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

[Toastyroadie]

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 â?? 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

[HighPopalorum]

AP coverage of this bill:

DENVER â?? 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 â?? and one of the most liberal, according to Rep. Claire Levy, one of the billâ??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 theyâ??re pulled over or within two hours.

Levy, a Democrat from Boulder, said sheâ??s gotten resistance from medical marijuana advocates who fear it will restrict patients from using the drug.

â??What Iâ??ve tried to assure the patient advocates is that weâ??re not talking about sobriety checkpoints. Weâ??re not talking about dragnets and massive stops,â?� she said. â??Theyâ??re not going to be stopped if theyâ??re driving appropriately.â?�

While itâ??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 thatâ??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 itâ??s a fair way for law enforcement and the public to know how much marijuana you can consume while legally being able to drive â?? just as thereâ??s a limit with alcohol.

â??I think itâ??s fair to tell them the rules to be played by,â?� 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 someoneâ??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 theyâ??ve smoked the drug. Some also worry that medical users may be unfairly targeted.

â??My only concern is that, because medical marijuana is controversial, that weâ??re entering a new phase of not racial profiling but medical profiling,â?� said Sean McAllister, an attorney at Denverâ??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.

â??Weâ??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,â?� 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.

â??Itâ??s a rebuttable presumption, though,â?� said Waller, adding that drivers wonâ??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 sheâ??s already getting a lot of comments from medical marijuana users.

â??Iâ??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,â?� Levy said.

She said the bill is about safety, not targeting people who use pot for medical purposes.

â??You just canâ??t allow people to be driving when theyâ??re high,â?� Levy said.

[5280and420]

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)

[DenverRelief]

Don Christensen, executive director of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, which supports the 5 nanogram THC blood-content benchmark, said he thinks itâ??s a fair way for law enforcement and the public to know how much marijuana you can consume while legally being able to drive â?? just as thereâ??s a limit with alcohol.

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".

Is it one toke, a piece of an edible, or a whole joint that puts you over 5 nanograms?

[copobo]

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)

these reasonable questions can't be answered, which is why this legislation is not ready this session.

[TheReleafCenter]

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".

Is it one toke, a piece of an edible, or a whole joint that puts you over 5 nanograms?

We had a patient call us with this same question yesterday, and unfortunately, we didn't have an answer either.

[HighPopalorum]

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.

[TheReleafCenter]

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?

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.

[HighPopalorum]

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.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

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.

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.