1. Impairment from THC, or
2. Worse than average driving and risk management skills in those who use the drug
It could just be that 40% of the population is over the limit on THC all the time. Unless we can compare this against something else, and we can somehow normalize the comparison for other factors like age, I don't know how we can use the data.
Critically, people are more likely to get in accidents later in the day and after drinking both of which also correlate with relatively recent cannabis consumption.
Restraints play such a pivotal role in crash safety, but not wearing them isn't a meaningful indicator of impairment status.
If non-weeders have an average seat belt wearing, and if weeders also have an average seat belt wearing, then the proportion of weeders inside of the seat belt non-wearing class is just equal to the proportion of weeders inside the whole population.
The people who don't wear seatbelts are in my observation old folks who grew up without them or before using them was mandatory. It's just their habit.
I've almost never seen a person under about age 40 not using a seatbelt.
I don't know any old people that don't wear seatbelts.
The people I do know that don't wear seatbelts also live pretty otherwise high risk lives, drug dealers, strippers, street gang members,etc.
I have to admit, the car safety argument is among the most persuasive, like do you want to get harmed? But in reality the question is not about "harming and nothing more", the question is about growing the egregious power AND caring about the tax payers simultaneously.
But even simpler is just a pacifier. Trivial.
People were rambling on about how they basically live in the Soviet Union.
It could be seat belts, of course, but I don't think that's the obvious conclusion.