T., Barker J., Turner N.E., Mann, R.E., Substance use and driving behaviour of Ontario...
  • F.J. Couper et al.

    The prevalence of marijuana in suspected impaired driving cases in Washington state

    J. Anal. Toxicol.

    (2014)
  • K.C. Davis et al.

    Correlates of marijuana drugged driving and openness to driving while high: evidence from Colorado and Washington

    PLoS One

    (2016)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text