Correlation Between Marijuana Legalization and Increased DUIs

Marijuana and the use of Cannabis have long been touted to offer certain health benefits for the immunocompromised and chronically ill, except it is still illegal in most of the world. Countries like the Netherlands, Jamaica, Costa Rica, Spain, and a few others have legalized the sale of recreational marijuana among rising public popularity. The main psychoactive component of cannabis is THC which produces the high sensation and can be inhaled or ingested. Users exposed to THC experience relaxing effects, including heightened sensory perception, euphoria, and an altered perception of time. THC can also be directly ingested, delaying the effects by more than 30 minutes. The effects of cannabis usually last up to 3 hours, although evidence of THC can remain in the body for days after initial use. 

Each person reacts differently to THC ingestion, but increased popularity and legalization around the world have contributed to concerns about its impact on driver safety. In the United States, more than 1.5 million people are arrested for driving under the influence each year. Studies in Colorado suggest an increase of marijuana-related DUIs by more than 48% last year, with an increasing trend over the last five years. The rising frequency DUIs is concerning because a large percentage may correlate with areas that have legalized marijuana. In recent years, the same study also identified increased frequency in marijuana-impaired drivers’ roles in deadly car accidents. 

Assessing impairment from a marijuana user is much harder than in individuals under the influence of alcohol. Despite recent increases in legalization and recreational use of marijuana, law enforcement has yet to identify an accurate and reliable test to determine a driver’s level of intoxication. The equivalent test for alcohol impairment is the breathalyzer test used to determine the blood alcohol content as it corresponds to legal limits. There are blood tests used for THC identification, but they do not provide an accurate assessment of an individual’s level of impairment because of the chemical’s varying effects with each person. New developments in law enforcement have focussed on creating behavioral tests to assess individual impairment, similar to methods used to confirm alcohol intoxication. 

Developing accurate tests is vital for driver’s safety and the ability of law enforcement to assess impaired individuals. Regular marijuana users have produced blood profiles that indicate stores of THC can remain detectable in the blood for 30 days in some cases. These THC levels are often higher than local DUI limits, even though the individual has not recently ingested marijuana. 

Factors impacting DUI statistics include regional THC blood limits, driving laws, past offenses, and law enforcement discretion. The consequences of driving under the influence are also different depending on the region but can implicate an individual up to a year in jail. 

Understanding the use of marijuana as it impacts drivers’ abilities and law enforcement methods for impairment detection are quickly becoming an increasingly vital area of research. Investments will continue to increase as recreational use becomes legalized in other parts of the world.

ILO’s Global Campaign for Ratification of Violence and Harassment

The International Labour Organization Convention 190 on violence and harassment in the world of work held a convention on June 25th, 2021. Many global unions will be launching a toolkit to support the Convention 190 (C190) and its Recommendation 206 (R206). This manual will provide many unions worldwide with tools to eradicate violence and harassment in the world of work. Millions of workers are affected by physical assault, bullying, sexual harassment, online abuse, economic violence, and abusive work practices globally. These are some of the most widespread forms of violence in the workforce. 

The COVID-19 pandemic deepened pre-existing inequalities and exposed vulnerabilities in social, political, and economic systems. A report by the UN shows that violence against women has intensified in the past year. Many women and girls felt economic impacts, and the global gender pay gap is stuck at 16%, with women paid up to 35% less than men in some countries. 

The toolkit will aim to provide unions with tools to develop workplace solutions that tackle violence and harassment with a special focus on gender-based violence and harassment and ensure that violence is not considered “part of the job.” 

Christy Hoffman, UNI Global Union General Secretary, said:

“Unions fought relentlessly to win this Convention. Now that it has come into force, we must make sure more countries ratify it and that it is properly implemented. There is still a long road ahead and this toolkit is another step for unions to gain the necessary knowhow that will enable them to put the ILO Convention 190 and Recommendation 206 into practice so that workers live in a world free from violence and harassment.”

The toolkit consists of a facilitators’ guide and an activities workbook. It aims to:

• Encourage discussion about violence and harassment and gender-based violence in the world of work.

• Raise awareness about Convention 190, its accompanying Recommendation R206, and its significance for workers – particularly women workers.

• Encourage unions across the world to campaign for the ratification of Convention 190 and its effective implementation in line with Recommendation 206.

• Encourage unions to use these instruments to integrate Convention 190 into the union bargaining agenda.

• Build stronger unions to enable workers to assert their rights to a world of work free from violence and harassment.

Canadian Public Health Experts Discuss Pros and Cons of Disclosing COVID Outbreaks at Businesses

An article by the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) discussed the ethics and concerns of disclosing the names of businesses where COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred. When an outbreak of infection at a workplace is identified, standard public health practice is to publicly reveal the name of the workplace only if all contacts cannot be traced and a risk to the public is identified. 

In Canada, many larger cities such as Toronto and Hamilton have a reporting policy. In contrast, Ontario has no approach to reporting since the decision is left up to administrators of local health units. The authors of the article talk about the pros and cons of providing information to the public that could be seen as essential in letting a person make an informed decision on whether they want to visit a particular business. 

However, there are also many reasons that businesses may not publicly state that their workplace had an outbreak, the most prominent being people’s right to privacy. The article believes that it is vital to protect workers from stigma, public shaming, and harassment that could be associated with COVID-19. "Moreover, businesses that are outed as having an outbreak of infectious disease may face serious consequences that in turn may lead to loss of employment for workers and downstream effects for local economies," said the article.

An argument for letting employers know about outbreaks is that people are more likely to cooperate with efforts of the public health agencies to control an outbreak by allowing rapid access and intervention to protect workers. Ontario’s stay-at-home order expired on June 2nd, but existing restrictions on gathering, businesses, services, and activities will remain in effect for the time being. This includes limiting outdoor gatherings to up to five people, limiting essential retail capacity to 25%, restricting non-essential retail to do curbside pick-up and delivery, and prohibiting indoor gatherings. 

In the US, there are 28 OSHA-approved State Plans that set standards and enforcement programs and must be at least as effective as OSHA in protecting workers and in preventing work-related injuries, illnesses, and death. 

In conclusion, the article in the CMAJ states that more collaboration is needed between public health agencies and workplaces to ensure that such things as paid sick leave and better infection controls come into play. 

UN Leaders Urging Companies to Take Measures to Protect Seafarers’ Rights

The United Nations has issued a list of human rights to business enterprises that are engaged in the maritime industry to protect seafarers that may be stranded on ships due to new COVID-19 variants and government-imposed travel restrictions. The Human Rights Due Diligence Tool is a joint initiative by the UN Global Compact, UN Human Rights Office, International Labour Organization (ILO), and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The tool provides guidance and a checklist for cargo owners, charterers, and logistics providers to conduct human rights due diligence across their supply chains to identify, prevent, mitigate and address adverse human rights impacts for seafarers. 

Amid concerns about the number of crew stranded working beyond their contacts at sea due to COVID-19 restrictions, UN agencies hope the new guidance will help ensure that the working conditions are respected and comply with international standards. The guidance aims to ensure that seafarers have rights safeguarded, such as physical and mental health, and access to family life, and freedom of movement. 

Although the maritime industry contributes more than 80% of global trade goods, there have been reports that seafarers are working way beyond the 11-month maximum limit of service on board. An estimated 200,000 crew are stuck on commercial vessels globally amid recent attempts to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Unilever and other big retail brands are among consumer giants adopting a toolkit to audit their shipping supply chains to help bring seafarers stuck on commercial vessels back home and eliminate human rights risks. 

Any company that puts any cargo on ships will be encouraged to use the checklist, which includes asking ship owners and those who charter space on vessels to support crew changes and ensure clauses aren’t being added to contracts that prevent crew relief.

The EU Is Preparing to Launch Legal Proceedings Against Vaccine Producer AstraZeneca Over Vaccine Shortfalls

The European Union and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca have had a rough vaccine rollout, and many are complaining that regulators were too slow to approve the shots. AstraZeneca repeatedly slashed its delivery commitments, telling the public that they could not deliver as many vaccines as the bloc was counting on, which has led to delays in the COVID-19 vaccine in 27 EU nations. 

The European Commission raised the matter at a meeting of EU ambassadors Wednesday, during which the majority of EU countries said they would support suing the company on the grounds that it massively under-delivered pledged coronavirus vaccine doses to the bloc. However, five to six countries have raised concerns about launching a lawsuit against AstraZeneca, saying that the lawsuit wouldn’t guarantee that the EU got more doses. 

Some ambassadors also felt that launching a lawsuit would damage the image of AstraZeneca, diminishing citizens’ trust in the vaccine. In March, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had expressed disappointment with AstraZeneca during a press conference, saying that “AstraZeneca has unfortunately under-produced and under-delivered. And this painfully, of course, reduced the speed of the vaccination campaign.” AstraZeneca’s CEO Pascal Soriot had told EU lawmakers in February that low yields at EU production plants were causing the delays. 

EU countries also discussed on Wednesday contracts for more EU vaccines, following the Commission’s announcement last week that the EU secured 1.8 billion BioNTech/Pfizer vaccines through 2023. According to a diplomat, some ambassadors worried that the EU essentially is giving Pfizer a “monopoly” and said the EU needs to have a broad portfolio of vaccines. 

A spokesman for AstraZeneca said the company was not aware of any legal proceedings "and continues to hold regular discussions on supply with the commission and member states.” The EU has also decided not to take up an option to buy 100 million extra doses of AstraZeneca under the contract, after safety concerns about very rare cases of blood clots linked to the vaccine as well as supply delays.