Evaluation of Field Sobriety Tests for Identifying Drivers Under the Influence of Cannabis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: With increasing medicinal and recreational cannabis legalization, there is a public health need for effective and unbiased evaluations for determining whether a driver is impaired due to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) exposure. Field sobriety tests (FSTs) are a key component of the gold standard law enforcement officer-based evaluations, yet controlled studies are inconclusive regarding their efficacy in detecting whether a person is under the influence of THC. Objective: To examine the classification accuracy of FSTs with respect to cannabis exposure and driving impairment (as determined via a driving simulation). Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 2017 to June 2019 at the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, University of California, San Diego. Participants were aged 21 to 55 years and had used cannabis in the past month. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to April 2023. Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo (0.02% THC), 5.9% THC cannabis, or 13.4% THC cannabis smoked ad libitum. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was law enforcement officer determination of FST impairment at 4 time points after smoking. Additional measures included officer estimation as to whether participants were in the THC or placebo group as well as driving simulator data. Officers did not observe driving performance. Results: The study included 184 participants (117 [63.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 30 [8.3] years) who had used cannabis a mean (SD) of 16.7 (9.8) days in the past 30 days; 121 received THC and 63, placebo. Officers classified 98 participants (81.0%) in the THC group and 31 (49.2%) in the placebo group as FST impaired (difference, 31.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 16.4-47.2 percentage points; P < .001) at 70 minutes after smoking. The THC group performed significantly worse than the placebo group on 8 of 27 individual FST components (29.6%) and all FST summary scores. However, the placebo group did not complete a median of 8 (IQR, 5-11) FST components as instructed. Of 128 participants classified as FST impaired, officers suspected 127 (99.2%) as having received THC. Driving simulator performance was significantly associated with results of select FSTs (eg, ≥2 clues on One Leg Stand was associated with impairment on the simulator: odds ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.63-5.88; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that when administered by highly trained officers, FSTs differentiated between individuals receiving THC vs placebo and driving abilities were associated with results of some FSTs. However, the high rate at which the participants receiving placebo failed to adequately perform FSTs and the high frequency that poor FST performance was suspected to be due to THC-related impairment suggest that FSTs, absent other indicators, may be insufficient to denote THC-specific impairment in drivers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02849587.

Driving Performance and Cannabis Users' Perception of Safety: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Expanding cannabis medicalization and legalization increases the urgency to understand the factors associated with acute driving impairment. OBJECTIVE: To determine, in a large sample of regular cannabis users, the magnitude and time course of driving impairment produced by smoked cannabis of different Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, the effects of use history, and concordance between perceived impairment and observed performance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel randomized clinical trial took place from February 2017 to June 2019 at the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, University of California San Diego. Cannabis users were recruited for this study, and analysis took place between April 2020 and September 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Placebo or 5.9% or 13.4% THC cannabis smoked ad libitum. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the Composite Drive Score (CDS), which comprised key driving simulator variables, assessed prior to smoking and at multiple time points postsmoking. Additional measures included self-perceptions of driving impairment and cannabis use history. RESULTS: Of 191 cannabis users, 118 (61.8%) were male, the mean (SD) age was 29.9 (8.3) years, and the mean (SD) days of use in the past month was 16.7 (9.8). Participants were randomized to the placebo group (63 [33.0%]), 5.9% THC (66 [34.6%]), and 13.4% THC (62 [32.5%]). Compared with placebo, the THC group significantly declined on the Composite Drive Score at 30 minutes (Cohen d = 0.59 [95% CI, 0.28-0.90]; P < .001) and 1 hour 30 minutes (Cohen d = 0.55 [95% CI, 0.24-0.86]; P < .001), with borderline differences at 3 hours 30 minutes (Cohen d = 0.29 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.60]; P = .07) and no differences at 4 hours 30 minutes (Cohen d = -0.03 [95% CI, -0.33 to 0.28]; P = .87). The Composite Drive Score did not differ based on THC content (likelihood ratio χ24 = 3.83; P = .43) or use intensity (quantity × frequency) in the past 6 months (likelihood ratio χ24 = 1.41; P = .49), despite postsmoking blood THC concentrations being higher in those with the highest use intensity. Although there was hesitancy to drive immediately postsmoking, increasing numbers (81 [68.6%]) of participants reported readiness to drive at 1 hour 30 minutes despite performance not improving from initial postsmoking levels. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Smoking cannabis ad libitum by regular users resulted in simulated driving decrements. However, when experienced users control their own intake, driving impairment cannot be inferred based on THC content of the cigarette, behavioral tolerance, or THC blood concentrations. Participants' increasing willingness to drive at 1 hour 30 minutes may indicate a false sense of driving safety. Worse driving performance is evident for several hours postsmoking in many users but appears to resolve by 4 hours 30 minutes in most individuals. Further research is needed on the impact of individual biologic differences, cannabis use history, and administration methods on driving performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02849587.

Blood and Oral Fluid Cannabinoid Profiles of Frequent and Occasional Cannabis Smokers.

Increased prevalence of cannabis consumption and impaired driving are a growing public safety concern. Some states adopted per se driving laws, making it illegal to drive with more than a specified blood concentration of ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in a biological fluid (typically blood). Blood THC concentrations decrease significantly (∼90%) with delays in specimen collection, suggesting the use of alternative matrices, such as oral fluid (OF). We characterized 10 cannabinoids' concentrations, including THC metabolites, in blood and OF from 191 frequent and occasional users by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry for up to 6 h after ad libitum smoking. Subjects self-titrated when smoking placebo, 5.9 or 13.4% THC cannabis. Higher maximum blood THC concentrations (Cmax) were observed in individuals who received the 5.9% THC versus the 13.4% THC plant material. In blood, the Cmax of multiple analytes, including THC and its metabolites, were increased in frequent compared to occasional users, whereas there were no significant differences in OF Cmax. Blood THC remained detectable (≥5 ng/mL) at the final sample collection for 14% of individuals who smoked either the 5.9 or 13.4% THC cigarette, whereas 54% had detectable THC in OF when applying the same cutoff. Occasional and frequent cannabis users' profiles were compared, THC was detectable for significantly longer duration in blood and OF from frequent users. Detection rates between frequent and occasional users at multiple per se cutoffs showed larger differences in blood versus OF. Understanding cannabinoid profiles of frequent and occasional users and the subsequent impact on detectability with current drug per se driving limits is important to support forensic interpretations and the development of scientifically supported driving under the influence of cannabis laws.