Drug Impaired Driving in North America: An Examination of Enacted Policy in Comparison to Accompanying Crash Data

Abstract

This dissertation investigates whether the implementation of per se limits—specific concentration measurements of a substance in the blood specified in legal code—for delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in Canada, and North America as a whole, has had unintended social consequences that are counter to the stated goals of legalization and democratic society. Additionally, this dissertation investigates whether the application of an alcohol ignition interlock—a device meant to prevent the starting of a vehicle when a driver has alcohol in their system—to convicted drug impaired drivers is effective at enhancing road safety. This project outlines the scientific research pertaining to per se limits for THC, and associated gaps, as well as the legal and regulatory mechanisms used to enact per se limits. Several sequential evaluations of programs from North American jurisdictions were conducted to determine if there is a statistically significant relationship between applying the interlock, as well as enacting per se laws for THC, and a decline in the odds of an injury sustained due to an impaired driving crash. Results indicate these interventions are not consistently associated with a decline in the odds of injury, therefore it is unclear if they are effective at enhancing road safety. Road safety initiatives are framed as a manifestation of Habermas’ thesis of internal colonization. Namely, in attempting to legalize cannabis consumption and reduce fatalities, Canadian lawmakers may have created a framework which further criminalizes cannabis users. This could erect significant social and legal barriers under the guise of justice. The theoretical analysis in this dissertation posits that the processes under which these sanctions/policies were implemented are indicative of a ‘fifth wave’ of juridification—one which colonizes through the implementation of a system of risk management.