[ae_keji]

>Also, results of this study do not indicate that drivers with detectable THC in their blood at the time of the crash we re necessarily impaired by THC or that they were at-fault for the crash; the data availabl e cannot be used to assess whether a given driver was actually impaired, and examination of fault in individual crashes was beyond the scope of this study

If there was a general increase in accidents, I think you would have a point, but all this conclusively demonstrates is that there has been an increase of marijuana usage among the population of Washington. The thing about how these drug tests work, is that they do not test impairment or if someone was high at the time, but if they were high within the past few hours to days. I think you're misunderstanding, that even if there is THC in someone's bloodstream, it does not mean they are high. It is possible that none of the drivers in the study were high at the time of their crashes, and all of them smoked the day before. It is also possible that every single one was high during the collision. Due to the nature of the testing, the linked study is not very conclusive on at least what you're trying to prove from it.