Top

blog

Stories

 

Driving-while-stoned videos help fuel momentum of THC driving bill

Categories: Marijuana

driving while stoned 2.jpg
Videos below.
Legislation to set THC driving standards in Colorado has failed twice before. However, a new version that also tweaks alcohol DUI rules won unanimous approval during its first House committee hearing earlier this week.

Aiding this momentum are assorted news videos that purport to show the dangers of driving while stoned; see examples below. But the clips don't address many of the objections that helped kill the previous bills.

A CBS4 report on what the station refers to as "DWS" relies to a large degree on a package assembled earlier this month by KIRO-TV in Washington, where voters have also given permission to adults 21 and over to use and possess small amounts of marijuana. Washington also has a law that sets THC intoxication limits at five nanograms per milliliter of blood -- the same levels that will be established with the passage of the Colorado bill, HB 13-1114, which is on view below.

The KIRO report shows three volunteers who smoke, then climb into vehicles and attempt to navigate a driving course -- and mostly fail badly, by either going far too slow or swerving into cones set up to simulate roadways. Here's the main piece:

Unfortunately, there are problems aplenty with this demonstration. Blood tests subsequently showed that the drivers weren't at or near the five nanogram level after smoking, but way over it -- in one case more than three times as much, in another instance seven times. As such, the report adds no useful information about whether five nanograms is actually an effective measure of intoxication -- and it doesn't address the fact that readings above that total are common in frequent users like medical marijuana patients due to the way THC lingers in the system.

Example: Back in 2011, Westword medical marijuana critic William Breathes's blood had tested at nearly three times the legal amount while sober.

To address this issue, the authors of HB 13-1114 have added a new element to the latest measure: a "permissible inference" defense, that would allow people who test at five nanograms or above to present other evidence to prove that they weren't actually impaired. But marijuana attorney Rob Corry sees this change as only a slight improvement, making the new proposal 95 percent bad as opposed to 100 percent.

Here's an example of what's wrong with the measure from his perspective, as outlined in a letter to legislators that's also shared below.

Continue for more about driving while stoned, including videos and documents.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
51 comments
Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

BTW, you keep repeating "permissible inference defense." That's incorrect. The permissible inference is the JURY's. They're permitted to infer that you're under the influence if you test to their bullshit standard. You, then, are put into a situation of being required to prove yourself innocent. Just think about that. How would one prove one was not impaired at the time one was tested? it's bullshit, and for the DA, it amounts to a PER SE limit, because only rich people are going to have any way to cast reasonable doubt on the inference. The rest of us, will be forced to suck it.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

I figured as much. People who hate stoners just needed to see stoners behind the wheel. They didn't have to listen to the content, indicating that 5ng/ml isn't jack shit. Gee thanks stoners and haters...this patient is probably going to get nabbed for "driving impaired" some day when he's not even close to impaired, because some of you wanted to be cute, and others of you wanted to punish those being cute.

Evan James
Evan James

and you only really act retared when you first get high

Evan James
Evan James

all my freinds smoke and drive. theres more problems with your adverge drunk then us stoners

Chelly Serna
Chelly Serna

pretty sure if you've gotten too high at home, you're sitting on the couch watching TV, and you barely have enough motivation to order pizza, let alone get in the car and drive.

Suni Daze
Suni Daze

BULLSHIT !! This chick is a TARD !! And NO STUDY should be gathered from her .

Skid Jarrett Gilmore
Skid Jarrett Gilmore

Most drivers in Cherry Creek/Glendale area drive just as badly, so what's the point?

John Anthony Gadd
John Anthony Gadd

heavy tokers can go days without smoking and still flunk this test.

Kendall Thiessen
Kendall Thiessen

If you ask me, they used people that had never smoked. Smoking a little bit and driving is way less dangerous than most of the texting/phone call people on the road.

4johnqpublic
4johnqpublic

are you f'ing kidding me?  did you watch the original from KIRO?  It CLEARLY shows the participants driving with out impairment at 4 times the legal limit of 5 nanograms.  CBS4  misled viewers by editing the video.  In the original the fails don't occur until AFTER the participants had smoked nine tenths of a gram of grade A weed.  Everyone should light up CBS4 for the lack of ethics and integrity in their report.

Pete
Pete

Like most THC driving tests, failure takes place at a level of impairment that would leave most real world stoners happily sitting on the couch with zero desire to drive anywhere.  Beware of impairment driving tests, they are set up to achieve failure!

Paula Abolafia
Paula Abolafia

lol bitches don't know bout my HIGH driving standards

jhaul21
jhaul21

i used to smoke weed everyday at my job i had a 50 mile commute and i would smoke on the way, at lunch, and on the ride home. my job was driving a truck around for the water department turning street valves and mowing their acre well properties, never had any incidents  

Monkey
Monkey

I thought the video showed that even occasional smokers drive fine at 4 times the 5/ng limit, and one heavy user drove fine at well over 20/ng. It illustrates 5/ng is too small of a measurement to imply impairment, and that different drivers are impaired at significantly different levels. I would say this video will be used against the bill, not for it.

Jon Wirtz
Jon Wirtz

If anything, it shows you have to get so fucking high for it to begin to alter your driving. This only shows the ridiculousness of it being illegal (pot).

Nick Valadez
Nick Valadez

I think the point was that the veteran smoker was a better high driver than the "occassional" users. So like anything, practice makes perfect.

Adam Wade Mayo
Adam Wade Mayo

Dude Ive been so stoned driving I forgot where I was, this is total bullshite!!

Blake O'Dunn
Blake O'Dunn

Stupid "loud" people always ruin it for others.......

Jack Quinn
Jack Quinn

How about testing someone who has been on morphine for 10 years plus has smoked for longer then that girl has been alive? The results what be a lot different.

Peace Will Win
Peace Will Win

How bout driving while drunk on fracking money, ask hick.....

Nina Phillips
Nina Phillips

Give me a break - MMJ does not metabolize like alcohol

Ian Errl
Ian Errl

Govt. wants to create new law--->lobbyists create "impartial" study---> said law is validated by study--->law is passed.

Corey Donahue
Corey Donahue

Yes it proves we need a cannabis DUI, like alcohol, thanks A64!!

Zac White
Zac White

People have been driving high in Colorado for decades... The police just need to get our money some how... now that they are taking a hit in the pocket with the legalization, they need to play catch up. NO EVIDENCE that driving high is dangerous to anyone! NONE! The pigs want your money and they will get it!

Luke Bochmann
Luke Bochmann

if this shit passes it will just prove how fucked up our system really is and is laughable at best

John Snyder
John Snyder

Reefer madness 2013!......grow up folks..its just pot....i mean..really

Emm Tee
Emm Tee

clearly she is pushing the envelope on purpose in the last couple of drives

Matt_in_Boulder
Matt_in_Boulder

So, are you saying they played these videos at the legislative meetings?  Based on the text of your article, I don't see any connection between those videos and the legislative actions.  Your headline asserts "Driving while stoned videos help fuel momentum of THC driving bill".  Nothing in the rest of the article supports that assertion.


CoreyDonahue
CoreyDonahue

So, let me get this right we are arguing over an arbitary number and compleatly disregarding the fact that this is unconstitutional, they are sticking a needle in your arm to take your blood to prove you are guilty of a crime. Oh, but you can argue you weren´t.  I think that misses the worle point, like rearanging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO WANTS TO STICK A NEEDLE IN YOUR ARM AND FORCEABLY REMOVE YOUR BLOOD TO PROVE YOU ARE GUILTY OF A CRIME IN WHICH THE STATE INVENTED AND THEN PERSUCUTE YOU FOR THIS MADE UP CRIME.  

Enjouy your ¨freedom,¨ thanks A64!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Pete ... the VOTERS have SPOKEN! ... they have declared that Driving under the INFLUENCE of Marijuana shall be ILLEGAL! ... they set NO MINIMUM standard to define INFLUENCE, so their clear legislative intent was to outlaw ANY level if INFLUENCE.

Stoners fucked themselves with A64!


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Monkey ... too bad the stupid stoners who wrote and promoted A64 didn't include an factually objective standard in the amendment, instead of simply mandating that DUI-m shall remain illegal, and they throwing all the MMJ patients to the anti-drug wolves and law enforcement goons who now get to set whatever standard they want.

Who knew that surrendering total control of marijuana to the same Big Government anti-marijuana politicians and law enforcement thugs who've been running the drug war for the last 40+ years would turn out badly ??

LOL!


orson
orson

@Adam Wade Mayo 

If you forgot where you were you shouldn't have been driving buddy.  This driving bill is for people like you.  The goverment feels the need to regulate those that are incapable of regulating themselves.  Reasonable people who use marijuana responsibly are going to lose their right to drive legally because you and other stupid stoners don't see a problem driving totally wasted, even when you are aware that you are wasted.  Fucking stoners!  

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Charles Gleason  ... what part of "Driving under the INFLUENCE of Marijuana shall REMAIN ILLEGAL" don't these clueless stoners comprehend?

kadargo
kadargo

@Matt_in_Boulder Further, the current proposed legilation has little to do with "driving while stoned", but rather "driving with THC in your system".  Having THC in your system does not prove you are stoned.  It suggests that you may be stoned, but it also could mean you were stoned last night or the night before that. 


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Matt_in_Boulder ... Michael simply prefers to MAKE SHIT UP to hype the marijuana hysteria, which helps keep what little marijuana advertising $$ is left flowing into WW. 

He's under deadline to spew a minimum amount of daily "stories" for the online blogs, hence the lack of quality and gross factual errors in many of them, compared to the print edition that allows reporters an entire week to get it right.

Like most stoners, there is little correlation between what he writes and any objective reality.

Headlines the OPPOSITE of what the story conveys? -- no problem!

Math FAILS? -- repeatedly -- no problem!

Biased and Incompetent "experts"? -- no problem!

Bad Legal Advice that lands naive readers in harms way? -- no problem!




DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@CoreyDonahue ... to say nothing of the gross violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination that has existed in the U$A's driving/criminal laws for decades -- the laws that require a suspect (driver) to remain at the scene of the crime (accident).

Americans are so scared and clueless they willingly piss away any and every Constitutional Right ... and the government never has to even fire a shot ... the spineless voters simply Bück Dich! and give it up ... like battered wives returning home for more "love".


James
James

@CoreyDonahue They've been trying to do this for years and would be again if 64 hadn't passed, so to blame it on 64 isn't accurate.

orson
orson

@DonkeyHotay @Monkey 

It is too bad but I don't find it funny unless I look at it in a laugh instead of crying kind of way.  I can laugh at most of the entrepreneurial recreational bullshit because it doesn't afftect me (sorry monkey) but this duim crap completely fucks every legitimate medical marijuana patient for sure and probably even the casual rec user.   But irresponsible stupid stoners NEED regulation...the one thing they have in common with the legislators.  It's all over but the crying....and jail time.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...