Washington medical marijuana patients have a big decision coming next year. That decision comes in the form of New Approach Washington (NAW) – a legalization initiative that has prominent backers, plentiful funding, and an excellent shot at the ballot.
“So what’s to decide,” you may be thinking. “I favor legalization. Patients will never be safe in their homes until cannabis is legal for everyone. It seems a pretty obvious ‘Yes’ vote to me”.
Trouble is, it’s a little more complicated than that. As is usual in life we’re being asked to give up some things to get other things, and some of the things we’re being asked to give up shouldn’t ever have been put on the table in the first place.
Driven heavily by polling and focus groups, NAW’s language is the way it is because its backers – including the Washington state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – don’t want their initiative to fail. What they’ve done is include provisions designed to make “marijuana legalization” more palatable to mainstream voters. They want to make the specter of legal pot non-threatening enough so that soccer moms and suburban dads won’t vote a kneejerk “no” on it.
That’s a valid enough idea on the face of it. But they’ve unwisely included a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) provision that is not at all based on science.
NAW’s proposed blood limit of five nanograms per milliliter of active tetrahydrocannabinol (5 ng/ml THC) is unrealistic, and worse than useless – it would effectively criminalize driving by most patients, even when they’re completely unimpaired by cannabis.
If NAW passes, 5 ng/ml of active THC will be defacto DUI. But more than a year before Washington’s voters will decide the issue – if it qualifies for the ballot, as is likely – there are already horror stories.
For instance, there’s the story of a Skagit County grower who shall remain nameless. She was stopped for a taillight being out, after a day spent trimming her crop.
Naturally, she reeked of fresh cannabis, so the cop accused her of driving under the influence. A Drug Recognition Expert who was called to the scene later told her lawyer that she had not been impaired, and he would not have taken her in for a blood draw.
But the first officer on the scene insisted on a test. She tested at 18.5 ng/ml active THC, about 1.5 to 2 hours after the initial traffic stop, due to processing at the scene. She had to pay a lawyer $5,000 so that she could take a plea bargain – admitting guilt, which she didn’t want to do – because she said her lawyer had threatened to drop her case if she took it to trial.
Her 18.5 active THC reading was just the background level from being a patient. The only reason she reeked of marijuana was that she’d been trimming her flowers. Her inactive readings were above 70 ng/ml, which incidentally discredits the popular truism that active THC is fully half of inactive levels.
If our unnamed Skagit County grower had taken her case to trial, she would at least have stood a chance of clearing her name. She was not, in fact, impaired; she just smelled like fresh marijuana. But if NAW passes, every single time any patient or recreational user gets pulled over and the cop decides, for any reason, that he or she suspects they are under the influence – or maybe they just decide to hassle you – any reading 5 ng/ml or over will get you a criminal record, a hefty fine, and possibly jail time after repeated infractions.
That’s a high price to pay for a decrim measure that only covers up to an ounce. Think about it. Almost every time, the fine would have been less for possession of the ounce of pot before NAW than it will be for driving if NAW passes.
Even without considering the other major drawbacks of NAW – chiefly among them, the zero tolerance for drivers under 21 and the prohibition on home growing.
Zero tolerance under 21 means that minor drivers caught with ANY amount of THC in their bloodstream will be charged with DUI. If a teen is sitting across the room from someone who smokes a joint, they could conceivably catch a DUI charge.
If that kind of legislation is to protect the youth, who’s going to protect them from their protectors?
The prohibition on home growing, while it wouldn’t affect the ability of medicinal cannabis users to grow 15 plants, is very unfortunate in that it would force all recreational users to buy from state-licensed stores which may or may not have marijuana of acceptable quality.
Sure, it pays to be a political realist and to be willing to horse-trade when it comes to legislation. But when I see these glaring flaws in NAW, part of being a political realist is knowing a bad trade when you see one.
-Steve Elliott – Founding Editor, TokeoftheTown.com and author of Seattle Weekly’s Toke Signals column.
Thank you Steve!
I thought that the THC level test for impairment was already proven to be nearly impossible for any patient to pass eve if they hadn’t used any Cannabis in a week or so? that effectively makes all MMJ patinets unable to legally drive even though they are not impaired in any way. This clause needs to be removed or the limit raised to a more acceptable level or a different way to test altogether!
That single clause would cause me to vote no. Just like CA’s Prop limiting the garden space per residence and not per legal adult. Automatic no vote, A big part of why CA’s prop 19 failed.
Can a lawyer threaten to drop a case if you take it to trial – and get away with it? That sounds completely unethical. What an ass of a lawyer, if true. Sheesh!
If only there were a way to get the state lawmakers to renegotiate these unnecessary & egregious clauses of I-502. But it seems that would require a whole lot more political will than the current spineless bunch tiptoeing about so as not to offend their “pat” voters.
I’m with you 100% on this. Good job, Steve!
I-502 is fatally flawed. I believe the flaws are driven by NAW’s desire to be “the first to legalize” regardless of the social cost of their plan. I can think of no other explanation for putting forth a plan that is so clearly doomed to fail. The NAW plan will not end cannabis prohibition and the unregulated black market that accompanies it. Nor will it protect patients, and, like our legislature’s previous attempt, it will wilt instantly in the face of the aggressive federal opposition that all legalization attempts must currently confront.
Regarding lawyers who threaten to withdraw: As my father once explained to me, if your client wants to drive off a cliff, you have to try to stop them. If you can’t stop them, it’s best not to drive over the cliff with them. Trial is often clearly not in a defendant’s best interest where the prosecutor intends to add more serious charges if you go to trial. A case can go from no jail time to 5 years in prison with a single wrong decision about trial. I’m not familiar with the particular case, so I can’t comment as to whether or not this was what was happening, but I have told more than one client that if they want a trial, they’ll have to find someone else to help them commit legal suicide.
I believe it is part of a lawyer’s absolute duty to try to keep their clients from making really bad choices regarding their defense.
That goes for voting too. I-502 is a really bad choice, and that’s tragic because NAW has the money and the backing to do it right and accomplish a goal we can all work towards and be proud of. Evidently they’d rather drive us off a cliff.
Jeff Steinborn
You are so right, Jeff, about them wanting to be “first to legalize” without realizing the social costs involved. I so much wish they would remove the whole nanogram limits and the age limit. As Jack Herer once told me when we were writing I-692 which became our law in WA state, “why would you add something to an initiative that makes it worse for cannabis consumers!” NAW clearly makes it worse for all cannabis users, and if this is TRULY a legalization initiative, it should not have any limits that would hurt cannibis users, period. The only way I would vote for this is if those two things are removed! Thank-you, Jeff, for your impressions, as a lawyer, and thank-you, Steve, for being brave enough to put this out!
Repeal of marijuana prohibition may be desirable, but marijuana is first a medicine, and we need not, in the name of State supplied party favors for recreational users, re-create injustices for the sick and dying by recriminalizing medical merijuana patients.
It’s the automatic “per se” conviction that gives prosecutors and police hard-ons for this law. It will be a Law Enforcement orgy. I do see roadside blood draws as the search and seizure problem for the next decade.
i agree with jeffrey, i dont see how it’s going to end the black market at all when people like to buy in bulk because it’s cheaper yet anyone with more than an ounce is still a criminal. and the feds wont let it stand at all so it wont be sold in stores anyone even if just for an ounce.
Thank you for stating the important facts that voters need to know. This bill seems like it was written ten years ago. Let’s not hand our opposition these concessions on a silver platter. We all know there is no similarity at all between the impairment potential of alcohol and cannabis. NAW is an abomination created by well meaning people.
Delta Niner,
I agree with you about this bogus initiative. But, I can’t agree these are well neaning people. I think they are SHILLS for Law Enforcement. I am calling the NARCS OUT!
I was recently thinking about the idea of legalized pot and how it would effect the recreational user. Quality of the product was the first question. Next how will government regulation effect how it is grown and how are the farmers treated-represented. Will ‘the good stuff’ stay underground? I remember stories about ‘revenuers’ chasing people around the woods in the South, is this the case in a updated version? What kind of shwag is going to be sold otc? Is my Grandma going to jail for driving to the store for Ice Cream? What are the trade-offs?
This piece is spot on, Mr. Elliott. Thank you for speaking out publicly against this morally unconscionable initiative.
Steve’s “horror story” has nothing to do with I-502. It is an example of the situation now. Currently a person is stopped for a tail-light, a cop smells marijuana, and for the cop it’s game on. And a medical cannabis user can go to court and present an affirmative defense. But the jury will hear about the THC levels. I-502 does not grant to police powers they do not already possess.
The issue of medical cannabis users and per se DUIC is not a problem with I-502. It is a problem with the inadequate MUCA which is separate from I-502. Whether I-502 passes or not, there is no guarantee that he legislator in the future will not pass a DUIC law in our state–particularly since it has already “sanctioned” by being in I-502. And it could well be a zero tolerance DUIC that doesn’t distinguish between delta-9 and carboxy-THC’s. In fact, state zero tolerance per se DUIC laws is a strategy encouraged by the federal government in the escalation in the marijuana wars. It is critical that the medical cannabis community turn its attentions to accommodating and protecting medical cannabis patients–whether I-502 passes or not.
Arizona (like Rhode Island) has a zero tolerance per se driving law for marijuana (even the metabolite), yet is a medical marijuana state (at least in name). So their law has the following accommodation that recognizes that people may lawfully use medical cannabis and have THC in their system when driving but not be affected by it: “a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.” This does not apply to someone whose driving shows obvious impairment.
Being forewarned is being forearmed. Rather than attacking I-502, the medical cannabis community would be better served working on amending the MUCA to allow for realistic nanogram (ng) limits consistent with a person’s treatment needs, and that DUI for medical cannabis users be based, at least primarily if not exclusively, on evidence of actual impairment.
The DUIC provisions under I-502 apply in only one circumstance: impaired driving. Not broken tail lights. Not the hysterical notion of “roadside blood draws.” It’s about impaired driving. Probable cause based on impairment to be stopped. followed by reasonable observations of impairment, and specifically impairment caused by drugs, will be required prior to a blood draw.
If, and only if, a driver is stopped with probable cause for suspected impaired driving, there are reasonable grounds for believing that a driver is impaired, and reasonable grounds to believe the impairment is caused by marijuana or a drug other than alcohol, the officer may arrest and a blood test may be required. Blood tests can only be done when there is sufficient evidence that impairment is caused by a substance other than alcohol.
Based on the projections of those opposing I-502 based on the DUIC law, one would expect that in states where zero tolerance per se DUIC laws are in place states hostile to cannabis (e.g., Utah, Arizona, Indiana, Georgia) one would expect to see unreasonable prosecutions and police abuses. That has not happened. Largely this is because we know that cannabis rarely results in impaired driving by experienced users. And also because the police are much more circumspect in these states to assure that hey can justify the probable cause stop based on actual impairment.
Under I-502 or now, NO driver should have his or her blood drawn, minors included, unless there is sufficient evidence that the driver is impaired by a substance other than alcohol.
I-502 also contains provisions to study and report on how DUIC laws are working two years post I-502 passage and then may be amended as indicated. Or perhaps the DUIC section of the law will be ruled unconstitutional in a court challenge. I hope so. Nobody is arguing the nanogram levels are an accurate predictor of impaired driving and cannabis use. They aren’t.
That a minority of the cannabis community does not support this bill is not surprising. It is not a medical cannabis bill. It is not a not a pro-marijuana bill. It is an anti-prohibition bill and a harm reduction strategy. The harm being reduced being almost exclusively the effects of marijuana prohibition–not marijuana.
I note that Counselor Steinborn who is the legal person for Washington NORML has commented on this thread against I-502. However, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano and Drug Policy Alliance Staff Attorney Tamar Todd disagree and are supporting I-502 with the DUIC provisions.
While Steve pejoratively labels this bill, “more palatable” to mainstream voters, I would label it political calculus. Without the mainstream voters we will never pass a legalization bill. Never.
If I-502 passes, medical cannabis users will benefit because the major obstacles to an adequate MUCA and safe access are the prohibitionist fears that medical cannabis users are just using medical marijuana as an excuse to get high legally, or that medical cannabis is a ruse to usher in legalized marijuana through the back door. I-502 will cut these concerns off at the knees. Consider the converse. Do you really want to deal with the fallout in a post I-502 environment if it fails? We cannot afford a defeat at this juncture in the war.
I hope people will reconsider. Because when you are campaigning against I-502, look with who you will be rubbing shoulders. They are the people that will be saying, “Every year, 28 percent of all drivers in the United States will attempt to drive within two hours after ingesting alcohol or illicit drugs. Marijuana is the illicit drug used most often (70%) by drivers who drove after drug use and is a major factor why motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for American young people (NHTSA, 2000).” Kind of turns your stomach to think about it.
Nanogram limits do not kill. Marijuana prohibition kills.
RE: Paul Armentano’s name being dragged through the mud.
Whoever is telling you that Paul Armentano and/or NORML supports I-502 or it’s faulty per se DUIC limits is either grossly misinformed or deliberately manipulating the facts.
Mr. Armentano had this to say about a New Approach WA memo for which he was asked to provide specific intellectual guidance:
“My goal in contributing to this document was to try to provide an unbiased accounting of the science — not to imply any sort of value judgment or endorsement re: the overall initiative (which, if NORML were to take a position, would be decided by the NORML Board of Directors, not me personally) or the specific DUI provisions, of which my own stance should be clear:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459
“For these reasons, NORML does not endorse the imposition of per se laws for drivers who test positive for THC in the blood without additional demonstrable evidence of psychomotor impairment. In particular, NORML opposes the imposition of so-called ‘zero tolerance’ per se standards, which legally define a motorist impaired if he or she tests positive for the presence of any amount of THC or THC metabolite in their blood or urine.”
“For these reasons, NORML does not endorse the imposition of per se laws for drivers who test positive for THC in the blood without additional demonstrable evidence of psychomotor impairment [emphasis added].
That was the entire thrust of my post: evidence of impairment. Zero tolerance applies only to 18-21 year olds who are stopped for evidence of impaired driving.
On November 8th, 2010, after Prop 19, Russ Belville, NORML Outreach Coordinator provided a post defeat analysis which obviously played a key role in crafting an initiative aimed at passing and ending marijuana prohibition, “10 Lessons Learned from Marijuana Election Defeats.”
“The next initiative must work with the “treat it like alcohol” frame by providing a “breathalyzer” equivalent for the stoned driver … we bust the stoned driver (impaired or not) now just for having weed in his pocket or a roach in the ashtray. There are technologies available …that can show recent use of marijuana within four hours. That, along with a “no burnt cannabis / no used paraphernalia” in the car rule to match the alcohol-equivalent “no open containers” would go a long way toward negating the “stoned drivers” scare.”
Again, I implore you to channel your efforts toward an amended, adequate MUCA in our state which will provide appropriate accommodations for those with disabilities. I will be supporting efforts do do so as I have done in the past.
If the entire thrust of your post was about “evidence of impairment” – why are you supporting I-502′s DUIC provisions? I-502 eliminates the need for “evidence of impairment” by changing the definition of the crime. Under I-502, drivers will be deemed guilty of DUI based solely on the content of their blood. Impairment doesn’t matter. Only the nanogram level matters – nothing else. How can you defend an initiative that sets a definitive nanogram limit for DUI, while also admitting that nanogram levels are NOT an accurate marker of impairment?
As for zero tolerance:
A) It applies to all drivers under 21, not just those 18-21.
B) zero tolerance = zero medicine.
C) Zero tolerance does not make any allowances for medical marijuana patients, which is in direct conflict with the will of Washington Voters, who passed our MMJ laws for those 18 and up.
D) Zero tolerance will allow designated drivers to be arrested, simply for being in the presence of marijuana smoke. Science shows secondhand cannabis smoke causes detectable levels of THC to rise.
Onto NORML – Is Russ Belville’s analysis of a CALIFORNIA initiative really the basis for this WASHINGTON law? Russ Belville doesn’t even live here. What the hell does he know about Washington’s laws or politics or public safety needs? Furthermore, Russ calls for a “breathalyzer equivalent.” I-502 does not offer a “breathalyzer equivalent.” It offers a highly-invasive alternative which does not adequately measure impairment levels.
Speaking of breathalyzer equivalents, tell us more about these mysterious “technologies” that you speak of, which can accurately show recent use of marijuana within 4 hours. You should get a patent for this invention because even the most dedicated global scientists have not been able to develop this kind of technology.
Lastly, medical marijuana patients don’t have the time or energy to deal with New Approach WA’s political games. We have have enough of a fight on our hands and don’t appreciate this blatant attempt to use us as guinea pigs for a law lacking scientific basis.
@ Not Spicoli – Steve’s “horror story” has EVERYTHING to do with I-502. This is precisely what will happen – and it will happen far more frequently – because police and prosecutors will no longer have to prove that a driver is impaired. Instead, a driver will be automatically convicted of DUI simply because of the content of their blood.
You said it yourself: Nanogram levels are NOT an accurate predictor of impaired driving. So how can you support an initiative that will cause cannabis users to be wrongfully imprisoned, based solely on the nanogram levels in their blood?
You say nanogram limits do not kill, prohibition kills. Not only does I-502 unnecessarily create a brand new prohibition on cannabis users, but these nanogram limits can and will kill. I know several patients who are just a few pounds away from “the point of no return.” The grim reality is that these patients WILL die if they are robbed of their medicine – either through the course of booking procedures, court proceedings, pre-trial probation or God forbid, a jail sentence. The weakest “convicts” become immediate targets once they are tossed in the slammer with society’s most heinous criminals. THESE are the tragic and all-to-real consequences of NAW’s insatiable need to win.
“So how can you support an initiative that will cause cannabis users to be wrongfully imprisoned, based solely on the nanogram levels in their blood?” I don’t.
“…because police and prosecutors will no longer have to prove that a driver is impaired. Instead, a driver will be automatically convicted of DUI simply because of the content of their blood. ” Not true.
“So how can you support an initiative that will cause cannabis users to be wrongfully imprisoned, based solely on the nanogram levels in their blood?” I don’t.
All the results you mentioned could occur in Utah where they have a zero tolerance per se law for all types of THC with no evidence of impairment needed. That is not what is proposed in I-502.
Either you did not read or understood what I wrote or you are choosing to disregard what I wrote and have substituted these “straw man” arguments tinged with the hysteria–tactics usually employed by the anti-prohibitionists.
If a person is showing evidence of impaired driving, that person should be stopped. If impaired, don’t drive.
notSpicoli, I was disappointed to note a little intellectual dishonesty in your post, which is of course below your usual standards.
Drivers WILL, IN FACT, be charged with marijuana DUI based SOLELY on the THC level in their blood, NO IMPAIRMENT, if, for instance, they are involved in an accident with someone who is talking on a cell phone, say, and everyone involved gets tested — even though their THC blood level had nothing to do with the accident, or who was at fault for it.
People caught in situations like this would be innocent victims of a bad law. It is disingenuous and dishonest of you to pretend that drivers would have to be “impaired” to get charged with marijuana DUI under NAW.
Steve,
I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong on the law here. A blood draw cannot be taken from a driver until all three of the following conditions have been met: (1) probable cause for an arrest, (2) reasonable belief of driving while impaired (typically established through field sobriety tests), and (3) reasonable belief the impairment is caused specifically by drugs, and not alcohol. .
An accident caused by an unimpaired driver distracted by a cell phone doesn’t get you there.
Regards,
Alison
Ugh. HTML screw-up. The cite is RCW 46.20.308, and the link is http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308.
Alison, you know as well as the rest of us that “probable cause” is as simple as an officer “smelling” marijuana and “reasonable belief” is the officer’s testimony that the driver was impaired.
Do you honestly believe that police are so honorable that they won’t profile people based on sickness, skin tone or age? If so, one can see why you are no longer a criminal defense attorney. Maybe you need a refresher course on police “ethics.” This article published in todays NY Daily News should help jog your memory.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/10/13/2011-10-13_excop_we_fabricated_drug_raps_for_quotas.html
Except Steve is, again, spot on correct.
>SNIP<
Green DUI's, Medical Marijuana, and Initiative 502 – Part 2
September 27, 2011 By Brent Thompson-
Marijuana users in Seattle, Oak Harbor, and Island County will have a higher risk of being charged with DUI if I-502 is approved by voters.
DUI FOR MARIJUANA AND INITIATIVE 502
Under current DUI law, and pursuant to the "affected by" prong of the DUI statute, the prosecution bears the burden of proving impairment caused by marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be a heavy burden and may be difficult to prove. The prosecution, in order to successfully meet this burden, will likely have to produce testimony from an expert witness. Even then, such an expert witness's testimony may be undermined by another expert witness.
As mentioned previously, the "affected by prong" of the DUI statute, unlike the "per se prong" concerning alcohol consumption, does not render one strictly culpable for DUI when it comes to cannabis consumption. Initiative 502 will change that.
Initiative 502 will change the current DUI statute, RCW 46.61.502 by creating another per se prong specifically for marijuana. Under this new DUI statute, a person will be guilty of driving under the influence if he or she has a THC concentration of 5.00ng or higher within two hours after driving, as shown by a blood test.
This may seem reasonable to some–representing a quid pro quo of sorts. However, this change in the DUI statute may lack a scientific basis and therefore may be unfair to medical marijuana patients.
http://www.seattlecriminallawyerblog.com/2011/09/green-duis-medical-marijuana-a-1.html
Kevin, your copy-paste doesn’t address either (a) the hurdles to the blood draw or (b) the fact that drivers under 5 ng/mL will be less likely to be charged.
PANAW, you’re missing the important point that the smell of marijuana emanating from a car will no longer provide PC under I-502 because simple possession will no longer be a crime.
Alison – You have got to be seriously misinformed.
A cop smelling booze in a car is by itself probable cause … smelling weed is and will remain probable cause as well.
Who are you and where do you come up with this #^%&#!
I think you are the POLICE.
The “per se” defacto convictions require no evidence at trial of impairment. Police officers can and often do harass us for little or no reason. STOP THE COPS – VOTE NO!
Dr. Ramaeker estimates it would take a level of 15 to 30, up to six times i502′s proposed limits, to avoid convicting the innocent unimpaired driver. What we do know is 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 …. “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.”
“Rather than pour millions of dollars and human energy into creating a legally and politically contentious policy that allows some cannabis consumers who can obtain a physician’s recommendation to be immune from state (but not federal) prosecution during a time of general Cannabis Prohibition, all cannabis consumers, patients, cultivators and sellers and their families should focus their full attention and resources to once and for all.”
Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, October 8th, 2011
Amen. End prohibition and guarantee safe access. If you are impaired from anything, don’t drive. Get cracking on amending the MUCA and get on board with I-502 because in case you haven’t noticed, the truce is over, the feds have escalated the war, and they will not be appeased.
I-502 does nothing to address safe access. The Feds will shut down commercial sales to recreational users, much like they’re shutting down commercial sales to medical marijuana patients now. Once that happens, all we’re left with is decrim of an ounce and a DUI provision that will send innocent people to jail.
Not Spicoli, I can’t tell from your last comment whether you think we should focus on ending prohibition and forget about medical marijuana – or if we’re supposed to focus on amending the MUCA. Are we supposed to follow Allen St. Pierre’s advice or yours?
By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, Allen St. Pierre is the same man who said “if we vote no on this bill, we don’t deserve the right to use cannabis.” So this is a man who believes that your right to use cannabis should be based on how you vote. How or why he is leading national efforts to give ALL people the “right” to use cannabis is baffling.
Pardon me. I understand your confusion. I cut off the most critical part of the quote…
“Rather than pour millions of dollars and human energy into creating a legally and politically contentious policy that allows some cannabis consumers who can obtain a physician’s recommendation to be immune from state (but not federal) prosecution during a time of general Cannabis Prohibition, all cannabis consumers, patients, cultivators and sellers and their families should focus their full attention and resources to once and for their full attention and resources to once and for all legalizing cannabis for all responsible adult consumers.”
My message is the same as always: ending
prohibition. Insofar as that interferes with necessary accommodations for those who use cannabis medicinally, including per se nanogram
limits without impairment while driving, the MUCA needs to be amended. The surest way to assure safe access is to repeal marijuana prohibition.
Couldn’t respond under your comment.
“A cop smelling booze in a car is by itself probable cause … smelling weed is and will remain probable cause as well.”
Kevin, burnt marijuana in the care is the car is the equivalent of open container. Carrying marijuana in the car under I-502 is equivalent to driving home from the store with a six pack in a grocery bag.
More lies from Alison Holcomb. She says smelling marijuana will no longer be considered probable cause because possession will no longer be illegal. WRONG!
Possession will still be illegal. I-502 only creates an exemption for up to one ounce. Under I-502, one could still be a Class C Felon (same category as child rape) for having what NAW considers to be “too much” cannabis. This is NOT legalization and it does NOT make possession of cannabis legal.
As for drivers under 5ng/ml being “less likely to be charged,” I-502 puts a 0.00 limit in place for an entire subset of the population. Those under 21 are MORE likely to be charged under I-502 because prosecutors no longer have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was impaired. All they have to prove is that a person’s THC blood levels exceeded 0.00.
Holcomb’s “confusion” over the effects of her own bill is reason number 149 why we should NOT support I-502
PANAW,
The police would have to have probable cause to believe you had more than one ounce in your car. Don’t carry gallon-sized Ziplocs of marijuana around on your passenger seat.
As for drivers under 21, police still have to have (a) probable cause for an arrest, (b) evidence of impairment, and (c) evidence that the impairment was caused by a drug and not alcohol before they can take a blood draw.
What Allison is apparently saying is that even though 502 makes 5 nano grams illegal, and since patients are always over the limit it’s still ok for them to drive. It’s OK to technically break the new law. The police probably won’t catch them because they are not driving impaired. We should trust the police and the judges who have always been honest and fair when dealing with cannabis users in the past. Don’t worry – be happy. You are not really a criminal until you get caught.
AZ patients are excepted from the “per se” DUIC law in that state. I guess it was too much trouble to add that ONE SENTENCE to 502 while writing the law.
For more information about how I-502 will cause innocent people (particularly doctor-approved patients) to be harassed, unnecessarily confined, wrongfully convicted and branded with criminal records that will haunt them for life – please visit http://www.patientsagainsti502.org
How can “New Approach Washington” (NAW) , state on their fact sheet that “Science supports a 5ng/ml THC limit? I did not see the evidence of that science on either the fact sheet or in the report that the THC limit was based on!
After spending several hours reading the 49 pages of : “Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) (2005)”, that we were directed to at: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf , I found several interesting facts.
The first, the authors of the study, met and talked to each other in 2004, although the study didn’t come out until 2005.
The second, the dates of the references cited in the report were for years: 1969, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977,1981,1982,1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, respectively. The majority of the studies were for before 2000. Two of the references, the dates of the study were from 1979-2003 and one from 1977-2001. Almost all were foreign studies.
The Third, advice and conclusions of the DUIC Report, dated Sept. 2005, said: “Unfortunately, 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 the blood.” (Page 16)
The fourth,in the study to compare the incidences of traffic injury-related hospitalization among THC users and non-drug users “All cohort members completed baseline questionnaires about traffic injury-related hospitalization and health-relevant habits, including cannabis use, between 1979 to 1985. (page 18, DUIC Report (2005)
The fifth, “In conclusion, the results of culpability studies are still inconsistent and statistically too weak to justify selection of a numerical THC limit.” (page 20, DUIC Report (2005)
The sixth, “on road” studies were performed between 1969 and 2000. (page 21, DUIC report (2005) )
The seventh, the studies researching “Emergency Response” of persons thought to be “impaired” were conducted in 1971, 1973 and 1981, Respectively! (Page 23, DUIC Report (2005) )
The eighth, in Appendix A, which is the Overview of State DUIC Laws in the U.S., Washington State is not even included, and was last updated in March 2005. (Appendix A, DUIC report, (2005) )
Those are the facts that I read and quoted from the study that NAW is basing their THC driving limits on. One study, they show figures of how many traffic deaths, per year, alcohol causes. My question is, where is the study of how many traffic deaths, per year, THC intoxication causes? The second question is, why would anyone base information that is important to the voters that will be voting in 2012, on information from one report that was created in 2004, using data mostly from 1969 to 2000? Only a few were after 2000. 1969 is 42 years ago! Why are they using such dated material? Surely, after all of these years, and with all of the controls and laws in place to catch impaired drivers, where is all of the real evidence that we need a THC limit?
If you are a voter in Washington State, please read “Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) (2005)” at:
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf
Please reconsider putting up a potentially hazardous initiative without even reading it! You don’t have to agree with me, just please read it!
Thank-you,
Eve Lentz
http://www.facebook.com/PatientsAgainstNAW
Terrific work! That is the kind of information that should be shared around the internet. Shame on the seek engines for not positioning this post upper! Come on over and consult with my web site . Thanks =)
I’m extremely inspired along with your writing skills as smartly as with the layout in your weblog. Is this a paid subject or did you modify it yourself? Anyway stay up the nice high quality writing, it?s uncommon to look a nice weblog like this one these days..
Excellent blog post I Love internet gaming, thanks from UK