Quote Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
If anyone was at the Judiciary meeting, was there any discussion of making driving high a DWAI and not a DUID? That would mean first-offenders with clean driving records would not lose their license automatically, and if no one was hurt there would be no felony.
ACT4CO proposed an amended version that would have set 5ng as the DWAI limit and 8ng for DUID, no per se DUI's and a 2 year sunset. I thought it was reasonable.

The thing that Rep Ryder kept mentioning that hit home with me is that NO ONE is properly educating patients about driving under the influence of D9 THC. Sure, a lot of places include a sentence in their paperwork that says not to operate heavy machinery, but that seems woefully insufficient.

EDIT: I also would say that the per se element of the bill was incorrectly worded and this came up at the hearing. Levy wants it to be like per se DUI, but there was strong opposition in committee to that. I don't see that making the final bill. This is a fluid process.

Law enforcement testified that simply being high wasn't enough to do a blood draw. The DUID would never hold up in court, so they'd be wasting everyones time. You need to show the same signs you would in a DUI case. They also testified that a vast majority of DUID's are in the 14-17ng level, so you essentially have to be VERY HIGH before they're going to bother.