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

‘D-U-High’ bill fails in Colorado state Senate | The Raw Story

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.

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.

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.)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOC NAR on probation

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by williboy

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Douglas1

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.

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:stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senorx12562

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.

---

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.