Technical ReportPDF Available

Results of the 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Over the last four decades, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and/or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted four national surveys to estimate the prevalence of drinking and driving in the United States (Wolfe, 1974; Lund & Wolfe, 1991; Voas et al, 1998; Compton & Berning, 2009; Lacey et al, 2009). The first National Roadside Survey (NRS) was conducted in 1973, followed by national surveys of drivers in 1986, 1996, 2007, and now 2013-2014. These surveys used a stratified random sample of weekend nighttime drivers in the contiguous 48 States and collected data directly from drivers on the road. The 2007 NRS added procedures to the NRS for the first time to estimate the use by drivers of other potentially impairing drugs. Prior roadside surveys had only collected breath samples to determine breath alcohol concentration (BrAC). Due to developments in analytical toxicology, NHTSA determined it would be feasible in the 2007 and 2013-2014 surveys to determine driver use of a variety of potentially impairing drugs including illegal drugs as well as legal medications. In 2013-2014, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted the most recent National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers.1 This voluntary and anonymous study is the second to collect data on drug use, presenting our first opportunity to examine drug use trends on a national scale. The 2013- 2014 NRS was designed to produce national estimates of alcohol and drug use by weekday daytime and weekend nighttime drivers. Thus, the use rates presented below are national prevalence rates calculated from the percentage of drivers using alcohol or drugs and adjusted with an appropriate weighting scheme.
Content may be subject to copyright.
NHTSA’s Office of Behavioral Safety Research 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS
Research Note
Office of Behavioral Safety ResearchDOT HS 812 118 February 2015
of drivers using alcohol or drugs and adjusted with an
appropriate weighting scheme.
Summary of Results
Prevalence of Alcohol Use by Drivers
The NRS surveys reveal a decreasing trend in alcohol use
from the rst survey in 1973 to the most recent one in 2013–
2014. Figure 1 shows the percentage of weekend nighttime
drivers with BrACs across three categories: BrAC of .005 to
.049 g/210 L; 2 BrACs of .050 to .079; and BrACs of .080 and
higher. The surveys found a decline in each BrAC category.
Further, there has been a large decrease in the percentage of
drivers who were alcohol positive, from 35.9 percent in 1973
to 8.3 percent in 2013–2014. For BrACs of .08 and higher,
there was a decrease from 7.5 percent in 1973 to 1.5 percent
in 2013–2014, revealing an impressive 80 percent reduction
in the percentage of alcohol-impaired drivers on the road
on weekend nights. Also of importance is the decrease
Over the last four decades, the National Highway Trafc
Safety Administration and/or the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted four national surveys
to estimate the prevalence of drinking and driving in the
United States (Wolfe, 1974; Lund & Wolfe, 1991; Voas et al,
1998; Compton & Berning, 2009; Lacey et al, 2009). The rst
National Roadside Survey (NRS) was conducted in 1973,
followed by national surveys of drivers in 1986, 1996, 2007,
and now 2013–2014. These surveys used a stratied random
sample of weekend nighttime drivers in the contiguous 48
States and collected data directly from drivers on the road.
The 2007 NRS added procedures to the NRS for the rst
time to estimate the use by drivers of other potentially
impairing drugs. Prior roadside surveys had only collected
breath samples to determine breath alcohol concentration
(BrAC). Due to developments in analytical toxicology,
NHTSA determined it would be feasible in the 2007 and
2013–2014 surveys to determine driver use of a variety of
potentially impairing drugs including illegal drugs as well
as legal medications.
In 2013–2014, the National Highway Trafc Safety
Administration conducted the most recent National
Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers.1
This voluntary and anonymous study is the second to col-
lect data on drug use, presenting our rst opportunity to
examine drug use trends on a national scale. The 2013–
2014 NRS was designed to produce national estimates of
alcohol and drug use by weekday daytime and weekend
nighttime drivers. Thus, the use rates presented below are
national prevalence rates calculated from the percentage
Results of the 2013–2014 National Roadside
Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers
By Amy Berning, Richard Compton, and Kathryn Wochinger
1 The Ofce of National Drug Control Policy provided funds to
NHTSA for this study. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, and
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety provided additional
funding through investigator initiated grants and contracts to the
Pacic Institute for Research and Evaluation, NHTSA’s contractor
for the 2013–2014 NRS.
2 .08 g/210 L = grams per 210 liters of breath. The illegal limit in all
States is .08.
3 From 1973 to 2004, the States had BrAC limits that ranged from .08
to .15. After 2004, all States had BrAC limits of .08.
Figure 1.
Percentage of Weekend Nighttime Drivers by BrAC
Category in the Five National Roadside Surveys3
0
5
10
15
20
25
19861973
BrAC .005–.049
BrAC .050–.079
BrAC .08+
1996 2007 2013–2014
22.3
6.17.5
17.6
3
5.4
9.2
3.44.3
7.9
2.32.2
5.2
1.6 1.5
Percentage of Drivers
2
NHTSA’s Office of Behavioral Safety Research 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
from 6.1 percent to 1.6 percent from 1973 to 2013–2014 for
BrACs of .050 to .079 category.
The 2013–2014 survey found large differences by the day of
week and the time of day in the likelihood of drivers being
alcohol positive or having an illegal BrAC (Table 1). During
weekday daytime hours (Friday), only 1.1 percent of drivers
were alcohol positive, while at weekend nighttime hours
(Friday and Saturday), 8.3 percent of drivers were alcohol
positive. During weekday daytime hours there were very
few drivers with illegal BrACs (BrAC ≥ .08), just 0.4 percent,
while at weekend nighttime hours 1.5 percent drivers had
illegal BrACs. Daytime compared to nighttime percentages
are statistically signicant. Compared with the NRS 2007,
the 2013–2014 NRS BrAC prevalence shown in Figure 1 was
signicantly lower only for the .005 to .049 BrAC category.
Table 1
Alcohol Prevalence by Data Collection Period and BrAC in
the 2013–2014 NRS
Data Collection Time Period
% Alcohol Positive
(%BrAC > .005) % BrAC > .08
Weekday Daytime 1.1% 0.4%
Weekend Nighttime 8.3% 1.5%
Prevalence of Drug Use by Drivers
The 2013–2014 study examined the use of drugs, focus-
ing on drugs with the potential to impair driving skills,
including over-the-counter, prescription, and illegal drugs.
Participants were asked to provide an oral uid and blood
sample in addition to a breath sample. The oral uid and
blood samples were tested for the presence of a large num-
ber of potentially impairing drugs including cannabinoids,
stimulants, sedatives, antidepressants, and narcotic analge-
sics. Not all drivers provided both an oral uid and blood
sample; some drivers provided just one sample but many
provided both.
The reader is cautioned that drug presence does not neces-
sarily imply impairment. For many drug substances, drug
presence can be detected after impairment that might affect
driving has passed. For example, traces of marijuana use
can be detected in blood samples several weeks after heavy
chronic users stop ingestion. In this study, for marijuana,
we tested only for THC (delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol), the
psychoactive substance in marijuana, and 11-OH-THC, its
active metabolite. When marijuana is smoked or ingested,
THC is absorbed into the blood stream and is distributed
into areas of the body, including the brain. There are over
100 marijuana metabolites detectable in blood that research
has not associated with the psychoactive effects of mari-
juana use. Whereas the impairment effects for various con-
centration levels of alcohol in the blood or breath are well
understood, there is little evidence available to link concen-
trations of other drugs to driver performance.
Table 2
Overall Drug Prevalence by Data Collection Period and Type
of Test in the 2013–2014 NRS
Time of Day
% Drug-Positive
Oral Fluid Test
% Drug-Positive
Blood Test
% Drug-Positive Oral
Fluid and/or Blood Test
Weekday
Daytime 19.0% 21.6% 22.4%
Weekend
Nighttime 19.8% 21.2% 22.5%
In contrast to alcohol use, overall drug prevalence (shown
in Table 2), did not appear to differ between daytime and
nighttime, regardless of whether oral uid or blood tests
were conducted. The much higher nighttime use of alco-
hol appears to represent recreational use. For other drugs, a
different pattern emerges.
As shown in Table 3, the pattern of drug use among driv-
ers varies by day and category of drug. The prevalence of
illegal drug use increases from daytime to nighttime, but
there is a countervailing pattern of a reduction in preva-
lence of driver use of medicinal drugs in nighttime drivers
compared to daytime drivers.4
Table 3
Drug Prevalence by Data Collection Period, Drug Category,
and Type of Drug Test in the 2013–2014 NRS
Drug Category
Oral Fluid
Test Blood Test
Oral Fluid and/or
Blood Test
N % N % N %
Weekday Daytime
Any Illegal Drug5189 10.6% 137 11.3% 221 12.1%
Only Medications6
( prescription and over-the-counter)
197 8.4% 128 10.3% 234 10.3%
Weekend Nighttime
Any Illegal Drug 783 13.9% 423 14.3% 852 15.2%
Only Medications
( prescription and over-the-counter)
317 5.9% 216 6.9% 391 7.3%
4 Despite recent changes in the legal status of marijuana in some
States, for simplicity and to allow inter-survey comparisons, this
drug remained included within the “illegal” category in the 2013–
2014 N R S.
5 Any Illegal Drug” includes drivers who tested positive for one
or more illegal drugs, whether or not they also tested positive for
medications.
6 Only Medications” includes drivers who tested positive for one
or more medications, but did not test positive for illegal drugs.
3
NHTSA’s Office of Behavioral Safety Research 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
Comparison of Drug Prevalence Between the 2007
NRS and 2013–2014 NRS
The specic drugs and detection thresholds changed
somewhat between the 2007 NRS and 2013–2014 NRS. A
few drugs that were either not detected or rarely detected
in the 2007 NRS were not included on the 2013–2014 NRS,
and a few new drugs were added in the 2013–2014 NRS.
For example, we tested for selected synthetic cannabinoids
in the new survey. Also, improvements in analytical tech-
nology allowed the detection thresholds to be lowered
signicantly for a number of drugs in the 2013–2014 NRS.
To compare the prevalence rates between the 2007 NRS
and 2013–2014 NRS, we included only the drugs that were
tested for in both surveys and based 2013–2014 NRS preva-
lence rates using the cutoff levels from the 2007 NRS.
To account for these renements in lab testing since 2007,
Table 4 presents the 2013–2014 NRS data after applying the
same set of drugs and drug cutoff levels as used for 2007
survey. The results from either oral uid tests or blood
tests, or both oral uid and/or blood tests, show a small
increase in drug-positive drivers using medications (from
3.9% in 2007 to 4.9% in 2013–2014), and a larger increase in
the prevalence of illegal drugs (from 12.4% in 2007 to 15.1%
in 2013–2014). In 2007, 16.3 percent of weekend nighttime
drivers were drug-positive based on the combined results
of either or both oral uid and blood tests (Compton &
Berning, 2009). In 2013–2014, 20.0 percent of weekend
nighttime drivers tested positive for drugs using the 2007
cut-off criteria.
The drug with the largest increase in weekend night-
time prevalence was THC (Table 5). In the 2007 NRS, 8.6
percent of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for
THC (based on the combined oral uid and/or blood tests),
whereas in the 2013–2014 NRS, 12.6 percent of weekend
nighttime drivers tested positive for THC, a 48 percent
increase.
Changes in State policy on marijuana use, including
medical and recreational use, may have contributed to an
increase in marijuana use by drivers. However, the survey
does not permit a state-by-state comparison. The change in
use may reect the emergence of a new trend in the coun-
try that warrants monitoring.
Survey Methodology
This most recent NRS started in the summer of 2013, contin-
ued through the spring of 2014, and involved 60 sites across
the contiguous United States. The study used a multistage
sampling procedure based on the National Automotive
Sampling System—General Estimates System (NHTSA,
2008). The sites were large cities, counties, or groups of
counties representing four regions within the United States
and three levels of population density. As a whole, the 60
sites provide a representative sample of drivers across the
country. The 2013–2014 NRS attempted to re-visit the same
sites as 2007; however, because not all sites were avail-
able, statistical sampling techniques were used to identify
replacement sites with similar characteristics.
Roadside survey data were collected in 5 different loca-
tions at each site (for a total of 300 locations). Although
there were practical considerations for selecting a site, such
as trafc ow and safety, the 5 locations were randomly
chosen within the boundaries of the cooperating local law
enforcement agency’s area of jurisdiction. This approach
provided, as much as possible, a representative sample
of drivers for that site. Locations were not selected on the
basis of assumptions of where there would be a high per-
Table 4
Weekend Nighttime Drug Prevalence by Drug Category and Test Type Comparing 2007 Data to 2013–2014 Comparable Data
Drug Category
2007 Data 2013–2014 Comparable Data
Oral Fluid Test Blood Test
Oral Fluid and/or
Blood Test Oral Fluid Test Blood Test
Oral Fluid and/or
Blood Test
N%N%N%N%N%N%
Any Illegal Drug 635 11.4% 297 9.8% 699 12.4% 779 13.8% 422 14.3% 849 15.1%
Only Medications
(prescription and over-the-counter)
201 3.0% 169 4.0% 277 3.9% 211 3.9% 155 4.9% 266 4.9%
Table 5
Weekend Nighttime Prevalence of THC in 2007 Compared to 2013–2014 Comparable Data
2007 Data 2013–2014 Comparable Data
Oral Fluid Test Blood Test Oral Fluid and/or Blood Test Oral Fluid Test Blood Test Oral Fluid and/or Blood Test
N % N % N % N % N % N %
438 7.7% 234 7.6% 499 8.6% 597 11.3% 332 11.7% 663 12.6%
4
NHTSA’s Office of Behavioral Safety Research 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
centage of alcohol- or drug-positive drivers. The objective
of this study was to estimate the alcohol and other drug
prevalence of all drivers “on the road in the United States”
during the given time periods.
In the 2007 NRS, in an effort to learn more about the
presence of alcohol and drug use during daytime driv-
ing, we added data collection on Fridays during the day,
from either 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., or 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. (the times
were randomized across sites). This additional data collec-
tion allowed us to examine drug use and alcohol trends
among daytime drivers. This method was repeated for
the 2013–2014 NRS, and data were collected on weekend
nights, from 10:00 p.m. to midnight, and from 1 to 3 a.m. on
Fridays (i.e., early Saturday mornings) and from 1 to 3 a.m.
on Saturdays (i.e., early Sunday mornings). By using these
same time frames for each NRS, we can compare data on
BrACs and drug use over time.
Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary and
anonymous. When a data collector was available, drivers
were allowed to enter the data collection location. Where
researchers described the project and offered incentives
for participation. Drivers were informed that participation
was voluntary and that they were free to leave at any time.
Data collectors asked participants for a breath test, an oral
uid sample, and a blood sample. The vast majority of eli-
gible drivers entering the research area participated in the
study (see Table 6). The number of drivers who entered the
site and were eligible to participate (e.g., non-commercial
drivers 16 and older, English- or Spanish-speaking) was
11,100. Out of the 11,100 eligible drivers, 85.2 percent (9,455
drivers) provided breath samples; 71 percent (7,881 drivers)
provided oral uid samples; and 42.2 percent (4,686 drivers)
provided blood samples.
National prevalence rates were derived from a complex
weighting scheme based on the volume of serious crashes
at each site and the probability of a survey driver being ran-
domly selected from the total driving trips at that site.
Table 6
Number of Participants and Participation Rates in the
2013–2014 NRS
Drivers
Participants
N %
Eligible and Entered Site 11,100 100.0%
Breath Test 9,455 85.2%
Oral Fluid Test 7,881 71.0%
Blood Test 4,686 42.2%
Oral Fluid and/or Blood 7,898 71.2%
Challenges in Determining How Drugs
AffectDriving
Most psychoactive drugs are chemically complex mol-
ecules, whose absorption, action, and elimination from
the body are difcult to predict, and considerable differ-
ences exist between individuals with regard to the rates
with which these processes occur. Alcohol, in comparison,
is more predictable. A strong relationship between alco-
hol concentration and impairment has been established,
as has the correlation between alcohol concentration and
crashrisk.
Factors that make similar prediction difcult for most other
psychoactive drugs include:
The large number of different drugs that would need to
be tested (extensive testing of alcohol has been under-
taken over many decades, whereas relatively little simi-
lar testing has occurred for most other drugs).
Poor correlation between the effects on psychomotor,
behavioral, and/or executive functions and blood or
plasma drug concentrations (peak psychomotor, behav-
ioral, and executive function effects do not necessarily
correspond to peak blood levels; detectable blood levels
may persist beyond the impairing effects or the impair-
ing effects may be measurable when the drug cannot be
detected in the blood).
Sensitivity and tolerance (accentuation and diminution
of the impairing effects with repeated exposure).
Individual differences in absorption, distribution, action,
and metabolism (some individuals will show evidence
of impairment at drug concentrations that are not asso-
ciated with impairment in others; wide ranges of drug
concentrations in different individuals have been associ-
ated with equivalent levels of impairment).
Accumulation (blood levels of some drugs or their
metabolites may accumulate with repeated administra-
tions if the time-course of elimination is insufcient to
reduce or remove the drug or metabolite before the next
dose is administered).
Acute versus chronic administration (it is not unusual to
observe greater impairment during initial administra-
tions of drugs than is observed when the drug is admin-
istered over a long period of time).
At the current time, specic drug concentration levels can-
not be reliably equated with a specic degree of driver
impairment.
5
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
This and other behavioral-related research notes
may be accessed by Internet users at: www.nhtsa.
gov/Driving+Safety/Research+&+Evaluation/
Impaired+driving+(drug-related)+reports.
For More Information
For questions on this document, please contact Amy
Berning at amy.berning@dot.gov.
Detailed information about the study and results will
be available in upcoming publications. Three technical
reports are under development: one provides a complete
description of the methodology used (sampling, analy-
sis, weighting, and imputation procedures) and subject
participation rates (report entitled, 2013–2014 National
Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use: Methodology).
Detailed information on the use of alcohol by drivers and
the relationship of alcohol to various factors like time of
day and vehicle type will be available in a report entitled,
2013–2014 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug
Use: Alcohol Prevalence Rates. Detailed information on
the use of drugs by drivers and the combined use of drugs
and alcohol, as well as more detailed trend analysis exam-
ining changes in drug prevalence from 2007 to 2013–2014
will be provided in a third report titled 2013–2014 National
Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use: Drug Prevalence
Rates. These upcoming reports will be posted on NHTSA’s
Web site.
References
Compton, R., & Berning, A. (2009). Results of the 2007
National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers
(Report No. DOT HS 811 175). Washington, DC: National
Highway Trafc Safety Administration. Available at
www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20
Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811175.pdf.
Lacey, J. H., Kelley-Baker, T., Furr-Holden, D., Voas, R.
B., Moore, C., Brainard, K., … & Berning, A. (2009,
December). 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and
Drug Use by Drivers: Methodology. (Report No. DOT HS
811 237). Washington, DC: National Highway Trafc
Safety Administration. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/
staticles/nti/pdf/811237.pdf.
Lacey, J. H., Kelley-Baker, T., Furr-Holden, D., Voas, R.
B., Romano, E., Ramirez, A., … & Berning, A. (2009,
December). 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and
Drug Use by Drivers: Drug Results (Report No. DOT HS
811 249). Washington, DC: National Highway Trafc
Safety Administration. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/
DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/
Associated%20Files/811249.pdf.
Lacey, J. H., Kelley-Baker, T., Furr-Holden, D., Voas, R.
B., Romano, E., Torres, P., … & Berning, A. (2009,
December). 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol
and Drug Use by Drivers: Alcohol Results (Report No.
DOT HS 811 248). Washington, D.C: National Highway
Trafc Safety Administration. Available at ntl.bts.gov/
lib/31000/31600/316 43/811248.pdf.
Lund, A. K., & Wolfe, A. C. (1991). Changes in the incidence
of alcohol-impaired driving in the United States, 1973-
1986. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(4), 293301.
NHTSA. (2008). National Automotive Sampling System
Brochure (Report No. DOT HS 807 304). Washington,
D.C: National Highway Trafc Safety Administration.
Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/
Content/PDF/NASSbrochure.pdf.
Voas, R. B., Wells, J., Lestina, D., Williams, A., & Greene, M.
(1998). Drinking and driving in the United States: The
1996 National Roadside Survey. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 30(2), 267–275.
Wolfe, A. C. (1974). 1973 US National Roadside Breath Testing
Survey: Procedures and Results. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Safety Research Institute.
Suggested APA format citation for this document:
Berning, A., Compton, R., & Wochinger, K. (2015, February). Results
of the 2013–2014 National Roadside Survey of alcohol and drug
use by drivers. (Trafc Safety Facts Research Note. Report No.
DOT HS 812 118). Washington, DC: National Highway Trafc
Safety Administration.
11326-020515-v3
... Cannabis is considered a highly promising medicinal plant due to its purported array of therapeutic properties, although according to a recent survey it is most commonly used as an illicit drug [1]. It contains a variety of phytochemicals (around 500 compounds) including sugars, cannabinoids, alkaloids, phenolic compounds, and terpenes [2]. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this study, the optimal setup of supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) was designed and developed, leading to the quantitation of 11 distinct cannabinoids (cannabidivann (CBDV), tetrahydrocannabivann (THCV), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG) cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), cannabigerolic acid (CBGA), cannabinol (CBN), delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), delta 8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC), cannabichomere (CBC) and delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol acid (THCA-A)) extracted from the flowers of medicinal cannabis (sp. Sativa). Supercritical carbon dioxide (scCO2) extraction was performed at 37 °C, a pressure of 250 bar with the maximum theoretical density of CO2 (893.7 kg/m3), which generated the highest yield of cannabinoids from the flower-derived extract. Additionally, a cold separator (separating chamber) was used and positioned immediately after the sample containing chamber to maximize the yield. It was also found that successive washing of the extract with fresh scCO2 further increased yields. Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with DAD (uHPLC-DAD) was used to develop a method for the quantification of 11 cannabinoids. The C18 stationary phase was used in conjunction with a two solvent system gradient program resulting in the acquisition of the well-resolved chromatogram over a timespan of 32 min. The accuracy and precision of isolated cannabinoids across inter-and intra-day periods were within acceptable limits (
... Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) is the act of driving while impaired by a drug, regardless of whether a drug is licit. Despite the illegality of DUID, 20% of night-time weekend drivers tested positive for drugs in a 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey (1). A survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in the USA revealed that more than 12.6 million people drove under the influence of drugs in 2018 (2). ...
Article
Full-text available
Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases continue to challenge forensic toxicologists as both the volume and complexity of casework increases. Comprehensive DUID testing should also meet the drafted ASB/ANSI standard and the NSC-ADID recommendations. A simple method using protein precipitation followed by filtration extraction with an 8-minute run time by LC-MS/MS was developed, and a comprehensive ASB/ANSI validation performed. Assessed in blood quantitatively, and urine qualitatively, is 127 target drug and metabolite analytes including cannabinoids (12), amphetamines (11), cocaine and metabolites (6), benzodiazepines (36), Z-drugs (5), opioids (27), anticonvulsants (3), first-generation antihistamines (6), muscle relaxants (2), dissociatives and hallucinogens (6), barbiturates (10), and miscellaneous substances (3). Limits of detection are appropriate for DUID, and other forensic casework such as drug-facilitated crime (DFC) and postmortem investigations. To demonstrate applicability, 78 proficiency test blood and urine samples, and 1,645 blood and urine samples from authentic cases samples demonstrated effective detection of target analytes in forensic casework. By increasing the analytical scope of multiple drug classes via a single method, this technique detects drugs that may have previously gone undetected, such as flualprazolam, etizolam, mitragynine, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, and psilocin, and improves laboratory efficiency by reducing the number of tests required. The described method is, to the authors’ best knowledge, the only published single procedure to meet all drugs listed in the drafted ASB/ANSI standard, and recommended Tier 1 and traditional drugs from Tier 2 for DUID screening, whilst also achieving many drugs recommended for DFC and postmortem testing.
Article
Objective: Since 2012, 19 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults ages 21 and older. Marijuana use at any level can impair driving performance. Prior research on enforcement of the minimum legal marijuana use age of 21 (MLMU-21) laws is limited. The objective of the current study was to assess the ease of access to marijuana by underage patrons at recreational marijuana outlets in California, where recreational marijuana was legalized in 2016. Method: Pseudo-underage patrons were sent to 50 randomly selected licensed recreational marijuana outlets in the state to see if they could enter the outlet without showing a valid identification of their age. Results: Pseudo-underage patrons were required to show age identification to enter in 100% of the licensed recreational marijuana outlets visited. Conclusions: It appears that licensed California recreational marijuana outlets avoid selling marijuana to underage customers. One reason could be a strong incentive for recreational marijuana outlet owners and managers to avoid being shut down for an illegal activity. Practical Application: Underage youth are not obtaining marijuana at licensed recreational outlets. Future studies and cannabis enforcement agencies should investigate whether underage patrons attempt to use fake IDs at licensed marijuana outlets and whether youth are obtaining marijuana from illicit dispensaries or from social sources.
Article
An important stylized fact in the literature is that more Workers’ Compensation claims for difficult-to-diagnose injuries are filed on Monday than on any other day of the week. This paper studies the impact of recreational marijuana sales legalization on Monday work injury claims. Using restricted-use Workers’ Compensation claim data in Oregon and a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) model, I find the probability of overall Monday injuries increase by 4 percentage points after recreational marijuana sales legalization. The event study graphs suggest the medium-term effects appear to equal the short-term effects. Additionally, I do not find strong evidence to support those difficult-to-diagnose Monday injuries disproportionately increase after recreational marijuana sales legalization, suggesting a limited moral hazard of Monday injury claiming behavior after recreational marijuana sales legalization.
Article
Washington state has observed increases in polydrug use in fatal crashes, primarily involving the combination of cannabis and alcohol. The purpose of this article is to explore the belief system associated with driving under the influence of cannabis and alcohol (DUICA) in Washington state using structural equation modeling (SEM). A convenience sample ( n = 737) of surveys collected from adults in Washington state was analyzed using SEM to reveal the latent structure of the belief system associated with DUICA. The results of this analysis indicated that the reported DUICA behavior (frequency) was predicted by intention and willingness. Willingness also predicted intention. Intention and willingness were predicted by positive attitudes toward DUICA, as well as normative perceptions that it was acceptable to important people and common behavior for most people. These components were themselves predicted by corresponding beliefs (behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs). Finally, these beliefs were also influenced by the values that were most important to the respondents. Based on these results, it is reasonable to speculate that strategies to change these beliefs may also reduce DUICA behavior and associated fatal crashes.
Article
Marijuana use is a prevalent behavior among college students. As marijuana is legalized in some US states, student attitudes towards marijuana use may be changing towards use and legalization. The purpose of the present study is to examine the extent of marijuana use among college students and investigate student attitudes towards use legalization. A questionnaire was developed by the research team to measure study aims. Students completed the questionnaire in classrooms. A total of 291 students completed the survey. Results indicated that greater than half (55.7%) smoked marijuana in their lifetime. Almost half (42.1%) of students agreed or strongly agreed that marijuana should be legal. Differences in attitudes toward use and legalization were found based on lifetime marijuana use. Based on study find-ings, a high percentage of students used marijuana. College health professionals may benefit from study findings as results can be used in prevention and intervention efforts.
Article
Past research on cannabis has been limited in scope to THC potencies lower than legally available and efforts to integrate the effects into models of driving performance have not been attempted to date. The purpose of this systematic review is to understand the implications for modeling driving performance and describe future research needs. The risk of motor vehicle crashes increases 2-fold after smoking marijuana. Driving during acute cannabis intoxication impairs concentration, reaction time, along with a variety of other necessary driving-related skills. Changes to legislation in North America and abroad have led to an increase in cannabis’ popularity. This has given rise to more potent strains, with higher THC concentrations than ever before. There is also rising usage of novel ingestion methods other than smoking, such as oral cannabis products (e.g., brownies, infused drinks, candies), vaping, and topicals. The PRISMA guidelines were followed to perform a systematic search of the PubMed database for peer-reviewed literature. Search terms were combined with keywords for driving performance: driving, performance, impairment. Grey literature was also reviewed, including congressional reports, committee reports, and roadside surveys. There is a large discrepancy between the types of cannabis products sold and what is researched. Almost all studies that used inhalation as the mode of ingestion with cannabis that is around 6% THC. This pales in comparison to the more potent strains being sold today which are closer to 20%. Which is to say nothing of extracts, which contain around 60% or more THC. Experimental protocol is another gap in research that needs to be filled. Methodologies that involve naturalistic (real world) driving environments, smoked rather than vaporized cannabis, and non-lab certified products introduce uncontrollable variables. When considering the available literature and the implications of modeling the impacts of cannabis on driving performance, two critical areas emerge that require additional research: The first is the role of cannabis potency. Second is the route of administration. Does the lower peak THC level result in smaller impacts on performance? How long does potential impairment last along the longer time-course associated with different pharmacokinetic profiles. It is critical for modeling efforts to understand the answers to these questions, accurately model the effects on driver performance, and by extension understand the risk to the public.
Article
Objective Reports indicate that cannabis users will adapt their driving to compensate for the perceived drug effects of cannabis. This analysis examined the relationship between driver perceptions of their state contrasted with objective measures of their performance while operating a motor vehicle. Methods Data was collected from ten subjects in a study examining the effects of cannabis on driving performance. Driving performance was collected on the NADS quarter-cab miniSim, a limited field of view non-motion simulator, approximately two hours after cannabis inhalation. Driving measures of both lateral and longitudinal control were included in our analysis. Subjective measures of the effects of cannabis were collected at peak and prior to driving, using visual analog scales. Data were analyzed using the SAS GLM Select procedure with subjective effect, dosing condition (placebo vs 6.9% THC), and driving event as independent measures. The stepwise selection method was used. Results The analysis of each of the subjective effects showed significant differences between the placebo and the active cannabis dosed conditions. While we found variance in difference between group means, there was greater variability between subject values. We found that subjective measures were predictive of variance in driver inputs, such as steering frequency and steering reversal rate. Variance in SDLP and other driving performance measures, however, were predicted by dosing condition. Conclusions Overall, some of the effects perceived by the driver were better related to changes in driver inputs rather than the presence of cannabis itself. Changes in performance measures such as SDLP are better explained by dosing condition. Thus, driver’s perceptions may result in changes to driving behavior that could mitigate the effect of cannabis. For both lateral and longitudinal control, an increasing perception of stimulation produced a positive effect on performance. Our results provide a better understanding of how different strains of cannabis, which produce different subjective experiences for users, could impact driving safety. Specifically, we found drug effects that produce more stimulation results in less impact on driving, while those that produce a more stoned or high feeling results in a greater negative effect on driving.
Chapter
Forensic science is the application of the scientific method to matters of the law. There are numerous advantages of portable spectrometers in the forensic field. The analysis of breath alcohol content in the field is the foundation for all forensic on-scene testing. The evolution to dual-wavelength and multiwavelength spectrometers increased the specificity of breath alcohol instruments, eliminating acetone interference. A significant catalyst for the development of field-portable spectrometers was the 2001 anthrax white-powder attacks that began one week after 9/11. Portable Fourier transform infrared instruments are valuable tool for the forensic identification of unknown materials in the field. There are both criminal and civil forensic issues when dealing with counterfeit pharmaceuticals. The use of portable spectrometers at the scene of clandestine laboratories has proven to be essential for assessing safety and for providing both investigative and adjudicative information. Clan labs are secret or hidden spaces for the manufacturing of materials, commonly illegal drugs or explosives.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Results are presented from the 2007 National Roadside Survey (NRS) of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers, a nationally-representative sample of drivers in the United States. Data were collected at 300 sites in the contiguous US. The objective of the NRS was to: (1) determine the incidence of drivers at various Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) levels (and compare with three previous surveys); and (2) for the first time, estimate the incidence of drug use (over-the-counter, prescription, illegal) among drivers. Data were collected primarily on weekend nights; one daytime collection period (Friday) was included. Results showed that the proportion of weekend nighttime drivers with a BAC ≥ .08 g/dL declined over the years since 1973 (first roadside survey) from 7.5% (1973) to 2.2% (2007). Based on oral fluid analysis, more nighttime drivers (14.4%) were drug-positive than were daytime drivers (11.0%). Oral fluid analysis also indicated that 5.8% of daytime drivers and 10.5% of nighttime drivers tested positive for illegal drugs, while 4.8% of daytime drivers and 3.0% of nighttime drivers tested positive for medications. In reviewing these results, readers are cautioned that drug presence does not necessarily imply impairment. For many drug types, drug presence can be detected long after any impairment that might affect driving has passed. The full significance of these findings for highway safety will not be clear until additional research is completed.
Article
Notes: Date changed to Oct 1974 by DOT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Alcohol Countermeasures, Washington, D.C. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155/2/30473.0001.001.pdf
Article
Studies of motor vehicle fatality data have indicated that alcohol involvement in fatal crashes has declined substantially in the United States since 1980. To determine the actual incidence of alcohol-impaired drivers on U.S. roads, a national roadside survey using portable breath-testing devices was carried out in 32 localities in the spring of 1986. The same sampling design and survey procedures used in a 1973 national roadside survey were followed as much as possible. The 1986 survey found 3.1% of the late-night weekend drivers to have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10% or more, compared to 4.9% of drivers in 1973. Similarly, 8.3% of the 1986 drivers were at or above 0.05% BAC, compared to 13.5% in 1973. The data indicate that the incidence of alcohol-impaired driving on weekend nights has fallen by one-third or more in the United States since 1973 and that the decline affected most population subgroups.
Article
Following the same general principles of its two predecessors in 1973 and 1986, the 1996 National Roadside Survey of weekend, nighttime drivers in the 48 contiguous states interviewed and breath tested over 6000 noncommercial four-wheel vehicle operators between September 6 and November 9, 1996. Results indicated that the total number of drinking drivers fell by about one-third between 1986 and 1996; however, there was no significant change in the number of drivers at blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.05. Compared to 1973, the proportion of women drivers on the roads during weekend nights has increased significantly. Moreover, relative to males, the proportion of female drivers who have been drinking has increased over the last decade. The number of drivers under the age of 21 with a BAC at or above 0.10 decreased significantly from 1986 to 1996.
1973 US National Roadside Breath Testing Survey: Procedures and Results University of Michigan Safety Research Institute. Suggested APA format citation for this document Results of the 2013–2014 National Roadside Survey of alcohol and drug use by drivers. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note
  • A C Wolfe
  • A Berning
  • R Compton
  • K Wochinger
Wolfe, A. C. (1974). 1973 US National Roadside Breath Testing Survey: Procedures and Results. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Safety Research Institute. Suggested APA format citation for this document: Berning, A., Compton, R., & Wochinger, K. (2015, February). Results of the 2013–2014 National Roadside Survey of alcohol and drug use by drivers. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 812 118). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 11326-020515-v3
National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • J H Lacey
  • T Kelley-Baker
  • D Furr-Holden
  • R B Voas
  • E Romano
  • P Torres
  • A Berning
Lacey, J. H., Kelley-Baker, T., Furr-Holden, D., Voas, R. B., Romano, E., Torres, P., … & Berning, A. (2009, December). 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers: Alcohol Results (Report No. DOT HS 811 248). Washington, D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at ntl.bts.gov/ lib/31000/31600/31643/811248.pdf.
2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers
  • J H Lacey
  • T Kelley-Baker
  • D Furr-Holden
  • R B Voas
  • C Moore
  • K Brainard
  • A Berning
Lacey, J. H., Kelley-Baker, T., Furr-Holden, D., Voas, R. B., Moore, C., Brainard, K., … & Berning, A. (2009, December). 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers: Methodology. (Report No. DOT HS 811 237). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/ staticfiles/nti/pdf/811237.pdf.