4.5 Article

Association of Recreational Cannabis Laws in Colorado and Washington State With Changes in Traffic Fatalities, 2005-2017

期刊

JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 180, 期 8, 页码 1061-1068

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1757

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health [R01-HD087460]
  2. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01DA048860]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This ecological study estimates the extent to which the implementation of recreational cannabis laws is associated with traffic fatalities in Colorado and Washington State. Question Have traffic fatalities increased after the implementation of recreational cannabis laws in Colorado and Washington State? Findings Using a synthetic control approach, this ecological study found that recreational cannabis laws were associated with increases in traffic fatalities in Colorado (mean of 75 excess fatalities per year) but not in Washington State. Meaning These findings suggest that unintended effects of recreational cannabis laws can be heterogeneous and may be specific to variations in how these laws are implemented (eg, density of recreational cannabis stores). Importance An important consequence of cannabis legalization is the potential increase in the number of cannabis-impaired drivers on roads, which may result in higher rates of traffic-related injuries and fatalities. To date, limited information about the effects of recreational cannabis laws (RCLs) on traffic fatalities is available. Objective To estimate the extent to which the implementation of RCLs is associated with traffic fatalities in Colorado and Washington State. Design, Setting, and Participants This ecological study used a synthetic control approach to examine the association between RCLs and changes in traffic fatalities in Colorado and Washington State in the post-RCL period (2014-2017). Traffic fatalities data were obtained from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2017. Data from Colorado and Washington State were compared with synthetic controls. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2017. Main Outcome(s) and Measures The primary outcome was the rate of traffic fatalities. Sensitivity analyses were performed (1) excluding neighboring states, (2) excluding states without medical cannabis laws (MCLs), and (3) using the enactment date of RCLs to define pre-RCL and post-RCL periods instead of the effective date. Results Implementation of RCLs was associated with increases in traffic fatalities in Colorado but not in Washington State. The difference between Colorado and its synthetic control in the post-RCL period was 1.46 deaths per 1 billion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year (an estimated equivalent of 75 excess fatalities per year; probability = 0.047). The difference between Washington State and its synthetic control was 0.08 deaths per 1 billion VMT per year (probability = 0.674). Results were robust in most sensitivity analyses. The difference between Colorado and synthetic Colorado was 1.84 fatalities per 1 billion VMT per year (94 excess deaths per year; probability = 0.055) after excluding neighboring states and 2.16 fatalities per 1 billion VMT per year (111 excess deaths per year; probability = 0.063) after excluding states without MCLs. The effect was smaller when using the enactment date (24 excess deaths per year; probability = 0.116). Conclusions and Relevance This study found evidence of an increase in traffic fatalities after the implementation of RCLs in Colorado but not in Washington State. Differences in how RCLs were implemented (eg, density of recreational cannabis stores), out-of-state cannabis tourism, and local factors may explain the different results. These findings highlight the importance of RCLs as a factor that may increase traffic fatalities and call for the identification of policies and enforcement strategies that can help prevent unintended consequences of cannabis legalization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据