This is post number six of our six part post on Pharmacology. Our posts will focus on the following topics:
Part 1. Introduction
Part 2. Pharmacokinetics
Part 3. Pharmacodynamics
Part 4. Bioavailabilty
Part 5. “Free versus Bound Drug”
Part 6. Elucidating Pharmacodynamic Effect from an Analytical Chemistry Result

I have posted in essence this part 6 earlier here:

False Conclusions and False Convictions: Attempts of Elucidating Pharmacodynamic Effect from an Analytical Chemistry Result-How Solely an Analytical Chemistry Result in a DUID Prosecution Cannot Scientifically Support a Conclusion of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs

With the above prior post, we are now able to take a look at the statistics offered by the research, and by the government with a brand new educated perspecitve. Here is what they say:

• Combined 2006 to 2009 data indicate that 13.2 percent of persons aged 16 or older (an estimated 30.6 million persons) drove under the influence of alcohol in the past year and 4.3 percent (an estimated 10.1 million persons) drove under the influence of illicit drugs in the same time period
• The rates of past year drunk driving were among the highest in Wisconsin (23.7 percent) and North Dakota (22.4 percent); the rates of drugged driving were among the highest in Rhode Island (7.8 percent) and Vermont (6.6 percent)
• When combined 2002 to 2005 data are compared with combined 2006 to 2009 data, the Nation as a whole experienced statistically significant reductions in the rates of drunk driving (from 14.6 to 13.2 percent) and drugged driving (from 4.8 to 4.3 percent); 12 States saw reductions in drunk driving rates, and 7 saw reductions in drugged driving rates

According to SAMSHA:

Source: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/205/DruggedDriving.htm

The question becomes how does SAMSHA and the federal government define the term “drugged driving?” Does this mean impairment or presence of any measurable amount of drug (even if it is not pharmacology active)? How do they determine impairment? Does it require analytical chemistry confirmation or is it just based upon observation or opinion of the officer? Is this based upon self-reporting of a survey or number of criminal charges or number of criminal convictions?