Feels like a low sample size, but I'm not statistician or doctor.
That said, almost everyone I know that consumes THC has no qualms driving while doing it, and many of them also at work. It's a huge peeve of mine.
That said, almost everyone I know that consumes THC has no qualms driving while doing it, and many of them also at work. It's a huge peeve of mine.
I wonder how many of these people were under the influence of alcohol and other substances.
That said, I don't do either. I also wouldn't take any amount of weed while working, but I'd feel comfortable having a beer during lunch if appropriate (work lunch/celebrate, e.g.).
Its not a sample, it is the whole universe of analysis. (If you treat it as a sample of, say, US drivers killed in accidents in the same period, then errors due to sample size are probably the least of its problems.)
The article says the research was "focusing on 246 deceased drivers who were tested for THC", and that the test usually happens when autopsies are performed. It doesn't say if autopsies are performed for all driver deaths, and it also doesn't say what exactly is "usually".
If (for example) autopsy only happens when the driver is suspected of drug use, then there's a clear selection bias.
Note that this doesn't mean the study is useless: they were able to see that legalization of cannabis didn't have impact on recreational use.