â??D-U-Highâ?? bill fails in Colorado state Senate

[5280and420]

‘D-U-High’ bill fails in Colorado state Senate | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/15/d-u-high-bill-fails-in-colorado-state-senate/)

The Colorado state Senate rejected a bill Tuesday that would have created a blood alcohol limit for marijuana use for drivers. The so-called â??D-U-Highâ?� bill, which would have banned drivers with more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood, failed to break a tie of 17-17 in the Senateâ??s special session, according to the Associated Press.

The bill, which aims to put the same standards in place for marijuana users that are already in place for alcohol users, passed the Colorado House late Monday, but failed to make it through the Senate. The bill was also introduced and failed by a single vote during Coloradoâ??s regular legislative session.

Opponents of the bill doubted the its efficacy. â??I donâ??t think itâ??ll make our roads any safer,â?� argued Democratic Sen. Pat Steadman to the AP.

According to Coloradoâ??s 9 News, one state senator who was absent during the vote Tuesday, Sen. Nancy Spence, voted for the bill during the regular session.

[senorx12562]

The law enforcement establishment will be back for another bite at this apple, probably repeatedly until they are successful. Cops and prosecutors absolutely LOVE per se laws, regardless of whether they are necessary or just.

[williboy]

Doesn't CO get a fair portion of it's income tax via MMJ sales? I bet those legislators are more careful of the rights of their MMJ patients than the ones in California are. I'm just saying ...."follow the money" ( unknown who said that first.)

[LOC NAR on probation]

The same would have to be done for all meds from the big manufactures.

Don't worry next they will show that if it saves one life is it not worth it ? Then you will see the brown shirts nazi and it will be written in stone.

Remember Czars can make regulations more powerfull than laws and they need no one to do or vote on it.


Sorry I'm having a bad day with chrohn's and I'm waiting for it to kick in. Some how pain makes me see the way the world really is. Where are my rose colored glasses? LOL

[HighPopalorum]

The same would have to be done for all meds from the big manufactures.

Good. I don't want people driving drunk or high. Having been the victim of a drunk driver (concussion, broken collar bone, separated shoulder, broken ribs), I have exactly zero tolerance for people who use drugs and drive. That includes MMJ patients who are high all the time and choose to drive. It's just as painful to get run over by someone on oxycontin as it is to get run over by someone on pot. Add per se (preferably zero tolerance) limits for all drugs that impair driving.

[HighPopalorum]

Doesn't CO get a fair portion of it's income tax via MMJ sales?


I don't think so, no. I'm not sure if you mean income tax or sales tax, but the revenue is small. I'm ambivalent about further taxes on pot.

[Douglas1]

I don't really understand.. wouldn't a marijuana user always test positive? even a week or so after smoking?

[senorx12562]

I don't really understand.. wouldn't a marijuana user always test positive? even a week or so after smoking?

Therein lies the problem with every per se proposal I've seen, people who smoke a lot could test positive because of previous use, but not be currently impaired at all. If there was a test that unequivocally determined that one was impaired at the time the driving occurred, that would be one thing, but to statutorily enshrine a presumption that for all intents and purposes is unrebuttable, based on uncertain science, in a criminal context seems to me to be unwise, unjust, and probably unconstitutional. The prosecution should have to prove impairment. I think most prescription drugs would be amenable to blood-testing for impairment, but cannabis is problematic under the current testing paradigms. This is a small detail for HighPop though.

[mustangwomyn]

Check out this story, about driving while high.

Your Questions Answered: Driving under the influence of marijuana | KDVR.com is the website for KDVR Television, FOX 31 News in Denver, Colorado (http://kdvr.com/2012/05/16/your-questions-answered-driving-under-the-influence-of-marijuana/):stoned:



Therein lies the problem with every per se proposal I've seen, people who smoke a lot could test positive because of previous use, but not be currently impaired at all. If there was a test that unequivocally determined that one was impaired at the time the driving occurred, that would be one thing, but to statutorily enshrine a presumption that for all intents and purposes is unrebuttable, based on uncertain science, in a criminal context seems to me to be unwise, unjust, and probably unconstitutional. The prosecution should have to prove impairment. I think most prescription drugs would be amenable to blood-testing for impairment, but cannabis is problematic under the current testing paradigms. This is a small detail for HighPop though.

[killerweed420]

Good job Colorado. We have an equally terrible intiative here in Washington that we have got to vote down in Novemeber. The same absolutely absurb 5ng cutoff level that has absolutely no basis in science. A standard employement drug test has a cutoff of 50ng, 10 times higher!!!!. In my own case. If I stopped smoking today I guarantee you 2 months from now I would still test at levels above 5ng. So all its doing is turning more innocent people into criminals. And what do you think happens if you pop above 5ng for cannabis? The same as alcohol. You will be forced to agree you are an addict and you will be forced to go through expensive rehab programs. You will have to pay fines to get your licens back which will result in about $5000 worth of fees. You will be forced to have expensive insurance once you do get your license back.
Don't fall for the lies about cannabis dui. To begin with its a very minor issue and certainly doesn't deserve the serious repercussions on your life.

[Toastyroadie]

Good. I don't want people driving drunk or high. Having been the victim of a drunk driver (concussion, broken collar bone, separated shoulder, broken ribs), I have exactly zero tolerance for people who use drugs and drive. That includes MMJ patients who are high all the time and choose to drive. It's just as painful to get run over by someone on oxycontin as it is to get run over by someone on pot. Add per se (preferably zero tolerance) limits for all drugs that impair driving.

That's exactly the problem, they can not prove impairment from marijuana. You got any proof? So just 'cause you got hit by a druink driver you want to take it out on everyone even if they're not impaired? Interesting.

[HighPopalorum]

That's exactly the problem, they can not prove impairment from marijuana. You got any proof? So just 'cause you got hit by a druink driver you want to take it out on everyone even if they're not impaired? Interesting.

I don't want to take it out on everyone- just people who drink and use drugs and then get behind the wheel. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. The penalties cannot be high enough. People who drive under the influence are a menace. They should be shamed (my city prints their names in the paper), fined and jailed.

People who smoke so much they always test positive shouldn't drive. I'm one of them, and I don't.

[Toastyroadie]

I don't want to take it out on everyone- just people who drink and use drugs and then get behind the wheel. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. The penalties cannot be high enough. People who drive under the influence are a menace. They should be shamed (my city prints their names in the paper), fined and jailed.

People who smoke so much they always test positive shouldn't drive. I'm one of them, and I don't.

Lol, thanks for your opinion, but it doesn't count and I am so glad because you are obviously misinformed. Prove to me this impairment you speak of concerning cannabis, links please.

[senorx12562]

I don't want to take it out on everyone- just people who drink and use drugs and then get behind the wheel. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. The penalties cannot be high enough. People who drive under the influence are a menace. They should be shamed (my city prints their names in the paper), fined and jailed.

People who smoke so much they always test positive shouldn't drive. I'm one of them, and I don't.

Better that 100 innocent men go to jail than that one guilty man go free, right HighPop?

[HighPopalorum]

Better that 100 innocent men go to jail than that one guilty man go free, right HighPop?

Of course I don't share this view. The dispute is over who is innocent and who is guilty. You think (If I understand you correctly) people who use marijuana and drive are innocent. I think they're guilty. I view marijuana exactly as I do all other drugs, medicinal and recreational: part of responsible use means not getting behind the wheel. I have no moral or ethical problem with people who use drugs responsibly, but people who choose to drive high should be fined, jailed and lose their licenses. The only reservations I have about pot per se laws are science based (is 5ng an appropriate limit?) and regard civil liberties (detention for the purpose of doing a blood test is a non-starter for this libertarian.).

However, there's lots of room for compromise. Maybe a per se limit for younger drivers only would be a good idea. I'm more worried about people who are new to driving or new to smoking, because they lack the judgement that comes with driving experience and they may not understand how marijuana affects them.

Anecdotal high driving mishap: two days ago a friend of mine left his truck in neutral and went in to pay for gas with predictable results. After a "dude, where's my car?" moment, he found it totaled on the other side of a five-lane highway. He will not live this down, as far as I'm concerned, but at least he now agrees that driving high is probably not a good idea.

[senorx12562]

Forgive me, but when you say that " People who smoke so much they always test positive shouldn't drive," I take that to be a categorical statement, independent of whether these hypothetical people are actually impaired or not, i.e., guilty or innocent. In other words, if one chooses to treat themselves with a drug which is not amenable to scientific testing for impairment, one must give up one's ability to drive, whether impaired or not. I see. You are a real civil libertarian all right. A per se standard based on a blood concentration that presumes impairment of those who are not is another case where the government's cure is worse than the disease, notwithstanding your post that we should "add per se (preferably zero tolerance) limits for all drugs that impair driving." You always end up promoting tyranny in the guise of security.

[killerweed420]

I would have tested positive for the last 40 years.lol What about people on prescription drugs? They're far more dangerous on the road than cannabis patients. The effects of cannabis smoke wears off after a couple of hours. There's no legitimate reason why you can't drive. There's an interesting documentary called' Should I Smoke" where a journalist tried a scientific approach to the differences between drinking and driving and cannabis and driving. She wasn't much of a threat while high but she sure was on alcohol.lol

[HighPopalorum]

@senor

*shrug*

Maybe you're right. I'm only partly convinced drugged driving is a big enough problem to warrant a new law. I don't think drivers high on marijuana alone contribute all that much to Colorado's traffic injuries and fatalities. I'd be more enthusiastic about recommending per se limits if they applied to prescription drugs instead of pot and alcohol alone.

[Burnt Toast]

Mod Notice: Read the Board Rules (linked to my signature).

Lets keep this discussion centered on cannabis DUI's only and keep all references to other types of drugs (including alcohol and perscription drugs) out of the forums. If this cannot be done from this point on, then this thread will be locked and warnings/infractions will be issued.

:admin1:

[mustangwomyn]

That is similar to the News story I posted earlier this month, where they compared & tested various canabis users before & after using cannabis with a driving simulator to see how they drove & they tested their blood to see if they would have passed under the proposed 5 ng limit.


I would have tested positive for the last 40 years.lol What about people on prescription drugs? They're far more dangerous on the road than cannabis patients. The effects of cannabis smoke wears off after a couple of hours. There's no legitimate reason why you can't drive. There's an interesting documentary called' Should I Smoke" where a journalist tried a scientific approach to the differences between drinking and driving and cannabis and driving. She wasn't much of a threat while high but she sure was on alcohol.lol

[killerweed420]

The worst thing cannabis does to you when high is make you very paranoid about driving. You drive like an old woman.lol
This should be left alone until such time as they can craft careful legislation backed by solid science that can prove when you are dui. I get tired of some of things getting blown out of proportion and then the legislatures take some knee jerk reaction and pass shitty bills that only inhibit your unalienable rights.