420 Use and Health

[Patients Against I-502]

What Science Says About I-502's Faulty DUI Proposal

Regarding the threshold... I-502 adds a per se threshold for THC and distinguishes THC from THC-COOH.

The initiative clarifies that THC-COOH, the inactive metabolite also known as carboxy-THC that is sometimes used to convict marijuana users of DUI under current law, is not to be considered in determining THC concentration for the purposes of the per se limit.



Scientists should continue to study the relationship between marijuana use and driving impairment, and I-502 earmarks funds for this specific purpose.

Alcohol BAC limits have changed over time as new information has become available, and further research may lead to recommendations to revise the THC concentration limit.

Research requires funding, and I-502 specifically earmarks a portion of new marijuana tax revenues for research and education regarding marijuana intoxication and impairment.

We've seen New Approach Washington's misleading FAQ sheets already, but thanks for using their arguments word for word. That makes it easier for us to wade through these deliberately-misleading statements.

Regarding BAC limits being "changed" over time, it's important to remember that limits have only been revised downward. Since the idea of a BAC limit was introduced, not one single lawmaker (on the local, state, or federal level) has argued for the BAC threshold to be raised. The same will be true with I-502's THC threshold. Once a 5 ng/limit is put into law, that number will only decrease, just like the BAC level has.

We'd also like to address New Approach's deliberate attempt to confuse people about THC and THC-COOH. NAW's FAQ sheet throws out a lot of scientific terms like "carboxy-THC," "inactive metabolites" and "THC-COOH." We're here to make it easy for you. ALL of these terms are fancy ways to refer to THC that is stored in our fat for anywhere between 30 and 90 days after last use. NAW says that this type of THC is *sometimes* used to convict marijuana users of DUI under current law. What they don't mention is their reason for using the qualifier of *sometimes* The reason inactive THC is only *sometimes* used to convict marijuana users of DUI is because the current law requires law enforcement to prove *impairment* That is one of the key difference between the current law and I-502's per se DUIC law. Under I-502, impairment is not the crime. The criminal act is having a blood level exceeding 5 ng/ml (over 21) or 0.00 (under 21) while also driving a vehicle. Therefore, whether you are impaired or stone-cold sober, if you exceed I-502's limits - you are guilty of a crime. Impairment no longer has to be proven in a court of law, like it does under the current statute for both alcohol and other drugs (prescribed and/or illicit).

Onto the science, which definitevely proves a 5 ng/ml limit will lead to INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING CONVICTED of a gross misdemeanor and possibly a Class C Felony. It's important to remember that if a 5 ng/ml limit will cause innocent people to be convicted, a 0.00 limit for under 21 will only increase that problem exponentially. We've footnoted all research and included links at the end of this post, so you can read it for yourself and make an educated decision about I-502.

New Approach WA cites two specific studies on its FAQ page about Driving Under The Influence of Cannabis or DUIC. One is a meta-analysis of 90 studies by Grotenherman et. al.(1) The other is a study by Karschner(2) of 25 frequent, long-term users. This is the only research New Approach has to "support" the nanogram limits proposed by I-502. We think it does little to support their claims and actually debunks those arguments.

· Grotenherman: Please see the Executive Summary. The first page discusses zero tolerance DUIC, as proposed in I-502 for drivers under 21. In the third-to-last paragraph, researchers state "This strict approach facilitates law enforcement but is not based on science and does not target impaired drivers." It goes on to say "the same applies to the increasing number of individuals who legally use cannabis for medicinal purposes and, while not acutely impaired, may present measurable THC concentrations at all times."

On page 16 of the report, in the section titled "Empirical Research on Cannabis and Driving," scientists conclude that "the evidence from epidemiological studies on cannabis and accident risk is still much less conclusive than for alcohol and alone is insufficient for adopting a science-based legal limit for THC in blood."

On page 31, under the heading "Summary and Discussion of Findings," the first sentence reads: "Scientific evidence on cannabis and driving is not yet sufficient to permit the selection of a numerical enforceable THC limit with the same level of confidence as for alcohol."


The study you've specifically alluded to is from Karschner:
25 frequent, long-term cannabis users resided at the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Participants were under continuous surveillance to prevent self-administration of cannabis. Their blood samples were frozen for 5 years. No Physical exams were performed to assess impairment when the samples were frozen or compared.

16 out of 25 participants (64%) tested positive for THC (not THC-COOH), but not necessarily on the first day. This indicates that THC levels are likely to rise as your body rids itself of stored cannabis. These levels are independent of last usage.

6 of the study participants (24%) displayed detectable THC concentrations (again, not THC-COOH), 6 full days after entering the unit. This is of great concern when considering a zero tolerance limit for drivers under age 21.

It is important to note that frequent, long term cannabis users are similar to medical cannabis patients, but they are not exact matches. The users in the Karschner study did not have a doctor’s recommendation to use cannabis. To date, no research has been done to accurately determine the impairment level of medical cannabis patients.

We also want to highlight a study from the U.S. Department of Transportation.(3) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was appointed by the Federal Government to study "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance." One of the main objectives was "to determine whether it is possible to predict driving impairment by plasma concentrations of THC and/or its metabolite, THC-COOH, in single samples." The report says "the answer is very clear." Researchers found that "it is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations."

Perhaps most importantly, the above studies (along with expert testimony and other pertinent research) led the Colorado Legislature to scrap its plan to implement the very same DUI limit proposed in I-502. Because the science is considered murky by some, lawmakers appointed an 8-person committee to study the issue in depth. This working group was unable to come to a consensus and chose to recommend that no limit be set at this time.(4 5)

1*Grotenhermen, et al..Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis (DUIC) 2005*http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf*

2*Karschner, et al. Do Delta-9 THC Concentrations Indicate Recent Use in Chronic Cannabis Users?*Addiction.*2009 Dec;104(12):2041-8*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19804462*

3 US Department of Transportation 1993. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...g/dot78_1e.htm
*
4 DUID-Marijuana Working Group Recommendation. 2011. http://blogs.westword.com/latestword...ing_limits.php
*
5* Marijuana DUID Working Group Memorandum to Drug Policy Task Force
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute....up.summary.pdf

[Crow]

While you may not like a set DUI limit for cannabis, it is the only way we're going to legalise cannabis at the state level. A DUI law will be enacted regardless if you append it to the initiative or not.

Yes, more research needs to be done in determining a more precise cut-off level, and as I've said before; I-502 earmarks funds for this specific purpose.

Once a 5 ng/limit is put into law, that number will only decrease, just like the BAC level has.

The BAC level has decreased because it has been determined that your reflex and reaction time is impaired at .10 (The first signs of impairment actually starts at around .06)

You're only making a presumption by saying that the 5 ng/ml limit is bound to decrease based solely on the BAC level being decreased over time. The two have no relation whatsoever.

As I've said before, there are ALREADY "per se" DUI provisions in place. You can still be arrested for DUI (even if you are a medical cannabis patient), all you have to do is fail the FST (field sobriety test).

While you may not agree with the 5 ng threshold; there needs to be a limit put in place for the safety of others, and it has been determined that the safest cut-off level [pending further research] is at 5 ng, and that most individuals that consume cannabis will drop below the threshold within 2-3 hours of use.

I just don't understand how a patient could be against this initiative when it ensures arrest protection. You should be well-aware that medical cannabis patients today only have an affirmative defense. If you're that concerned about your own driving ability, then I suggest that you wait a couple of hours before you get behind the wheel, or find a designated driver.

[sgreger1]

SB 420 (California's amended medical cannabis law) only allows you to have 8 ounces of dried, cured cannabis, and up to 12 cannabis plants (6 mature, or 12 immature plants). While it is possible that you can possess larger amounts of cannabis (if recommended by your physician), you will have to prove this in court.

Bro, the docs out here give scrips for 99 plants and shit, the docs can override any of the rules. There's dudes out here running GIANT ****ing grow operations on a standard Rx. I had friend who had firearms, a giant grow operation, and literally hundreds of pounds of herb, and he got busted one time and was back at his house by the end of the same day. I'm telling you, it doesn't matter what the law says, it's the wild west out here when in comes to the med mj system. The only one who is actively prosecuting is Obama's DOJ, Obama has come out as the harshest anti-MJ president we've ever seen in CA and has been really accelerating the number of busts on legit MJ patients. But even accounting for that you can pretty much possess or grow whatever you want and all you have to do is show up for court like it was a speeding ticket or something. Then they've also decriminalized small amounts so the cops have pretty much given up entirely over here, having an ounce on you is not something most cops would even bother wasting the paper to write you a ticket for.

[sgreger1]

While you may not like a set DUI limit for cannabis, it is the only way we're going to legalise cannabis at the state level. A DUI law will be enacted regardless if you append it to the initiative or not.

Yes, more research needs to be done in determining a more precise cut-off level, and as I've said before; I-502 earmarks funds for this specific purpose.



The BAC level has decreased because it has been determined that your reflex and reaction time is impaired at .10 (The first signs of impairment actually starts at around .06)

You're only making a presumption by saying that the 5 ng/ml limit is bound to decrease based solely on the BAC level being decreased over time. The two have no relation whatsoever.

As I've said before, there are ALREADY "per se" DUI provisions in place. You can still be arrested for DUI (even if you are a medical cannabis patient), all you have to do is fail the FST (field sobriety test).

While you may not agree with the 5 ng threshold; there needs to be a limit put in place for the safety of others, and it has been determined that the safest cut-off level [pending further research] is at 5 ng, and that most individuals that consume cannabis will drop below the threshold within 2-3 hours of use.

I just don't understand how a patient could be against this initiative when it ensures arrest protection. You should be well-aware that medical cannabis patients today only have an affirmative defense. If you're that concerned about your own driving ability, then I suggest that you wait a couple of hours before you get behind the wheel, or find a designated driver.

Yah in most states you can pass a breathalyzer test and still get arrested for DUI if you fail a field sobriety test. This law probably won't change much, and like you say they are going to have to put limits on it at some point. And frankly, I don't like people driving around drunk and I don't really approve of people driving around high either. I think the limits in both circumstances are a bit low but either way you know they are going to put a set number to it at some point. Almost no point in trying to fight it.

[BadAxe]

Here's the thing about driving while high. I won't get into the arguement that regular smokers can and do drive just fine everyday. I have been driving high for 25 years, never been in an accident. But yes, I can see being too high to drive as well. So I won't argue with those that think you can't drive high. Its more of an individual thing, unlike alcohol, which actually does impair your ability to drive, everyone's.

But here is the main thing needed in this arguement. If you are too high to drive, being high DOES NOT fool you into believing you can drive. If you are too high to drive you say "Whoa, I am way too high, i am gonna stay right here". Unlike alcohol, which makes you say "Bah, I am just fine, give me my freaking keys". MJ does not twist reality and make you think you can do things that in reality you can not.

You could make MJ completely legally nationally today, and the amount of accidents caused by MJ would stay right about where it is now, almost non existant.

[Patients Against I-502]

The TRUTH about I-502

While you may not like a set DUI limit for cannabis, it is the only way we're going to legalise cannabis at the state level. A DUI law will be enacted regardless if you append it to the initiative or not.

Yes, more research needs to be done in determining a more precise cut-off level, and as I've said before; I-502 earmarks funds for this specific purpose.



The BAC level has decreased because it has been determined that your reflex and reaction time is impaired at .10 (The first signs of impairment actually starts at around .06)

You're only making a presumption by saying that the 5 ng/ml limit is bound to decrease based solely on the BAC level being decreased over time. The two have no relation whatsoever.

As I've said before, there are ALREADY "per se" DUI provisions in place. You can still be arrested for DUI (even if you are a medical cannabis patient), all you have to do is fail the FST (field sobriety test).

While you may not agree with the 5 ng threshold; there needs to be a limit put in place for the safety of others, and it has been determined that the safest cut-off level [pending further research] is at 5 ng, and that most individuals that consume cannabis will drop below the threshold within 2-3 hours of use.

I just don't understand how a patient could be against this initiative when it ensures arrest protection. You should be well-aware that medical cannabis patients today only have an affirmative defense. If you're that concerned about your own driving ability, then I suggest that you wait a couple of hours before you get behind the wheel, or find a designated driver.

If more research needs to be done to determine a precise cut-off level, why not wait until that research is complete before we start picking arbitrary numbers and putting them into law?

If, as you say, the BAC level has no relation whatsoever to a 5 ng/limit, then why does New Approach Washington say this limit is "analogous" to alcohol? New Approach is trying to implement a law for THC levels that mirrors the current BAC laws. You are correct that the two have no relation whatsoever. Alcohol is an *intoxicant* that is secreted in the blood stream at the same rate it is secreted in the breath. Cannabis is a *non-toxic herb* that is metabolized differently by every single person who uses it. That is precisely why scientists say a single blood test cannot be used to determine impairment with the same level of confidence as alcohol. So WHY does New Approach Washington INSIST on doing so?

You mention that *most* individuals will drop below the 5 ng/ml limit within *2-3 hours* Again, the qualifier is *most* which is code for not everyone. The fact remains that there are an unknown number of people who will NOT drop below the 5 ng/ml limit in 2-3 hours and those people have no way of knowing WHEN they will drop below the 5 ng/ml limit. Don't forget that honest-to-God medical cannabis patients have to medicate every two hours on average, that studies show these types of people are rarely impaired by their medical use and that I-502 sets a 0.00 limit for those 21 and under. A patient will NEVER drop to 0.00 while using their medicine. Do you really think its ok to take the driving privileges away from people with terminal illnesses and debilitating diseases?

As far as a limit needing to be put in place for the safety of others, you need only look as far as the roads in Washington state. Medical marijuana has been legal since 1998, yet the incidence of accidents has only gone down since then. In fact, Washington State has some of the safest roads in the nation, with just 4 other states having safer roads. If a 5 ng/ml limit is needed for the safety of others, why haven't we seen a major increase in accidents and other safety issues in the 14 years that medical cannabis use has been legal?

Lastly, when you say "it has been determined that the safest cutoff level is 5 ng/ml," can you please tell me WHO or WHAT body has determined that. I've already provided 5 different links to research and legislative actions that prove the exact opposite. Do you think the science is wrong?

The information is out there for you to read for yourself. Try it. I would bet money that your jaw drops to the floor when you learn the truth. We've had many people write us who are absolutely flabbergasted when they figure out how the public is being manipulated with half-truths and outright distortion of the facts. https://facebook.com/PatientsAgainstNAW

[BadAxe]

As far as a limit needing to be put in place for the safety of others, you need only look as far as the roads in Washington state. Medical marijuana has been legal since 1998, yet the incidence of accidents has only gone down since then. In fact, Washington State has some of the safest roads in the nation, with just 4 other states having safer roads. If a 5 ng/ml limit is needed for the safety of others, why haven't we seen a major increase in accidents and other safety issues in the 14 years that medical cannabis use has been legal?

People just can't accept that MJ is not in the same category as alcohol. And they can't accept that it is not the death causing addicting drug that the fear mongerers made it out to be. So when they have nothing left to argue, they say, "Well, if its ever legal, there has ot be a DUI test for it", again, thinking it along the same lines as alcohol.

They just can not accept that it effects you differently. I am one that can absolutely drive after smoking. I know, because I do it everyday of my life and have been for over 25 years. It does not impair me. But as I stated above, I have gotten to high to drive in my past. BUT, i knew I was too high to drive, so I didn't. Unlike alcohol which makes you believe you can do anything.

The DUI for MJ is just the last stand for people that never want ot see it legalized but have been proven wrong in every other area, and its their last gasp.

[Crow]

"Patients Against I-502": Duly noted. You don't think there should be a DUI limit for cannabis. The reality is though; if cannabis is to become legalised, there will need to be a DUI limit put in place (it doesn't matter if you append it to your initiative, it will be enacted by the legislature one way or another). I see no reason to intentionally stifle cannabis reform over a DUI provision. Especially when such a provision will be enacted regardless whether you directly propose the limit in your initiative or not.

Again, what about arrest protection for patients as opposed to what we have now, which is only an affirmative defense? Do patients really want to keep the status quo because of a DUI provision that your group disagrees with?

Your group seems to completely ignore that issue, and is deciding to use a fringe issue like 'DUI enforcement' in an attempt to completely stall cannabis reform, and incite fear amongst the medical cannabis community.

The reality is very few people are going to agree that there should be no DUI policy regarding cannabis.

I am one that can absolutely drive after smoking. I know, because I do it everyday of my life and have been for over 25 years. It does not impair me. But as I stated above, I have gotten to high to drive in my past. BUT, i knew I was too high to drive, so I didn't. Unlike alcohol which makes you believe you can do anything.

The DUI for MJ is just the last stand for people that never want ot see it legalized but have been proven wrong in every other area, and its their last gasp.

Just because you're confident in your driving ability after getting stoned, doesn't make it right. Regardless how harmless you think it may be to drive while stoned, it is still an intoxicant, and you're still posing a risk to yourself and others. I will agree that it is a smaller risk compared to alcohol, but its still a risk nonetheless.

Also, just because you have the sense to not drive when you're very intoxicated, doesn't mean that others follow your example. Believe it or not, there are a lot of stupid people out there that wouldn't think twice about using the road system while they're stoned out of their mind.

[Roo]

Y'all take weed pretty seriously! How's that for constructive commentary

[Crow]

Y'all take weed pretty seriously! How's that for constructive commentary

Well put!

[Patients Against I-502]

Our Medicine is a Life and Death Matter

Y'all take weed pretty seriously! How's that for constructive commentary

When you use cannabis as your medicine, it's a pretty serious issue indeed. It is literally a matter of life and death for some. Peter McWilliams is just one example of the serious consequences of laws that prohibit people from using their medicine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams

I-502 prohibits terminally ill patients from taking the medicine their doctor recommends because our ability to live independently is dictated, in part, by our transportation needs. Patients Against New Approach Washington is all for the repeal of prohibition, but not if it means creating a brand new law that will be used to unfairly arrest, incarcerate and prosecute cannabis users.

---The Seattleite says "Duly noted. You don't think there should be a DUI limit for cannabis. The reality is though; if cannabis is to become legalised, there will need to be a DUI limit put in place (it doesn't matter if you append it to your initiative, it will be enacted by the legislature one way or another). I see no reason to intentionally stifle cannabis reform over a DUI provision. Especially when such a provision will be enacted regardless whether you directly propose the limit in your initiative or not."

First off, Patients Against New Approach Washington has ZERO problems with a DUI limit. We just want it to be an actual scientific marker of impairment and not some arbitrary number picked out of the sky by an insurance magnate and a couple of ACLU lawyers.

As for the legislature enacting a DUI limit, again I point to the Medical Marijuana laws that have been in place in Washington State for the past 14 years. The Legislature has had over a decade to put a DUI law in place, if driving under the influence of cannabis were really an issue, yet the Legislature has done absolutely NOTHING (short of completely withdrawing a similar proposal because it was not backed up by science). Why has the legislature done nothing? Because Driving Under The Influence of Cannabis simply is not an issue. It's propaganda. Unfortunately, that propaganda is now being perpetuated by those who call themselves "Legalization advocates."

---The Seattleite says "Again, what about arrest protection for patients as opposed to what we have now, which is only an affirmative defense? Do patients really want to keep the status quo because of a DUI provision that your group disagrees with?"

When it comes to the misleading claims that I-502 creates arrest protection for patients, read the law for yourself. It does not do anything of the sort. First and foremost, New Approach Washington claims left and right, up and down and all around that I-502 makes NO changes to the Medical Marijuana laws. That includes the "affirmative defense" for patients.

What I-502 does is create "arrest protection" (i.e. a legal exception) for just one ounce. If you have even a crumble over 28 grams, that arrest protection is out the window. In fact, under I-502, any cannabis user who possesses between 28 grams and 40 grams is actually worse off than they are today. Currently, one would face only a misdemeanor charge (up to 6 mos. in jail and $1,000 fine) and under I-502 that same user would face a gross misdemeanor (up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine).

---The Seattleite says "Your group seems to completely ignore that issue, and is deciding to use a fringe issue like 'DUI enforcement' in an attempt to completely stall cannabis reform, and incite fear amongst the medical cannabis community."

We're not ignoring anything. We're taking a critical look at all the facts and using them to make an educated decision. If anyone is ignoring issues, it's New Approach Washington. The fact is that innocent people WILL be convicted of DUI under I-502, even when they are NOT impaired. How can you defend this GROSS MISCARRAIGE OF JUSTICE????

---The Seattleite says "The reality is very few people are going to agree that there should be no DUI policy regarding cannabis."

Again, Patients Against New Approach Washington has never suggested that there should be no DUI policy regarding cannabis. We suggest that the current law, which is based on *impairment*, is an adequate method for keeping the public safe. Where are the statistics showing the current law isn't working?

---The Seattleite says "Regardless how harmless you think it may be to drive while stoned, it is still an intoxicant, and you're still posing a risk to yourself and others. I will agree that it is a smaller risk compared to alcohol, but its still a risk nonetheless."

Cannabis is NOT an intoxicant. How can a *non-toxic* herb also be an *intoxicant*? We are talking about medicine. It's not just some poor excuse to get high. Cannabis is a recognized treatment for a whole host of terminal illnesses and debilitating diseases. MS, Cancer, HIV/Aids, Glaucoma, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, ALS, Epilepsy, etc. These patients NEED their medicine. It's not as simple as a choice to medicate or not drive. For that matter, do you REALLY want an epileptic out on the road without their medicine because of exaggerated fears that they might be impaired? I can guarantee you that the risk is much higher from an epileptic on the road without their medicine than an epileptic on the road medicated by cannabis.

[Crow]

While I might not agree with everything Russ is saying in the video regarding I-502, he makes a lot of valid points. I applaud Russ for making a rant about this issue.

[Bigblue1]

Y'all take weed pretty seriously! How's that for constructive commentary

Yeah what happened to those care free days when you could just get high for no reason. Now you need a prescription. WTF?

[Crow]

Cannabis is NOT an intoxicant. How can a *non-toxic* herb also be an *intoxicant*? We are talking about medicine. It's not just some poor excuse to get high.

For the sake of specificity: Cannabis is a psychoactive substance, and I will leave it at that because I've made my point (and I've allowed you to make yours).

If I-502 hits the ballot, I'm voting yes. But I will tell you this as well... If the other initiative (I-505) makes the ballot instead, I would also vote yes. I think its ridiculous and counter-productive to try and stifle cannabis reform. Sure, it may not be a perfect initiative; but it is a good, solid foundation for cannabis reform, and it allows for improvement when necessary.

We cannot have this "my way or the highway" mentality, we need to come together when the time comes to enact change (regardless which initiative makes the ballot).

[Patients Against I-502]

The Line in the Sand

While I might not agree with everything Russ is saying in the video regarding I-502, he makes a lot of valid points. I applaud Russ for making a rant about this issue.

Russ presents the issues very fairly. We obviously disagree on whether all "legalization" efforts must be supported, but that is a judgement call each individual will have to make. We draw the line at the point of implementing new laws that will be used to convict innocent people. The rest is negotiable.