Driving While High

[Jim Finnel]

How Stoned Is Too Stoned?

Washington lawmakers are currently trying to answer a tricky question: How high is too high to drive?

Among the 15 states that sanction medical-marijuana use, 12 have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of any illicit drug, including reefer. Colorado is attempting to impose a legal limit of five nanograms of THC ( the magical, active ingredient in marijuana ) per milliliter of blood. Nevada and Ohio have already set much lower limits--prostitution may be legal in Las Vegas, but driving with anything over two nanograms, the rough equivalent of a contact high, is not.

Washington currently operates in a gray area. According to Julie Startup, spokesperson for the Washington State Patrol, if a trooper suspects somebody is driving impaired, they'll request a blood sample for toxicology analysis. But while the presence of THC can be used as evidence, it isn't necessarily a definitive way to prove in court that a person is Driving While High. "It's like any other DUI, regardless of whether it's marijuana or prescription medication," says Startup. "We just look for signs of impairment, and if they're showing that in the trooper's estimation, they'll be placed under arrest."

So into this murky legal morass swims Rep. Roger Goodman ( D-Kirkland ), who earlier this year introduced a bill that would amend Washington's current DUI law to include a legal limit of eight nanograms. Even though it's higher ( no pun intended ) than Colorado's proposed limit, the Goodman ceiling is sparking debate about whether it's an accurate way to gauge if someone is baked to the point of illegality.

Seattle DUI lawyer George Bianchi, the Dean of the National College of DUI Defense Attorneys, points to several toxicology studies that inconclusively determined impairment based on THC blood levels. Bianchi specifically cites a paper by renowned toxicologist Dr. Barry Logan, who concluded that, although smoking marijuana definitely impairs drivers, "the passage of time between driving or involvement in a crash limits our ability to get an accurate measurement of the THC concentration at the time of driving."

In 2005, a group of 11 international scientists published a comprehensive study on the effects of THC on driving ability. They concluded that drivers do not pose a crash risk until they reach 10 to 20 nanograms of THC per milliliter. They also determined that 18 to 20 nanograms is the equivalent of a blood-alcohol content ( BAC ) of .08, the current legal limit in most U.S. states.

As it stands now, Bianchi says, it's difficult for prosecutors to prove someone was driving under the influence based on THC blood levels alone. However, police frequently arrest people--about half of his clients, he says--on suspicion of toking and driving. "If a person is falling down and driving all over the road, that's way different than if someone is speeding and they end up drawing their blood and try [to] base the case strictly on blood level," says Bianchi. "You have to look to the facts of the case. But I've seen several cases where [police] smelled marijuana--maybe a person had a toke earlier that night--and the next thing you know they're drawing blood."

Bianchi, however, says he supports Goodman's law because eight nanograms is a "reasonable" standard, and would prevent prosecutors from introducing levels of carboxy-THC ( a metabolite, which does not make a person high ) as evidence of DUI. His opinion contrasts with that of Diego Vargas, another local DUI defense attorney, who is firmly against the law. "There are just too many things to consider to set a specific number," says Vargas. "Pattern of use, for example--[with] marijuana and THC, like any other drug, people build up a tolerance and not everyone is affected the same way . . . and I'm arguing against my own financial best interest by saying 'Don't change this law.' Defense attorneys will be busier than crazy if this gets passed, but I don't support it. It's just wrong."

DUI attorney-approved or not, Goodman's law still has a long road ahead. Next stop: the Judiciary Committee, where it awaits a hearing.


NewsHawk: Jim Behr: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: Seattle Weekly (WA)
Copyright: 2011 Village Voice Media
Contact:
Seattle - Feedback
Website: Seattle News, Events, Restaurants, Music
Details: MapInc
Author: Keegan Hamilton

 

[Hogdady]

(repost)
Thanks Jim. Many people are not aware what a crucial step the issue of "impairment threshold" is to the legalization of cannabis...

 

[Jacob Bell]

I agree it's of some importance. That fact is this: stoners and medical marijuana patients have been driving on the roads for over 30 yrs. And yet, very little if any conclusive evidence that Cannabis alone caused any accident, let alone one that resulted in death.
So how high is too high? I'll tell ya. There is no such thing as too high to drive. You al know this. Sometimes, occasionally, we run into a strain that knocks us on our butts, and we wait to drive, of course. That's being responsible. That's the right thing to do. But most of the time, shoot, cannabis users can drive and smoke all they want, and not have an accident. I know this from experience. I am a great driver, one of the best, I have had many driving jobs and all that stuff, I am always aware, always checking the mirrors, checking my speed, etc. Constantly. It's habit. I don't have to think about it. I realize I am in a moving piece of steel, or what the frick ever cars are made out of these days, and I could kill someone if I am careless or not paying attention. So therefore, when I drive, I drive that puppy to the max, but I am cautious. I remember back in the day, about 21 or so, I and a buddy would go out on purpose to smoke and drive. On all the backroads, town to town. During summer, winter, ice, snow, didn't matter. Or in the mountains. Never in a wreck. Not once. And I would say I drove that way for 4 yrs straight. No accidents.
This whole thing is just one more notch in the "fear factor" for the government. It's one of their last ditch efforts. Notice has recently in the news the "fear factor" of cannabis is pretty much all that is touted by the opposition? One or two main fear arguments, is all they have left, because WE ARE WINNING!! hehe. Felt good to say that.
Anyhoo, if the legislature feels they just "HAFTA" pass a law, of which there is already one in place, for driving while intoxicated, fine. Arseholes. Freedom? What's that??? As long as I am not hurting anyone else, which I am NOT, then they need to butt out. Period.

 

[Hogdady]

The public will not sign on to people driving or operating equipment under the influence of cannabis without restriction. So the "threshold of impairment" has to be established so that the non-cannabis using public will feel safe with legalization. This would also go hand-in-hand to establish new guidelines for the Drug-Free Workplace Act that requires drug testing for employees who are in vocations that infuence the public's safety.

 

[alexfleming9]

I would love to see the "report" where Mr. Waller pulled that 1 in 5 statistic from. I find that extremely hard to believe. Impossible, actually.
I think this law is rather ridiculous for several reasons, one of which being that it is already against the law to drive under the influence of marijuana. Why make an additional law to repeat the one in place already? Secondly, anyone who has medical expertise or any real knowledge of marijuana and how it is detected in the body knows that it can stay detectable in the system for far longer than it would keep a person impaired from driving. In fact, if a person ingests it on a semi-regular basis (as many medical mj patients might need to), it can stay in the fat cells for a long time- days, weeks, even months if the person is overweight. Putting a number on what's to be considered "impaired" is rather unhelpful in determining actual impairment.
I'm all for maintaining responsible use of mmj, alcohol, anything that would impair a person's driving; but I am very much against adding laws that will cause innocent people to be harmed and penalized.

 

[Propa Gator]

I've driven for pleasure and pay throughout a fairly long life. For the last ten years, almost never without having smoked first. Never in the vehicle. A big-city taxi driver needs all the awareness he can muster, but a calm attitude is even more crucial. Cops have stopped and cited me many, many times but never voiced nor acted upon suspicion that I was stoned.

DON'T talk on your bloody friggin cell phone when you drive, and don't smoke in a car.

 

[demp5294]

How long did it take for people to except their was a limit to alcohol because even thou any sane person knows when they are impaired. They didn't want you to believe it you might drink less.With weed their's so much fear already built in everything is a battle.They are still trying to convince people alcohol is OK!