No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI

[lampost]

Colo. may set limits for driving after marijuana use - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_16780152)

This is pretty fucked up...

I believe the blood level is 5ng/ml. I need to do a bit more research, but I think if you're a fairly heavy smoker (i.e. a few times a day), then your levels are pretty much always going to be at this level or higher. So basically you won't be able to drive ever without risk of getting a DUI.

Way to go Colorado!!! What is motivating this law? Is there really a problem with stoned drivers??

[Dorje113]

From the Denver Post:

"In Colorado, THC or some other form of marijuana showed up in 26 of the 312 drivers killed that year."

That's 8.3% of drivers. I bet over 10% of CO residents would have detectable THC or metabolites in their system at any given time, if so that means you are less likely to die in a car accident compared to the general population. That's why we call 'em "safety breaks" when snowboarding and mt. biking.

[denverbear]

so what kind of testing is there that will show thc levels in the blood...and if you have gone 8 hours from smoke to throttle will you be considered still stoned or will it be treated like booze and they can't do a darned thing ??

[lampost]

From the Denver Post:

"In Colorado, THC or some other form of marijuana showed up in 26 of the 312 drivers killed that year."

That's 8.3% of drivers. I bet over 10% of CO residents would have detectable THC or metabolites in their system at any given time, if so that means you are less likely to die in a car accident compared to the general population. That's why we call 'em "safety breaks" when snowboarding and mt. biking.

Dorje good point!

I was kind of thinking the same thing...

[SoCoMMJ]

I could be mis quoting some things, but there are different THC metabolites.

The THC-COOH stays in your bloodstream only for a short time after smoking. 4 hours after consumption i think is a time frame I saw somewhere.

The THCa is what they find during drug testing that remains in your system for a very long time.

Read through some of these studies to get a grasp on Marijuana and Driving.
Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/driving.htm)

[Dnutz]

wow... if this bullshit law passes, im packing my bags and moving elsewhere... since when has it ever been a problem to drive high? people have been doing this for a few DECADES now and its never been a problem, why all of the sudden is this becoming an issue? I can answer that pretty easily, $$$$$$$$$ is the bottom line to the assholes in politics... its never going to be enough!

[copobo]

if you are an edibles user you will never be under the limit.

[lampost]

And many heavy smokers will never be under the limit...

For most people it only stays in the blood for several hours, but there are some studies that show it in the blood for a matter of days for heavy smokers...

The best strategy in the future will just not give them a reason to think that you're high. Cops will say anything (and even make shit up) if they think you're a stoner and they can nab you...

If I ever got pulled over and this became an issue I would DEMAND a field sobriety test. Hell, those are pretty easy to pass if you're not drunk!

[gypski]

And many heavy smokers will never be under the limit...

For most people it only stays in the blood for several hours, but there are some studies that show it in the blood for a matter of days for heavy smokers...

The best strategy in the future will just not give them a reason to think that you're high. Cops will say anything (and even make shit up) if they think you're a stoner and they can nab you...

If I ever got pulled over and this became an issue I would DEMAND a field sobriety test. Hell, those are pretty easy to pass if you're not drunk!

I'm so saturated with cannabis molecules in my system, there is no way I'd pass their bullshit tests. Its just another way to take a way what freedoms we gain. One of the main things I don't trust as far as I can spit. The government. :thumbsup:

[denverbear]

I have been told to always say to an officer if stopped that I have not smoked any medicine in over 8 hours...if you tell them it was only a couple of hours before then you are dead meat....food for thought.

[HighPopalorum]

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

[copobo]

reasonable skills based testing is the only way. levels of cannabis in someone's system are no marker for sobriety.

[ds0110]

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

Youre already at risk when you get in the car. Simply driving while high hurts no one. Sobriety alone does not make driving safer. Your chances of being in a wreck with a sober person are much higher than being in a wreck with someone who is actually "drugged/intoxicated" at the time. There are already laws against causing bodily injury during a wreck, no matter what the reason was. Whether theyre high, drunk, playing with their stereo, or messing with their cell phone...its all the same cause and result. Someone wasnt paying attention, and messed up. If we're going to do this, we should make ALL possible distractions illegal. No noise above a certain level, no open food containers in the vehicle, no talking on the cell phone, backseats must be separated from front seats by 3" noiseproof glass, no vehicles will run for longer than 2 hours at a time bc people lose focus.....lol....

There is no need for this law other than criminalizing a greater number of the general population. Unless they plan on blood testing everyone they come in contact with, its pretty much impossible to enforce also. Are they going to claim that by having a license and driving I agreed to having my blood forcibly removed while being assaulted and battered?? Because thats what theyre going to do when I refuse...

Stats of "drugged driving" are skewed by mj's half life. The actual # of people who were stoned when they wrecked is way lower. The actual # of people who wrecked directly because of mj is even lower.

Everyone's body is different, whos to say what sensible is? Who sets that number, and what goes into deciding that threshold? Its obviously lower than when you actually make a driving violation, so where is it set?

Also, they need to test for psilocybin, lsd, peyote, and ecstasy as well. And id bet there is a bigger problem with meth and driving, especially with professional drivers, than mj and driving...

[gypski]

Drive defensively. Don't speed more the 5 mph over, use your turn signal, don't use the cell while driving no matter whose calling, pull over first, and always, always look out for the other guy. And, let the local LEOs know your a medical user and maybe, if you drive defensively, they will leave you alone.

The last accident I had was partly my fault, but also the placement of the light. I was T-boned by two cars, all cars drove away, and I was issued a ticket that went away with no other offenses in a year due to the placement of the light and to avoid a trial. But, I missed a yellow watching an asshole driver cutting in and out in morning rush hour traffic. The officer never even brought up mmj and I damn sure didn't have alcohol on my breath, and I hadn't smoked anything yet that morning and was wanting to get home so I could. And, I was pissed the asshole cut me off. :twocents: more

[lampost]

I have been told to always say to an officer if stopped that I have not smoked any medicine in over 8 hours...if you tell them it was only a couple of hours before then you are dead meat....food for thought.

Better yet, don't tell him that you smoke at all!!! Why would you volunteer that information? Cops don't really consider it medicine and you're just setting yourself up to be hassled more.
If they do find out you're a patient (because you had some weed on you and had to present your card as defense) then tell them you only smoke occasionally when your arthritis flares up and it's been a couple days! Or something along those lines.
It's amazing that people still think cops are your friends. There's cops out there who'll be chomping at the bit to drag you downtown for this...

[lampost]

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

Figures...

Typical troll response.

The fact of the matter is that you can be totally sober and still have >5ng/mL of THC metabolites in your blood...

And who is coming up with this arbitrary limit of 5ng/mL... scientists or politicians?

Let's see what you think when you're driving the morning after getting high and you get a frickin' DUI!

The point of this thread is that a reliable test can't be devised and sensible limits can't be set without occasionally penalizing responsible herb smokers...

[bikeTripper]

How is this testing to be done? I can't imagine cops taking blood samples on the side of the road. Is there some sort of breathalyzer for THC? The article talks about the limits, but doesn't mention the testing mechanism.

[denverbear]

Better yet, don't tell him that you smoke at all!!! Why would you volunteer that information? Cops don't really consider it medicine and you're just setting yourself up to be hassled more.
If they do find out you're a patient (because you had some weed on you and had to present your card as defense) then tell them you only smoke occasionally when your arthritis flares up and it's been a couple days! Or something along those lines.It's amazing that people still think cops are your friends. There's cops out there who'll be chomping at the bit to drag you downtown for this...
I kinda meant the same thing just did not say it a nice as you did...if they find it in your car always deny using it less then 8 hours..
better yet just don't drive and use medicine

[FarmerSteve]

Yeah, how do they test for this? And what is enough cause to make them have reasons to test you? People are swerving in and out of lanes 25/8 anywhere in Metro all day long. Can I just get pulled over and One Time says, "I think you're on some dope there Sonny, give me some BLOOD?"

Blood? My fucking blood? And if not it's DUI and a suspended DL?

Really? My Blood? I have to let them jab me, whenever they may feel the need?

I hope I'm missing something here :mad:

[ZZTops]

Off the NORML site... You Are Going Directly To Jail - NORML (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6492)

There's a new front in the "War on Drugs" and its name is DUID.

DUID, short for "driving under the influence of drugs," is the latest buzzword among politicians and police -- however, in this case, words can be deceiving.

Though billed by its sponsors as a necessary tool to crack down on "drugged driving" offenses,1 in reality, DUID laws -- in particular "zero tolerance" per se laws -- have little to do with promoting public safety or identifying motorists who drive while impaired. Rather, the enactment and enforcement of "zero tolerance" DUID legislation improperly defines many sober drivers as "intoxicated" solely because they were found to have consumed a controlled substance -- particularly marijuana -- at some previous, unspecified point in time.


DUID Defined

There are various types of DUID laws, some more pernicious than others. Today, every state has DUID legislation on the books. These laws fall into three distinct categories:


Effect-Based DUID Laws

Most state DUID laws are "effect based" laws. This legislation forbids drivers to operate a motor vehicle if they are either "under the influence" of a controlled substance, or if they have been rendered "incapable of driving safely" because of their use of an illicit drug. In order for a defendant to be convicted under this statute, a prosecutor must prove that the driver's observed impairment and/or incapacity was directly associated with the ingestion of an illicit substance. To do so, prosecutors typically rely on evidence gathered by law enforcement officers at the scene of an accident (i.e., a driver's failure to pass a field sobriety test, evidence that the motorist was driving at an excessive speed, etc.), testimony from a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), and/or a positive result from a blood or saliva test indicating recent consumption of a controlled substance. For the most part, this is a multidisciplinary standard that focuses on the totality of circumstances -- most importantly, whether the driver is observably impaired -- and accordingly punishes motorists who drive while impaired from having recently used illicit drugs.


Per Se DUID Laws

Per se laws prohibit drivers from operating a motor vehicle if they have greater than a set level of a drug or drug metabolite present in their system. Most Americans are already familiar with the most common driving-related per se laws: those governing drunk driving which define a driver as legally impaired per se if their blood alcohol level tests above .08%. Similar per se laws with strictly defined cut-off levels (a designated level of an active drug constituent or metabolite above which a sample is considered to be "positive" for a specific drug) are uncommon for DUID legislation.2 This is because, according to the US Department of Transportation: "Forensic toxicologists generally have failed to agree on specific [per se levels] that could be designated as evidence of impairment. The lack of consensus about per se levels of drugs where impairment could be deemed makes it difficult to identify, prosecute or convict drugged drivers in most states."3


"Zero Tolerance" Per Se Laws

Politicians and police have a simple, if unscientific, response to researchers' failure to define per se standards for DUID offenses: to enact "zero tolerance" per se laws. In their strictest form, these laws forbid drivers from operating a motor vehicle if they have any detectable level of an illicit drug or drug metabolite present in their bodily fluids.

This approach is not based on science but on convenience. In essence, "zero tolerance" per se laws define a new, driving-related offense that is, in the words of one of its chief proponents, "divorced from impairment." Under this standard, any driver who tests positive for any trace amount of an illicit drug or drug metabolite (i.e., compounds produced from chemical changes of a drug in the body, but not necessarily psychoactive themselves), is guilty per se of the crime of "drugged driving," even if the defendant was sober. In the case of marijuana, these laws are particularly troublesome. THC, marijuana's main psychoactive constituent, may be detected at low levels in the blood of heavy cannabis users for 1-2 days after past use.4 Marijuana's primary metabolite THC-COOH, the most common indicator of marijuana use in workplace drug tests, is detectable in urine for days and sometimes weeks after past use5-- long after any psychoactive effects have ceased. Consequently, under "zero tolerance" per se laws, a person who smoked a joint on Monday could conceivably be arrested the following Friday and charged with "drugged driving," even though he or she is no longer impaired or intoxicated.

To date, ten states have enacted "zero tolerance" per se laws: Arizona,6 Georgia,7 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,8 Michigan,9 Minnesota,10 Rhode Island, Utah,12 and Wisconsin.13 Among these, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, and Utah forbid drivers from operating a motor vehicle with any detectable level of a controlled substance or its metabolites in one's bodily fluids.

[copobo]

if you are in Boulder (especially) make an appointment to visit Clair Levey.

She's tried to be fair in the past. It would be good to scare her off the issue BEFORE the next session.

[senorx12562]

There is an article in the January issue of Reason magazine advocating abolition of DUI laws in favor of focusing on actual impairment that is particularly relevant to this discussion. Sorry, I couldn't find it online.

[PhatJay]

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

Couldn't agree more. As much as I adore cannabis (over 20 years a smoker) I think a lot of the people in this thread are letting their love for the beautiful weed, cloud their judgement. I believe the positive effects of cannabis outweigh the negative and ignoring the negative side makes us as bad as the people/government who peddle lies about cannabis and other drugs. I think we need to be as aware of the negatives as the postives so we can minimise any harmful impact and enjoy the benefits of this wonderful plant.

Drink driving was socially acceptable and legal in my country less than 40 years ago. I have seen film footage of the public being interviewed just before drink driving laws came in and they had very similar arguments against the drink drive laws as those expressed here against DUID laws. I think my favourite line was.... "They are going to spoil a lot of peoples Christmas"

[MtnLionCO]

Couldn't agree more. As much as I adore cannabis (over 20 years a smoker) I think a lot of the people in this thread are letting their love for the beautiful weed, cloud their judgement. I believe the positive effects of cannabis outweigh the negative and ignoring the negative side makes us as bad as the people/government who peddle lies about cannabis and other drugs. I think we need to be as aware of the negatives as the postives so we can minimise any harmful impact and enjoy the benefits of this wonderful plant.

Drink driving was socially acceptable and legal in my country less than 40 years ago. I have seen film footage of the public being interviewed just before drink driving laws came in and they had very similar arguments against the drink drive laws as those expressed here against DUID laws. I think my favourite line was.... "They are going to spoil a lot of peoples Christmas"

Smoking weed doesn't impair your ability to drive a car man, most cops on the street understand this as well, I got stopped with a lit joint once and they let me follow them back to the police station because my passenger had warrants.

We certainly don't need stricter DUI laws. I drink a beer sometimes in my car too in the mountains after a long drive, so what? You can drink 3 beers and still be legally under the limit. Cops understand this as well, thats why there is a .08 limit, its not ZERO TOLERANCE.

[MtnLionCO]

More to the point, any sobriety test should be based on IMPAIRMENT, not some arbitrary limit set by the government.

[copobo]

the DUI setup is just another big money maker for the criminal justice system.

the limit is .06 for dwai, which isn't a cheap stroll in the park either.

Alcohol, is a major impairer. MJ, really isn't when you are talking about a regular user.

Marijuana Does Not Impair Driving Ability - Asylum.com (http://www.asylum.com/2010/06/02/university-of-iowa-marijuana-pot-herb-doesnt-impair-driving-ability/)

[HighPopalorum]

Drink driving was socially acceptable and legal in my country less than 40 years ago. I have seen film footage of the public being interviewed just before drink driving laws came in and they had very similar arguments against the drink drive laws as those expressed here against DUID laws. I think my favourite line was.... "They are going to spoil a lot of peoples Christmas"

I love the part in North by Northwest where Cary Grant gets a DUI, and is fined $2 and told to sleep it off after crashing drunkenly into a cop car! Thank goodness our laws and social norms have changed since then.

[PhatJay]

I drink a beer sometimes in my car too in the mountains after a long drive, so what? You can drink 3 beers and still be legally under the limit.

I wouldn't get in a car with a driver who had drunk 3 beers.

[MtnLionCO]

I don't advocate drinking and driving, but I know for a fact that I drive better when I am smoking my WEED. It might be because I have been a heavy smoker for 22 years, but the few accidents I've ever had were when I was WITHOUT weed and getting IMPATIENT.

I've never had a DUI (knock on wood). I grew up in Ohio, in some ways the marijuana laws there as more lenient than MMJ states. I had 2 possesion charges under an oz, each time was $100 fine and its a petty offense, meaning no criminal record whatsoever! But they keep your weed and any pipes you may have on you.

I've never been stopped in colorado in 6 years, but I think it would be pretty cool to have the cops let you actually KEEP your weed.

Anyway, in Ohio this sort of promotes a lot of small time dealers and users since the cops only go after growers and large dealers. So you get a lot of shitty mexican brick weed.

Somehow I was lucky when i was in high school in the early 90s, there must have been a lot of local hydro grows because we always had killer weed. Probably why I love weed so much.

[HighPopalorum]

I don't advocate drinking and driving

LOL! Three posts ago you said you drive around the mountains drinking beer!

[MtnLionCO]

LOL! Three posts ago you said you drive around the mountains drinking beer!

I said *I* did, that is not advocating it dude.

[MtnLionCO]

LOL! Three posts ago you said you drive around the mountains drinking beer!

You are probably one of those people who doesn't like guys tailgating them, so you slam on your brakes to prove your point.

[Dorje113]

From a NHTSA study done in 1993:

"Finally, the relation between driving impairment following marijuana smoking and plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH is discussed. It appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his / her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample."

here:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...driving4.shtml

[copobo]

you should post that on the Denver Post discussion area at the article Colorado may set limits for driving after marijuana use - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_16780152) . Claire will be reading the comments on that you can bet.

call her office-

To reach Claire by telephone, please call 720-849-8983(cell),or call 303-866-2578 at the Capitol.

Mail can be sent to: Claire Levy, 200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271, Denver, CO 80203

To contact Claire Levy send email to: [email protected]

[PhatJay]

You can drink 3 beers and still be legally under the limit. Cops understand this as well, thats why there is a .08 limit, its not ZERO TOLERANCE.

I never mentioned zero tolerance.


You are probably one of those people who doesn't like guys tailgating them, so you slam on your brakes to prove your point.

You are someone who puts words into other peoples mouths and makes rash assumptions about peoples behaviour in a given situation. I don't see how these comments are related to the discussion or add any weight to your argument. For all you know, HighPopalorum if being tailgated, might pull over at the next junction/laybay and let the idiot tailgater pass.

[denverbear]

You are probably one of those people who doesn't like guys tailgating them, so you slam on your brakes to prove your point.
I always thought that was the normal thing to do.... lol

[copobo]

if you are in the left lane and have a tailgater, move the hell over. LOL :D

[ds0110]

Couldn't agree more. As much as I adore cannabis (over 20 years a smoker) I think a lot of the people in this thread are letting their love for the beautiful weed, cloud their judgement. I believe the positive effects of cannabis outweigh the negative and ignoring the negative side makes us as bad as the people/government who peddle lies about cannabis and other drugs. I think we need to be as aware of the negatives as the postives so we can minimise any harmful impact and enjoy the benefits of this wonderful plant.

Drink driving was socially acceptable and legal in my country less than 40 years ago. I have seen film footage of the public being interviewed just before drink driving laws came in and they had very similar arguments against the drink drive laws as those expressed here against DUID laws. I think my favourite line was.... "They are going to spoil a lot of peoples Christmas"

You do a lot of "thinking" with no stats, research, or figures. Only speculation. How about this one? Since 20 years ago when they first made DUI laws, accidents nationwide have gone UP. Both DUI and DUID are both the same thing...they are just made to make leo money and do not make the roads any safer, despite what the brainwashing from MADD 10 years ago or some random hollywood scene has you think...society did not crumble with people driving buzzed. There was a time when police would be your friend and help you instead of taking you away from your friends and family for something that is completely normal. There was a time when you didnt go to jail until you actually harmed someone or cost someone money. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Next theyll be saying "if it saves one child, then it was worth it to take every smokers rights away..." and the sad thing is no one is going to do anything about it.

Truth be known, if there were no DUI, DUID, and mj were legal....there would be a LOT (like over 50% maybe) of LEO without a job....They depend on our suffering.

[Denvertoad]

You do a lot of "thinking" with no stats, research, or figures. Only speculation.


Truth be known, if there were no DUI, DUID, and mj were legal....there would be a LOT (like over 50% maybe) of LEO without a job....

Somewhat skewed in your logic process here. Argument by scenario applies.

[khyberkitsune]

Just let them pass it.

They'd HAVE to draw blood to test this.

Cops would be required to be licensed phlebotomists to draw blood, and I can guarantee you that this would be a huge civil rights suit.

This 'solution' of theirs is nothing more than a HUGE malpractice/civil lawsuit waiting to happen, plus an even larger drain on their resources.

This will likely pass but never be enforced once the true cost is known to the department.

[PhatJay]

You do a lot of "thinking" with no stats, research, or figures. Only speculation. How about this one? Since 20 years ago when they first made DUI laws, accidents nationwide have gone UP. Both DUI and DUID are both the same thing...they are just made to make leo money and do not make the roads any safer, despite what the brainwashing from MADD 10 years ago or some random hollywood scene has you think...society did not crumble with people driving buzzed. There was a time when police would be your friend and help you instead of taking you away from your friends and family for something that is completely normal. There was a time when you didnt go to jail until you actually harmed someone or cost someone money. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Next theyll be saying "if it saves one child, then it was worth it to take every smokers rights away..." and the sad thing is no one is going to do anything about it.

Truth be known, if there were no DUI, DUID, and mj were legal....there would be a LOT (like over 50% maybe) of LEO without a job....They depend on our suffering.

I didn't speculate about anything in my post or make any statements that required statistical backup. You quoted some percentages but for all we know they could be made up, as you didnt cite your source.

I am also speaking from the viewpoint of a non american. Law enforcement in my country doesn't profit from DUI convictions and prisons are non profit.

Seeing as you are fond of stats here are some government compiled stats for my country showing that DUI accidents have decreased as convictions for drink driving have increased over a 29 year period.

Drink Driving Statistics | Statistics On Drinking & Driving (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_statistics_uk.php)

There are also statistics showing that the percentage of people involved in accidents who have drugs in their system other than alcohol has increased.

[ds0110]

I am also speaking from the viewpoint of a non american. Law enforcement in my country doesn't profit from DUI convictions and prisons are non profit.


So you really have no idea what youre talking about? Do you know anyone who has had blood forcibly removed due to DUI suspicion? Have you even been to America or met an american police officer?



Somewhat skewed in your logic process here. Argument by scenario applies.

I gave a stat, then applied an opinion to it. What he did was "I think....I think.....I think......" with no stats/facts...and it turns out, with no reasoning or actual real life experience on why they feel this way. And the statement about LEO losing over 50% if there were no DUID, DUI, and mj is legal is only partially opinion. The point is a massive part of law enforcement is extortion targeted at average activities from average citizens.

[Psycho4Bud]

So you really have no idea what youre talking about? Do you know anyone who has had blood forcibly removed due to DUI suspicion? Have you even been to America or met an american police officer?


I don't know about Colorado but in Wisconsin that's more/less common practice. Your choice, either let them take the blood or have it done via restraints.

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[Psycho4Bud]

There is a trend among police departments across the U.S. to force DUI suspects to have their blood alcohol content (BAC) measured. Since BAC evidence is generally the most powerful evidence to support a DUI conviction, many jurisdictions are going the extra mile to get it.

During "No Refusal" campaigns, drivers who are suspected of DUI are given an ultimatum. They may submit to a breath test to measure their blood alcohol content, or they will be forced to give a blood sample for testing. After a motorist is given the choice and still refuses to take a breath test, a warrant to obtain a blood sample is immediately obtained. Judges are on standby to sign the blood draw warrants.

In some jurisdictions that allow forced blood draws on DUI suspects, the officers do the blood draws themselves, rather than taking suspects to the hospital for blood draws by trained medical professionals. Although there has been at least one lawsuit filed because of this practice, it has become more common to allow officers without adequate medical training to draw blood from DUI suspects.
The Facts About Forced Blood Tests During a DUI Stop (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Facts-About-Forced-Blood-Tests-During-a-DUI-Stop&id=2071633)

Welcome to America......:wtf:

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[FarmerSteve]

I can't believe people are just fine with the fact that a cop can pull you over, say you were "swerving" or whatever, and then stick a needle into you. :wtf:

[ncgysfnshlst]

More to the point, any sobriety test should be based on IMPAIRMENT, not some arbitrary limit set by the government.

exactly, well said

this is a simple fu to mason tvert in colorado SAFER
for his position the "safer alternative" most likely

the government will not admit that weed is 100 times safer than alcohol
is all it boils down to

[Toastyroadie]

It's the Feds that are behind it...

"White House Drug Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said the research was a "good first attempt" to understand the role that drug use plays in automobile fatalities.

Many drugs can affect a driver's judgment and reaction time but researchers are still trying to determine the level of drug use that can impair a driver's ability to drive safely. A blood alcohol level of 0.08 is the legal limit for all 50 states but a similar level of impairment is uncertain for many drugs.

"It's very clear that we've got a significant problem," Kerlikowske said. "We've made great progress on alcohol-impaired driving through education and enforcement. There's just no reason we won't be able to make progress in this area once we start bringing it to people's attention and we start doing the enforcement that's needed."



Drugs found in the system of about 1 in 5 drivers killed in car crashes in 2009, gov't says - 11/30/2010 10:58:47 AM | Newser (http://www.newser.com/article/d9jqiqh81/drugs-found-in-the-system-of-about-1-in-5-drivers-killed-in-car-crashes-in-2009-govt-says.html)

Bunch of BS, MJ should not be treated in the same light as alcohol, they could not be more opposite. There is little to no impairment on regular MJ users when driving.:smokin:

Look how many people die every year to bad medicine... time to get rid of doctors and hospitals too...


Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists (http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html)

"America was rudely awakened to a new kind of danger on September 11, 2001: Terrorism. The attacks that day left 2,996 people dead, including the passengers on the four commercial airliners that were used as weapons. Many feel it was the most tragic day in U.S. history.
Four commercial jets crashed that day. But what if six jumbo jets crashed every day in the United States, claiming the lives of 783,936 people every year? That would certainly qualify as a massive tragedy, wouldn't it?

Well, forget "what if." The tragedy is happening right now. Over 750,000 people actually do die in the United States every year, although not from plane crashes. They die from something far more common and rarely perceived by the public as dangerous: modern medicine. "



Learn more: Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists (http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html#ixzz17PXSSDkz)

[PhatJay]

I gave a stat, then applied an opinion to it.

A stat with no source.



What he did was "I think....I think.....I think......" with no stats/facts...and it turns out, with no reasoning or actual real life experience on why they feel this way.

You seem to have a problem with me saying "I think" so let's address each one indiviually.


I think a lot of the people in this thread are letting their love for the beautiful weed, cloud their judgement.

Statistics on the amount of cloud in front of cannabis.com forum users judgement were not available, so I expressed my opinion.


I believe the positive effects of cannabis outweigh the negative.

This opinion is based on observations made during the 20+ years I have smoked cannabis. Do you disagree with me on this point?


I think we need to be as aware of the negatives as the postives so we can minimise any harmful impact and enjoy the benefits of this wonderful plant.

I don't need statistics to back this up. It is common sense, an axiom.

[HighPopalorum]

People keep claiming marijuana does not impair driving ability... as if I haven't been smoking pot for 20 years! No candid self-assessment of mine could reach that conclusion. When I drive high, I drive distracted. My reaction and decision times are slower, and I'm often more concerned with music, climate or food than I am with the demands of driving. Anecdotally, my observations of other high drivers match my own experience.

As marijuana policy is further liberalized, limits are going to be set on cannabis purchase and use. We cannabis users are going to have to accept the same kinds of time/place/manner restrictions that govern smoking and alcohol use. I don't believe pot should be treated exactly like alcohol, but I do believe people who drive high are behaving irresponsibly. How to test, what limits should be set, and what the punishment should be, I leave to others.

[Dorje113]

People keep claiming marijuana does not impair driving ability... as if I haven't been smoking pot for 20 years!

The problem is, it's a personal reaction. Some people with brain chemistry issues like bipolar II and ADD are probably better off driving high. When I'm not high, I'm likely to drive faster and more aggressively.

There is also the issue that it has not been proven that mj impairs to the extent the law needs to be involved, in fact I posted information proving the opposite.

I believe cell phones are far more dangerous then mj on the road.

[copobo]

The problem is, it's a personal reaction. Some people with brain chemistry issues like bipolar II and ADD are probably better off driving high. When I'm not high, I'm likely to drive faster and more aggressively.

There is also the issue that it has not been proven that mj impairs to the extent the law needs to be involved, in fact I posted information proving the opposite.

I believe cell phones are far more dangerous then mj on the road.

this is spot on. I am a tame, speed limit driving good citizen on weed. I'm a left-lane driving lead foot grump otherwise.

ADD for sure. Cell phones are certainly a much bigger safety issue.

[HighPopalorum]

I believe cell phones are far more dangerous then mj on the road.

..duh? Which is why their use is restricted in cars! Exactly the same principle applies.

(I am receptive to the argument that, like the penalties for texting, the penalty for driving high should be lower than, say, the penalty incurred for a DUI with bodily injury.)

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

I believe cell phones are far more dangerous then mj on the road.

I agree, also dangerous while driving: eating!
I've seen and I'm guilty of near accidents due to eating.

Texting is bad too - yes we have a law in CO that bans it, but unfortunately it's had a reverse effect. Accident rates due to texting has increased - the theory is people are still texting but are going to great lengths to hide it, taking their eyes off the road even longer than before.

Love this BBC Stoned Driving YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKjFiGFrcU)
YouTube - Stoned Driving Experiment.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKjFiGFrcU)

[rudy2010]

This is already happening in CA. A friend was drinking and smoking with some growers in the hills. One of the guys does not drink and was just smoking weed. He leaves the group and heads down to civilization. He gets off the side roads and gets pulled over on the state highway. The cops say they think he has been drinking so he says he has not but that they can go ahead and test him. They do their field breathalizer test and he registers zero. They say that he still looks loaded to them and they are going to perform an additional test. They come back and say that he has tested positive for marijuana and they arrest him for driving under the influence of narcotics.

I have not heard anything about what happened after that and have not heard of any other person getting busted for being under the influence of marijuana. So this is second hand information but from a very trusted friend.

Since this happened to this other person I have been stopped by profiling in Santa Rosa. We had weed in back of the truck and some in the cab for smoking. The cop followed us for several miles after profiling us (dirty off road pick up with large load under cheap tarp) then pulled us over. He said we were speeding though we were the slowest car on the road in the slow lane at the time. He also said he smelled pot. He had a dog in the car and spoke with my daughter who was driving first. She figured the dog smelled the weed so she told the cop we had 1/8 in the cab. He asked if he could search the back and she said yes and started to open the tailgate but the cop said that was OK. He asked if we had 215 licenses and if we could provide them. She said she had one and that I had one and could produce them. So the cop has her tell me to get out of the truck while she gets in. I tell the cop that we have 1/8 too. He asks if he can search the back and I start to untie the tarp. He then says thats OK. We are too willing to let him search and he believes that we don't have weed there (though we had about a pound) and that we can go.

He does not give us a ticket. He does not search the cab even though we told him we have 1/8 there (really about 3/4 oz). We just go.

He had to know we were high but did not perform any sobriety or drug tests. I am not sure how it will work but I am hoping field pot tests will not ecome the norm here.

Anyone heard of anyone in CA getting field tested for pot.

[lampost]

We can argue all day about whether it's a bad idea for people to drive high. I never said it wasn't.

The point is that you can't really determine impairment by testing alkaloid levels or THC levels in the blood. IT IS NOT A RELIABLE INDICATOR!!!

So, yeah it may be a good idea to outlaw stoned driving, but there is no practical way to get a quantitative idea of how stoned someone is by looking at their blood alkaloid levels.

As was stated a few times already in this thread you could smoke on Monday and still have arrestable alkaloid levels on Wednesday. That is the point of this thread!!

I want to know what advocates of this law think about that!!!

A field sobriety test is really the only fair and rational way to do it without jeopardizing the rights of a all medical users!

[PhatJay]

A field sobriety test is really the only fair and rational way to do it without jeopardizing the rights of a all medical users!

This is what we have in my country, I have seen one performed. It is similar to an alcohol sobriety test, testing co-ordination, the ability of the eyes to focus etc..

[HighPopalorum]

I'm not an advocate of the law, but I'll certainly give my opinion: people who smoke several times a day shouldn't drive. I don't have much experience with drug testing and am not able to evaluate different methods of testing or to comment on specific blood levels. Whatever standard they choose, I will likely abide by it because I do not wish to get a DUI.

[rudy2010]

I hope a field sobriety test is too difficult to nail down and never gets perfected. I would never pass a test even when I wake up in the morning.

[HighPopalorum]

I hope a field sobriety test is too difficult to nail down and never gets perfected. I would never pass a test even when I wake up in the morning.

I had to explain to a cop that I couldn't recite the alphabet backwards. Sober, drunk, high - it doesn't matter. I can provide a lively overview of tripartite government, a thoughtful analysis of the causes of the Civil War, a succinct but humorous recap of the election of 1800. Ask me high school algebra, or to diagram a sentence, or about the relative merits of the wildcat and the wishbone. Unfortunately, sequences of letters and numbers have always been beyond me.

[FlyinPolynesian]

..duh? Which is why their use is restricted in cars! Exactly the same principle applies.

(I am receptive to the argument that, like the penalties for texting, the penalty for driving high should be lower than, say, the penalty incurred for a DUI with bodily injury.)

I've seen on multiple occasions where someone is driving like a massive retard right in front of a cop while yapping away on their cellphone, just to watch the cop brush it off. Cops in this state are great with selective law enforcement!!

Also it's amusing how it's acceptable to be all jacked up on prescription drugs and drive, yet now pot is just as dangerous as alcohol.... that is complete and utter horse shit.

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

wow... if this bullshit law passes, im packing my bags and moving elsewhere... since when has it ever been a problem to drive high? people have been doing this for a few DECADES now and its never been a problem, why all of the sudden is this becoming an issue? I can answer that pretty easily, $$$$$$$$$ is the bottom line to the assholes in politics... its never going to be enough!

MONEY, they cant arrest us for posession anymore, grower have found a safety net from these greedy bastards. so guess what...theyre going to fill their jails this way. mo money, mo money, mo money.

[bikeTripper]

I had to explain to a cop that I couldn't recite the alphabet backwards. Sober, drunk, high - it doesn't matter. I can provide a lively overview of tripartite government, a thoughtful analysis of the causes of the Civil War, a succinct but humorous recap of the election of 1800. Ask me high school algebra, or to diagram a sentence, or about the relative merits of the wildcat and the wishbone. Unfortunately, sequences of letters and numbers have always been beyond me.

Just so you know, I asked a cop about this once when they had me do some ridiculous field sobriety test. It was multiple things at once, like rub your belly in a circle while counting backwards standing on one foot. When it was done and he was satisfied that I was sober I asked him point blank if he was just messing with me when he made me do all that stuff. He said that drunks practice things like saying the alphabet backwards, but the cops don't really care if you can do it, just how you react. Do you giggle, slur, speed up and slow down, etc?

I'd be all for actual skills based testing, reflex response times, etc. but as others have said, the presence of metabolites or even THC in the blood does not indicate impairment one way or the other.

Maybe it should be illegal to drive after you fight with your S.O. I have been hit twice by idiots arguing with their wives. One ran a stop sign and destroyed the car I was in and injured himself badly. And I see some pinhead or another almost cause a wreck almost daily because they are on the phone.

Maybe all cars should have a little test that you have to perform before it will start. Bad reflexes? Who cares if it's because you're drunk or because you can't stop thinking about your problems. No driving for you. Conversely, if you can pass the tests the car will let you drive. Drunk, stoned, ripped on Viagra and Prozac, or just sleepy. Impairment is impairment is impairment.

This isn't about safety. All of it, 1290, the new regs they are proposing, videos and databases, this nonsense about blood levels and driving, and whatever comes next is a knee jerk reactionary blow against social change that some people don't like. It is the equivalent of the woman on The Simpsons who always freaks out and screams "Think of the children!"

They just don't want to admit that pot is basically harmless when placed next to so many commonly accepted risks.

[MtnLionCO]

I never mentioned zero tolerance.



You are someone who puts words into other peoples mouths and makes rash assumptions about peoples behaviour in a given situation. I don't see how these comments are related to the discussion or add any weight to your argument. For all you know, HighPopalorum if being tailgated, might pull over at the next junction/laybay and let the idiot tailgater pass.

"Zero Tolerance" came from the article, I didn't say YOU said it.

Either you believe in freedom, or you believe in control. You have stated that you believe in control, that is your opinion, you are entitled to it, that's all it is.

[MtnLionCO]

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

A Michigan State Trooper told me once, "alcohol affects different people differently." Then he let me drive away after blowing a .12. No citation.

Even more so for marijuana. Most people who actually leave their houses understand this. Otherwise stay home (asshat). Probably why you have so much time to piss off decent folk on forums.

[lampost]

:stoned::stoned:

[asscore]

A Michigan State Trooper told me once, "alcohol affects different people differently." Then he let me drive away after blowing a .12. No citation.

Even more so for marijuana. Most people who actually leave their houses understand this. Otherwise stay home (asshat). Probably why you have so much time to piss off decent folk on forums.

This. Being from Wisconsin I don't know a single person besides my mom and myself that don't have a drunk driving. Most have many. Luckily in Wisco drunk driving isn't a criminal offense (the first few anyway), its just a six months suspension of your license and a fine(you get your occupational immediately, even if you don't have a job).

Between 1 and 3am all of the cops disappear and let all of the drunk people get home (in the rural areas anyways). Drinking is big business and the Tavern League controls many a municipal government. Bars are some of the only businesses still around in small towns.

You can walk into any tavern and ask for "one with wheels" and walk out with a can of beer for your drive home.

The small town I am from, our municipal court judge has 5 DUI's and everybody knows it. He still gets elected like clockwork and will likely be the judge until he dies.

If you get pulled over smoking a joint you will get a ticket (for possession) but you will get to drive away right then and there.

As for the safety of driving while stoned, I really honestly dont think it makes a difference. Quite frankly there is no such thing as being stoned for me. Only being normal.

Everybody who made the point about cell phones, I agree totally. Every time some moron almost kills me he is fucking around with his phone. They often give me a dirty look like I am the dipshit.

I wish we could just undo cell phones. I fucking hate the god damned things.

[HighPopalorum]

Sounds great, asscore. Please try and keep your drunk driving friends and your drunk driving judge out of Colorado. Drunk drivers kill hundreds of Coloradans every year, so we don't need any more. If Wisconsin has such a laudably lax policy toward driving drunk and high, I suggest you stay there. If I see you driving drunk here, I call the cops with absolutely no exceptions.

And biketripper.... I've got 6.3k this year on my road bike, and drunks are my nemesis! I got run over by one last year to the tune of three ribs, both collar bones, concussion, and various lacerations. It's dangerous out there.

[Dorje113]

And biketripper.... I've got 6.3k this year on my road bike, and drunks are my nemesis! I got run over by one last year to the tune of three ribs, both collar bones, concussion, and various lacerations. It's dangerous out there.

Switch to mountain biking :thumbsup:

[copobo]

Switch to mountain biking :thumbsup:

no shit. Road cyclists are nuts. no wonder you're so tightly wound hipop!
;)

[bikeTripper]

And biketripper.... I've got 6.3k this year on my road bike, and drunks are my nemesis! I got run over by one last year to the tune of three ribs, both collar bones, concussion, and various lacerations. It's dangerous out there.

Oh believe me, I know. I bicycle too. I've worked as a driver, and as a bike courier in DC and Denver. Spend all day every day in traffic and you see it all. People are nuts in cars. But really, I think it is a mistake to lump pot in with alcohol as an equivalent danger.

Back when the first rounds of decriminalization went around the country (mid to late 70s) the same sort of things were said. After DC's decrim I heard an interview with an ex prosecutor for the city. He was asked about the dangers of pot and driving and what he said was that he would not want to ride in a car with a driver who was stoned for the first time, but that he would rather have an experienced pot smoker at the wheel with any amount of pot in his system than a driver with even one beer. I've always remembered his answer because it sums things up so well.

Most people are bad drivers, period. Aggression and distraction are the big dangers. Basically, people need to chill the fuck out, slow the fuck down and pay attention. I'd argue that pot is less of a danger than cell phones, texting, web browsing, speeding, jumping lanes, eating breakfast cereal, putting on makeup and most of the other crazy shit people do every day behind the wheel.

If there is a test that can measure actual impairment of abilities to drive then lets use it. But to set arbitrary blood levels with no scientific backing at all to say that this actually represents some threshold of danger? Has anyone seen any science behind this at all? But really, this is just one more way to demonize marijuana completely out of proportion with reality.

Did you know it also makes white girls want to have sex with Mexicans?

[HighPopalorum]

no shit. Road cyclists are nuts. no wonder you're so tightly wound hipop!
;)

heh... I have a few mtbs as well but I didn't include their mileage because I don't know it. I ride everywhere 24/7/365.

[MtnLionCO]

Sounds great, asscore. Please try and keep your drunk driving friends and your drunk driving judge out of Colorado. Drunk drivers kill hundreds of Coloradans every year, so we don't need any more. If Wisconsin has such a laudably lax policy toward driving drunk and high, I suggest you stay there. If I see you driving drunk here, I call the cops with absolutely no exceptions.

And biketripper.... I've got 6.3k this year on my road bike, and drunks are my nemesis! I got run over by one last year to the tune of three ribs, both collar bones, concussion, and various lacerations. It's dangerous out there.

Sorry to hear that, did the driver go to jail?

[Toastyroadie]

People keep claiming marijuana does not impair driving ability... as if I haven't been smoking pot for 20 years! No candid self-assessment of mine could reach that conclusion. When I drive high, I drive distracted. My reaction and decision times are slower, and I'm often more concerned with music, climate or food than I am with the demands of driving. Anecdotally, my observations of other high drivers match my own experience.

As marijuana policy is further liberalized, limits are going to be set on cannabis purchase and use. We cannabis users are going to have to accept the same kinds of time/place/manner restrictions that govern smoking and alcohol use. I don't believe pot should be treated exactly like alcohol, but I do believe people who drive high are behaving irresponsibly. How to test, what limits should be set, and what the punishment should be, I leave to others.
Not sure what you guys are smoking up your way, but I will say (type) it again. In my opinion, and the studies I've seen, there is little to no impairment after smoking MJ.

I have been smoking for 30 yrs and in just the last year increased my smoking to 1.5 grams a day and taking a tincture which amounts to another 3.5 grams a day orally. I can perform any task, including work, driving, what ever it be with no impairment. I feel the best I ever have and even lost weight.

Why is it so hard for some of you to understand that some folks will have no impairment after smoking? There are credible studies to back this up, one from Hartford Hospital. :jointsmile:

Hartford Hospital Study Finds Marijuana Use Has Little Effect On Driving Skills - Courant.com (http://www.courant.com/health/hc-marijuana-study0608-20100607,0,5406069.story)
:smokin:

We can argue all day about whether it's a bad idea for people to drive high. I never said it wasn't.

The point is that you can't really determine impairment by testing alkaloid levels or THC levels in the blood. IT IS NOT A RELIABLE INDICATOR!!!

So, yeah it may be a good idea to outlaw stoned driving, but there is no practical way to get a quantitative idea of how stoned someone is by looking at their blood alkaloid levels.

As was stated a few times already in this thread you could smoke on Monday and still have arrestable alkaloid levels on Wednesday. That is the point of this thread!!

I want to know what advocates of this law think about that!!!

A field sobriety test is really the only fair and rational way to do it without jeopardizing the rights of a all medical users!

Agreed, if they based it off of actual impairment, I'd ace any test, lol. I personally injest a lot of MJ, no impairment at all. :D:D:D

My wife has never interfered with my driving while under the influence of MJ, but after only 3 beers and no smoking MJ she won't let me drive. I have since quit drinking altogether, don't want to no more, ha, ha.:stoned:

[GratefulMeds]

reasonable skills based testing is the only way. levels of cannabis in someone's system are no marker for sobriety.

there is a test already that is determined by the number of nanograms in your system, but it can really only be used to count those nanograms and can show if you have just been burning or smoking for you regular folk. it is faulty though since heavy smokers and edible users we have numbers of the charts compared to light weights that are most likely far more dangerous. :thumbsup:;):mad::stoned::stoned::jointsmile:

[ds0110]

Until someone is hurt or property is damaged, no crime has been committed.

Any attempt at crime "prevention" is an attempt into reading the future - fortune telling at best, stealing your freedom at worst.

They havent even done enough credible studies on the effects of mj on the brain, much less its effects on driving.

Until they actually study what it does, should they really be telling me that I cant do it?

Because someone else cant handle it, does that mean I should lose the right/freedom? Someone could go to the liquor store with $50, buy a ~gallon of everclear and drink it then die....yet everclear is still legal..bleach for that matter...

(full time delivery driver for 3 years of the past 10 that ive been smoking - no wrecks)

[porone]

:thumbsup:
Until someone is hurt or property is damaged, no crime has been committed.

Any attempt at crime "prevention" is an attempt into reading the future - fortune telling at best, stealing your freedom at worst.

They havent even done enough credible studies on the effects of mj on the brain, much less its effects on driving.

Until they actually study what it does, should they really be telling me that I cant do it?

Because someone else cant handle it, does that mean I should lose the right/freedom? Someone could go to the liquor store with $50, buy a ~gallon of everclear and drink it then die....yet everclear is still legal..bleach for that matter...

(full time delivery driver for 3 years of the past 10 that ive been smoking - no wrecks)

:thumbsup: you can say that again ;)

[copobo]

no wrecks in 20 years here. as a matter of fact, I've only had 1 traffic ticket in the last 20 years, and it was BS.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

...Did you know it also makes white girls want to have sex with Mexicans?

WHAT!?!?! Did no one else read this! Hahaha! That's some funny sh!t there.
:D

[copobo]

this is excerpted from Rep Levy's newsletter sent 1/1/11. Be sure she hears from you!

Keep that hair short and the phish stickers off the bumpers kids!

State Representative
CLAIRE LEVY
200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol: 303-866-2578
[email protected]

"I will be sponsoring a bill that was developed by the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, which created quite a flood of phone calls and e-mail when the Denver Post and Westword ran stories on it. That bill will create a maximum permissible level of THC (the psycho-active component in marijuana) in the blood that is allowed while driving. It would create an objective standard for determining whether a person is driving under the influence of marijuana. The level I will propose, which is supported by a lot of research, is 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. There has been concern about whether that level will include people who have THC in their systems but whose driving is not impaired. Many people have expressed concern that this kind of law will simply allow law enforcement officials to target medical marijuana patients. The literature indicates that the 5 ng level is sufficiently high that anyone with that amount in their blood by the time testing occurs has ingested a significant amount of marijuana recently. (In contrast, urine testing detects various metabolites, which do stay in the system fairly long.) The officer must have probable cause for stopping the motorist based on their observable driving behavior and a reasonable suspicion that the impaired driving is from marijuana in order to request a blood test. As marijuana use becomes more prevalent and as criminal penalties decrease, I strongly believe the public needs confidence their safety on the roads is not being jeopardized."

[MtnLionCO]

well i guess hipopularum is happy now. ive been looking for his bike so i can run him over (just kidding)

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

WHAT!?!?! Did no one else read this! Hahaha! That's some funny sh!t there.
:D

oh yeah, that was popular in the...1930's! it makes the darkie think hes as good as the white man(if they could see sports today:D) and look twice at our white women. this was actual press then and the gullible public ate it up as a patriotic duty save our youth from this maniacal craze inducing narcotic. this in turn forged the dea whose only REAL job now is to keep mj illegal. yes that same gullible public taught this same discipline to their children and allowed racism and ignorance to thrive. they educated what they believed to be true and now we must educate to undo 75 years of idiocy.

i l:stoned:ove my job

[MEDEDCANNABIS]

this is excerpted from Rep Levy's newsletter sent 1/1/11. Be sure she hears from you!

Keep that hair short and the phish stickers off the bumpers kids!

State Representative
CLAIRE LEVY
200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol: 303-866-2578
[email protected]

"I will be sponsoring a bill that was developed by the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, which created quite a flood of phone calls and e-mail when the Denver Post and Westword ran stories on it. That bill will create a maximum permissible level of THC (the psycho-active component in marijuana) in the blood that is allowed while driving. It would create an objective standard for determining whether a person is driving under the influence of marijuana. The level I will propose, which is supported by a lot of research, is 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. There has been concern about whether that level will include people who have THC in their systems but whose driving is not impaired. Many people have expressed concern that this kind of law will simply allow law enforcement officials to target medical marijuana patients. The literature indicates that the 5 ng level is sufficiently high that anyone with that amount in their blood by the time testing occurs has ingested a significant amount of marijuana recently. (In contrast, urine testing detects various metabolites, which do stay in the system fairly long.) The officer must have probable cause for stopping the motorist based on their observable driving behavior and a reasonable suspicion that the impaired driving is from marijuana in order to request a blood test. As marijuana use becomes more prevalent and as criminal penalties decrease, I strongly believe the public needs confidence their safety on the roads is not being jeopardized."

well now, here we have some more 1930's propaganda i mean how dumb do they think Americans are? it is true about 50% will actually believe that this is true, they will probably be prone to vote in favor of such a bill. yet when we blindly follow a leader perhaps the leader should get a vision check. "i strongly believe the public needs the confidence...blah blah blah...not being jeapordized...blah blah blah!" yes my juvenile moments should ring loud and clear; F these pathetic excuses of payroll waste. that was me being polite... did you see that:jointsmile: "who thought i was attractive" king julian
then change the channel to the news "man kills teenage girl crossing street. this man has a history of dui's and to date hes never been under the limit. oooook steve, thats a dedicated drunk if you ask me, now off to you." "this just in dui man has just been released from one minute of jail time because he had no marijuana on him at the time...talk about your speedy trials back to you jack." i strongly believe we need a government worth fighting for. this whole bill is just another attempt at making money off of mj without approving mj. jeez grow some bolts

[quetzal]

The fact of the matter is that you can be totally sober and still have >5ng/mL of THC metabolites in your blood...

And who is coming up with this arbitrary limit of 5ng/mL... scientists or politicians?

Has anyone mentioned this? Apparently it was recommendations from a study by CA NORML that produced the 5 ng/ml number being used.

The report is here: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf

Its a helpful read. It sounds like they're also saying that for a typical medium to strong dose, 3-4 hours are needed to eliminate impairment before driving. But this really needs to be made more clear, as no one has home blood-THC testing kits.

[HighPopalorum]

Out of curiosity, would any of you support a legal limit for drivers under age 18?

[copobo]

I would support a legal limit the truly measured impairment, for everyone.

thing is, this method does not do that.

[MtnLionCO]

Out of curiosity, would any of you support a legal limit for drivers under age 18?

No because there is no way to accurately measure impairment. Leave the kids alone.

[probud]

I was planning on moving to Boulder/Denver area to get away from leos. Virginia sucks when it comes to mj laws:mad:

[HighPopalorum]

Virginia sucks when it comes to mj laws:mad:

CO actually has stricter DUID laws than Virginia, just so you know. The current law (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4526&wtm_view=duid) here says that any habitual user of a controlled substance who operates a motor vehicle is guilty of a DUI, even if the substance is lawfully-obtained medical marijuana. It's a de facto zero tolerance policy, that should (and apparently is) going to change in favor of a science-based limit. To my mind, that change would be a loosening, a liberalization of our DUI policy, but as you can see, everyone else disagrees.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

I was planning on moving to Boulder/Denver area to get away from leos. Virginia sucks when it comes to mj laws:mad:

I grew up in Maryland, just on the other side of DC.
It's really not bad out here in Colorado. I much rather be able to kick back on my couch, medicate and not have to worry about the po-po banging down my door. For personal use - Colorado is still great! For those who are looking to sling - it's getting tougher. Prices are dropping. Quality varies but if growing your own and being about to grow your own without worry - who cares what the quality is out there. I've stopped trying to make money off of it. I'm strictly for personal use and also assist a couple of other patients who don't know how to grow.

If you're looking to keep a regular job and just enjoy your MMJ on the side - you'll love Colorado. If you're looking to come out here and make money off MMJ - it's getting tougher & tougher.

[Zedleppelin]

The bigger issue I see other than the 5 nanograms is any cop any time can force a blood test based on 'reasonable suspicion'. What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Long hair? Candy wrappers on the floor of your car? Once again all a cop has to say is they smell it and the govt forces a needle in your arm. If that isnt unreasonable search and seizure I don't know what is. If a cop has it out for you he could pull you over every day and force this upon you, decline and its an automatic DUI. Its this kind of crap that makes me never want to leave the damn house.

[senorx12562]

CO actually has stricter DUID laws than Virginia, just so you know. The current law (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4526&wtm_view=duid) here says that any habitual user of a controlled substance who operates a motor vehicle is guilty of a DUI, even if the substance is lawfully-obtained medical marijuana. It's a de facto zero tolerance policy, that should (and apparently is) going to change in favor of a science-based limit. To my mind, that change would be a loosening, a liberalization of our DUI policy, but as you can see, everyone else disagrees.
I'd be curious about how case-law defines "habitual" in order to avoid constitutional infirmity for vagueness.

[HighPopalorum]

I'd be curious about how case-law defines "habitual" in order to avoid constitutional infirmity for vagueness.

I know, right? The current law is so vague as to be an open invitation for selective enforcement. There are no objective standards, so courts rely on the observations and evidence of LEO, which leads to some pretty convoluted logic. I got an especial chuckle out of this:


Halter v. Department of Revenue of State of Colo. "If an officer has probable cause to support arrest and breath alcohol test, officer also may request that driver submit to drug test. If driver passes the breath test, drug use is a reasonable explanation for driver's intoxication regardless of whether other evidence existed to support search for drugs."

Passing a breathalyzer is an indication of drug use. Pretty twisted, huh?

[senorx12562]

Given that the respondent in Halter is the Dept. of Revenue, I imagine it's a license suspension/revocation/denial proceeding, so has no precedential value for a criminal proceeding as the standards of proof are very different and the constitutional limits on State action are also way different, but your point is well taken; in that context at least, much deference is given to the testimony of LEO.

[cologrower420]

"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa | Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota | WTSP.com 10 News (http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250)

I would imagine that MMJ will be more heavily regulated than alcohol, and this story seems pretty troubling.

The federal government says Florida has among the highest rates of breathalyzer refusal.

"Now you've got attorneys telling their clients, don't blow, don't blow! Because we know from the results from these machines that they're not operating as the state or the government says they're supposed to operate," said Stephen Daniels, a DUI consultant and expert witness.

Supporters, though, say you could see the "no refusal" checkpoints in the Bay area by October.

"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.

edit: Here is a good post on the subject of impairment.
Abolish Drunk Driving Laws - Reason Magazine (http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/31/abolish-drunk-driving-laws)

[Zedleppelin]

And in Texas cops can forcefully stick a needle in a motorist on the roadside and take blood. Welcome to the police state of America.

Texas Police Will Take Blood By Force in DUI Cases (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/651.asp)

[GratefulMeds]

The bigger issue I see other than the 5 nanograms is any cop any time can force a blood test based on 'reasonable suspicion'. What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Long hair? Candy wrappers on the floor of your car? Once again all a cop has to say is they smell it and the govt forces a needle in your arm. If that isnt unreasonable search and seizure I don't know what is. If a cop has it out for you he could pull you over every day and force this upon you, decline and its an automatic DUI. Its this kind of crap that makes me never want to leave the damn house.

Never submit to a test, shut up and exercise your 5th and 14th amendment rights and get a lawyer, beating a driving while stoned is one of the easier things for most attorneys it is a very hard case for DA's to convict hence the try for a new law, if you have trouble call Skip Wollrab in Boulder he beats this kind of crap all the time and I speak from experience.:stoned::thumbsup::thumbsup: