The Arizona Supreme Court this week rejected a 1990 state law that classified the presence of inert THC metabolites in blood or urine as a per se traffic safety violation. Carboxy-THC, the primary metabolite (breakdown product) of THC is not psychoactive. Because it is lipid soluble, the metabolite may remain detectable in blood or urine…Details
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that authorities can’t prosecute Arizona motorists for driving under the influence of marijuana unless the person is impaired at the time of the stop. The ruling overturned a state Court of Appeals decision last year that upheld the right of authorities to prosecute pot smokers for DUI even when…Details
Is Representative Perry’s HB 303 violating the basic principle in our justice system – the right to equal and fair treatment under the law? Flagged Bill: HB 303 – Driving Under the Influence Amendments It is widely accepted that a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent is dangerous when behind the wheel. On a…Details
This is a new trend nationwide: 24/7 monitoring programs to ensure the sobriety of repeat offenders during the pretrial phase of their case. Apparently a Montana judge was not too fond of it, and has struck it down. Judge strikes down Montana 24/7 Sobriety Program for DUI suspects HELENA – A state judge has struck…Details
It seems that statistics can always be twisted to make whatever point the group is trying to make and this article is no exception. http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/fatal-car-crashes-involving-pot-use-have-tripled-in-us-study-finds-1
What this study fails to address, is how many of those who were determined to be “drugged driving” had active THC metabolite versus those who had inactive THC metabolite in their system. It’s interesting because inactive THC metabolite has no impairing affect on a driver. It was once explained to me by a now retired lab analyst that driving with inactive THC metabolite in your system is no more dangerous than driving after drinking water.
So why does this study not specify whether the THC found in the drugged drivers was active or inactive? Because they are trying to argue that drugged driving is more of a problem than maybe it really is. Chances are it’s because the primary metabolite of THC stays in the human body for days, weeks, maybe a month or more. If inactive THC test results were included in the definition of a drugged driver, it would significantly increase the percentage of drugged drivers, thus leading to a falsely high percentage of cases with so called “drugged drivers.”
I certainly don’t agree that it’s OK for someone who is high and impaired by marijuana to be driving, but likewise, I also don’t think it’s OK for statistics to be intentionally misstated in order to mislead the public about the potential problems associated with marijuana use and driving. As more states legalize marijuana, laws and tests will need to be developed to properly distinguish between “drugged drivers” who are actually impaired, versus someone who legally imbibed in recreational marijuana in a responsible manner, and just happened to be driving their car at a later time when they are no longer being affected, but while the THC metabolite still remains in their system.
In a recent interview, President Barack Obama says smoking pot isn’t “more dangerous” than drinking alcohol. “As has been well-documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk…Details
A study done by Clinical Chemistry, concludes that THC, the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana, can be detected from a breath test. We’re familiar with police officers administering a breathalyzer to detect drunk driving. But now, according to a recent online article in the Seattle PI, this could become the case if the officer suspects impaired driving…Details