Videos: Fox31 denies marijuana activist's claim that THC driving story was rigged
Update: Yesterday afternoon, after we shared an activist Max Montrose's claim that a Fox31 report on driving under the influence of THC was rigged (see our previous coverage below), the station released a 1,600-word response denying the claim. Reporter Mark Meredith insists the driving simulator wasn't rigged, and says the station's conclusions largely match Montrose's.
"Our story concluded that the state standard of Delta 9 concentration was not an accurate or objective way to test whether someone was too high to drive," notes the piece, credited to Meredith, Will C. Holden and Thomas Hendrick. "That is exactly what Montrose has stated his own YouTube report was hoping to prove.
"Since he appears confused about the findings of our report and intent on spreading gross inaccuracies about the way our study was conducted, we feel compelled to respond to his hidden camera video," the response adds.
The piece's authors insist that Montrose's words weren't edited to make him sound like he was advocating for driving stoned. They say that because "the overwhelming majority" of the population wouldn't condone driving under the influence, they felt it wasn't important to include Montrose's opinion on the matter." To that end," they write, "we determined the omitted portions of the interviews were redundant and simply stated the obvious, and thus they were left out of the report."
Max Montrose in a photo from the medicalmarijuana.tv website.
The respondents also deny that the simulator was rigged, explaining that it gauges reaction time and is not meant to mimic "everyday driving." They also point out that the test was run by a third party with no affiliation to the news agency. As for the Fox31 camera guy in the story saying the test was "ridiculous"? Well, he's entitled to his opinion, they say. But his view was based on a quick joy ride, not an actual simulation, they maintain.
Most important, Meredith, Holden and Hendrick disagree with the premise that the news report somehow supported the 5-nanogram limit. At no point do they ever reach a conclusion other than that the evidence is questionable at best, they maintain. "If anything, a complete viewing of our story calls into question the fairness of the previously proposed Colorado statute that sets an arbitrary 5 nanogram limit," they write.
Continue for the complete Fox31 response to Montrose's claims, including a minute by minute breakdown.