Colorado is setting THC levels for DUI driving...

[BigSwifty]

Man this is total bullshit:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_16780152

If you're driving with over 5ng/mL of THC in your blood then you get a DUI. Thing is, for daily smokers, your THC may never go BELOW 5ng/mL. Meaning that you are legally DUI every time you get in the car, even if you haven't smoked for 12 hours!!

This is really a blow to medical MJ and MJ in general! Pretty fucked up if you ask me!

There's a lot of debate about how quickly plasma THC levels drop, but from what I've read it's very possible for regular smokers to have high THC levels (>5ng/ML) several hours after smoking. The fact is it is probably highly variable for different individuals.

I would NEVER let a fuckin' cop give me a blood test. How in the fuck would they even know I was high?!?! As long as you don't smell like it then they have no way of establishing a suspicion. It's not like booze where people obviously reak and are obviously impaired!! Shit, I smoke enough that nobody can tell I'm high 15 minutes after I smoke a joint. Once the smell wears off there's no way an officer would be able to tell that I'd been smoking.

This just seems like it's going to cause a whole shitload of problems!

 

[jd4083]

If you get pulled over and are obviously high enough for the cop to want to blood test you, I reckon you deserve what ya get. Dumb people complain about getting caught, smart people figure out ways not to.

 

[yortbogey]

good thing.........I got rid of my truck............SEGWAY....only.....

 

[Securityfirst]

I have been with people so baked that they were driving very dangerously. Potent bud fucks people up just like alchohol. I wouldnt want some baked dipshit hitting me. I drive stoned all the time lol

 

[vta]

Colo. May Set Limits for Driving after MJ Use

Colo. May Set Limits for Driving after MJ Use

Colo. May Set Limits for Driving after MJ Use

By John Ingold, The Denver Post
Source: Denver Post

cannabis Denver -- Colorado could soon establish tough new measures to crack down on those who toke and drive.

Under a proposal expected to be introduced at the Capitol early next year, the state would create a threshold for the amount of THC — the psychoactive component of marijuana — drivers could have in their blood. Anyone who is stopped and tests above that limit would be considered to be driving while stoned.

Drivers suspected of being impaired by marijuana or other drugs already have to submit to a blood test or face a suspension of their licenses. But the proposed law would set a standard at which the law would presume a driver impaired by marijuana.

"It will bring some clarity to the issue of whether you are or are not impaired under the influence of marijuana," said state Rep. Claire Levy, a Boulder Democrat who is likely to be one of the proposal's sponsors in the legislature. ". . . There isn't a bright line right now."

State law already bans driving while under the influence of drugs, but law enforcement officials say the law is vague on how they should establish a suspect is high.

That — plus the concern that the state's medical-marijuana explosion could lead to more impaired driving — led members of a subgroup of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice to examine the issue, said Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson, a commission member.

"It became clear to us that marijuana is an area that had not been given due consideration," he said.

Gauging Impairment

The proposal, which the full commission endorsed last month, sets the THC threshold at 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. Robinson said research shows that level is indicative of impairment. Anyone over the threshold would be presumed to be impaired, in the same way any driver with a blood-alcohol content over 0.08 percent is considered to be too drunk to drive.

Sean McAllister, a lawyer who serves on the commission's drug policy subgroup, said the research doesn't take into account the tolerance level of frequent users. He said he worries that the proposal could unfairly affect medical-marijuana patients, who may be able to have higher THC levels without impairment.

But, he said, he agrees something needs to be done, and he said he advises patients to wait at least four hours after using marijuana before driving.

"No responsible advocate of legalization believes that people should be driving high," McAllister said.

David Kaplan, the state's former top public defender, said he shares concerns over the 5-nanogram level and whether "there was a strong enough correlation on what impact it has on your driving behavior."

Still, Kaplan, who is the vice chairman of the commission, said he supports the process by which the commission came to its proposal.

Other States Set Limits

If the proposal is adopted, Colorado would not be the first state to set a maximum THC limit for drivers. A number of states have zero-tolerance policies for drivers with THC in their blood. A handful of states, including Pennsylvania, have a 5-nanogram limit for marijuana or its metabolites, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML.

Marijuana advocates and law enforcement officials often clash over how big of a problem stoned driving is.

A report last month from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration found that at least one in five drivers who were killed in car crashes in 2009 subsequently tested positive for drugs. THC or some other form of marijuana showed up in 1,085 of the 21,798 drivers killed. In Colorado, THC or some other form of marijuana showed up in 26 of the 312 drivers killed that year.

The commission's proposal will likely be turned into a draft bill and introduced in the legislature during the early part of next year's session, which starts in January. Because it has the backing of the commission, its sponsors are optimistic it will receive a warm reception.

State Rep. Bob Gardner, a Colorado Springs Republican who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which would likely be first to vote on the proposal, agreed.

"I think there's a lot of support for that idea," he said.

 

[growshopfrank]

The moral of the story is that if you are a med user DO NOT flash your card to a LEO unless you absolutely have to even if you are not driving because they (the LEO) may make a notation of it then the next time you are pulled over clink.

 

[catcherintheye]

good thing.........I got rid of my truck............SEGWAY....only.....

and smart people figure out ways not to HAHAHA..

 

[ibjamming]

Is the only way to test still by testing metabolites? Meaning...the test doesn't tell you WHEN you smoked or whether you are "intoxicated" at the time. It just says that you HAVE smoked it within the week.

If so, it's unconstitutional. They need to develop a test that determined...like alcohol...whether you're still being INFLUENCED by it. This is like checking an alcoholics blood for liver enzymes and calling him drunk because he HAD been drunk in the past. I guess they can get away with it because it's an ILLEGAL drug...ANY use id prohibited...and therefore you're a criminal nonetheless? But wait...it's LEGAL in CO. So there it IS unconstitutional. You can't "arrest" someone because they were "too drunk to drive" sometime in their past. Some slick lawyer needs to take it to the SCOTUS (as crooked and bought off as they are) to get it thrown out. There's no money in it though...it'll have to be pro bono.

We need to get cracking on a test to determine "current highness" or they just may get this going... I bet it's a FINE and not jail time for most offenders...they want the bucks...what better than an ambiguous test with meaningless results. What if they tried doing that with alcohol metabolites...Joe six pack AND big wheeling executive would both scream bloody murder...we need to too!

 

[crazybear]

If you get pulled over and are obviously high enough for the cop to want to blood test you, I reckon you deserve what ya get. Dumb people complain about getting caught, smart people figure out ways not to.

Who said that it was based on being too high, it's another popo way of F**KING people! If the test is not fair it does not matter weather you smoked that day or five days ago or more it's just another way for the police to be able to F**K with people!

 

[HippyJohnny]

Think sobriety check point...

 

[jd4083]

Who said that it was based on being too high, it's another popo way of F**KING people! If the test is not fair it does not matter weather you smoked that day or five days ago or more it's just another way for the police to be able to F**K with people!

Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a harmless, white good ol boy raised in the south, or the fact that I don't blast bad reggae music and smell of patchoulli when I get pulled over, or the fact that I'm not a bumbling assclown who doesn't know how to separate work from play long enough not to get busted doing both.....but I've lived in a lot of places all over the country and couldn't think of one negative encounter with the police that wasn't a direct result of my being lax and careless in my actions. I am not saying that the police NEVER pull over people without some reasonable cause for suspicion presenting itself first, but come on, be real here...

ever stop to wonder if the guy who got pulled over "because he was black" might have actually been popped because he was driving a blacked out SUV on 24" wheels with a system blaring at 3am? Just a thought

 

[crazybear]

Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a harmless, white good ol boy raised in the south, or the fact that I don't blast bad reggae music and smell of patchoulli when I get pulled over, or the fact that I'm not a bumbling assclown who doesn't know how to separate work from play long enough not to get busted doing both.....but I've lived in a lot of places all over the country and couldn't think of one negative encounter with the police that wasn't a direct result of my being lax and careless in my actions. I am not saying that the police NEVER pull over people without some reasonable cause for suspicion presenting itself first, but come on, be real here...

ever stop to wonder if the guy who got pulled over "because he was black" might have actually been popped because he was driving a blacked out SUV on 24" wheels with a system blaring at 3am? Just a thought

How about an accident that was not your fault & you do not seem high & they still want a blood sample, or a pee test especially if you are injured & have to go to the hospital & have not blazed in days & it still shows up a bad law! Yeah you get real!!!!

 

[Yes4Prop215]

simple...dont hotbox your vehicle..dont drive around with bob marley shirt and dirty dreadlocks....dont have weed sitting in a plastic bag in your car....dont be a fucking idiot!!

jesus i drive high all the time but i wont let a fuckwad officer even think im high...

 

[jd4083]

How about an accident that was not your fault & you do not seem high & they still want a blood sample, or a pee test especially if you are injured & have to go to the hospital & have not blazed in days & it still shows up a bad law! Yeah you get real!!!!

You're wasting your time arguing about this anyways. It won't ever actually go into effect in the way that is described in the article, I'll bet the farm on that. And if I lived in Colorado and it did pass, and the above-mentioned happened to me...I'd give the Liar, I mean lawyer, a call and tell him to go ahead and place his order for that brand new 7-series and put my name down too, because he's about to make us both rich with that settlement.

You can argue hypothetical points until the cows come home, but I remain firm in my opinion that in the vast majority of cases, the only people getting in trouble for pot are idiots who caused the trouble their damned selves. Just my $.02, add a dollar and you might get a cup of coffee somewhere if you're lucky.

 

[LovableHuggable]

simple...dont hotbox your vehicle..dont drive around with bob marley shirt and dirty dreadlocks....dont have weed sitting in a plastic bag in your car....dont be a fucking idiot!!

jesus i drive high all the time but i wont let a fuckwad officer even think im high...

This.

I never did understand why people would put stickers like Phish on their car or wear their hair real long or in dreads. You might as well hold the bag of pot or drugs out the window as you ride down the road. Keep it clean and simple and look like a normal person and you will go unnoticed. I've been high 24/7 for 6 years now and during that time I got a masters and started a career. No one noticed and if they did they sure didn't care.

 

[DiiZZii3]

Also u gotta reckon that someone who smokes a bowl for there first time is gunna be really impared (i kno i wouldnt of been able to drive the first time i blazed), and they'd pass the test cuz there levels wouldnt be high enough. Then someone who smokes everyday who might not even feel high would get a DUI. Also this test cant test current levels of thc only past levels beacuse it takes around an hour to actually get into ur urine. This law sounds all kinda fucked up.

 

[milehighmedical]

.

 

[aldoray]

i live in CO and its never been about serving or protecting anything here. its all about the bottom line, how much more money can they squeeze from our pockets. its bullshit.

 

[!!!]

The whole idea of using a measured quantity to determine the subjective effects of a psychoactive drug is ridiculous.

Here's my take on drugged driving


Alcohol severely impairs judgment and coordination and is very dangerous. You can't fucking walk! let alone drive.. I've never taken any other drug that doesn't let you walk or talk when shitfaced. A LOT of 18-28 year olds drive drunk (most of my friends do or used to) and this is a BIG problem that should be addressed.

Psychedelics are dangerous to drive on. Cannabis is a psychedelic but does not impair you in the same way as say, shrooms, 2C-E or LSD. On the latter drugs, my sense of depth is gone and traffic lights turn every color in the rainbow. The road wobbles like water and things that "look" 50 feet away I "get to" by walking forward just 1 foot. Very cool! but not something I'd drive on.

Although in my experience, if I'm tripping hard and I get into my car. I think "holy shit I'm in a spaceship!" I would KNOW I can't drive, and even if I wanted to, I probably wouldn't know how to start the car.

I can and do chain smoke fat ass blunts all day and drive much safer high than I ever drove sober.

In scientific studies, Cannabis does not impair driving (in fact, it improves it as you compensate for any psychomotor degration you might have) but potent THC edibles may really fuck you up.

But in my experience, people tripping balls on brownies will refuse to get behind the wheel. They're scared shitless just riding shotgun.

Some people cannot drive safely sober, ever.

Some people take high doses of Benzos, Ambien or Benadryl and drive. This is extremely dangerous.

Many people drive fatigued. This likely accounts for the most accidents beneath driving drunk. My friend rammed a parked car last week because he fell asleep on the wheel. He does not do drugs and the parked car could easily have been a child.

I've gotten very close to being in accidents driving tired. "very close" as in I only snapped out of my hazey sleep state (sober) because of the adrenaline rush I get when a car I'm about to turn into honks.

Stimulants make you very aggressive and cause road rage. When I'm on them, I drive very recklessly. I'm not impaired in any way except for the fact that I feel superhuman and can weave through the tiniest spaces between traffic. I also speed, and treat the road like a race. "Objects may appear closer than they are" becomes "Objects in this mirror are losing. go go go!"

my point is that we need to test a person's ability to drive at that given moment instead of trying to determine it biochemically.

 

[sac beh]

DUI Pot Bill Could Lead to Wrongful Convictions
The legislature should proceed with caution. Absent essential protections for the accused, including a right to testing that would accurately distinguish between "active" and "inactive" THC in the blood, as well as the right to have blood retested at a reasonable cost by a certified lab, Colorado's courts could become even more clogged by those defendants wrongly accused and eager to take their cases to trial.

Good article to bring more attention to the problem with this. By a well known MMJ attorney in CO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/dui-pot-bill-could-lead-t_b_795521.html