Strict THC Driving Limits Unfair and Unnecessary.

With recent attempts in states like Colorado to setup a system that blood tests drivers for THC content, a heated debate has begun. The debate has escalated in Washington State, where a recently introduced legalization Initiative to the Legislature (New Approach Washington’s I-502) would set up an infrastructure that gives an instant DUI to any driver with a blood THC content of 5 ng/mL. Recently the battle fought in Colorado produced a narrow victory, stopping a new law from setting a similar limit for patients. In the wake of legalization, these limits are clearly backwards thinking.

“With a 5 ng/mL limit, this will effectively stop the ability of any patient to drive on their own without risk of persecution,” says Douglas Hiatt, a Seattle criminal defense attorney and founder of the legalization organization Sensible Washington.

Douglas was one of the top attorneys who helped defeat the Colorado bill that introduced a set limit for THC blood content for patients. “We did testing when handling the Colorado bill, and at 7ng/ML not a single patient passed the blood test, not even 12 hours in.” Douglas recalls about a study concluding in favor of denying the new limits.

The 5 ng/mL limit in the new initiative (and that debated in Colorado) clearly doesn’t take into consideration the amount consumed by many patients, and the density issues of edibles which may raise THC levels higher, but are preferred by many patients. Besides patients, a somewhat regular smoker could be facing a DUI for a joint he finished 10 hours ago – A problem that will need to be reconsidered in order to stop what madness it might be if this model spreads throughout the nation. The fact that this new initiative includes these limits in their language is going to put many in favor of legalization in an awkward situation – to possibly vote against an initiative of legalization and risk further arrest, or vote for it, and inherently be putting themselves in danger if they’re a driver.

What’s even more ridiculous about these types of THC limits is that they’re not based off of any scientific evidence that concludes that this is the proper thing to do. First, if there is a limit established, it would need to be at a level that wouldn’t punish individuals who smoke throughout the day and drive hours after consuming – which is a limit that has not been agreed upon in the scientific community. Second, most scientific studies done on this issue have proven that driving while “under the influence” of cannabis is not only far safer than alcohol, but has little to no effect on a person’s driving performance. Here’s a quick timeline of some interesting studies on marijuana and driving:

• 1983 – Study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that there was no significant difference in drivers who had consumed cannabis and those who hadn’t, other than an average speed that was slightly lower. Stein, AC et al., A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington DC: Department of Transportation (1983)
• 1992 - A deep and well-funded study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration concluded that cannabis is rarely involved in accidents. The study, to the surprise of many, found that “the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers.”  Robbe, H. and O’Hanlon, J., Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1993).
• 1998 – In a study that took 2,500 drivers that were involved in accidents and tested their blood samples, it was found that drivers with only cannabis (compared to having alcohol or other drugs in their system as well) were actually slightly less likely to have been the cause of an accident. The findings were concluded that, “there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents.” The study was administered through the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia
• 2000 – A study by the UK Transport Research Laboratory, commissioned through the British government, found the surprising (the study was commissioned to prove marijuana was impairing) results that cannabis users were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. It also concluded that “marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis.” http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/
• 2004 – A study published in the Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention, which found that those above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision, concluded that marijuana consuming drivers showed absolutely no increased risk. The study was conducted through the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094417?dopt=Abstract
• 2010 – A study by Hartford Hospital and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, found that sometimes drivers under the influence of marijuana over-compensated with slow driving – but they still concluded that marijuana had little effect on driving skills and that “The study didn’t find a lot of impairment.” The test was administered through realistic driving simulations. http://www.courant.com/health/hc-marijuana-study0608-20100607,0,5406069.story

Even if these studies are ignored, there has been a consistent lack of true and fair scientific proof showing that marijuana use directly relates to dangerous driving. We shouldn’t set policy based off of hearsay, especially when we have no true way of determining what is considered “intoxication ” through cannabis use. We need to deeply consider the implications of slapping so many people with such permanent marks over the content of their blood – especially considering it wouldn’t require any true impairment at all to face prosecution. If we don’t avoid this, it could continue to be a destructive policy even after cannabis is legal.

- TheJointBlog