No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI

Colo. may set limits for driving after marijuana use - The Denver Post

This is pretty fucked up...

I believe the blood level is 5ng/ml. I need to do a bit more research, but I think if you're a fairly heavy smoker (i.e. a few times a day), then your levels are pretty much always going to be at this level or higher. So basically you won't be able to drive ever without risk of getting a DUI.

Way to go Colorado!!! What is motivating this law? Is there really a problem with stoned drivers??

From the Denver Post:

"In Colorado, THC or some other form of marijuana showed up in 26 of the 312 drivers killed that year."

That's 8.3% of drivers. I bet over 10% of CO residents would have detectable THC or metabolites in their system at any given time, if so that means you are less likely to die in a car accident compared to the general population. That's why we call 'em "safety breaks" when snowboarding and mt. biking.

so what kind of testing is there that will show thc levels in the blood...and if you have gone 8 hours from smoke to throttle will you be considered still stoned or will it be treated like booze and they can't do a darned thing ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorje113

From the Denver Post:

"In Colorado, THC or some other form of marijuana showed up in 26 of the 312 drivers killed that year."

That's 8.3% of drivers. I bet over 10% of CO residents would have detectable THC or metabolites in their system at any given time, if so that means you are less likely to die in a car accident compared to the general population. That's why we call 'em "safety breaks" when snowboarding and mt. biking.

---

Dorje good point!

I was kind of thinking the same thing...

I could be mis quoting some things, but there are different THC metabolites.

The THC-COOH stays in your bloodstream only for a short time after smoking. 4 hours after consumption i think is a time frame I saw somewhere.

The THCa is what they find during drug testing that remains in your system for a very long time.

Read through some of these studies to get a grasp on Marijuana and Driving.
Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance

wow... if this bullshit law passes, im packing my bags and moving elsewhere... since when has it ever been a problem to drive high? people have been doing this for a few DECADES now and its never been a problem, why all of the sudden is this becoming an issue? I can answer that pretty easily, $$$$$$$$$ is the bottom line to the assholes in politics... its never going to be enough!

if you are an edibles user you will never be under the limit.

And many heavy smokers will never be under the limit...

For most people it only stays in the blood for several hours, but there are some studies that show it in the blood for a matter of days for heavy smokers...

The best strategy in the future will just not give them a reason to think that you're high. Cops will say anything (and even make shit up) if they think you're a stoner and they can nab you...

If I ever got pulled over and this became an issue I would DEMAND a field sobriety test. Hell, those are pretty easy to pass if you're not drunk!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lampost

And many heavy smokers will never be under the limit...

For most people it only stays in the blood for several hours, but there are some studies that show it in the blood for a matter of days for heavy smokers...

The best strategy in the future will just not give them a reason to think that you're high. Cops will say anything (and even make shit up) if they think you're a stoner and they can nab you...

If I ever got pulled over and this became an issue I would DEMAND a field sobriety test. Hell, those are pretty easy to pass if you're not drunk!

---

I'm so saturated with cannabis molecules in my system, there is no way I'd pass their bullshit tests. Its just another way to take a way what freedoms we gain. One of the main things I don't trust as far as I can spit. The government. :thumbsup:

I have been told to always say to an officer if stopped that I have not smoked any medicine in over 8 hours...if you tell them it was only a couple of hours before then you are dead meat....food for thought.

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

reasonable skills based testing is the only way. levels of cannabis in someone's system are no marker for sobriety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

---

Youre already at risk when you get in the car. Simply driving while high hurts no one. Sobriety alone does not make driving safer. Your chances of being in a wreck with a sober person are much higher than being in a wreck with someone who is actually "drugged/intoxicated" at the time. There are already laws against causing bodily injury during a wreck, no matter what the reason was. Whether theyre high, drunk, playing with their stereo, or messing with their cell phone...its all the same cause and result. Someone wasnt paying attention, and messed up. If we're going to do this, we should make ALL possible distractions illegal. No noise above a certain level, no open food containers in the vehicle, no talking on the cell phone, backseats must be separated from front seats by 3" noiseproof glass, no vehicles will run for longer than 2 hours at a time bc people lose focus.....lol....

There is no need for this law other than criminalizing a greater number of the general population. Unless they plan on blood testing everyone they come in contact with, its pretty much impossible to enforce also. Are they going to claim that by having a license and driving I agreed to having my blood forcibly removed while being assaulted and battered?? Because thats what theyre going to do when I refuse...

Stats of "drugged driving" are skewed by mj's half life. The actual # of people who were stoned when they wrecked is way lower. The actual # of people who wrecked directly because of mj is even lower.

Everyone's body is different, whos to say what sensible is? Who sets that number, and what goes into deciding that threshold? Its obviously lower than when you actually make a driving violation, so where is it set?

Also, they need to test for psilocybin, lsd, peyote, and ecstasy as well. And id bet there is a bigger problem with meth and driving, especially with professional drivers, than mj and driving...

Drive defensively. Don't speed more the 5 mph over, use your turn signal, don't use the cell while driving no matter whose calling, pull over first, and always, always look out for the other guy. And, let the local LEOs know your a medical user and maybe, if you drive defensively, they will leave you alone.

The last accident I had was partly my fault, but also the placement of the light. I was T-boned by two cars, all cars drove away, and I was issued a ticket that went away with no other offenses in a year due to the placement of the light and to avoid a trial. But, I missed a yellow watching an asshole driver cutting in and out in morning rush hour traffic. The officer never even brought up mmj and I damn sure didn't have alcohol on my breath, and I hadn't smoked anything yet that morning and was wanting to get home so I could. And, I was pissed the asshole cut me off. :twocents: more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denverbear

I have been told to always say to an officer if stopped that I have not smoked any medicine in over 8 hours...if you tell them it was only a couple of hours before then you are dead meat....food for thought.

---

Better yet, don't tell him that you smoke at all!!! Why would you volunteer that information? Cops don't really consider it medicine and you're just setting yourself up to be hassled more.
If they do find out you're a patient (because you had some weed on you and had to present your card as defense) then tell them you only smoke occasionally when your arthritis flares up and it's been a couple days! Or something along those lines.
It's amazing that people still think cops are your friends. There's cops out there who'll be chomping at the bit to drag you downtown for this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

---

Figures...

Typical troll response.

The fact of the matter is that you can be totally sober and still have >5ng/mL of THC metabolites in your blood...

And who is coming up with this arbitrary limit of 5ng/mL... scientists or politicians?

Let's see what you think when you're driving the morning after getting high and you get a frickin' DUI!

The point of this thread is that a reliable test can't be devised and sensible limits can't be set without occasionally penalizing responsible herb smokers...

How is this testing to be done? I can't imagine cops taking blood samples on the side of the road. Is there some sort of breathalyzer for THC? The article talks about the limits, but doesn't mention the testing mechanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lampost

Better yet, don't tell him that you smoke at all!!! Why would you volunteer that information? Cops don't really consider it medicine and you're just setting yourself up to be hassled more.
If they do find out you're a patient (because you had some weed on you and had to present your card as defense) then tell them you only smoke occasionally when your arthritis flares up and it's been a couple days! Or something along those lines.It's amazing that people still think cops are your friends. There's cops out there who'll be chomping at the bit to drag you downtown for this...

---

I kinda meant the same thing just did not say it a nice as you did...if they find it in your car always deny using it less then 8 hours..
better yet just don't drive and use medicine

Yeah, how do they test for this? And what is enough cause to make them have reasons to test you? People are swerving in and out of lanes 25/8 anywhere in Metro all day long. Can I just get pulled over and One Time says, "I think you're on some dope there Sonny, give me some BLOOD?"

Blood? My fucking blood? And if not it's DUI and a suspended DL?

Really? My Blood? I have to let them jab me, whenever they may feel the need?

I hope I'm missing something here :mad:

Off the NORML site... You Are Going Directly To Jail - NORML

There's a new front in the "War on Drugs" and its name is DUID.

DUID, short for "driving under the influence of drugs," is the latest buzzword among politicians and police -- however, in this case, words can be deceiving.

Though billed by its sponsors as a necessary tool to crack down on "drugged driving" offenses,1 in reality, DUID laws -- in particular "zero tolerance" per se laws -- have little to do with promoting public safety or identifying motorists who drive while impaired. Rather, the enactment and enforcement of "zero tolerance" DUID legislation improperly defines many sober drivers as "intoxicated" solely because they were found to have consumed a controlled substance -- particularly marijuana -- at some previous, unspecified point in time.


DUID Defined

There are various types of DUID laws, some more pernicious than others. Today, every state has DUID legislation on the books. These laws fall into three distinct categories:


Effect-Based DUID Laws

Most state DUID laws are "effect based" laws. This legislation forbids drivers to operate a motor vehicle if they are either "under the influence" of a controlled substance, or if they have been rendered "incapable of driving safely" because of their use of an illicit drug. In order for a defendant to be convicted under this statute, a prosecutor must prove that the driver's observed impairment and/or incapacity was directly associated with the ingestion of an illicit substance. To do so, prosecutors typically rely on evidence gathered by law enforcement officers at the scene of an accident (i.e., a driver's failure to pass a field sobriety test, evidence that the motorist was driving at an excessive speed, etc.), testimony from a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), and/or a positive result from a blood or saliva test indicating recent consumption of a controlled substance. For the most part, this is a multidisciplinary standard that focuses on the totality of circumstances -- most importantly, whether the driver is observably impaired -- and accordingly punishes motorists who drive while impaired from having recently used illicit drugs.


Per Se DUID Laws

Per se laws prohibit drivers from operating a motor vehicle if they have greater than a set level of a drug or drug metabolite present in their system. Most Americans are already familiar with the most common driving-related per se laws: those governing drunk driving which define a driver as legally impaired per se if their blood alcohol level tests above .08%. Similar per se laws with strictly defined cut-off levels (a designated level of an active drug constituent or metabolite above which a sample is considered to be "positive" for a specific drug) are uncommon for DUID legislation.2 This is because, according to the US Department of Transportation: "Forensic toxicologists generally have failed to agree on specific [per se levels] that could be designated as evidence of impairment. The lack of consensus about per se levels of drugs where impairment could be deemed makes it difficult to identify, prosecute or convict drugged drivers in most states."3


"Zero Tolerance" Per Se Laws

Politicians and police have a simple, if unscientific, response to researchers' failure to define per se standards for DUID offenses: to enact "zero tolerance" per se laws. In their strictest form, these laws forbid drivers from operating a motor vehicle if they have any detectable level of an illicit drug or drug metabolite present in their bodily fluids.

This approach is not based on science but on convenience. In essence, "zero tolerance" per se laws define a new, driving-related offense that is, in the words of one of its chief proponents, "divorced from impairment." Under this standard, any driver who tests positive for any trace amount of an illicit drug or drug metabolite (i.e., compounds produced from chemical changes of a drug in the body, but not necessarily psychoactive themselves), is guilty per se of the crime of "drugged driving," even if the defendant was sober. In the case of marijuana, these laws are particularly troublesome. THC, marijuana's main psychoactive constituent, may be detected at low levels in the blood of heavy cannabis users for 1-2 days after past use.4 Marijuana's primary metabolite THC-COOH, the most common indicator of marijuana use in workplace drug tests, is detectable in urine for days and sometimes weeks after past use5-- long after any psychoactive effects have ceased. Consequently, under "zero tolerance" per se laws, a person who smoked a joint on Monday could conceivably be arrested the following Friday and charged with "drugged driving," even though he or she is no longer impaired or intoxicated.

To date, ten states have enacted "zero tolerance" per se laws: Arizona,6 Georgia,7 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,8 Michigan,9 Minnesota,10 Rhode Island, Utah,12 and Wisconsin.13 Among these, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, and Utah forbid drivers from operating a motor vehicle with any detectable level of a controlled substance or its metabolites in one's bodily fluids.

if you are in Boulder (especially) make an appointment to visit Clair Levey.

She's tried to be fair in the past. It would be good to scare her off the issue BEFORE the next session.

There is an article in the January issue of Reason magazine advocating abolition of DUI laws in favor of focusing on actual impairment that is particularly relevant to this discussion. Sorry, I couldn't find it online.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

---

Couldn't agree more. As much as I adore cannabis (over 20 years a smoker) I think a lot of the people in this thread are letting their love for the beautiful weed, cloud their judgement. I believe the positive effects of cannabis outweigh the negative and ignoring the negative side makes us as bad as the people/government who peddle lies about cannabis and other drugs. I think we need to be as aware of the negatives as the postives so we can minimise any harmful impact and enjoy the benefits of this wonderful plant.

Drink driving was socially acceptable and legal in my country less than 40 years ago. I have seen film footage of the public being interviewed just before drink driving laws came in and they had very similar arguments against the drink drive laws as those expressed here against DUID laws. I think my favourite line was.... "They are going to spoil a lot of peoples Christmas"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhatJay

Couldn't agree more. As much as I adore cannabis (over 20 years a smoker) I think a lot of the people in this thread are letting their love for the beautiful weed, cloud their judgement. I believe the positive effects of cannabis outweigh the negative and ignoring the negative side makes us as bad as the people/government who peddle lies about cannabis and other drugs. I think we need to be as aware of the negatives as the postives so we can minimise any harmful impact and enjoy the benefits of this wonderful plant.

Drink driving was socially acceptable and legal in my country less than 40 years ago. I have seen film footage of the public being interviewed just before drink driving laws came in and they had very similar arguments against the drink drive laws as those expressed here against DUID laws. I think my favourite line was.... "They are going to spoil a lot of peoples Christmas"

---

Smoking weed doesn't impair your ability to drive a car man, most cops on the street understand this as well, I got stopped with a lit joint once and they let me follow them back to the police station because my passenger had warrants.

We certainly don't need stricter DUI laws. I drink a beer sometimes in my car too in the mountains after a long drive, so what? You can drink 3 beers and still be legally under the limit. Cops understand this as well, thats why there is a .08 limit, its not ZERO TOLERANCE.

More to the point, any sobriety test should be based on IMPAIRMENT, not some arbitrary limit set by the government.

the DUI setup is just another big money maker for the criminal justice system.

the limit is .06 for dwai, which isn't a cheap stroll in the park either.

Alcohol, is a major impairer. MJ, really isn't when you are talking about a regular user.

Marijuana Does Not Impair Driving Ability - Asylum.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhatJay

Drink driving was socially acceptable and legal in my country less than 40 years ago. I have seen film footage of the public being interviewed just before drink driving laws came in and they had very similar arguments against the drink drive laws as those expressed here against DUID laws. I think my favourite line was.... "They are going to spoil a lot of peoples Christmas"

---

I love the part in North by Northwest where Cary Grant gets a DUI, and is fined $2 and told to sleep it off after crashing drunkenly into a cop car! Thank goodness our laws and social norms have changed since then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MtnLionCO

I drink a beer sometimes in my car too in the mountains after a long drive, so what? You can drink 3 beers and still be legally under the limit.

---

I wouldn't get in a car with a driver who had drunk 3 beers.

I don't advocate drinking and driving, but I know for a fact that I drive better when I am smoking my WEED. It might be because I have been a heavy smoker for 22 years, but the few accidents I've ever had were when I was WITHOUT weed and getting IMPATIENT.

I've never had a DUI (knock on wood). I grew up in Ohio, in some ways the marijuana laws there as more lenient than MMJ states. I had 2 possesion charges under an oz, each time was $100 fine and its a petty offense, meaning no criminal record whatsoever! But they keep your weed and any pipes you may have on you.

I've never been stopped in colorado in 6 years, but I think it would be pretty cool to have the cops let you actually KEEP your weed.

Anyway, in Ohio this sort of promotes a lot of small time dealers and users since the cops only go after growers and large dealers. So you get a lot of shitty mexican brick weed.

Somehow I was lucky when i was in high school in the early 90s, there must have been a lot of local hydro grows because we always had killer weed. Probably why I love weed so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MtnLionCO

I don't advocate drinking and driving

---

LOL! Three posts ago you said you drive around the mountains drinking beer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

LOL! Three posts ago you said you drive around the mountains drinking beer!

---

I said *I* did, that is not advocating it dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

LOL! Three posts ago you said you drive around the mountains drinking beer!

---

You are probably one of those people who doesn't like guys tailgating them, so you slam on your brakes to prove your point.

From a NHTSA study done in 1993:

"Finally, the relation between driving impairment following marijuana smoking and plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH is discussed. It appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his / her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample."

here:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...driving4.shtml

you should post that on the Denver Post discussion area at the article Colorado may set limits for driving after marijuana use - The Denver Post . Claire will be reading the comments on that you can bet.

call her office-

To reach Claire by telephone, please call 720-849-8983(cell),or call 303-866-2578 at the Capitol.

Mail can be sent to: Claire Levy, 200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271, Denver, CO 80203

To contact Claire Levy send email to: [email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MtnLionCO

You can drink 3 beers and still be legally under the limit. Cops understand this as well, thats why there is a .08 limit, its not ZERO TOLERANCE.

---

I never mentioned zero tolerance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MtnLionCO

You are probably one of those people who doesn't like guys tailgating them, so you slam on your brakes to prove your point.

---

You are someone who puts words into other peoples mouths and makes rash assumptions about peoples behaviour in a given situation. I don't see how these comments are related to the discussion or add any weight to your argument. For all you know, HighPopalorum if being tailgated, might pull over at the next junction/laybay and let the idiot tailgater pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MtnLionCO

You are probably one of those people who doesn't like guys tailgating them, so you slam on your brakes to prove your point.

---

I always thought that was the normal thing to do.... lol

if you are in the left lane and have a tailgater, move the hell over. LOL :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhatJay

Couldn't agree more. As much as I adore cannabis (over 20 years a smoker) I think a lot of the people in this thread are letting their love for the beautiful weed, cloud their judgement. I believe the positive effects of cannabis outweigh the negative and ignoring the negative side makes us as bad as the people/government who peddle lies about cannabis and other drugs. I think we need to be as aware of the negatives as the postives so we can minimise any harmful impact and enjoy the benefits of this wonderful plant.

Drink driving was socially acceptable and legal in my country less than 40 years ago. I have seen film footage of the public being interviewed just before drink driving laws came in and they had very similar arguments against the drink drive laws as those expressed here against DUID laws. I think my favourite line was.... "They are going to spoil a lot of peoples Christmas"

---

You do a lot of "thinking" with no stats, research, or figures. Only speculation. How about this one? Since 20 years ago when they first made DUI laws, accidents nationwide have gone UP. Both DUI and DUID are both the same thing...they are just made to make leo money and do not make the roads any safer, despite what the brainwashing from MADD 10 years ago or some random hollywood scene has you think...society did not crumble with people driving buzzed. There was a time when police would be your friend and help you instead of taking you away from your friends and family for something that is completely normal. There was a time when you didnt go to jail until you actually harmed someone or cost someone money. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Next theyll be saying "if it saves one child, then it was worth it to take every smokers rights away..." and the sad thing is no one is going to do anything about it.

Truth be known, if there were no DUI, DUID, and mj were legal....there would be a LOT (like over 50% maybe) of LEO without a job....They depend on our suffering.

Quote:

---

You do a lot of "thinking" with no stats, research, or figures. Only speculation.

---

Quote:

---

Truth be known, if there were no DUI, DUID, and mj were legal....there would be a LOT (like over 50% maybe) of LEO without a job....

---

Somewhat skewed in your logic process here. Argument by scenario applies.

Just let them pass it.

They'd HAVE to draw blood to test this.

Cops would be required to be licensed phlebotomists to draw blood, and I can guarantee you that this would be a huge civil rights suit.

This 'solution' of theirs is nothing more than a HUGE malpractice/civil lawsuit waiting to happen, plus an even larger drain on their resources.

This will likely pass but never be enforced once the true cost is known to the department.