MSP Targets Medical Marihuana Patients on the Road - with New Bad Science

Michael Komorn · November 29, 2017

The MMMA has been in the news lately objecting to the administration of roadside oral fluid (saliva) swab tests, as the majority of studies done so far have determined them to be grossly inaccurate, much like the controlled substance "field tests" and "drug recognition experts" also used by the police. Let's just say in our office, the police have a poor track record in the field of science - from police forensic data analysis, evidence weighing, handling, and reporting, to controlled substance reporting and analysis, they routinely fail basic scientific rigor under examination. They are pretenders at the science game.

Medical marihuana users are targeted specifically by tests like this, since the detection time for the presence of non-psychoactive THC metabolites in the bloodstream and saliva is quite long - more than 30 days for most medical marihuana users. See below for some choice quotes and links to the articles.

Quote

The president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association is concerned the saliva tests being used by police in a new roadside drug testing pilot program may have a high error rate.

Michael Komorn joins other skeptics who are questioning the accuracy of the tests, according to The Associated Press. They started being administered by state police and local authorities earlier this month in five counties: Berrien, Delta, Kent, St. Clair and Washtenaw.

"Nobody should be compelled to take this test until we've got some confirmation that it is an accurate test," Komorn said. "That's basic fundamental liberty and freedom, that government shouldn't be able to subject individuals to tests."

Skeptics question accuracy of Michigan's new roadside drug tests:

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/skeptics_question_accuracy_of.html

Quote

[Michigan State Police Special First Lt. Jim Flegel] said the program is simply about combating an increase in fatal crashes caused by drug-impaired drivers.

But attorney Michael Komorn, of Farmington Hills, Mich., president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association, sees other potential concerns, including the accuracy of the test and “experimental nature” of the program.

He’s afraid law-abiding citizens with normal therapeutic levels of prescription drugs in their systems who are not impaired to drive might be arrested.

And he thinks that could result in a court challenge.

“Until then, we got a bunch of Michigan citizens in these five counties that are going to be guinea pigs to this process,” Komorn said.

Test targets drug-impaired driving in Michigan:

https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/test-targets-drug-impaired-driving-in-michigan/article_cfebad71-718c-51f0-a8fc-951883445b87.html

bobandtorey · November 29, 2017

Guinea pigs , And test cases i do understand how that goes

Thanks Consular

Michael Komorn · December 1, 2017

There is a lot of research on marijuana and driving. We should start collecting studies in one big archive to rule them all. We can do this.

https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-288fc7f9-d609-302e-9205-a0b0b5149701

"Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

http://expertforensicreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/MARIJUANA_AND_DRIVING_IN_REAL_LIFE_SITUATIONS_BY_KLONOFF_1974.pdf

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536+ took 2975 studies and whittled them down to ... 9 studies.

NORML page has summaries of studies : http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

As always, NIDA takes a position unsupported by the actual scientific studies they cite: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving

http://time.com/3930541/marijuana-impact-driving/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

"Overall, though, case-control and culpability studies have been inconclusive, a determination reached by several other recent reviewers. Similar disagreement has never existed in the literature on alcohol use and crash risk."

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/pdf/marijuana-driving-508.pdf

Nice list of studies: http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org/factsheets/driving.htm

1993 NHTSA report: https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25800/25867/DOT-HS-808-078.pdf

http://www.businessinsider.com/studies-on-the-effects-of-weed-on-drivers-have-different-results-2017-6

http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving/

AAA studies: https://www.aaafoundation.org/impaired-driving-and-cannabis

July 2017 NHTSA report: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812440-marijuana-impaired-driving-report-to-congress.pdf