"Kava drinkers may be safer drivers than drunks, new research has found... But [a] University of Waikato researcher ... said no one should jump to conclusions..."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/95239695/hazy-results-for-waikato-university-kava-study
I do appreciate your comments there:
"Casualties from road accidents are the leading cause of hospitalisation for Pasifika men and women in New Zealand. Aporosa, a former police officer, said anecdotal reports suggest this could be linked to consumption of kava.
Since the study, Aporosa said he has met with police, who were also surprised by the findings.
In light of these results, he will hold off on public awareness campaigns he would have carried out if kava had been found to badly affect driving ability.
"One of my concerns at the moment is that Pacifikans could potentially hear that Apo's done these tests and go, Look! We're fine to drive!
"I think that is a mistake to jump to that conclusion, I think we still need to be very careful."
especially your concerns about how to talk about these findings. So, on the one hand, "anecdotal reports" suggest that kava could be causing increased accidents. But these
preliminary findings would seem to contradict that. So I can appreciate your caution in not wanting to encourage people to drive after drinking kava. I know from personal experience that on some occasions when I have drunk a lot of kava--probably way too much--I have had symptoms like dizziness, blurred vision and muscle incoordination that would have make it very dangerous if I had tried to drive (which I didn't). So, as a community of kava drinkers, we really don't want to encourage anyone to drive if they have been drinking a lot, or even a moderate amount, of kava, because common sense tells us that it can be dangerous. But on the other hand, we don't want to ignore the science. And I understand these results are preliminary: you need to verify them, and figure out what is actually going on in more detail. But when the true effect of kava drinking on driving is understood better, it would behoove us to be honest about the results. If it does turn out that kava is less dangerous than alcohol for driving, people should know that information. That could actually be life saving information, if you say something like: "We know that both alcohol and kava can cause impaired driving, but we also know that alcohol is more impairing than kava. We don't recommend driving under the influence of anything, though. And if you
combine kava with alcohol it is extremely dangerous..." Maybe someone hearing that would choose to drink kava instead of alcohol. And hopefully they won't get behind the wheel no matter what, but if they do, the consequences could on average be less severe. If you get a less dramatic scientific result than you expected with kava, you still need to talk about it, is what I'm trying to say. People will talk anyway. But I understand that it is a very delicate situation, because you don't want to cause harm by making people think that there is officially zero danger associated with drinking kava and driving, when that is not true at all.
Regarding the "anecdotal reports" I really wonder how much of that is just kava vs. a combination of alcohol and kava, and possibly other things? In other words, if someone gets in an accident and they are found to have been drinking alcohol and kava, since alcohol is so much more commonplace, the anecdote that the police tell about the incident might emphasize the fact that kava was involved and gloss over the alcohol.