Too Stoned to Drive?

Reason magazine ^ | November 2013 | Jacob Sullum

[Second Amendment First]

In May, anticipating an increase in marijuana consumption now that the plant is legal for general use in Colorado, the state legislature officially defined "too stoned to drive." The new law allows juries to convict someone of driving under the influence of a drug (DUID) based on nothing more than a test indicating a THC level of at least five nanograms per milliliter of blood.

Addy Norton is a walking (and driving) refutation of that standard. Norton, a 27-year-old who smokes medical marijuana every day, recently participated in an experiment conducted by KIRO, the CBS station in Seattle, where a five-nanogram rule also prevails as a result of I-502, Washington's marijuana legalization initiative. Norton arrived with a THC level of 16 nanograms, more than three times Colorado's new DUID cutoff, but nevertheless completed a driving course satisfactorily, according to the instructor who accompanied her with his foot hovering over a second brake and his hand ready to take the wheel.

After Norton smoked three-tenths of a gram, she tested at 36.7 nanograms, more than seven times the legal limit, but still drove OK. Even after she consumed nine-tenths of a gram, a drug recognition expert from the Thurston County Sheriff's Office said her driving was merely "borderline." Only after consuming a total of 1.4 grams of pot and achieving a THC level of 58.8 nanograms, almost 12 times the legal limit, was Norton clearly too stoned to drive.

The two other participants in KIRO's study, a weekend smoker and an occasional smoker, also drove competently at THC levels far above five nanograms. So did "Justin," a medical marijuana user who volunteered for a study sponsored by KDVR, the Fox affiliate in Denver. Justin's THC level was already 21 nanograms when he arrived, even though he had not consumed any marijuana that day, and it rose to 47 after he smoked some pot. He performed fine on a driving simulator at both levels. "Justin is doing pretty well," a drug recognition expert from the Thornton, Colorado, police department said as he watched the second test. "He's being a safe driver. It's doubtful that I would have pulled him over. He hasn't shown any degree of impairment."

While some people may be noticeably impaired at five nanograms, it is clear that some people are not. The way people react to marijuana is partly a function of pre-existing characteristics, but it also depends on experience. Regular users develop tolerance and learn to adapt to marijuana's effects, so they may be able to drive safely at THC levels that would incapacitate novices.

Because THC is absorbed by fatty tissue, it can linger in the blood of regular users long after the drug's effects have worn off, meaning that daily smokers may never fall below the five-nanogram threshold. "Patients like me," Teri Robnett of the Cannabis Patient Action Network told Colorado legislators in April, "will continually maintain a blood level far above five nanograms and without any impairment." A five-nanogram standard exposes people like Robnett to the risk of being treated as a public menace whenever they get behind the wheel.

Recognizing that a five-nanogram THC level is not a good indicator of impairment, the Colorado General Assembly rejected that standard five times before finally approving it in May, the same week it passed a law regulating pot stores. "It's an arbitrary limit by uninformed people," complains Kayvan Khalatbari, co-owner of a medical marijuana center in Denver. "They just don't know what they're talking about."

The inclusion of a five-nanogram standard in I-502, the Washington initiative, was so controversial that it turned some legalization advocates against the measure. Alison Holcomb, who oversaw the I-502 campaign, points out that police still need "reasonable suspicion" that a driver is impaired to pull him over and seek a blood test. Holcomb says pro-legalization critics of I-502 were never able to cite cases where drivers who tested above five nanograms were acquitted under the old legal standard, which as in Colorado required evidence of impairment, including but not limited to blood tests. She also argues that a five-nanogram standard could help defendants with lower levels who otherwise might have been convicted. She says jurors "might be skeptical that the person was actually impaired if the results were not at that threshold level."

In a concession to critics of the five-nanogram cutoff, Colorado's new law, unlike Washington's, does not make people automatically guilty of DUID if they test above that level. Instead it creates a presumption that defendants can try to rebut by presenting evidence that they were not in fact impaired. But Denver attorney Rob Corry, who frequently represents DUID defendants, thinks that opportunity will not make much difference in practice. With a "permissible inference" of DUID at five nanograms, he says, "A person coming into court is guilty until proven innocent. If you put a number on it, juries are going to latch onto that five-nanogram number, whether it's a permissible inference or a per se [standard], and the effect will be that innocent people are convicted."

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

What a tangled web we weave when we decide to decide “how much is too much” when it comes to driving.

Here’s an idea.

If you want to drink, then drink.

If you want to smoke, then smoke.

If you want to drive, then do neither.

Draconian? Perhaps.
Practical to enforce? Very much so.
Practical to follow? Very much so.
And in the end - the fairest to the largest number of people.

[calex59]

My now passed uncle always claimed the most dangerous animal on the planet was a 16-24 year old female with a driver's license.

My sister-in-law, from my first marriage, thought that men should give her the right of way because she was female. I was riding with her when she almost killed us all because she pulled out when the other guy had the right of way. She was so pissed that he didn't "behave like a gentleman" and let her go first, she ranted for about an hour and nothing any of us(me, my then wife, my brother-in-law(her brother))could say would convince her she was wrong.

BTW, if you are wondering, my wife died after 21 years of marriage, just saying that to avoid the a**hat remarks that I have gotten before when commenting on being married twice.

[Beagle8U]

They have them all over Mi too.

Mi has been doper card state for quite a few years, since 2006 I think.

They have been shutting down the dope stores locally for selling dope to anyone that comes in without even checking cards.

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2013/10/more_than_50_pounds_of_marijua_1.html

This guy had his store shut down and was selling dope out of his house.

In the general area around a small town of less than 30,000 there was 18 of the ‘medical’ dope stores. It was obvious to anyone who was going in and out of the stores, and the vast majority are young and healthy.

[Robert DeLong]

That explains it then. Thanks. I wasn’t aware that Michigan also had medicinal marijuana outlets. I looked and see that there are now 20 states + DC. Michigan joined that list in 2008.