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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Sorry, I thought you wanted an answer.

I appreciate the answer, I really do.

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

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

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

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
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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?