And here it is...HB11-1261 - the THC Level DUI Bill

[DenverRelief]

This is the first sentence of the bill:

"The bill allows a person who drives with a tetrahydrocannabinols
(THC) blood content of 5 nanograms or more to be charged with DUI per
se."

Considering the information about THC and driving out there, and the lack of a problem with drivers using cannabis, this surprises me.

How did they determine the 5 nanogram benchmark?

[copobo]

the pro regulation people are about to tell you it's better than it is now, which is bullshit. this limit will set up a new DUI system that they will invest in. it will put so many responsible people in harms way. edibles patients, forget it. Cancer patient? turn in your keys.

[DenverRelief]

It seems arbitrary. With so few studies how does this determine "dangerous" levels of THC.

Caffeine is another drug that is widely used that can create reckless drivers.

Human beings can be poor drivers, in whatever state they may be in, people with poor judgement are the issue.

These legislators have marijuana on the brain and they want to prosecute.

It's incredible to me that Miss Levy from Boulder could possibly think this represents her constituency when she presents it to the house.

[senorx12562]

It's like they decided to administer roadside IQ tests, and if you score below 85, you'll be charged with driving like an idiot Per se.

[Gatekeeper777]

It's like they decided to administer roadside IQ tests, and if you score below 85, you'll be charged with driving like an idiot Per se.

Couldn't we say the same about our elected public servants? Unable to apply critical independent thought. :jointsmile:

[TheReleafCenter]

This is all about law enforcement and drug counselors, two of the biggest opponents of MMJ, not public safety.

Law enforcement is thrilled about being able to hand out more DUIs. Then they send you to the drug counselors for classes. The politicians get to look concerned for public safety. Oh, and the state gets a decent chunk of change from you, too.

[COfluffhead]

I have ADD, and I am a much worse driver if not medicated

[senorx12562]

Couldn't we say the same about our elected public servants? Unable to apply critical independent thought. :jointsmile:
...and nobody's testing them.

[SoCoMMJ]

While I don't believe that anybody should be driving while impaired, this is just one more of the government's ways of sucking the big green money nipple called your wallet.

There are many more accidents from talking on cell phones while driving, but somehow that's still fine to do.

[omnibuddy]

I drive high all the time.

In my opinion it is not dangerous in the way that alcohol is. It is not disorienting. You don't pass out at the wheel. It doesn't cause speeding. You certainly don't turn down the wrong way on highways. In fact I've never been in an accident due to MMJ.

I have never met anyone who has been in an accident because they were medicated. Of course, you shouldn't be "blunted" or out of your mind high... Thats just common sense.

By the way, it is already ILLEGAL to be high and drive and you can already get a DUI for weed or even prescription medicine! I am fine with that, because they would need to pull you over for driving stupid in the first place. If you are dangerous you should get a DUI.

I would definitely be worried about an arbitrary blood level measurement and how people at checkpoints would be arrested on DUI even though they are fine to drive.

I say arbitrary because tolerance varies by huge amounts from person to person and depends on many variables. A measured limit like this would be horrible.

Why not good old fashioned, "sir you are high and driving like an idiot, here is a dui" instead of investing in some bullshit technology and law that is at it's very foundation meaningless to public safety.

What About A War on Government Waste Instead of MMJ?

[Toastyroadie]

This is insane, when will they stop this nonsense on a hugely medicinal plant that touches every part of our being.

As many have already stated, if driving under the influence of marijuana presented a problem on our roads, we would already know about it, the statistics, or lack there of should speak volumes.:wtf:

A study from last year, there are several others that came out with similar results...


HARTFORD â?? â?? Marijuana use had little effect on simulated driving skills, according to a Hartford Hospital study, but test subjects were more easily distracted when under the influence of the drug.

Investigators from Hartford Hospital and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine assessed the simulated driving performance of 50 male and 35 female subjects in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. All 85 subjects reported having used marijuana from one to 10 times per month previously.

The study was published in the March issue of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs.

During the study, some subjects were given actual marijuana cigarettes, and some were given a placebo, with neither the investigator nor the subject knowing which they had smoked. Another administrator kept track of who was given which type of cigarette.

The marijuana was supplied by the National Institute of Drug Abuse and the University of Mississippi, the only legal source of the drug in the U.S.

Subjects drove a high-tech simulator that was very realistic, said Beth Anderson, an investigator in the study. "It was an actual car with parts replaced by computers."

Participants then drove down a simulated country road for 15 minutes, first in an "uneventful" simulation, and then in collision-avoidance and distracted-driving simulations, the study states.

In the collision-avoidance portion, drivers reacted to simulated events such as another driver entering an intersection illegally, a changing traffic light, and a dog running into the road.

The researchers found no signifcant difference between the study groups in the collision-avoidance tests.

During the distracted-driving segment, participants solved "mental math" problems while driving, Anderson said. Subjects answered aloud simple math problems that were provided by a recording.

Speed and steering variability, as well as the number of errors made in the math portion of the test, were used to determine how impaired subjects were, according to Anderson.

"The study didn't find a lot of impairment," Anderson said. "[Subjects] slowed down. It looked like they were trying to compensate. Compensation would only take you so far."

The study states that "participants receiving active marijuana decreased their speed more so than those receiving the placebo cigarette during a distracted section of the drive."

Anderson stressed that the findings do not mean that driving high is harmless.

For instance, researchers noted that in the distracted-driving tests, "participants under the influence of marijuana failed to benefit from prior [driving] experience â?¦ as evidenced by a decrease in speed and a failure to show expected practice effects."

"The results do not imply that it is safe to drive under the influence of marijuana, especially because we know people aren't just smoking marijuana," Anderson said. "They do it while drinking. They do this when others are in the car, listening to music, talking on cellphones or texting. These behaviors distract drivers and are even more dangerous when someone has been using marijuana."

Anderson said the study showed that the effects of marijuana on driving need to be studied further.

"We need to know what marijuana does to the brain. We need to understand the ramifications. To create public policy and to keep people safe, you need to know what's really happening in the brain," Anderson said. "You have to have the facts."

A 2004 fact sheet published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that marijuana has been shown to adversely affect driving.

"Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported," the fact sheet states.

"Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment."

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)

[HighPopalorum]

AP coverage of this bill:


DENVER â?? The surge of medical marijuana use in Colorado has started another debate in the state Legislature: What constitutes driving while high?

Lawmakers are considering setting a DUI blood-content threshold for marijuana that would make Colorado one of three states with such a provision in statute â?? and one of the most liberal, according to Rep. Claire Levy, one of the billâ??s sponsors.

Under the proposal, drivers who test positive for 5 nanograms or more of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, would be considered too impaired to drive if the substance is present in their blood at the time theyâ??re pulled over or within two hours.

Levy, a Democrat from Boulder, said sheâ??s gotten resistance from medical marijuana advocates who fear it will restrict patients from using the drug.

â??What Iâ??ve tried to assure the patient advocates is that weâ??re not talking about sobriety checkpoints. Weâ??re not talking about dragnets and massive stops,â?� she said. â??Theyâ??re not going to be stopped if theyâ??re driving appropriately.â?�

While itâ??s already illegal to drive while impaired by drugs, states have taken different approaches to the issue. Twelve states, including Arizona, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa and Rhode Island, have a zero-tolerance policy for driving with any presence of an illegal substance, said Anne Teigen, policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Minnesota has the same policy but exempts marijuana.

Nevada, which is among the 16 states that allow medical marijuana, has a 2 nanogram THC limit for driving. Pennsylvania has a 5 nanogram limit, but thatâ??s a state Health Department guideline, which can be introduced in driving violation cases, Teigen said.

Don Christensen, executive director of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, which supports the 5 nanogram THC blood-content benchmark, said he thinks itâ??s a fair way for law enforcement and the public to know how much marijuana you can consume while legally being able to drive â?? just as thereâ??s a limit with alcohol.

â??I think itâ??s fair to tell them the rules to be played by,â?� he said.

Pot activists, including the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, say they hope marijuana DUIs are not based solely on the amount of the drug that is found in someoneâ??s system, but rather on the totality of the case, such as how the person was driving and other observations an officer makes.

They argue that medical users of the drug may have higher tolerance levels that would allow them to drive or still have trace levels of THC long after theyâ??ve smoked the drug. Some also worry that medical users may be unfairly targeted.

â??My only concern is that, because medical marijuana is controversial, that weâ??re entering a new phase of not racial profiling but medical profiling,â?� said Sean McAllister, an attorney at Denverâ??s Cannabis Law Center. McAllister was on a state panel that recommended the 5-nanogram standard, which he said is a fair judge of impairment for most users.

Not all marijuana advocates agree.

â??Weâ??re concerned the nanogram limit is too low because most medical marijuana patients are going to have higher levels in their bloodstream because of their continued use of medical cannabis,â?� said Laura Kriho, a spokeswoman with the Cannabis Therapy Institute in Colorado.

Rep. Mark Waller, a Republican who is sponsoring House Bill 1261 with Rep. Levy, said their proposal is meant to set a THC-blood level at which someone is presumed to be too impaired to drive.

â??Itâ??s a rebuttable presumption, though,â?� said Waller, adding that drivers wonâ??t be automatically guilty of a DUI and still will get a chance to argue their case.

The bill is yet to come before a committee for a hearing, but Levy said sheâ??s already getting a lot of comments from medical marijuana users.

â??Iâ??m getting a lot of pushback, a lot of concern that this will hinder the ability of medical marijuana patients to make use of their medicine,â?� Levy said.

She said the bill is about safety, not targeting people who use pot for medical purposes.

â??You just canâ??t allow people to be driving when theyâ??re high,â?� Levy said.

[5280and420]

I can't weigh in on this until someone, anyone, shows me results the correlate a few things:

1) Time from medicating until you're less than 5 ng in your bloodstream. (i.e., if you medicate at 8 am, and at 3 pm go for a drive, you obviously aren't intoxicated, but what is your THC ng level?)

2) How does THC ng level correlate with level of intoxication? (i.e., if you medicate regularly, what is your THC ng level when you are completely sober and haven't medicated in 8 hours?)

Until answers like this are provided, I can't even begin to have an opinion as to whether the bill is fair or completely absurd. (Of course, starting from this completely ignorant position, I believe that the evidence must come before the bill sets the appropriate levels)

[DenverRelief]

Don Christensen, executive director of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, which supports the 5 nanogram THC blood-content benchmark, said he thinks itâ??s a fair way for law enforcement and the public to know how much marijuana you can consume while legally being able to drive â?? just as thereâ??s a limit with alcohol.

We know that it is said that more than two alcoholic drinks will put you over the legal driving limit, but I am not sure how this bill would let us "know how much marijuana you can consume while legally being able to drive".

Is it one toke, a piece of an edible, or a whole joint that puts you over 5 nanograms?

[copobo]

I can't weigh in on this until someone, anyone, shows me results the correlate a few things:

1) Time from medicating until you're less than 5 ng in your bloodstream. (i.e., if you medicate at 8 am, and at 3 pm go for a drive, you obviously aren't intoxicated, but what is your THC ng level?)

2) How does THC ng level correlate with level of intoxication? (i.e., if you medicate regularly, what is your THC ng level when you are completely sober and haven't medicated in 8 hours?)

Until answers like this are provided, I can't even begin to have an opinion as to whether the bill is fair or completely absurd. (Of course, starting from this completely ignorant position, I believe that the evidence must come before the bill sets the appropriate levels)

these reasonable questions can't be answered, which is why this legislation is not ready this session.

[TheReleafCenter]

We know that it is said that more than two alcoholic drinks will put you over the legal driving limit, but I am not sure how this bill would let us "know how much marijuana you can consume while legally being able to drive".

Is it one toke, a piece of an edible, or a whole joint that puts you over 5 nanograms?

We had a patient call us with this same question yesterday, and unfortunately, we didn't have an answer either.

[HighPopalorum]

Why not get a blood test? That question can be answered very easily and precisely. I've never felt the need to verify my blood chemistry levels, but apparently if people are posting about it and calling your dispensary, it's an important question for some.

[TheReleafCenter]

Why not get a blood test? That question can be answered very easily and precisely. I've never felt the need to verify my blood chemistry levels, but apparently if people are posting about it and calling your dispensary, it's an important question for some.

Easier said than done, I suppose? How would one even go about that? Take a controlled dosage and then go to their physician for a blood test?

I think people want to be on the right side of the law, they just don't have anything to equate it with. Denver Relief hits the nail on the head; most people can drink two alcoholic beverages an hour without becoming intoxicated. There isn't the same "standard" for cannabis.

[HighPopalorum]

If people want to stay on the right side of the law, they should consider not driving at all when high. I know that can be inconvenient, but it isn't unreasonable. Rather than trying to determine exactly how much or little cannabis you can consume and remain under the legal limit, choose not to get behind the wheel. My advice w/r/t alcohol and other drugs is identical.

As for the per se standard, I think it would be a great idea for drivers under 21. I'm not opposed to a universal standard in principle, but I question whether it is needed. I would welcome increased police efforts to stop and arrest high drivers, with or without this bill.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

Again how is one supposed to know how much is in their system?
For alcohol & most other medications, one can figure out how long one must wait for your body to pass the active ingredients.

If one medicates in the evening, are they ok to drive the following morning? How are they supposed to be sure?

How does a "high driver" drive? Is it worse or better than an average driver? No matter how you might feel about your abilities to drive under the influence, how about all the studies that show a "high driver" drives just as good or safer than a non-high driver.

I personally believe MJ can affect one's ability to drive but it depends on how much you consume & your personal tolerance. I also believe that MJ doesn't affect your ability to make proper decision, unlike alcohol. I've never heard "I was so stoned last night, I shouldn't of drove" - but I hear that about getting drunk all the time! I have heard,"Wow I'm so stoned - I can't drive" - that person realizes they are in no condition to drive due to being stoned and chooses not too. I've never had a stoner argue with me about getting their car keys back either.

I completely agree that cops should go after anyone driving reckless, whether it's because they're high, drunk, eating, texting, changing the radio station, sneezing, tired or beating their kids in the backseat.... Reckless driving is just that reckless driving. Driving is too dangerous an activity for anyone to be distracted by anything. If getting stoned doesn't distract you from driving, then so be it. If it does distract you, I feel a responsible "stoner" will realize & understand that risk and make the correct decision.

Of course there are idiots out there, stoner or not, who will drive reckless no matter if they are too tired, eating, drunk, stoned, beating their kids in the backseat, texting or just distracted by that cutie jogging along the street.


If people want to stay on the right side of the law, they should consider not driving at all when high. I know that can be inconvenient, but it isn't unreasonable. Rather than trying to determine exactly how much or little cannabis you can consume and remain under the legal limit, choose not to get behind the wheel. My advice w/r/t alcohol and other drugs is identical.

As for the per se standard, I think it would be a great idea for drivers under 21. I'm not opposed to a universal standard in principle, but I question whether it is needed. I would welcome increased police efforts to stop and arrest high drivers, with or without this bill.

[HighPopalorum]

Again how is one supposed to know how much is in their system?

Again: If you want to know your blood THC level you should take a blood test. If you're asking me, instead, for a practical rule of thumb that will work for most people most of the time, like the "two drinks" rule I suggest the following: don't drive if you've gotten high that day.

[GratefulMeds]

It's bad science and the 5 nano-gram number just came from thin air as basically admitted by Levy in Nederland on Tuesday at the town board meeting where she discussed all the bills she has introduced except 1261, which she left out of her presentation until questioned by a physician and Kathleen (keeping em honest).
She admitted she had no science behind her bill and she did it to stimulate debate about the subject is what she said.

From what I am told the Physician pointed out what I believe. and that is she has just set up a system to ruin many lives from teenagers to the elderly but unjustly charging them for DUID. Costing our States citizens thousands to defend a bogus charge because of another bad law we do not need. The present laws work just fine and we dont need our State Representatives writing laws to stimulate debate, how fucked up is that? Where's the problem Claire? you forgot to call the local news crews 1st to stir things up with horror stories of the horrors of driving on Cannabis even days after using it. while many of your colleges pop their Diazepam before their rush hour drive.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[GratefulMeds]

We had a patient call us with this same question yesterday, and unfortunately, we didn't have an answer either.

you may want to check with an attorney that is skilled in DUID/DUI cases. but I am told of a case by an attorney in Boulder where he beat it, his client had smoked more then 3 hours before driving and beat the DUID. 3 hours seems to be the magic number.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[copobo]

you may want to check with an attorney that is skilled in DUID/DUI cases. but I am told of a case by an attorney in Boulder where he beat it, his client had smoked more then 3 hours before driving and beat the DUID. 3 hours seems to be the magic number.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

if only the "high" part lasted more than 15 minutes. was that case based on ng of THC-COOH or just argument about his impairment? I wonder about edibles? I bet its closer to 24 hours, which takes out many of your cancer/AIDs/pulmonary/sr citizen patients.

[GratefulMeds]

most likely based on impairment but I'll ask Skip next time I see him.:jointsmile:

[TheReleafCenter]

Again: If you want to know your blood THC level you should take a blood test. If you're asking me, instead, for a practical rule of thumb that will work for most people most of the time, like the "two drinks" rule I suggest the following: don't drive if you've gotten high that day.

Even if that doesn't constitute impairment? That sounds like a great way to be safe, but why not just set the legal level to 0 nanograms?

Thanks for the tip GM.

[HighPopalorum]

Even if that doesn't constitute impairment? That sounds like a great way to be safe, but why not just set the legal level to 0 nanograms?


Yeah. Even if. It's just a personal rule of thumb, not legal advice or the basis for law. I don't drive high or drunk - the degree of intoxication or impairment has nothing to do with my decision. It's a sensible rule.

[porone]

I saw last week in a washington state news paper a mention of a study that showed 18-20 nanograms was about the same as .08 alcohol.So where do they come up with 5?

We also already have laws on the books for driving while impaired.The only thing setting this kind of limit would do is give cops anouther way to screw you and your rights

[TheReleafCenter]

ACT4CO is trying to organize some patients that medicate frequently to submit to a voluntary blood test to see if .5 ng is a fair limit. Call me at the shop if you're interested in participating.

[porone]

I saw last week in a washington state news paper a mention of a study that showed 18-20 nanograms was about the same as .08 alcohol.So where do they come up with 5?

We also already have laws on the books for driving while impaired.The only thing setting this kind of limit would do is give cops anouther way to screw you and your rights

Is this just in the Denver area?Eather way its a great idea but its a long way or me

[DenverRelief]

Is this just in the Denver area?Eather way its a great idea but its a long way or me

If this bill were to pass, it would be a law statewide.

@Releaf Center - We are organizing some of our employees who are also patients and regular medicaters to voluntarily provide blood so that we can provide data for ACT4CO -

We are eager to see what the numbers look like since up till now the number has seemed so nebulous and arbitrary.

[chippy1012]

I know how you feel I have ADHD a rare Bi-polar 1 which I remain manic for months I feel like a walking pharmacy and the pills I take are way more illegal and potent than smoking. Smoking has cut my meds down and has help quite a bit not to mention it builds one immune system. Basically the government is pissed cause they couldn't find an angle to profit so this is the solution sons of bitches

[porone]

If this bill were to pass, it would be a law statewide.

@Releaf Center - We are organizing some of our employees who are also patients and regular medicaters to voluntarily provide blood so that we can provide data for ACT4CO -

We are eager to see what the numbers look like since up till now the number has seemed so nebulous and arbitrary.

Well ya I know it would be a state law .What I meant was,Is the testing done in the Denver area?Thats why I said it was a long way or me.

[TheReleafCenter]

Well ya I know it would be a state law .What I meant was,Is the testing done in the Denver area?Thats why I said it was a long way or me.

Blood samples can be taken at most police departments. Tests may need to be sent to Denver, though, for THC processing.

[porone]

Blood samples can be taken at most police departments. Tests may need to be sent to Denver, though, for THC processing.


POLICE station?I would just asoon have some junkie draw my blood.

[DenverRelief]

POLICE station?I would just asoon have some junkie draw my blood.

I don't blame you.

We haven't set this up fully yet, but will post back here with more information for those interested in participating.

[quetzal]

Am I reading something wrong, or is ACT4CO really suggesting people go to their local police station to get a blood sample for their campaign?

[porone]

Am I reading something wrong, or is ACT4CO really suggesting people go to their local police station to get a blood sample for their campaign?

I dont think so.I think that was releaf.{not sure why ?}
Most cops are not qualified to be a cop let alone draw blood.

[copobo]

I thought Claire Levy was going to be a friend of patients, but I'm now sure she needs to be replaced.

[TheReleafCenter]

I dont think so.I think that was releaf.{not sure why ?}
Most cops are not qualified to be a cop let alone draw blood.

ACT4CO is looking to find out where actual patients test in terms of ng. They aren't suggesting you go to a local police station.

[DenverRelief]

I thought Claire Levy was going to be a friend of patients, but I'm now sure she needs to be replaced.

I do wonder how she justifies this as being representative of what her Boulder constituency wants.

[HighPopalorum]

Maintain perspective, people. Claire is an ally in the effort to liberalize marijuana laws. She isn't the enemy.

[KarolinaKronic]

We know that it is said that more than two alcoholic drinks will put you over the legal driving limit, but I am not sure how this bill would let us "know how much marijuana you can consume while legally being able to drive".

Is it one toke, a piece of an edible, or a whole joint that puts you over 5 nanograms?

One toke of a couple of my strains will lay you down so the 5ng limit must be low.

[TheReleafCenter]

Just got home from the testimony portion. They released a chart that says an edible will never put you over the 5ng level. I believe it was from 1984. Should be circulating on the net tomorrow.

We killed them on a lot of their statistics. The only person who had to be "removed" was already on his way out. Really anxious to hear how it went, I felt like there were some Reps asking the right questions.

[copobo]

thanks Releaf. I didn't get to listen today so I'm anxious.

I don't believe Levy's numbers for a second. It's pre-medical, drug-war science.

[sgreene420]

THC/DUL Bill Moves Forward with a 6-2 Vote

I was pleased with the turnout and the well thought out testimony... at least on the side against the bill, on the other side of the coin, all the stops were pulled and ridicules lies thrown around but the quote of the year has to be from a lady who after hearing what she said i would have caught her name

"ONE WAY TO TELL IF SOMEONE IS HIGH. YOU CAN LOOK AT THEIR TONGUE, IT MAY BE GREEN'

Denver Post
Colo. pot DUIs bill gets first OK at Capitol - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_17580581)

[TheReleafCenter]

I'm glad Dr Shackelford addressed that directly. Sgt Simpson also testified that you can't cross your eyes if you're high, which lead to a lot of eye crossing in the gallery. Great moment.

[DenverRelief]

Maintain perspective, people. Claire is an ally in the effort to liberalize marijuana laws. She isn't the enemy.

I agree with you that Levy has been a proponent of medical marijuana, yet this is not a "liberalization" of law.

Levy is not an enemy, but this bill simply cannot be considered "pro marijuana". At its face, it is an overreaction to the supposed dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana that do not exist. That is not liberal, it's fearful and reactionary.

Coffee can make someone a dangerous driver, or a cell phone, or prescriptions drugs, or a person's simple inability to pay attention to what they are doing.

There is no public safety issue here, there is no rash of high drivers running over children...the problem with bad drivers is people not marijuana.

[HighPopalorum]

*shrug*

I only object to the Copobo's firing squad mentality. As you say, she's a proponent of medical marijuana. She also supports decriminalization and alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders. Even if she's wrong about this bill, she's right about most other marijuana-related issues. If Claire Levy fails the acid test, what Representative could possibly pass?

[copobo]

I would rather have someone in there NOT interested in MMJ legislation at all. This is a pretty major fuck up. It is going to ruin lives. The lives of good people.

She is presenting lies as truth. I think that's unforgivable.

She should kill the bill and stick to patient rights if she has any interest in MMJ.

[Zedleppelin]

I would rather have someone in there NOT interested in MMJ legislation at all. This is a pretty major fuck up. It is going to ruin lives. The lives of good people.

She is presenting lies as truth. I think that's unforgivable.

She should kill the bill and stick to patient rights if she has any interest in MMJ.

Couldn't agree more.

[senorx12562]

I simply do not understand why the law as it stands now is insufficient to protect people from impaired drivers, at least insofar as any law can do so. Exactly what additional danger is posed now that wasn't posed before to justify a change in the law? If, in a given instance, the state cannot prove that a driver was impaired without a presumption to that effect, that driver obviously wasn't very impaired, were they? This is just another case of law and order authoritarianism versus liberty, which proponents of the former hate with all their being. Prima facie evidence of impaired driving should be EVIDENCE OF HOW THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING. Duh.

[HighPopalorum]

I would rather have someone in there NOT interested in MMJ legislation at all. This is a pretty major fuck up. It is going to ruin lives. The lives of good people.

She is presenting lies as truth. I think that's unforgivable.

She should kill the bill and stick to patient rights if she has any interest in MMJ.

Five months ago you were singing her praises, starting threads urging us to vote for her, but now she's an unforgivable life-destroying menace? You can't tell friend from foe, Copobo, but your mercurial temperament livens up the place.

[quetzal]

Five months ago you were singing her praises, starting threads urging us to vote for her, but now she's an unforgivable life-destroying menace? You can't tell friend from foe, Copobo, but your mercurial temperament livens up the place.

Come on. You know that its a red herring whether or not copobo supported her before or not. It has no bearing on whether or not he judges her actions now to be good. A policitian can lose supporters for any number of reasons: she's making a genuine mistake, she genuiningly believes this bill to be beneficial to her constituants and supporters, perhaps she is showing her true colors now and was never to be trusted? Whatever the case may be, I feel that your opinion on a bill that could negatively effect the lives of MMJ patients is too strongly influenced by your personal lack of concern for the issue, because as you've stated you don't mind restricting yourself to a no-driving policy on days that you smoke--an impractical rule for many patients.

This argument boils down to a single issue for me at this point. Setting a (what many consider to be low) limit disproportionately benefits law enforcement over citizens, because the citizens in this case have no real, practical means for judging their THC limit before leaving the house! Most patients can judge their impairment level in order to drive, which currently works decently. But with a limit in place, it doesn't matter if you can drive well or not--all that matters is the damn number which no patient has the means to personally test for before driving. Unless you want to send them to a police station or hospital to test themselves everytime they want to go to the store. Or perhaps patients should be required to purchase home blood test kits or have nurses on standby in their homes?

The limit, the number, without regard for practical impairment level, only benefits law enforcement in the form of a political and financial campaign.

[copobo]

yea, you're trolling hipop.

my opinion of a particular politician can most certainly change. pushing patients into the DUI money machine is evil.

she seems to have bought a lie and doesn't want to admit she's mistaken. people are going to be being pulled over for out headlights and end up getting stuck with a needle and tested. just wait.

[Zedleppelin]

yea, you're trolling hipop.

my opinion of a particular politician can most certainly change. pushing patients into the DUI money machine is evil.

she seems to have bought a lie and doesn't want to admit she's mistaken. people are going to be being pulled over for out headlights and end up getting stuck with a needle and tested. just wait.


Thats what I see happening. Cops will pull people over and if their hair is to long, or if their eyes are red from hay fever, or if the cop simply wants to harass and make the dubious smell claim they will haul your ass to the hospital to stick a needle in your arm. And guess what happens to your car? They will tow it and you will have to pay the tow and impound fees, not to mention its a free pass to search the vehicle. I bet the cops are foaming at the mouth waiting for this to pass.

[HighPopalorum]

Everyone changes their mind. After all, when circumstances change it's the prudent choice! However, we shouldn't vote out every pot-friendly politician with whom we have any disagreement. We'll be left with no one! Claire is right on a preponderance of issues that relate to marijuana and her background gives her a good grasp of the technical details of land use, permitting and planning as they relate to centers and growing operations. I really don't give a hoot about Levy's retention- my Boulder days are in the past- but I think it would be a a net negative to lose her contributions, not only w/r/t pot but to broader civil liberty issues. She's very liberal on all the issues so there are innumerable reasons why a person might not vote for her, but she has been receptive to retail medical marijuana, and also to lowering and removing penalties for recreational smokers. Replace her if you like, but it's a virtual certainty that we'll find more bones to pick with her successor than with Levy.

[TheReleafCenter]

This law could actually do a lot of good. It gives you a level that you can be exonerated at. Currently, any MMJ in your system is a DUID if you're driving impaired. I think the level is too low, but that's where we're starting.

[porone]

This law could actually do a lot of good. It gives you a level that you can be exonerated at. Currently, any MMJ in your system is a DUID if you're driving impaired. I think the level is too low, but that's where we're starting.


Ummm No!We already have laws against driving while impaired.It alows cops to charge you without any other evidence no matter where the limit is set.

[TheReleafCenter]

Ummm No!We already have laws against driving while impaired.It alows cops to charge you without any other evidence no matter where the limit is set.

And those laws currently say any MMJ use is impairment. Same goes for any amount of say... ambien. Anything that is a drug that affects how you drive is illegal currently. This bill would allow you some D9 THC in your system while you drive. Current law doesn't.

It also doesn't allow cops to charge you, you still have to show signs of impairment. The per se portion is written awkwardly and will be cleaned up as this continues to move through the legislature. Levy wants it to be a DUI per se (where simply hitting 5ng is a DUI, no evidence can help) but that has no support.

[porone]

And those laws currently say any MMJ use is impairment. Same goes for any amount of say... ambien. Anything that is a drug that affects how you drive is illegal currently. This bill would allow you some D9 THC in your system while you drive. Current law doesn't.

It also doesn't allow cops to charge you, you still have to show signs of impairment. The per se portion is written awkwardly and will be cleaned up as this continues to move through the legislature. Levy wants it to be a DUI per se (where simply hitting 5ng is a DUI, no evidence can help) but that has no support.

As it stands now there are 2 eliments to the crime.One being intoxicated.The other is driving in a manner that is a danger to others.I know I beet a duid without a lawyer and the judge said he beleived I was High as a kite but the state did not provide evidence that I was driving in any manner other than safe.

[TheReleafCenter]

As it stands now there are 2 eliments to the crime.One being intoxicated.The other is driving in a manner that is a danger to others.I know I beet a duid without a lawyer and the judge said he beleived I was High as a kite but the state did not provide evidence that I was driving in any manner other than safe.

Did they do a blood draw?

[DenverRelief]

Anything that is a drug that affects how you drive is illegal currently.

That isn't completey true. If I was hopped up on my third cup of coffee and tailgating and driving aggressively and a cop pulled me over, she would likely charge me with reckless driving, or careless driving, but she wouldn't look at my coffee cup and ask me to step out of the car so that she could determine if I had enough caffeine in my blood through a blood test to be considered impaired.

She would just write the ticket.

In this case the coffee isn't illegal or the caffeine in my blood, it's the driving. So should it be for marijuana.

[porone]

Did they do a blood draw?

Yes They knew I was High but being pulled over for tail lights was not enough.It was alot more than Mj too.Glad that part of my life is over

[TheReleafCenter]

That isn't completey true. If I was hopped up on my third cup of coffee and tailgating and driving aggressively and a cop pulled me over, she would likely charge me with reckless driving, or careless driving, but she wouldn't look at my coffee cup and ask me to step out of the car so that she could determine if I had enough caffeine in my blood through a blood test to be considered impaired.

She would just write the ticket.

In this case the coffee isn't illegal or the caffeine in my blood, it's the driving. So should it be for marijuana.

I should have been more clear. There are DUID's written for prescription drugs. In your example, an officer would probably still give you a roadside, suspecting the presence of some drug.

[TheReleafCenter]

Yes They knew I was High but being pulled over for tail lights was not enough.It was alot more than Mj too.Glad that part of my life is over

Well, glad you didn't get found guilty. Getting pulled over for a tail light wouldn't be enough under the new law unless they determined you were impaired.

[DenverRelief]

I should have been more clear. There are DUID's written for prescription drugs. In your example, an officer would probably still give you a roadside, suspecting the presence of some drug.

My point is this, the coffee can make someone a dangerous driver as can numerous other factors. Some of those are "illegal" because there is language explicitly stating such written in law. Even if the officer issued a roadside, though the coffee may have contributed to my bad driving, there is nothing the law can do about it, because it isn't illegal to drink coffee and drive.

Becoming litigious about every single factor that could possible lead to bad driving to the point of drawing blood does not provide the benefit that is intended. The roads are no safer and wouldn't be if this THC DUI bill were to pass.

We should just punish bad drivers...

[TheReleafCenter]

My point is this, the coffee can make someone a dangerous driver as can numerous other factors. Some of those are "illegal" because there is language explicitly stating such written in law. Even if the officer issued a roadside, though the coffee may have contributed to my bad driving, there is nothing the law can do about it, because it isn't illegal to drink coffee and drive.

Becoming litigious about every single factor that could possible lead to bad driving to the point of drawing blood does not provide the benefit that is intended. The roads are no safer and wouldn't be if this THC DUI bill were to pass.

We should just punish bad drivers...

I don't know, I personally support things like bans on cell phone use while driving. There is overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence that driving under the influence of certain levels of D9 THC can be dangerous.

[porone]

[QUOTE= There is overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence that driving under the influence of certain levels of D9 THC can be dangerous.[/QUOTE]

SO WHAT

I know why dont we right a law that says, At the age 18 you take a test.You should discribe a repulic, a dimocracy, monarcy and so on.Then ask what type of government is the united states is and if you get any of it wrong you get a oneway ticket to anywhere outside the US and never let your ass back in!
{spelling well not required } LOL
We have to many laws now.We have laws that are against the law.For example proabition is against the US constitusion.If you say its not then why did it take an amendment to alcohal illeagle and anouther to make it leagle again?

[DenverRelief]

I don't know, I personally support things like bans on cell phone use while driving. There is overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence that driving under the influence of certain levels of D9 THC can be dangerous.

And it is up to the individual to make good choices when it comes to driving, and if they feel impaired they shouldn't drive. People should hang up the cell phone while they are driving, and stop texting, but they don't. That's a fact.

Making it illegal to be on a cell phone doesn't stop people from making phone calls. Making it illegal to be under the influence of THC over 5ng/ml will not stop people from smoking and driving.

We should exercise common-sense and see that we already have laws to deal with dangerous drivers and we do not need to put more people through the judicial system and subject them to DUI's.

Alcohol is proven to be a different animal when it comes to intoxication.

[HighPopalorum]

What data do you have to support those statements? For the most part, the laws we have that restrict or require behavior in our cars do have the desired effect. For example DUI laws have lowered the incidence of drunk driving. Seatbelt and child safety laws have very high compliance rates. I think it's too early to say how efficacious our cell-phone bans will be, but the sales of hands-free devices like bluetooth headsets and expensive in-dash communications systems indicate to me that people are becoming more aware of the dangers of driving while using a phone. There's every reason to believe fewer people would drive high if we enforced DUID laws more rigorously.

If anyone was at the Judiciary meeting, was there any discussion of making driving high a DWAI and not a DUID? That would mean first-offenders with clean driving records would not lose their license automatically, and if no one was hurt there would be no felony.

[senorx12562]

What data do you have to support those statements? For the most part, the laws we have that restrict or require behavior in our cars do have the desired effect. For example DUI laws have lowered the incidence of drunk driving. Seatbelt and child safety laws have very high compliance rates. I think it's too early to say how efficacious our cell-phone bans will be, but the sales of hands-free devices like bluetooth headsets and expensive in-dash communications systems indicate to me that people are becoming more aware of the dangers of driving while using a phone. There's every reason to believe fewer people would drive high if we enforced DUID laws more rigorously.

If anyone was at the Judiciary meeting, was there any discussion of making driving high a DWAI and not a DUID? That would mean first-offenders with clean driving records would not lose their license automatically, and if no one was hurt there would be no felony.

What data do you have to support your statements? In the first place, whether "DUI laws have lowered the incidence of drunk driving" is not the question to be asked(although I'd be interested in your source for such an assertion). The question is whether changing the previous law requiring the state to adduce evidence at trial of SOME level of impairment of driving due to the consumption of alcohol to giving the prosecution the benefit of a PRESUMPTION that a certain alcohol content in one's blood constituted impairment per se(as Ms. Levy has proposed for marijuana) lowered the incidence of drunk driving or not. I doubt both the existence of conclusive evidence either way and the effect you imply for such a change in the law. Also keep in mind that increased arrest and/or conviction rates are certain to result when it is made easier by statute to obtain a conviction, however that says nothing about whether the behavior happens less often. An increase in the number of people who go to jail for something without a concomitant reduction in the incidence of the underlying behavior is a negative, not a positive, at least to anyone for anyone who values liberty ( which leaves you out I guess). As for cell phones, although anecdotal, I see no evidence of a reduction in the amount of cell-phone-impaired driving. The fact that people buy hands-free devices is actually an example of the law of unintended consequences, as the impairment to driving from phone use is not primarily due to using one's hands, but rather the distraction that comes from trying to carry on a conversation remotely, which a hands-free device does nothing about. I sure am glad those people with their bluetooth headsets are complying with the law though. I feel much safer.

[HighPopalorum]

*shrug*

My data on seat belt compliance (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811378.pdf), drunk driving incidence (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811016.pdf) are from the NHTSA. Per se laws have been around about forty years and alcohol-related traffic fatalities have been plummeting ever since. How much of that decline is attributable to the increased ease of prosecution provided by per se laws? I couldn't say. Over the same time period, police have devoted increased resources to the problem and public perceptions of drunk drivers have changed - drunk driving bears a higher social stigma now than it once did. Still, it's reasonable to conclude per se limits have decreased drunk driving.

[DenverRelief]

alcohol-related traffic fatalities have been plummeting ever since. How much of that decline is attributable to the increased ease of prosecution provided by per se laws? I couldn't say.

There are many reasons for this, and drunk driving laws should not constitute the major percentage. Cars are A LOT safer than they were 40 years ago. Guardrails have been built along all major highways.

It is a fallacy to mistake a correlation for a cause.

It may be safe to conclude that drunk driving laws are sufficient motivation for some not to drive drunk. This is not sufficient to conclude that drunk driving laws have reduced instances of drunk driving.

[DenverRelief]

alcohol-related traffic fatalities have been plummeting ever since. How much of that decline is attributable to the increased ease of prosecution provided by per se laws? I couldn't say.

There are many reasons for this, and drunk driving laws should not constitute the major percentage. Cars are A LOT safer than they were 40 years ago. Guardrails have been built along all major highways, ambulances are faster, emergency health care is better, etc.

It is a fallacy to mistake a correlation for a cause.

It may be safe to conclude that drunk driving laws are sufficient motivation for some not to drive drunk. This is not sufficient to conclude that drunk driving laws have reduced instances of drunk driving.

[DenverRelief]

alcohol-related traffic fatalities have been plummeting ever since. How much of that decline is attributable to the increased ease of prosecution provided by per se laws? I couldn't say.

There are many reasons for this, and drunk-driving laws should not be considered the major cause.

Cars are A LOT safer than they were 40 years ago. Guardrails have been built along all major highways, ambulances are faster, emergency health care is better, etc.

It is a fallacy to mistake a correlation for a cause.

It may be safe to conclude that drunk driving laws are sufficient motivation for some not to drive drunk. This is not sufficient to conclude that drunk driving laws have reduced instances of drunk driving.

[HighPopalorum]

That's exactly the same objection I raised, but it turns out that alcohol-related fatalities are falling at a much greater rate than overall traffic fatalities. That indicated to me that improvements in car safety, emergency response, medical care alone don't account for the drop. I believe people drive drunk less because there are increased negative consequences when they get caught. It's a reasonable conclusion to leap to.

I'm sick of this, though. The comparison between alcohol and marijuana can only be taken so far and we're far beyond the point of usefulness. For example, the number of corpses that test positive for marijuana is not useful because THC persists so long in the system. How would we even know if the law was working to reduce deaths? I'm on the fence about this law. I'm not convinced it's the best way we can reduce the number of high drivers on Colorado roads, and I'm entirely agnostic on what the limit should be. 5, 50 or 500ng are equally opaque to me.

[porone]

Im sure now that most people under 45 are so brain washed by our government that they truly beleive the shit Highpop and Releaf spout.
I dont mean this as a put you down guys.You are both quite smart and mean well.
You nead to stand up for the republic and true freedom.Not a Mob rules Democracy in witch you seem to think you live.I think, you think that progresive means progress and thats good.Well its not.We are all liberal in a way.
You may vote Dems becouse they are for leagal cannabis but they are killing our country.(most Repubicans are just as bad)(and not all Dems are bad)Almost everyone most people vote for though should be hung for treason.
Fight the whole fight people.
Fight for the Republic.
Fight for our constitution
I like the both of you though, like I said your both sharp.(Highpop & Releaf)
Makes for good debait
Someday we should:jointsmile:
Its not just about cannabis its about freedom

[HighPopalorum]

Dude, smoking pot is not a civil liberty. It isn't capital-F Freedom. It's a liberty, to be sure, but a political liberty - the same as voting or buying booze or driving a car. So.... it's not really about freedom; it's about cannabis. There are ways this law could be drafted that are consistent with our constitutional and human rights and there are variants that would lead to great violations of our civil liberties.

[porone]

Dude, smoking pot is not a civil liberty. It isn't capital-F Freedom. It's a liberty, to be sure, but a political liberty - the same as voting or buying booze or driving a car. So.... it's not really about freedom; it's about cannabis. There are ways this law could be drafted that are consistent with our constitutional and human rights and there are variants that would lead to great violations of our civil liberties.

See? You just proved my point
You may never get it

[porone]

Shrug

[senorx12562]

Dude, smoking pot is not a civil liberty. It isn't capital-F Freedom. It's a liberty, to be sure, but a political liberty - the same as voting or buying booze or driving a car. So.... it's not really about freedom; it's about cannabis. There are ways this law could be drafted that are consistent with our constitutional and human rights and there are variants that would lead to great violations of our civil liberties.

Sorry, but anytime one is threatened with incarceration, it IS capital F Freedom.

[HighPopalorum]

Who is being threatened with incarceration besides people who have already broken our existing laws? Per se laws don't threaten a new class of people, but only make it easier to prosecute people who have already committed DUID according to our law. The devil's in the details with this law - if it gives police the right to stop and demand blood from anyone they wish on the flimsiest pretext, it's bad. If it allows police and prosecutors another evidential tool with which to convict high drivers, it's good. How about this: only allow police to test people already charged and jailed for other traffic crimes? There's a lot of restrictions we can place on law enforcement's ability to use this, and we should. I don't mean to straw man you, but I gather your objections to per se laws are part of the broader libertarian objection to DUI laws and I think they are somewhat out of the scope of the conversation - we're never going to agree on DUI laws if you believe people should be able to drive as high or drunk as they please so long as they don't show impairment or damage property.

[TheReleafCenter]

If anyone was at the Judiciary meeting, was there any discussion of making driving high a DWAI and not a DUID? That would mean first-offenders with clean driving records would not lose their license automatically, and if no one was hurt there would be no felony.

ACT4CO proposed an amended version that would have set 5ng as the DWAI limit and 8ng for DUID, no per se DUI's and a 2 year sunset. I thought it was reasonable.

The thing that Rep Ryder kept mentioning that hit home with me is that NO ONE is properly educating patients about driving under the influence of D9 THC. Sure, a lot of places include a sentence in their paperwork that says not to operate heavy machinery, but that seems woefully insufficient.

EDIT: I also would say that the per se element of the bill was incorrectly worded and this came up at the hearing. Levy wants it to be like per se DUI, but there was strong opposition in committee to that. I don't see that making the final bill. This is a fluid process.

Law enforcement testified that simply being high wasn't enough to do a blood draw. The DUID would never hold up in court, so they'd be wasting everyones time. You need to show the same signs you would in a DUI case. They also testified that a vast majority of DUID's are in the 14-17ng level, so you essentially have to be VERY HIGH before they're going to bother.

[HighPopalorum]

A sunset provision is a good addition I hadn't thought of. The whole idea is kind of experimental.

[TheReleafCenter]

A sunset provision is a good addition I hadn't thought of. The whole idea is kind of experimental.

Exactly. The hope is that there is more evidence soon.

[canaguy27]

so you essentially have to be VERY HIGH before they're going to bother.

Or if they feel like harassing you...

[senorx12562]

Who is being threatened with incarceration besides people who have already broken our existing laws? Per se laws don't threaten a new class of people, but only make it easier to prosecute people who have already committed DUID according to our law. The devil's in the details with this law - if it gives police the right to stop and demand blood from anyone they wish on the flimsiest pretext, it's bad. If it allows police and prosecutors another evidential tool with which to convict high drivers, it's good. How about this: only allow police to test people already charged and jailed for other traffic crimes? There's a lot of restrictions we can place on law enforcement's ability to use this, and we should. I don't mean to straw man you, but I gather your objections to per se laws are part of the broader libertarian objection to DUI laws and I think they are somewhat out of the scope of the conversation - we're never going to agree on DUI laws if you believe people should be able to drive as high or drunk as they please so long as they don't show impairment or damage property.


I do actually believe that driving under the influence is properly a criminal offense, but I'm not persuaded that the instant proposal is supported by any showing that it makes any of us safer. I don't believe the science is clear on whether a particular concentration of thc in the blood is indicative of a particular level of impairment, nor have I seen anything that would allow the average person to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law, short of, as you suggested earlier, not driving at all within 2-3 hours of smoking, although consuming edibles is more problematic. The proposal seems to attempt to treat mj like alcohol, and I think that the actions of the two drugs are sufficiently different that to treat them the same way is a mistake. Maybe someday there will be some kind of test that can reliably gauge how impaired a particular person is, but until that time, I'm not in favor of conditioning one's freedom upon the results of a test that may or may not reliably tell whether that person broke the law or not by driving while impaired.

As for my well-known libertarian leanings, they do require me to evaluate any legislative proposal based on at least two criteria: Is the goal one that is properly pursued by the government; and , if so, is the proposal going to be effective at attaining that goal? (There are others, such as some kind of cost-benefit analysis, but if it doesn't pass the first two, they don't matter.) This clearly passes the first and fails the second. If there is no way for the average person to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law, it will not deter the behavior. The amount of alcohol one can consume without running afoul of the law is reasonably well known and available info, but with mj, not so much. I just don't think, as proposed, it will deter much impaired driving. I'm also curious, and maybe someone can explain, what is wrong with the current DUID law that it needs to be modified specifically for mj?

[TheReleafCenter]

I think the argument is current DUID laws don't give much guidance to a jury. By setting a permissible amount for a driver, your lawyer can tell a jury that while you may have been under the influence of marijuana, you tested at only 1ng, well under the 5ng limit. In the status quo, if you're high... you're high.

Once again, I want to let everyone know that ACT4CO is trying to do the actual research on ng levels in Colorado. Lot's of people volunteered at the hearing, don't know if they touched base with ACT4 though.

[porone]

Why dont we make a law against redundant laws.

The laws we have work just fine.

Making a new law will not make anyone safer.

[HighPopalorum]

I used to be quite the libertarian myself - still am on most issues that relate to the Federal government. Believe it or not, I was an intern and then a researcher in the con law department of the Cato Institute. I was polishing my resume with the intention of going to George Mason to study civil rights law. Long story short, after working for two extremely talented civil liberties litigators, I realized I wasn't smart enough or quick enough to do it well so I went to grad school instead of law school.... and the rest is history. (18th century American history, as it happens.) Over the years, I've dropped the libertarian label as the party and movement have moved farther to the right - first after 9/11 and then with the rise of the Tea Party. I now vote Democratic for congressional and Presidential races - they are a little closer to my views on the federal issues I care most about: war, human migration, drug policy, marriage equality, reproductive freedom and the balance between national security and liberty.

[copobo]

I think the argument is current DUID laws don't give much guidance to a jury. By setting a permissible amount for a driver, your lawyer can tell a jury that while you may have been under the influence of marijuana, you tested at only 1ng, well under the 5ng limit. In the status quo, if you're high... you're high.

Once again, I want to let everyone know that ACT4CO is trying to do the actual research on ng levels in Colorado. Lot's of people volunteered at the hearing, don't know if they touched base with ACT4 though.

the bill does not set a permissible amount, or has the language changed that much? Per Se limits only help the prosecution as far as I know, but I'm no lawyer.

[TheReleafCenter]

the bill does not set a permissible amount, or has the language changed that much? Per Se limits only help the prosecution as far as I know, but I'm no lawyer.

Like I said, the per se language is likely to be amended. As written currently, it contradicts itself in a later portion. Levy's stated intent is per se, but that was not widely supported. I think they feel there is barely enough evidence to say 5ng is a good level, so creating an automatic conviction would be a huge reach.

[copobo]

these things always sound more 'friendly' until they are passed. there is going to be ZERO good in this for patients. none. zilch. only screwed.

[TheReleafCenter]

these things always sound more 'friendly' until they are passed. there is going to be ZERO good in this for patients. none. zilch. only screwed.

Sorry, I thought you wanted an answer.

[copobo]

I appreciate the answer, I really do.

just commenting. I don't usually require much of an excuse ;)

[Toastyroadie]

This is insane. Where is all the evidence that driving high equals impairment. If this were the case, we'd have lots of dead people and statistics to go by, but we don't have either.

Here is a study from last year...
Hartford Hospital Studies Effects Of Marijuana Use On Driving Skills


HARTFORD â?? Marijuana use had little effect on simulated driving skills, according to a Hartford Hospital study, but test subjects were more easily distracted when under the influence of the drug.

Investigators from Hartford Hospital and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine assessed the simulated driving performance of 50 male and 35 female subjects in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. All 85 subjects reported having used marijuana from one to 10 times per month previously.

The study was published in the March issue of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs.


During the study, some subjects were given actual marijuana cigarettes, and some were given a placebo, with neither the investigator nor the subject knowing which they had smoked. Another administrator kept track of who was given which type of cigarette.

The marijuana was supplied by the National Institute of Drug Abuse and the University of Mississippi, the only legal source of the drug in the U.S.

Subjects drove a high-tech simulator that was very realistic, said Beth Anderson, an investigator in the study. "It was an actual car with parts replaced by computers."

Participants then drove down a simulated country road for 15 minutes, first in an "uneventful" simulation, and then in collision-avoidance and distracted-driving simulations, the study states.

In the collision-avoidance portion, drivers reacted to simulated events such as another driver entering an intersection illegally, a changing traffic light, and a dog running into the road.

The researchers found no signifcant difference between the study groups in the collision-avoidance tests.

During the distracted-driving segment, participants solved "mental math" problems while driving, Anderson said. Subjects answered aloud simple math problems that were provided by a recording.

Speed and steering variability, as well as the number of errors made in the math portion of the test, were used to determine how impaired subjects were, according to Anderson.

"The study didn't find a lot of impairment," Anderson said. "[Subjects] slowed down. It looked like they were trying to compensate. Compensation would only take you so far."

The study states that "participants receiving active marijuana decreased their speed more so than those receiving the placebo cigarette during a distracted section of the drive."

Anderson stressed that the findings do not mean that driving high is harmless.

For instance, researchers noted that in the distracted-driving tests, "participants under the influence of marijuana failed to benefit from prior [driving] experience â?¦ as evidenced by a decrease in speed and a failure to show expected practice effects."

"The results do not imply that it is safe to drive under the influence of marijuana, especially because we know people aren't just smoking marijuana," Anderson said. "They do it while drinking. They do this when others are in the car, listening to music, talking on cellphones or texting. These behaviors distract drivers and are even more dangerous when someone has been using marijuana."

Anderson said the study showed that the effects of marijuana on driving need to be studied further.

"We need to know what marijuana does to the brain. We need to understand the ramifications. To create public policy and to keep people safe, you need to know what's really happening in the brain," Anderson said. "You have to have the facts."

A 2004 fact sheet published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that marijuana has been shown to adversely affect driving.

"Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported," the fact sheet states.

"Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment."
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)

If it were a problem, we'd already know by the overwhelming evidence that appears with credible issues.

[Toastyroadie]

Also found this interesting letter from Dr Robert Melamede,


Some info to ponder, look at the last line, I've bolded it...

From here...Coloradoâ??s HB11-1261 DUID Per Se Law THC (http://milehighnorml.org/2011/02/16/colorados-hb11-1261-duid-per-se-law/)
With the Colorado General Assembly looking at this very issue in this session, Dr Robert Melamede answers a few of those questions here in a letter to a few colleges.


Read HB-11-1261

Hi All,

In recognition of Colorado stateâ??s regulatory efforts to balance the need to protect itâ??s citizens from impaired drivers, with an appropriate science-based protection of basic rights of the states medical marihuana patients, I am providing you with some peer reviews scientific articles that I hope will shape your views especially with regard to the 5ng/ml plasma THC level under consideration.

As you can readily see in table 2 of the attached article (the relevant portion shown below), the plasma THC concentration in the baseline control subjects (consisting of heavy cannabis users with an average age of 23.2 years) was already well above proposed limit for determining impairment.

Furthermore, the authorâ??s conclusions based on performance tests, were fully consistent with previous studies that demonstrated limited impairment caused by THC in regular cannabis users.

â??Previous research has demonstrated that daily cannabis users are less sensitive to the impairing effects of Δ9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) intoxication on cognitive and psychomotor functions (Dâ??Souza et al. 2008; Hart et al. 2001; Jones et al. 1981; Ramaekers et al. 2009) that have often been demonstrated in occasional cannabis smokers (Curran et al. 2002; Hart et al. 2002; Heishman et al. 1989; Lamers and Ramaekers 2001; Ramaekers et al. 2004; Ramaekers et al. 2006a), even when THC concentrations and levels of subjective high are similar (Ramaekers et al. 2009). This loss of sensitivity or tolerance to the behavioral effects of THC after prolonged use is believed to result from a change in pharmacodynamic response as evinced by CB1 receptor downregulation in large parts of the brain (Gonzalez et al. 2005). Alternatively, it has also been suggested that heavy cannabis users recruit alternative neural networks as a compensatory mechanism during task performance. Eldreth et al. (2004) and Kanayama et al. (2004) showed that compared with controls, cannabis users utilized additional brain regions to perform cognitive tasks, i.e., they compensated by working harder and recruiting compensatory networks.â?�

The authors further concluded:
â??THC did not affect performance of heavy cannabis users in the critical tracking task, the stop-signal task, and the Tower of London. These tasks have previously been shown to be very sensitive to the impairing potential of THC when administered to infrequent cannabis (Ramaekers et al. 2006a).â?�

They also noted:
â??However it was interesting to note that tolerance was not apparent in all performance tasks. During divided- attention task performance, THC increased the number of control losses and reaction time and decreased the number of correct signal detections. Number of times that subjects lost control over the primary task (tracking) during this dual task performance appeared particularly sensitive to the impairing effect of THC.â?� It is worth noting that sleep deprived subjects also show performance deficits in this task.

In view of the above data, the proposed regulatory plasma limit would unfairly single out sick medical marijuana patients as being impaired through the use of criteria that were inappropriate for this population. Furthermore, infrequent users will tend to have lower THC concentrations while being more impaired, thus defeating the very purpose of the regulations. In view of the above peer reviewed science, setting inappropriate THC plasma levels would needlessly harm patients and burden the judicial system.

It would make a lot of sense to test for both THC and alcohol to determine impairment. The 5 ng/ml would probably make sense when determined in conjunction with the alcohol level.

I have also attached an study that examined marijuana as a potential causative agent for automobile accidents in Colorado. The authors concluded â??Alcohol remains the dominant drug associated with injury- producing traffic crashes.

Marijuana is often detected, but in the absence of alcohol, it is not associated with crash responsibility.â?�
Thank you for your consideration,

Dr Bob

[ds0110]

We already have laws against damaging people or their property while driving. DUID (and for that matter DUI) laws are redundant. You shouldnt be able to arrest someone for what you THINK they MIGHT do. The vast majority of people that will be arrested with this new law are average people that are driving fine (between the lines and not wrecking) Its going to open up a new level of profiling by the police where anyone 18-24 is at risk for harassment. It gives leo a way to take blood from any driver they want, at their discretion. This goes far beyond unreasonable search and seizure/ self incrimination, and its sad this is even up for debate. What is worse is that no amount of protesting by patients and caregivers will change anything...the lawmakers will do what LEO tells them, and we will all suffer. There is nothing anyone can do about it.

[senorx12562]

We already have laws against damaging people or their property while driving. DUID (and for that matter DUI) laws are redundant. You shouldnt be able to arrest someone for what you THINK they MIGHT do. The vast majority of people that will be arrested with this new law are average people that are driving fine (between the lines and not wrecking) Its going to open up a new level of profiling by the police where anyone 18-24 is at risk for harassment. It gives leo a way to take blood from any driver they want, at their discretion. This goes far beyond unreasonable search and seizure/ self incrimination, and its sad this is even up for debate. What is worse is that no amount of protesting by patients and caregivers will change anything...the lawmakers will do what LEO tells them, and we will all suffer. There is nothing anyone can do about it.

I'm unaware of any provision of the proposal that abrogates the requirement that the police officer have reasonable suspicion in order to pull you over, and probable cause to request testing. If your complaint is that cops lie about why they pull someone over or what their basis for probable cause is, that is a larger problem that has nothing to do with this proposal. Why 18-24?

[HighPopalorum]

Because all those 18-24 year olds are crazy hop heads with their hot rods and rock and roll music!

Personally, I'm worried about facial hair profiling. Currently, I'm sporting a well-trimmed full beard. If this passes, will I need to switch to something more conservative, like a mustache, in order to avoid police harassment?

[Zedleppelin]

Because all those 18-24 year olds are crazy hop heads with their hot rods and rock and roll music!



That was the good old days, now its Hondas and hip hop.

[FunkeeNuggz]

Well apparently there wasn't enough power to change the people's minds....but maybe, just maybe, the senate will do something even though i doubt. lol

Medical marijuana: THC driving limits sponsor can't lower standard, may not vote for bill - Denver News - The Latest Word (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/03/medical_marijuana_thc_driving_limits_bill.php)

[DenverRelief]

Well apparently there wasn't enough power to change the people's minds....but maybe, just maybe, the senate will do something even though i doubt. lol

It's best if people contact there senators and request that the per se standard be removed from the bill at the very least if not requesting to just have it voted down.

Here is a spreadsheet about who you may contact before the bill goes through its final readings.

Cannabis Therapy Institutue - Medical Cannabis (Marijuana) Research, Education and Advocacy in Colorado (http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/advocacy/contact.colorado.state.legislature.html)

[senorx12562]

Well apparently there wasn't enough power to change the people's minds....but maybe, just maybe, the senate will do something even though i doubt. lol

Medical marijuana: THC driving limits sponsor can't lower standard, may not vote for bill - Denver News - The Latest Word (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/03/medical_marijuana_thc_driving_limits_bill.php)

Next the mere possession of a MMJ license will be probable cause to request a test, and failure of the test will result in the suspension of driving privileges for a year or two. Mark my words.