Marijuana Debate Goes Mobile As 'magic Number' For Driving While Stoned Sought

[t-pain]

the thing is, there is no "debate". the science shows no impairment from using cannabis because the person consuming it compensates for any deficiences.

[zaphod]

How Much Is Too Much Marijuana to Drive? Lawmakers Wonder

>>The study, commissioned by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, found that laws in six states that legally assess impairment by measuring how much THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) is in a person’s blood are not supported by science.<<

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/us/marijuana-driving-laws.html?_r=0

[bobandtorey]

A bill passed through the House in late April would study potential blood level limits for a driver with a medical marijuana card.

House Bill 5024 would authorize a commission to study and recommend a THC limit that would constitute impaired driving, much like the .08 blood alcohol content established as a threshold for drunken driving. THC is the component responsible for marijuana’s effects.

Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, said the bill addresses issues that have arisen since voters approved the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act in 2008.

The law shields medical marijuana patients from prosecution for drugged driving as long as they aren’t under the influence of marijuana, but there’s no blood level threshold defining what constitutes “under the influence.”

Lucido said the study is meant to find ways to protect both medical marijuana patients and the general public.

“I’m really targeting the medical marijuana cardholders — if you’re going to smoke, I don’t care,” Lucido said. “Do what you do best and take care of your health, but don’t jeopardize yourself or others on the road with a piece of equipment that kills.”

In a news release Tuesday, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety said a comprehensive approach to recognizing drugged driving was needed, noting a study that found fatal crashes involving drivers who’d recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the drug was legalized.

But a traditional blood test — a measure of nanograms per milliliter of blood — may not work as a good gauge in the case of marijuana use, Kevin Bakewell, senior vice president and chief public affairs officer for AAA, said in a statement.

“There is understandably a strong desire by both lawmakers and the public to create legal limits for marijuana impairment, in the same manner as we do with alcohol,” Bakewell said in an emailed statement.

“In the case of marijuana, this approach is flawed and not supported by scientific research. It’s simply not possible today to determine whether a driver is impaired based solely on the amount of the drug in their body.”

 

The foundation said legal blood limits are problematic because THC may appear in a person’s system long after its effects disappear, high THC levels may drop below legal thresholds before a warrant can be secured for a blood test, and the same THC level may produce different effects based on the person, strain, and term of use.

The foundation instead encouraged the development of a system that included a positive test for recent marijuana use and one that gauged marijuana use based on behavioral and physiological evidence.

Lucido said all of those variances will be taken into account by the commission the bill would create. According to the bill summary, the commission would include a representative from the Michigan State Police, a medical doctor, forensic toxicologist, medical marijuana patient and a professor from three different Michigan public research universities.

“We’re going to have a thorough investigation and vet out all the problems that may arise from this,” Lucido said.

Matt Newburg, a marijuana defense lawyer representing some defendants in St. Clair County, was doubtful that a reliable blood level threshold could be determined as the drug functions differently than alcohol.

“They can’t fix the number of nanograms of THC in a person’s system and correlate that to their ability to drive a vehicle,” Newburg said.

“My concern is that they create some unreliable threshold that is not going to pass muster in the court.”

St. Clair County Prosecutor Mike Wendling said while an established blood level threshold of marijuana would be helpful, its not essential to proving any case of operating under the influence.

“Even alcohol, it’s not just based on a quantifiable level,” Wendling said.

He said officers are trained to recognize various signs for drunken or drugged driving before a blood test is ever taken.

“The nanogram level or the amount of marijuana in a person’s system would just be a factor,” Wendling said.

“That information would be relevant to a judge or jury’s determination in level of impairment, but it still would be coupled with many factors.”

 

http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/news/local/2016/05/15/legislation-study-medical-marijuana-limits-drivers/84272078/

[Alphabob]

This is their goal from the ‘for’ section in the houses revised fiscal analysis,

 

"The problem the bill seeks to address is whether a measurable bodily amount of marihuana is known to, or can be determined to, impair a person's ability to drive even if the person does not demonstrate impairment (for example, weaving across lanes); and it attempts to resolve an apparent conflict in interpretations of two distinct state statutes."

 

Does that make any sense? Even if patients demonstrate no signs of impairment, LEO still wants to be able to say they are impaired. Then there is the issue of what constitutes a sign of impairment under modified language; red eyes, smell? I can imagine all the people pulled over for taillights or some equipment malfunction, turning into a DUI. What a surprise, it is in the judiciary committee rather than one pertaining to health and safety; though that’s the goal, making patients and the public safer from those who show no impairment.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billanalysis/House/pdf/2015-HLA-5024-3C3BE8E1.pdf

[t-pain]

LEO can say patients are impaired if the patient fails a roadside sobriety test, much like anyone can fail for any reason (being tired, taking benadryl, drunk, high on oxycontin etc).

 

the point is patients dont fail the sobriety test because marijuana does not impair driving nor sobriety testing.

 

so if you are in a fender bender, they want to charge you with oui

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/46277-funding-a-cancer-patients-legal-fight/

[Wild Bill]

One of the major issues LEO has with the law is that they now have to PROVE that a driver is impaired. I spoke with one a couple of years ago and he was absolutely outraged that he could no longer make an arrest on the basis of smell alone.

 

The fact that a driver had to actually exhibit evidence of impairment drove him into a near rage.

 

"I know they're smoking but unless they break a traffic law there's nothing I can do."

[bobandtorey]

Thanks Wild Bill

 

But i wouldn't count on Leo doing nothing it does happen sometimes Yes i've seen and heard of people getting jammed for the transport Law when Michigan Law makers start protecting it's own people things won't change 

 

last night i watch a Documenter on Washington State I-502 Legalizing cannabis for all over 21 years old they already have a Medical Marihuana Law and a lot of the medical people didn't like I-502 because of the 5 Nag/g. limit on driving someone said before I-502 their where 10,000 arrest each year for marijuana and after it passed their where 10.000 DUID each year

[t-pain]

show me 10,000 5ng duid in washington statistic, bob. i'd like to see this.

 

sounds more like your 'arrests are up 400%' no offense.

[bobandtorey]

http://www.evergreendocumentary.com

[bobandtorey]

show me 10,000 5ng duid in washington statistic, bob. i'd like to see this.

 

sounds more like your 'arrests are up 400%' no offense.

 

 

Thanks

I have no statistics i was only saying what the Lawyers/ people where saying about I-502 that where against I-502 and a lot of the medical people that were against it also it was a 2 hour show 

 

and the 400% was what Brandy Zine said in the news papers  inn about 2010

 

 no offense <<<< No worries here it's all Right-On and Far-out to me 

 

I guess my point was take the wait and see but i just don't have much faith in my own County as fas as laying off people for  driving , using ,and growing cannabis 

 

Thanks again 

[Alphabob]

The more I look into this bill the more it looks like a Trojan horse.

 

1. It does not allow enough time for what it proposes, which would lead to a flawed conclusion (if any). This is stated in the house analysis.

 

2. Guess who is picking the commission? The one and only Gov. Rick Snyder, a known opponent to medical and recreational cannabis.

 

3. And whom does this proposed commission consist of? The director of the Department of State Police (or a designee), one M.D. or D.O., one forensic toxicologist, one medical marihuana patient, and two professors from two different Michigan public research universities.

 

Now, if the goal was truly to find a scientific answer rather than just picking a number, what is the purpose of having the director of the state police and a medical patient involved? At least a third of the individuals involved have no background in science or traffic accident statistics. This worries me due to false information floating around such as ‘Marijuana-related fatal car accidents surge in Washington state after legalization’ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/marijuana-related-fatal-car-accidents-surge-washin/). When actually looking at fatal car accidents in Washington over the last couple of years, we see a steady trend (deaths per 100,000):

 

2014    6.5
2013    6.3
2012    6.4       <- Legalized
2011    6.7
2010    6.8

 

An untrained individual has three choices, A) ignore the overall stats and conclude cannabis is causing more deadly accidents, B) assume that other causes of accidents have decreased while cannabis has increased or C) The 5ng/ml limit is arbitrary and cannabis use is not statistically linked to more fatal accidents. How do you think the proposed commission will interpret data such as this?

[bobandtorey]

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/FY_2016_Section_902_Medical_Marijuana_Grants_Report_505158_7.pdf

[bobandtorey]

show me 10,000 5ng duid in washington statistic, bob. i'd like to see this.

 

sounds more like your 'arrests are up 400%' no offense.

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Motorists are being convicted of driving under the influence of marijuana based on arbitrary state standards that have no connection to whether the driver was actually impaired, says a study by the nation’s largest auto club.

 

The problem is only growing as more states contemplate legalizing the drug. At least three, and possibly as many as 11 states, will vote this fall on ballot measures to legalize marijuana for medicinal or recreational use, or both. Legislation to legalize the drug has also been introduced in a half dozen states.

 

Currently, six states — Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington — have set specific limits for THC, the chemical in marijuana that makes people high, in drivers’ blood. Marijuana use is legal in those states for either recreational or medicinal purposes, with the exception of Ohio. The laws presume a driver whose THC level exceeds the threshold is impaired. But the study by AAA’s safety foundation says the limits have no scientific basis and can result in innocent drivers being convicted, and in guilty drivers being released.

 

“There is understandably a strong desire by both lawmakers and the public to create legal limits for marijuana impairment in the same manner we do alcohol,” said Marshall Doney, AAA’s president and CEO. “In the case of marijuana, this approach is flawed and not supported by scientific research.”

 

 

Another nine states, including some that have legalized marijuana for medical use, have zero-tolerance laws for driving and marijuana that make not only any presence of THC in a driver’s blood illegal, but also the presence of its metabolites, which can linger in a driver’s bloodstream for weeks after any impairment has dissipated.

 

That makes no sense, said Mark A. R. Kleiman, a New York University professor specializing in issues involving drugs and criminal policy. “A law against driving with THC in your bloodstream is not a law you can know you are obeying except by never smoking marijuana or never driving,” he said.

 

The problem is that determining whether someone is impaired by marijuana, as opposed to having merely used the drug, is far more complex than the simple and reliable tests that have been developed for alcohol impairment.

 

The degree to which a driver is impaired by marijuana use depends a lot on the individual, the foundation said. Drivers with relatively high levels of THC in their systems might not be impaired, especially if they are regular users, while others with relatively low levels may be unsafe behind the wheel.

 

Some drivers may be impaired when they are stopped by police, but by the time their blood is tested they have fallen below the legal threshold because active THC dissipates rapidly. The average time to collect blood from a suspected driver is often more than two hours because taking a blood sample typically requires a warrant and transport to a police station or hospital, the foundation said.

 

In addition, frequent marijuana users can exhibit persistent levels of the drug long after use, while THC levels can decline more rapidly among occasional users.

 

Colorado’s 5-nanogram limit for THC in blood “was picked out of thin air by politicians,” said Robert Corry, a Denver criminal defense attorney. “Innocent people are convicted of DUI because of this.”

 

Melanie Brinegar, who uses marijuana every day to control back pain, was stopped by police two years ago for having an expired license plate. The officer smelled marijuana and Brinegar acknowledged she had used the drug earlier in the day. Her blood test showed a level of 19 nanograms, well over the state limit. She was arrested and charged with driving while impaired.

 

Brinegar, 30, who lives in Denver, said she spent the next 13 months working 80 to 90 hours a week to pay for a lawyer to help her fight the charge and eventually was acquitted. People like herself will always test positive for THC whether they are high or not because of their frequent use, she said.

 

“It took a good amount of my time and my life,” she said. “There is still that worry if I get pulled over (again).”

 

Studies show that using marijuana and driving roughly doubles the risk of a crash, Kleiman said. By comparison, talking on a hands-free cellphone while driving — legal in all states — quadruples crash risk, he said. A blood alcohol content of .12, which is about the median amount in drunken driving cases, increases crash risk by about 15 times, he said.

 

Driving with “a noisy child in the back of the car” is about as dangerous as using marijuana and driving, Kleiman said.

 

The exception is when a driver has both been using marijuana and drinking alcohol because the two substances together greatly heighten impairment, he said.

http://wtop.com/government/2016/05/scientific-basis-for-laws-on-marijuana-driving-questioned/?utm_content=buffer0b081&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[bobandtorey]

 A report recently released by the American Automobile Association backs up what Vermont lawmakers heard during the debate over legalizing marijuana: There is no scientific way to prove if someone is under the influence of the drug while driving.

Vermonters being stoned while driving has been a big concern of legislators as the state looks at the possibility of legalizing marijuana. The Legislature failed to legalize the drug in the last session but members of the House and the Senate will be meeting this summer to look closely at potential legalization.

Before the last session ended, the House passed a measure that would have given law enforcement the authority to test a suspected drugged driver’s saliva for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. The Senate did not take up the issue of saliva testing, saying there wasn’t enough time to look into it before the end of the session.

The AAA report looked at the states of Colorado, Washington and Montana, which all have thresholds in place for how much THC can be in someone’s system before they are considered to be under the influence. Those states established a threshold of five nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. 

Both Washington and Colorado have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Twelve other states have laws saying no amount of THC in someone’s system is acceptable when it comes to driving.

The report argues that the five nanograms threshold doesn’t work. After looking into the cases of drivers who were pulled over for DUI and had THC in their systems, AAA says a substantial number of those arrested would be misclassified as impaired and those who are actually impaired would not have been flagged by the test for THC.

The report looked into having thresholds from one nanogram to 10 nanograms of THC per milliliter, but it found no level of THC that would back up what police see while conducting field sobriety tests.

Those who frequently use marijuana can show high levels of THC despite not being impaired while occasional users will have the THC leave their system quickly, according to the report. 

The report was put together by the Center for Forensic Science Research and Education in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania. That lab also gave the state the same results about not being able to scientifically prove someone is stoned when the state commissioned its own study last year.

Rep. Patrick Brennan, R-Chittenden, is the chairman of the House transportation committee which put forth the saliva testing legislation. Brennan said he heard from experts during the discussion in committee about the five nanogram threshold not being effective.

He said the saliva test was meant to be another tool in the toolbox for law enforcement. Brennan said someone suspected of being stoned while driving would be pulled over, evaluated at the roadside and, if the officer thinks the driver is impaired, then field sobriety tests would be conducted. After that, he said if the person is arrested they are then taken to the police station or the hospital to have either blood work or the saliva test done to see if THC is in the person’s system. Many police officers are trained as drug recognition experts, which police say allows them to observe signs that someone may be under the influence of drugs, such as failing field sobriety tests or having bloodshot and watery eyes.

“When you go to court you’ve got three things: you’ve got erratic driving, you’ve got a drug recognition expert saying you’re impaired, and then you’ve got the saliva test results that show the presence of drugs,” he said.

Brennan said law enforcement would not be looking at how much THC is in someone’s system, only if there was any there at all.

Greg Nagurney, the state’s traffic safety resource officer, said there are chronic medical marijuana users out there who will show a high level of THC in their system all the time. But he said the other side of that coin is people are taking all kinds of prescribed drugs, and that doesn’t mean they should be driving while using them.

Nagurney suggested a metaphor of having your wisdom teeth extracted. He said when he got his taken out, the doctor told him he needed to bring someone with him to drive him home if he was going to get a prescription for painkillers. 

“Are there people who are medical marijuana users who would like to be able to drive? Sure,” he said. “But if they use to the extent that it impairs them, they shouldn’t drive and they aren’t allowed to drive under our laws.”

Nagurney said he likes the way Colorado handles stoned-driving cases. He said those accused of impaired driving who are habitual users of marijuana are able to bring their own evidence to court to show why they may have a high level of THC in their system, yet they aren’t impaired by it.

Allen Gilbert, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, said the AAA study shows that saliva tests are pointless. Gilbert said someone would get charged based on the saliva test reading that they’re impaired despite no evidence that a certain level of THC means there is impairment. He said the case would be thrown out of court because it’s not valid evidence.

Gilbert said the AAA report suggests that whenever a measurement of THC is used to bring forward a DUI charge, it’s going to be very suspect because there’s no evidence that a certain standard means anything.

He said the saliva tests are also a privacy issue because whenever someone is asked to give a sample of something, be it blood, saliva or urine, it’s an issue relating to the Fourth Amendment which deals with illegal search and seizure by the government.

“So you’ve got to meet a pretty high standard for a reason why the government should have that information about you without you giving consent,” he said.

Besides the saliva testing, Gilbert also takes issue with the use of drug recognition experts. He said some have questioned how valid it is to use those experts.

“Some criminal defense lawyers call it junk science,” he said. “There have been some challenges to those tests.”

Gilbert said the AAA report showed half of the people studied who had no drugs in their system failed one of the sobriety tests — the one that asks a driver to touch his nose with the tip of his finger with eyes closed and the head tilted back. Also, a third of clean drivers failed the test where the person is asked to balance on one leg, according to the report.

Despite the fact that people want to find out how drugs impact our ability to drive, Gilbert said we are not yet at a place where a successful test could be used to show impairment.

“We’re not near where alcohol has been for a number of years. And somehow we have to go back and understand how the alcohol standard was developed and how a similar thing can be done for all these other drugs that police now want to test for,” he said.

 

http://timesargus.com/article/20160522/NEWS01/160529899