New wrinkle in pot debate: stoned driving

AllardChardon

Literotica Guru
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Posts
4,797
New wrinkle in pot debate: stoned driving
By KRISTEN WYATT | Associated Press

DENVER (AP) — Angeline Chilton says she can't drive unless she smokes pot. The suburban Denver woman says she'd never get behind the wheel right after smoking, but she does use medical marijuana twice a day to ease tremors caused by multiple sclerosis that previously left her homebound.

"I don't drink and drive, and I don't smoke and drive," she said. "But my body is completely saturated with THC."

Her case underscores a problem that no one's sure how to solve: How do you tell if someone is too stoned to drive?

States that allow medical marijuana have grappled with determining impairment levels for years. And voters in Colorado and Washington state will decide this fall whether to legalize the drug for recreational use, bringing a new urgency to the issue.

A Denver marijuana advocate says officials are scrambling for limits in part because more drivers acknowledge using the drug.

"The explosion of medical marijuana patients has led to a lot of drivers sticking the (marijuana) card in law enforcement's face, saying, 'You can't do anything to me, I'm legal,'" said Sean McAllister, a lawyer who defends people charged with driving under the influence of marijuana.

It's not that simple. Driving while impaired by any drug is illegal in all states.

But it highlights the challenges law enforcement officers face using old tools to try to fix a new problem. Most convictions for drugged driving now are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test.

Authorities envision a legal threshold for pot that would be comparable to the blood-alcohol standard used to determine drunken driving.

But unlike alcohol, marijuana stays in the blood long after the high wears off a few hours after use, and there is no quick test to determine someone's level of impairment — not that scientists haven't been working on it.

Dr. Marilyn Huestis of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a government research lab, says that soon there will be a saliva test to detect recent marijuana use.

But government officials say that doesn't address the question of impairment.

"I'll be dead — and so will lots of other people — from old age, before we know the impairment levels" for marijuana and other drugs, said White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske.

Authorities recognize the need for a solution. Marijuana causes dizziness, slowed reaction time and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they're high.

Dr. Bob DuPont, president of the Institute for Behavior and Health, a non-government institute that works to reduce drug abuse, says research proves "the terrible carnage out there on the roads caused by marijuana."

One recent review of several studies of pot smoking and car accidents suggested that driving after smoking marijuana might almost double the risk of being in a serious or fatal crash.

And a recent nationwide census of fatal traffic accidents showed that while deadly crashes have declined in recent years, the percentage of mortally wounded drivers who later tested positive for drugs rose 18 percent between 2005 and 2011.

DuPont, drug czar for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, wrote a paper last year on drugged driving for the Obama administration, which has made the issue a priority.

Physicians say that while many tests can show whether someone has recently used pot, it's more difficult to pinpoint impairment at any certain time.

Urine and blood tests are better at showing whether someone used the drug in the past — which is why employers and probation officers use them. But determining current impairment is far trickier.

"There's no sure answer to that question," said Dr. Guohua Li, a Columbia University researcher who reviewed marijuana use and motor vehicle crashes last year.

His survey linked pot use to crash risk, but pointed out wide research gaps. Scientists do not have conclusive data to link marijuana dosing to accident likelihood; whether it matters if the drug is smoked or eaten; or how pot interacts with other drugs.

The limited data has prompted a furious debate.

Proposed solutions include setting limits on the amount of the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana, THC, that drivers can have in their blood. But THC limits to determine impairment are not widely agreed upon.

Two states place the standard at 2 nanograms per milliliter of blood. Others have zero tolerance policies. And Colorado and Washington state are debating a threshold of 5 nanograms.

Such an attempt failed the Colorado Legislature last year, amid opposition from Republicans and Democrats. State officials then set up a task force to settle the question — and the panel couldn't agree.

This year, Colorado lawmakers are debating a similar measure, but its sponsors concede they don't know whether the "driving while high" bill will pass.

In Washington state, the ballot measure on marijuana legalization includes a 5 nanogram THC limit.

The measure's backers say polling indicates such a driving limit could be crucial to winning public support for legalization.

"Voters were very concerned about impaired driving," said Alison Holcomb, campaign director for Washington's legalization measure.

Holcomb also pointed to a failed marijuana legalization proposal in California two years ago that did not include a driving THC limit.

The White House, which has a goal of reducing drugged driving by 10 percent in the next three years, wants states to set a blood-level standard upon which to base convictions, but has not said what that limit should be.

Administration officials insist marijuana should remain illegal, and Kerlikowske called it a "bogus argument" to say any legal level of THC in a driver is safe.

But several factors can skew THC blood tests, including age, gender, weight and frequency of marijuana use. Also, THC can remain in the system weeks after a user sobers up, leading to the anxiety shared by many in the 16 medical marijuana states: They could be at risk for a positive test at any time, whether they had recently used the drug or not.

A Colorado state forensic toxicologist testified recently that "5 nanograms is more than fair" to determine intoxication. But, for now the blood test proposals remain politically fraught, with supporters and opponents of marijuana legalization hinging support on the issue.

Huestis, of the government-funded drug abuse institute, says an easy-to-use roadside saliva test that can determine recent marijuana use — as opposed to long-ago pot use — is in final testing stages and will be ready for police use soon.

Researchers envision a day when marijuana tests are as common in police cars as Breathalyzers.

Until then, lawmakers will consider measures such as Colorado's marijuana DUI proposal, which marijuana activists say imperils drivers who frequently use the drug such as Chilton, the multiple sclerosis patient.

She says that since she began using pot she has started driving again and for the first time in five years has landed a job.

Chilton worries Colorado's proposal jeopardizes her newfound freedom.



***The only time marijuana impairs my ability to drive is when I ingest it. Under those circumstances, I don't drive. Otherwise, I have been smoking and driving, including smoking while driving, for years and have an excellent driving record, even though you might not believe it.
 
One of my major worries is that people are operating motor vehicles, in my area, while under the influence of drugs (alcohol is a drug.) Detecting a drunk driver is easy. As is pointed out, other drugs are not so easy to detect.

I strongly suspect that the government, US, state, county and/or city, is conducting tests with drugged drivers in my area. Way over 50% of the drivers in my area drive as if they're either under the influence of drugs and/or insane.

(Warning to Literoticans, if some some-of-a-bitch/bitch makes a right turn from the far left lane of a multi-lane highway or a left turn from the far right lane of the same, it's not considered to be committing assisted suicide. Don't ask me, I have no idea why.)
 
Just attach a warning sign on the users car: CAUTION THIS DRIVER USES ALCOHOL/MARIJUANA and let the community beware.
 
Bob DuPont doesn't sound like somebody to take too seriously in this matter, because he has so much of a stake in the outcome.

As for impairment, I would think a breathalyzer would work as well as a blood test does for drunk drivers. I believe the most common legal level is .08 percent and some people would be highly impaired at that rate while others would not have any problem of all. It's a one-size-fits-all solution, but I doubt there is any other way.
 
The other way is what they do now, and what they did for alchohol before the breathalyzer, where the officer has to prove impairment by observation. "Subject crossed center line three times in one minute, then swerved into ambulance lane. I flipped on my lights and subject drove off the road and hit a tree."

The advantage of blood levels is that they make it easier for the officer to prove impairment with less direct evidence, such as the cop pulls the driver over for going 8 miles over the speed limit and acts stoned.
 
" Physicians say that while many tests can show whether someone has recently used pot, it's more difficult to pinpoint impairment at any certain time. "

This widens the debate about competence in the workplace.
If one is permitted to drive under certain circumstances, one should be permitted to do some work perhaps ?
Or have I missed something here?
 
Last night I watched one of the Police reality shows with a helicopter following a driver high on a combination of alcohol and illegal drugs. His driving was appalling at high speeds in residential streets during a weekday afternoon.

He went through yet another red light and hit a pregnant learner driver turning across his path. Despite shortening his own vehicle by a foot he continued at high speed until he hit a traffic jam and had no way out.

The learner's car was a write-off. She had to stay in hospital overnight but suffered only minor cuts and bruises.

The dangerous driver was already on a five-year ban, was driving a stolen car, and had already hit four or five cars at speed before any police vehicle was near him.

***

Locally I am more worried about drivers on prescribed drugs, some of which have a serious impact on awareness and concentration. I know we have many elderly drivers, but they are not the main culprits who drive the wrong way down one-way streets, do U-turns in major roads, stop suddenly without warning, or pull away from a parked position without looking for other traffic.

During my driving test many years ago I had to complete a series of manoeuvres using hand signals only. Hand signals are no longer required but too many drivers seem to think that any signal is unnecessary even for extreme changes of direction. A turn signal only takes a fingertip. That is apparently too much effort for many.
 
Last night I watched one of the Police reality shows with a helicopter following a driver high on a combination of alcohol and illegal drugs. His driving was appalling at high speeds in residential streets during a weekday afternoon.

He went through yet another red light and hit a pregnant learner driver turning across his path. Despite shortening his own vehicle by a foot he continued at high speed until he hit a traffic jam and had no way out.

The learner's car was a write-off. She had to stay in hospital overnight but suffered only minor cuts and bruises.

The dangerous driver was already on a five-year ban, was driving a stolen car, and had already hit four or five cars at speed before any police vehicle was near him.

***

Locally I am more worried about drivers on prescribed drugs, some of which have a serious impact on awareness and concentration. I know we have many elderly drivers, but they are not the main culprits who drive the wrong way down one-way streets, do U-turns in major roads, stop suddenly without warning, or pull away from a parked position without looking for other traffic.

During my driving test many years ago I had to complete a series of manoeuvres using hand signals only. Hand signals are no longer required but too many drivers seem to think that any signal is unnecessary even for extreme changes of direction. A turn signal only takes a fingertip. That is apparently too much effort for many.

The solution to thedangerous driver is, location, location, location. Exile to the
island of Rockall will cure the problem and greatly increase the safety of English citizens. (It's really hard to obtain alcohol or drugs on Rockall.)

If you're worried about drivers on prescribed drugs, what about drivers on non-prescribed drugs with no guidance as to purity, dosage or medical evaluation of effects on the individual? Of course, the scumbags are too busy pimping for they mama to worry about people who drive under the influence of drugs. (I don't like scumbags very much.)
 
The ability to drive competently does not necessarily have anything to do with what the driver has ingested. Sober drivers, who never could drive properly in the first place, can be just as dangerous as the young and reckless. Cell phone use is a much more dangerous driving impediment than pot, IMO, and still not illegal in many states. Christmas shopping in Tennessee in bad weather last year would prove my point, if I had taken videos.
 
The issue is knowing if a person is impaired or not. With alcohol, a blood level over .05 determines impairment and even if it's under, a sobriety test wil deterine a person's ability to drive, walk, comprehend, etc.

Marijuana doesn't have the same debilitating effects as alcohol and reflexes aren't subjected to the same impairment. The U.S. Dept. of Transportation conducted a study that showed most users became more cautious when driving under the influence and never had noticeable problems dealing with obstacles. That study is still a viable benchmark to begin determining impairment in Marijuana users who drive.

I have been a user for over 40 years and have driven over a million miles. I have a top rating for insurance and a clean driving abstract. I ride a motorcycle as well and have no issues smoking before a ride. I have no loss of co-ordination of sense of balance and have ridden beside cruisers with no issues, becuse I show no signs of being impaired in my ability to ride.

This is a personal account, but many of the users I know have no issues either, while driving, or riding. Educating the decision makers is the hardest issue and must be done fairly and non-biased in execution.
 
^ While I can't smoke pot (for medical reasons), my brother is an EMT, and his observations back you up to a degree. According to him, drivers who crash while stoned are usually going well below the speed limit, so they tend not to seriously hurt themselves or others. (It's worth noting that while the article primarily discusses pot, the crashes referenced often involved other drugs with different effects.)
 
In the "for whatever it's worth" department, the Charlottesville, Virginia, city council yesterday decreed that enforcement of pot laws was to be at the tail end of whatever the city police go after. First jurisdiction in Virginia to do that.
 
I keep hoping they will re-classify marijuana to something much more fitting than where it sits now with the Schedule 1 group.

Quoted from www. opposingviews.com

Marijuana's Classification as a "Schedule 1" Drug has No Basis in Fact

"Marijuana is classified under federal law as a Schedule I controlled substance, defined as a drug with a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use in the U.S., and unsafe for use even under medical supervision. Other Schedule I drugs include heroin, LSD and PCP.

Schedule II drugs -- still considered to have high abuse potential but with accepted medical uses and considered safe for use under medical supervision -- include cocaine, morphine and methamphetamine. That's right, federal law currently classifies marijuana as more dangerous than methamphetamine .

It gets stranger still. THC, the component responsible for marijuana's "high" (but not all of its therapeutic benefits) is available as a prescription pill called Marinol. Marinol is classed in Schedule III -- rated as having lower abuse or dependence potential than Schedule I or II drugs. Indeed, the abuse risks of Schedule III drugs are considered so modest that your doctor can phone in a prescription! This is the case even though the American College of Physicians has noted that Marinol's psychoactive effects are "more severe" than marijuana's.

This federal classification -- enacted by Congress in 1970 and not based on any scientific or medical assessment -- stands reality on its head. It ignores the massive evidence of marijuana's medical value, and treats marijuana as more dangerous than pure THC, heroin, and meth. This is simply ludicrous, which is why in February 2008 the American College of Physicians stated, " ACP urges review of marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled substance and its reclassification into a more appropriate schedule, given the scientific evidence regarding marijuana’s safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions."
 
It all comes down to 'plausible deniablity' by those in power. If they can find a way of saying they were wrong, without saying they were wrong, they'll reverse the scheduling and release the countless numbers behind bars. It's all about saving face and trying to do the best for their nation.

It all comes down to noise. The more you make about it, the more likely you'll be heard. Making sure it falls on the right ears, is the answer.
 
It all comes down to 'plausible deniablity' by those in power. If they can find a way of saying they were wrong, without saying they were wrong, they'll reverse the scheduling and release the countless numbers behind bars. It's all about saving face and trying to do the best for their nation.

It all comes down to noise. The more you make about it, the more likely you'll be heard. Making sure it falls on the right ears, is the answer.

It's all about saving face. Period! Governments absolutely HATE to admit they were wrong. :eek:
 
Back
Top