Obama Drug Policy Calls For Drugged Driving Charges For Unimpaired Marijuana Users

[freemannabis]

What about the post I just read concerning yesterday's? supreme court decision?

 

Yes, indeed: "People vs Feegel" makes a WHOLE WORLD of difference, now.

 

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/10-09/138031/138031-Opinion.pdf

 

FREE the CURE!

[truthBOMB]

LEO: "I smell marijuana."

Patient: "yes, i am a card carrying patient."

LEO: "Are you on your medication now?"

Patient: "of course not, officer. it is illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence"

LEO: "why are your eyes red and droopy?"

Patient: "allergy season, would you like to see my claritin and my MMJ card?"

LEO: "have a good day."

 

hopefully, right?

how have others sucessfully negotiated with LEOs in a car?

 

examples please!

[dutch&Dutchess]

MMMA clearly states that patients may not drive while impaired which is a much more problematic determination to prove in court

under the influence is a vastly different legal standard and requires that the officer/prosecutor prove you were impaired. the mere presence of a metabolite is not enough to establish impairment though a prosecutor may attempt to stretch it. One must be VISIBLY impaired to be considered impaired. it is a legal distinction that is often lost on the linguistically challenged

[tray123420]

From the Obama Administration's recently released National Drug Control Strategy (hat tip to NORML reader Glen):

Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws [ONDCP]

State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Therefore, few drivers are identified, prosecuted, or convicted for DUID. Law enforcement personnel usually cite individuals with the easier to prove driving while intoxicated (DWI) alcohol charges. Unclear laws provide vague signals both to drivers and to law enforcement, thereby minimizing the possible preventive benefit of DUID statutes. Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver's body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.

 

Here are the states President Obama would like the others to emulate:

 

Arizona: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

 

Delaware: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites.

 

Georgia: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 12 months upon conviction.

 

Illinois: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 12 months upon conviction.

 

Indiana: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 60 days upon conviction.

 

Michigan: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 93 days upon conviction, vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days.

 

Nevada: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites.

 

Ohio: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 72 hours in jail, up to 6 months upon conviction, 6 month to 3 year license suspension.

 

Pennsylvania: DUID for cannabis metabolites, amount unclear.

 

South Dakota: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites for persons under the age of 21.

 

Utah: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 48 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

 

 

Nine of the fifteen states cited have "zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites". What this means is that if the inactive (read: non-impairing) THC metabolite (THC-COOH) is detected in the urine of a driver, that driver is impaired in the eyes of the law. (There are actually 17 states that have per se DUID laws, but Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin exclude metabolites of cannabis.) Nevada and Ohio have 15 ng/ml levels which are very low; most workplace pre-employment screenings set the initial screening limit at 50 ng/ml. At the confirmation level of 15 ng/ml, the frequent cannabis user will be positive for perhaps as long as 15 weeks.

Of course, faithful NORML readers and most of the public know that cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in the urine for up to 100 days or longer for a regular cannabis consumer and up to fifteen days for the casual consumer, even after quitting cold turkey. Metabolites in urine don't tell you a driver is actually impaired, they tell you someone used cannabis, but not when. Even the US Department of Transportation admits that a positive test for drug metabolites is "solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment during a focal event."

 

Cannabis metabolites are funny things; they don't eliminate from the body in any predictable fashion. In fact, when you think about it, a metabolite is produced when the body metabolizes, or breaks down, a substance. The presence of metabolites for THC tells you the body has already broken down the THC! You could actually call a urine screening for metabolites a non-impairment test!

 

Now some of these laws do have per se standards for actual THC in the blood and you could argue that is a more realistic determinant of current impairment, but do you think most cash-strapped city, county, and state police are going to use an expensive, invasive blood test when a cheap urine screen is available and more likely to get them a conviction for DUID?

 

These per se DUID "zero tolerance" laws are nothing but discrimination against cannabis users, plain and simple. Metabolites for every other drug, legal and illegal, are eliminated from the body much more quickly:

 

PCP ("angel dust") = up to 2 days detection.

 

Cocaine (and "crack") = up to 2-3 days detection.

 

Opiates (heroin, oxycontin, etc.) = up to 1-2 days detection.

 

Amphetamines (meth, speed) = up to 1-3 days detection.

 

Barbiturates (Seconol, etc.) = up to 3 days detection.

 

Benzodiazepenes (Xanax, Valium, Clonopin, etc.) = up to 2-3 days detection.

 

Alcohol (Budweiser, Jim Beam, Reisling, etc.) = you can actually be considered unimpaired with current blood alcohol levels up to 0.08%, so long as you pass the roadside sobriety test!

 

Cannabis (marijuana, hash, pot) = up to 7-100 days detection.

 

 

So you could smoke some dust, snort some coke, shoot some smack, and pop some pills at the party Friday night, and possibly be considered an unimpaired driver by Monday (you could even have a couple of drinks before you got pulled over), but if you smoked a joint last month, in eleven states you could be going to jail and losing your license for endangering the public on the roadways.

These "zero tolerance" laws are criminalizing an entire population - cannabis users - for molecules in their bodies that have nothing to do with impairment or driving ability. Can you imagine the uproar if police harassed drivers based on the melanin content of their skin... whoops, never mind.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/obama-drug-policy-calls-f_b_574483.html

laws like this make me sick to my stomach dont they realize how much more weed makes u focus actually pay attention to all your surroundings less likely to be speeding causing accidents persoanlly i dont think there shouldn be such a thing as druged driving you have to be a real idiot to be driving around causing problems on your meds this dont happen to cannabis users we dont abuse it like the drunks rock heads coke heads pill heads hell i quit for 2 months and cannaboids was still showing up in my system we cant be taken advantage of because of our medical condition .

[Bisharoo]

How about a new system where all drivers are given a proficiency test ( simulators now could do the testing at a cost savings to first weed out (NO PUN) to see if they can drive safely with whatever substances they feel comfortable with ingesting and driving. If you can handle marijuana and drive safely, OK, there are a few million who have been doing it for years, so maybe that is something to consider.

What about prescription drugs? Coffee? Pop? Turkey? How about if we can drive, we can drive. Some people who have nothing unusual in their systems should not drive at all as their level of skill falls far too short to be considered safe in public. I know a professional driver who has many, many years of safe driving and he has a history of medicating with cannabis.

 

If someone wants to try to drive on, lets say heroin, they will flunk the test. Alcohol? Maybe a small % could pass a proficiency test, but probably not a very good or challenging test.

 

It will never happen, but it was just a thought...

[+wolfgang]

From the Obama Administration's recently released National Drug Control Strategy (hat tip to NORML reader Glen):

Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws [ONDCP]

State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Therefore, few drivers are identified, prosecuted, or convicted for DUID. Law enforcement personnel usually cite individuals with the easier to prove driving while intoxicated (DWI) alcohol charges. Unclear laws provide vague signals both to drivers and to law enforcement, thereby minimizing the possible preventive benefit of DUID statutes. Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver's body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.

 

Here are the states President Obama would like the others to emulate:

 

Arizona: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

 

Delaware: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites.

 

Georgia: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 12 months upon conviction.

 

Illinois: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 12 months upon conviction.

 

Indiana: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 60 days upon conviction.

 

Michigan: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 93 days upon conviction, vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days.

 

Nevada: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites.

 

Ohio: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 72 hours in jail, up to 6 months upon conviction, 6 month to 3 year license suspension.

 

Pennsylvania: DUID for cannabis metabolites, amount unclear.

 

South Dakota: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites for persons under the age of 21.

 

Utah: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 48 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

 

 

Nine of the fifteen states cited have "zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites". What this means is that if the inactive (read: non-impairing) THC metabolite (THC-COOH) is detected in the urine of a driver, that driver is impaired in the eyes of the law. (There are actually 17 states that have per se DUID laws, but Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin exclude metabolites of cannabis.) Nevada and Ohio have 15 ng/ml levels which are very low; most workplace pre-employment screenings set the initial screening limit at 50 ng/ml. At the confirmation level of 15 ng/ml, the frequent cannabis user will be positive for perhaps as long as 15 weeks.

Of course, faithful NORML readers and most of the public know that cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in the urine for up to 100 days or longer for a regular cannabis consumer and up to fifteen days for the casual consumer, even after quitting cold turkey. Metabolites in urine don't tell you a driver is actually impaired, they tell you someone used cannabis, but not when. Even the US Department of Transportation admits that a positive test for drug metabolites is "solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment during a focal event."

 

Cannabis metabolites are funny things; they don't eliminate from the body in any predictable fashion. In fact, when you think about it, a metabolite is produced when the body metabolizes, or breaks down, a substance. The presence of metabolites for THC tells you the body has already broken down the THC! You could actually call a urine screening for metabolites a non-impairment test!

 

Now some of these laws do have per se standards for actual THC in the blood and you could argue that is a more realistic determinant of current impairment, but do you think most cash-strapped city, county, and state police are going to use an expensive, invasive blood test when a cheap urine screen is available and more likely to get them a conviction for DUID?

 

These per se DUID "zero tolerance" laws are nothing but discrimination against cannabis users, plain and simple. Metabolites for every other drug, legal and illegal, are eliminated from the body much more quickly:

 

PCP ("angel dust") = up to 2 days detection.

 

Cocaine (and "crack") = up to 2-3 days detection.

 

Opiates (heroin, oxycontin, etc.) = up to 1-2 days detection.

 

Amphetamines (meth, speed) = up to 1-3 days detection.

 

Barbiturates (Seconol, etc.) = up to 3 days detection.

 

Benzodiazepenes (Xanax, Valium, Clonopin, etc.) = up to 2-3 days detection.

 

Alcohol (Budweiser, Jim Beam, Reisling, etc.) = you can actually be considered unimpaired with current blood alcohol levels up to 0.08%, so long as you pass the roadside sobriety test!

 

Cannabis (marijuana, hash, pot) = up to 7-100 days detection.

 

 

So you could smoke some dust, snort some coke, shoot some smack, and pop some pills at the party Friday night, and possibly be considered an unimpaired driver by Monday (you could even have a couple of drinks before you got pulled over), but if you smoked a joint last month, in eleven states you could be going to jail and losing your license for endangering the public on the roadways.

These "zero tolerance" laws are criminalizing an entire population - cannabis users - for molecules in their bodies that have nothing to do with impairment or driving ability. Can you imagine the uproar if police harassed drivers based on the melanin content of their skin... whoops, never mind.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/obama-drug-policy-calls-f_b_574483.html

 

and how are the lib's more compassionate and for "us" with the above information?

Oh yeah thats right they give lip service too,just like the right,no difference between them they are one in the same. Libertarian/independent/teaparty fool signing off.....................

[TheSmartestManAlive]

The old republican Conservatives that enacted all these Jim Crow laws are slowly dying off...as the younger more liberal crooks get into office the laws will change.

 

 

Jim Crow laws were all placed in and voted for be southern democrats after slavery. Just like grandfather laws. Republicans fought very hard against them, and democrats made sure that blacks remained unable to vote as long as possible......... Just wanted to make sure you didnt keep spreading false history.....