Marijuana Is Not Linked to Car Crashes

#101
#101
Give_All_Vol said:
Honest question. Is it a WC requirement because it is an illegal drug or because of the effects weed has? I'm not sure if you know but it would be interesting to see the verbiage there.

Also, this goes back to one of the first things that I said in this thread. Problem solved if you have a way to test whether there is active THC in the system or if there is only the residual that stays for a month. No more randoms testing for pot because you could find out if a person was high during the accident, not 8 days before or whatever
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know the exact answer. I would believe that the insurance underwriters have had actuaries study this and conclude drug users have higher accident rates.
 
#106
#106
hog88 said:
I'm all for legalization under 1 condition. Let employers maintain/set their drug policies if they choose.
Click to expand...

This is the current modus operandi in Co. My client fired his daughter for her cannibas use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#112
#112
FLVOL_79 said:
Booze, weed, no biggies..its the texting that gets ya.

In Orlando we have a hit and run or pedestrian death DAILY (usually multiples) because of booze/texting. Kids have been the recent recipients of the ol' hit n run.
Click to expand...

Female (I think?) went by me on 40 yesterday putting on makeup, talkin on the phone and eating a Chikfila biscuit. I call it driving while stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#113
#113
hog88 said:
I honestly don't know the exact answer. I would believe that the insurance underwriters have had actuaries study this and conclude drug users have higher accident rates.
Click to expand...

That just seems flawed. You don't have to send your employees in for ETG testing to find out if they have consumed alcohol in the last 3 days. But they do have to concede to a test that would show whether they smoked weeks ago. That doesn't make any sense considering the effects of both last a very comparable amount of time. And it would be very hard to convince me that people under the influence of marijuana cause/have more accidents than a person under the influence of alcohol.
 
#114
#114
Give_All_Vol said:
That just seems flawed. You don't have to send your employees in for ETG testing to find out if they have consumed alcohol in the last 3 days. But they do have to concede to a test that would show whether they smoked weeks ago. That doesn't make any sense considering the effects of both last a very comparable amount of time. And it would be very hard to convince me that people under the influence of marijuana cause/have more accidents than a person under the influence of alcohol.
Click to expand...

I don't make the rules.
 
#117
#117
hog88 said:
Naiveté on display right there.

Insurance underwriters could care less about legal/illegal behavior. They care about 1 thing and that's keeping your premium money.
Click to expand...

But it's completely ignorant to say that legality doesn't play into their bottom line, and how insurance companies treat that liability.
 
#118
#118
n_huffhines said:
But it's completely ignorant to say that legality doesn't play into their bottom line, and how insurance companies treat that liability.
Click to expand...

If their studies showed drug use decreased accident rates and reduced claim payments I'm sure they would drop their requirements.
 
#119
#119
Right. Actuaries will adjust to the reality of the situation. If you are just talking tort cases, stripping the label "illegal" from most any accident that involves marijuana will likely lower the liability.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top