This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 12 April 2015, At: 19:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Psychoactive DrugsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujpd20

People's Views on Marijuana, Other Drugs & Driving:An UpdateDavid M. Grilly aa Department of Psychology , Cleveland State University , Cleveland , Ohio , 44115Published online: 19 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: David M. Grilly (1981) People's Views on Marijuana, Other Drugs & Driving: An Update, Journal ofPsychoactive Drugs, 13:3, 377-379, DOI: 10.1080/02791072.1981.10471896

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.1981.10471896

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

P EOPL E ' S VI EWS ON MARIJUANA ,

OTH ER DR U GS & DRIVING :

AN UPDA T E

David M. Grilly , Ph.D.·

A few years ago th is journal published the resu lts oftwo surveys co nducted by th is autho r in J anu ary of1975 an d 1977, wh ich dealt with peopl e 's views o n th eeffe cts of drugs on driv ing skills (G rilly 1977 ). Alth ou ghthe su rveys dealt with most co mmo n psych otropicdrugs, thi s aut ho r was particularly int erested in th oseaspe cts of the surve ys dealing with marijuana in com­parison with ot her drug s, pr imarily because of theongo ing cont roversy abo ut mariju ana's effects on dr iv­ing , in both scie nt ific and politi cal circl es. Essentially thesame survey was conducted again in Ja nuary of 1980 tosee if t he t rends and conclusion s noted in the initialrep ort were st ill valid three years later. Th e presentrep ort updat es th ose conclusion s with th e results of th ismost recent survey .

As in th e previou s surveys, stude nts (N =400) in astate-supported urban uni versity in Oh io were asked toano ny mo usly answer (o n com put er sco red sheets) que s­tion s pertaining to th eir age, sex , dru g and dr ivingexperience, as well as t heir views of th e effec ts of variousdrugs on t heir own and ot her peopl e's driv ing skills. Th eact ual qu est ion s posed with respec t to th e latter werethe fo llowing: ( 1) Under commo nly used doses of(drug), my driving ski lls are: (a) greatl y impaired,(b) impai red a litt le , (c) not affec ted , (d) improved alittl e, (e) great ly improved, and (f) qu est ion not appli­cable; (2) Under commonly used doses of (drug), othe rpeopl e's driving skills arc : (a) great ly imp aired , (b) im­paired a little , (c) not affecte d, (d) improved a littl e,(e) greatl y improved , and (f) no opinion. Th e su rveyswere th e same except fo r the add it ion of que st ion sabo ut cocai ne and phencycl idine (PCP, "angel dust " ) inth e 198 0 survey, bec ause of concerns abo ut the report­edly increasi ng use of the se drugs .

The dem ographi c charact erist ics of the 1980 samplewere similar to the prev ious sam ples on most dimensio nswith t he fo llo wing except ions: (l) the percentage ofrespondents in the 22 and yo unger age catego ries haddropped fro m appro ximately 74 percent to 68 per cent,wh ile th e percentage in th e 27 and older catego ries rosefro m approxi mately seven percent to 15 percent ( in allsurvey samples the yo unger ages were ove rrepresent edrelative to th e un iversity populat ion ); (2) th e percentage

• Department of Psychology, Clevela nd State Universit y,

Cleveland, Ohi o 44115.

J ournal of Psy choactive Drugs 377

of lo wer division (f resh man an d sophomore) coll egestudents increased fro m appro ximately 49 percent to 57percent with a corresponding de crease in upper d ivision(junio r, senio r and gradu at e) students. (As wit h age, t helower division s were overrepresen ted relati ve to t heun iversity pop ulation .) , and (3) the average m on ths ofdr iving exper ienc e dropped from approxima tely 6 1months to 24 months. Most of th e changes with respectto th e first two dimensi on s are probabl y due to changingchara cte rist ics of the popul at ion attending the un iver­sity . The change in the last dim ens ion ma y be related toth e changes in the ot her two, in additio n to a shifttoward an increasing use of mass tr ansp ortation in th ecom munity . Whatever th e reason s for these changes inth e sample characterist ics, non e of the su bject var iablesof sex , age, yea r of college, or driving experience hadmu ch impact on th e responden ts' perceptions or atti­tudes of th e effects of th e drugs on driving skills exceptwhen these cova ried wit h freque ncy of drug usage .

In accordance wit h recent nat ion al surveys (NIDA1979) of drug usage in respondents of comparable ageand educational status, th ese pr esent surveys do notindica te mu ch change in drug use pattern s from 1975 to198 0 exc ept wit h respect to nicotine (cigarette) usage,which has decreased conside rably . Also , according toth ese surveys, regul ar use of marijuana (one or moretim es per week ) has gon e up slightly from 19 perc en t to23 pe rcent in 1980, wh ile expe rimental use (used lessth an once per month) or nonu se has rem ained constantat approxi mately 64 percent in spite of the fac t th atmar iju an a decriminalizati on oc cur red in Ohi o in 197 6.

Th e following are concl usio ns o r trends noted in th e1975 and 1977 surveys. Th ese have been extended toinclude the results of th e 1980 sur vey .

(l) Mariju ana was perceived by the maj ority ofth ose respondents with an opi nion to be detrimental todriving skills of both themselves and othe rs. The 1980data essentially rep licate the data from 1975 and 19 77surveys.

(2) Marijuana was not perceived to be as detri­mental to ot he r peopl e's driving ski lls as commonl y useddoses of alc ho hol, barbiturates, narcotics o r LSD. Th e1980 data also suppo rt th is conclusio n. In addition, th eyind icate that PCP is perceived to be more detrimentalth an marijuan a in th is respect.

(3) In terms of t heir o wn dri ving, only alco ho l wasperceived to be more detrimental th an marijuana , withthe largest discrepan cy between th ese two drugs occur­ring in th e most freque nt users o f th e two drug s. As

noted in Table I, the 1980 results are completely inacco rdance wit h th is conclusion . Th is difference is evenmore significant in light of th e fact that the large

Vol. 13(4) Oct-Dec , 1981

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

58 1

2 A

pril

2015

GRILLY SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

TABLE IPERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS (WITH AN OPINION OR FOR WHOM

THE QUESTION WAS APPLICABLE) SAYING THAT MARIJUANA OR ALCOHOL

IMPAIRS DRIVING AS A FUNCTION OF SURVEY YEAR,

THEIR OWN FREQUENCY OF USE OF THE RESPECTIVE DRUG AND

THE TYPE OF QUESTION, (I.E . , WHETHER IT IS THEMSELVES

OR OTHER PEOPLE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THESE DRUGS) .*

Marijuana Impairs Driving Alcohol Imp airs Driving

1975 1977 1980 1975 1977 1980

Regular Users (one or more times per week)

Themselves DrivingOthers Dr iving

42 ± 10 50 ± 9 55 ± 955±11 71 ± 9 83± 7

84 ± 5 83 ± 5 83 ± 597 ± 2 94 ± 3 96 ± 3

Occasion al Users (one to three times per month)

Themselves DrivingOthers Driving

64 ± 10 74 ± 10 76 ± 1170 ± 10 87± 7 77 ± 10

78 ± 6 75 ± 6 75 ± 794 ± 3 96 ± 3 93 ± 4

Nonusers or Experimental Users (le ss than once per month )

Themselves Driving - ­Others Driving

73± 9 70± 968± 1086 ± 4 87 ± 4 90 ± 3

80±11 62± 10 67± 1094 ± 5 93 ± 4 96 ± 3

'The percenta ges include the values of th e 90 per cent co nfi de nce levels.•• Responses from nonusers were not included in thi s category because t hey would have no basis

for judging the effec t of the drugs on th eir own driv ing.

majority (8 9 percent ) of regular mariju ana users hadcon siderable experienc e with alco ho l (i .e., used it one ormore times per month) .

(4) Fo r all drug categ ori es, the respondents weremor e likely to indicate that o the r peopl e' s dr iving skillswere more impa ired th an th eir own. The sam e results,including th ose regar ding coca ine and phencyclidine,were obta ined in 198 0. Th is can be seen in Table I withrespe ct to marijuana and alco hol.

(5) In the 1975 and 1977 surveys, the percentageof respon dent s rep orting t hat mariju an a imp air s dri ving(regar ding both themselves and othe rs) dec reased mark­edly as th eir frequency of marijuana use increased. Thisrelat ion sh ip was not noted with respect to frequency ofalcohol use an d dr iving under th e influence of alco hol(see Tabl e I). Th e relat ion ship between frequency ofmarijuan a use and its perceived effects on dr iving wasalso ind icated in the 1980 survey, but for reasonsdiscussed in the next par agraph, th e relationship was notas pro found as in pre viou s yea rs.

(6) Based on other surveys in 1971 (Klein, Davis &

J ournal of Psychoacti ve Drugs 378

Blackbourne 1971 ) and 1972 (Waller, Lamborn &

Steffenhagen 1974) and thi s au tho r's surveys in 1975and 1977 , it was concluded th at there has been acont inue d and considerable increase in the prop ortion ofregul ar marijuana users who bel ieve th at marijuanaimpairs ot her peopl e 's driv ing skills (22 percent in 1971 ,40 percent in 1972, 55 percent in 1975 and 7 1 percentin 1977) . The resu lts from th e 1980 survey indicate th atthi s trend is co nt inui ng, as th e pr op ortion of regularmarijuan a users indica t ing th at mar ijuan a impai red dr iv­ing skills of ot her peopl e had risen to 83 percent (seeTable I) . In addit ion , th e results fro m th e 1975 , 1977and 1980 surveys indicate that thi s trend is occur ringwit h respect to t he users' o wn dr iving skills, but thetrend is not as strong.

To summarize , the results fro m the 1980 su rveyexte nd th e conclusions and trends noted in th is author's1975 and 1977 surveys . Fo r the most part , marijuanause in the age group sampl ed has sta bilize d over the pastfive years , but peopl e 's per ception s of its detrimentaleffects on driving have changed con siderabl y. Th ere has

Vol. 13(4) Oct-Dec, 1981

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

58 1

2 A

pril

2015

GRILLY

been a fairly large increase in the percentage ofrespondents saying that marijuana impairs dr iving skillsof other people ; with respect to themselves driving underthe influence, a similar but less dramatic trend hasoccurred. Alcohol is still regarded as more detrimental to

driving than marijuana. Interestingly, these trends anddifferences can be noted in scientific studies attemptingto empirically measure and compare the decrement indriving wh ile under the influence of these drugs (J ones1976; Moskowitz 1976 ; Moskowitz , Hulbert &

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

McGlothlin 1976; Thompson 1975 ; Dott 1974; Klon off1974; Linnoila 1974; Smart 1974; Ellingstad, McFarling& Struckman 1973 ; Rafaelson et al. 1973; Crancer et al,1969) . Unfortunately, these surveys and studies do noteffectively deal with the issue of how many tr afficaccidents and deaths can actually be att ribut ed to

driving under the influence of marijuana nor the issue ofthe effects on driving of combined use of marijuana andalcohol , which is becoming more common .

REFERENCES

Crancer, A. ; Dille, ) .M.; Delay, j .c., Wallace, ) .E . & Haykin, M.1969. Comparison of the effects of marihuana and alcohol insimulated dr iving performance. Sc i..nee Vol. 164(3881) :851-854.

Dott, A.B. 1974. Effect of marijuana on aggression and riskaccept ance in an aut omo t ive simulator. Clinical Toxicol ogyVol. 7( 3): 289 .

Ellingst ad , V.S.; McFarl ing, L.II. & Struckman , D.L. 1973.A lcoh ol , Mar i!.>1I" na and Ri sk Tak ing , Contract No. DOT-HS­191-2-301 , University o f Sou th Dak ot a, Vermillion.

Grilly, D.l\t 1977. People 's views on marihuana, drugs, anddriving: A changing scene. j oum al of Psy chedelic Drug s Vol.9(4 ): 311-315 .

) ones, F. 19 76 . Is driving " high " dangerous? lIead Vol. 1: 37-38.Klein, A.W. ; Davis, ) .H. & Blackbourne, B.D. 1971. Mar ihuana

and automo bile crashes. j ournal of Drug' l ssu..s Vol. 1: 18-26.Klonoff, II. 1974. Marijuana and driving in real-life situations.

Sci..nc.. Vol. 186(4161): 317-324.Linnoila, M. 1974. Effects of drugs and alcohol on psychomotor

skills related to driving. Annals of Clinical Research Vol. 6 :7-18.

journal of Psychoactive Drugs 379

Moskowitz, H. 1976. Marihuana and driving. A cc ide n t A nal y sis

and Prevention Vol. 8 : 21·26.Moskowitz, H. ; Hulbert, S. & McGlothlin, W.H. 1976. Mari­

huana: Effects on simulated driving performance. A ccid entAnaly sis and Prevention Vol. 8: 45 -50.

NIDA. 1979. National Survey of DYlIg A bus ...· Main Findi ngs1979. Vol. 6. Contract No. 271 -78-3508, Response AnalysisCorporati on, Princeton, New) ersey, and the Social ResearchGroup of George Washington University, Washington, D.e.

Rafaelson, 0 .) . ; Bech, P. ; Christ iansen, ) . ; Ch rist ru p, H. ; Nyboe,) . & Rafaelson, L. 1973. Cannabis and alcohol : Effec ts onsimulated car dr iving. Scie nce Vol. 179(4076 ): 920-923 .

Smart , RG. 1974. Marihuana and dri ving risk amo ng co llegestu dents. J ournal of Safe ty R esear ch Vol. 6 (4) : 155-158.

Thompson, P. 1975. "Stoned" driving is unpleasant, say m ar i­ju ana smo kers. Tb e .Iournal (Addict ion Research Foundation)VoI.4(l) : 13.

Waller, ).A.; Lamborn, K.R. & Steffenhagen, R.A. 1974.Mar ihuana and driving among teenagers: Reported use pat­terns, effects, and experiences related to dri ving . A ccidentAnaly sis and Prevention Vol. 6 : 141-161.

Vol. 13(4) Oct-Dec, 1981

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

58 1

2 A

pril

2015