Printable View
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?
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.
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by senorx12562
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.
I have ADD, and I am a much worse driver if not medicated
...and nobody's testing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatekeeper777
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.
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?
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 ?? ?? 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 ? 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
AP coverage of this bill:
DENVER ?? 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 ?? and one of the most liberal, according to Rep. Claire Levy, one of the bill??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 they??re pulled over or within two hours.
Levy, a Democrat from Boulder, said she??s gotten resistance from medical marijuana advocates who fear it will restrict patients from using the drug.
??What I??ve tried to assure the patient advocates is that we??re not talking about sobriety checkpoints. We??re not talking about dragnets and massive stops,? she said. ??They??re not going to be stopped if they??re driving appropriately.?
While it??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 that??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 it??s a fair way for law enforcement and the public to know how much marijuana you can consume while legally being able to drive ?? just as there??s a limit with alcohol.
??I think it??s fair to tell them the rules to be played by,? 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 someone??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 they??ve smoked the drug. Some also worry that medical users may be unfairly targeted.
??My only concern is that, because medical marijuana is controversial, that we??re entering a new phase of not racial profiling but medical profiling,? said Sean McAllister, an attorney at Denver??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.
??We??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,? 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.
??It??s a rebuttable presumption, though,? said Waller, adding that drivers won??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 she??s already getting a lot of comments from medical marijuana users.
??I??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,? Levy said.
She said the bill is about safety, not targeting people who use pot for medical purposes.
??You just can??t allow people to be driving when they??re high,? Levy said.
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)
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
Is it one toke, a piece of an edible, or a whole joint that puts you over 5 nanograms?
these reasonable questions can't be answered, which is why this legislation is not ready this session.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5280and420
We had a patient call us with this same question yesterday, and unfortunately, we didn't have an answer either.Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRelief
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaiBuddhaMan
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
: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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulMeds
most likely based on impairment but I'll ask Skip next time I see him.:jointsmile:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
Thanks for the tip GM.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
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
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.
Is this just in the Denver area?Eather way its a great idea but its a long way or meQuote:
Originally Posted by porone
If this bill were to pass, it would be a law statewide.Quote:
Originally Posted by porone
@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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRelief
Blood samples can be taken at most police departments. Tests may need to be sent to Denver, though, for THC processing.Quote:
Originally Posted by porone
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
POLICE station?I would just asoon have some junkie draw my blood.
I don't blame you.Quote:
Originally Posted by porone
We haven't set this up fully yet, but will post back here with more information for those interested in participating.
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 ?}Quote:
Originally Posted by quetzal
Most cops are not qualified to be a cop let alone draw blood.
I thought Claire Levy was going to be a friend of patients, but I'm now sure she needs to be replaced.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by porone