|
veggie

Registered: 07/25/04
Posts: 17,504
|
[CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate
#14172205 - 03/23/11 07:36 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate March 22, 2011 - Colorado Independent
Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, was rebuffed today in her attempt to raise the per se level for marijuana impairment from 5 nanograms of THC to 8.
Levy’s bill passed without amendments. Co-sponsor Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, said there was no reason for the change and said science and consensus called for a 5 nanogram limit. The House killed Levy’s amendment and passed the bill on second reading on a voice vote.
The battle between sponsors occurred Tuesday on the House floor when Levy moved to amend HB 1261 regulating the amount of Delta 9 THC levels individuals can have in their blood when driving a vehicle.
Levy moved to increase the level from 5 nanograms of Delta 9 THC to 8 nanograms before an individual would be guilty of a DUI per se in the state. Levy said that while she defended the 5 nanogram level in committee, the science was not settled on what level of intoxication clearly impaired an individual’s ability to operate a vehicle.
Levy said that because the bill stipulated that anyone who had their blood tested and was found to have a blood THC level above the legal limit would be guilty of driving while under the influence, the limit should be higher until the science is fully fleshed out. Individuals found to be guilty of driving while impaired would be subject to losing their licenses and the same administrative penalties occurring in DUI arrests involving alcohol.
“The reason that I am offering this amendment is a recognition of the concern and uneasiness among marijuana users to say that the science is really solid enough that 5 nanograms causes a person who is a regular user of medical marijuana to having impaired driving,” Levy said. I think there is a substantial body of science supporting that 5 nanograms produces a level of intoxication … but the connection between that and impaired driving is a lot more tenuous.”
Waller, however, opposed the change.
“We heard from the experts in the Judicial Committee that perhaps even 1 or 2 nanograms was the right level, but they could live with 5. That is what the only experts, the true experts came and testified.”
In response to Levy’s amendment, Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, offered an amendment to lower the level to 2 nanograms. While he eventually withdrew the amendment, Gardner said that he was angered by the months of debate that had gone into creating the consensus of 5 nanongrams.
Levy retorted that the bill, which originated in the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, had settled on 5 nanograms and did not support a 2 nanogram limit. However, she further explained the need for a higher level to determine impairment.
“A per se level means that if your blood is tested and you have 5 nanograms of Delta 9 THC in your blood you are guilty of a misdemeanor and you do not get to argue that it did not impair you,” Levy said. “It seems to me we ought to err on the side of caution.”
Rep. Mark Barker, R-Colorado Springs, however, said that blood tests would not be taken unless an officer had first seen signs of driving impairment in a person that they pull over.
Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said the he was against the bill for a whole different reason. He said that taking blood from someone was wholly too evasive. It was a position Waller said should not affect the decision on whether to vote for the bill. He said that individuals could say no to the drug test and lose their license to drive. He said driving is not a constitutional right.
The House decided to go with the 5 nanogram limit by voting against the amendment but passing the bill. It now goes to third reading.
Online: House Bill 1261: http://goo.gl/af9Qv
|
MagicMaker
The Lizard King




Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 626
Loc: Terrapin
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: veggie]
#14172677 - 03/23/11 09:17 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
got to post this again
this is FUCKED!!
5ng/ml of urine is absolutely absurd. When had I probation I had to take piss tests at a hospital in which the cut off was 12 ng/ml. Now first of all lets establish an estimate of how much that is, hypothetically speaking.
Lets say you smoke 1 gram of nugget that is 10% THC. Maybe your average beasters or so. So depending on your source people accept that a 150lb male has about 5 liters of blood. Now I know this is a urine test but urine is a product of your blood breaking down in a sense. So 1 gram of 10% nugget - .1grams "THC/derivtatives" or .1 grams = 100 000 000 nanograms into /5 liters or 5000ml of blood is = 20,000ng/mL of blood right when it peaks in your blood, which is about 15 min. After initial absorption the half life is about 30minutes but then slows to closer to 20-30 hours.
All this figures I am getting from a pharmacology book i have that I took a class on in college. It also said the we absorb only about 25% of the THC through smoking. So lets say the number was 5000ng/mL then after 30 min its 2500 then 1hr 1250 then 1.5hrs 625 then 2 hrs 312.5 2.5hrs 156 3 hrs etc, anyway to get down to five nanograms that is MANY hours after you smoked over a day easy ( some one do the math)
Now i know it doesnt work quite so straight forward like that as they test for derivatives in your urine. THC and its derivatives also do what is called depot binding which means if bonds to fat cells and that can affect the excretion process. Also reported high vs blood concentration are not directly proportional.
I can personally attest that when I was a daily smoker at least 1 gram a day. I stopped for a weak before my drug test, my test had to be done from a hospital, and I knew the cut off was 12ng/mL. I worked out and drank water for 3 or 4 days after i quit and then chilled out a little be4 the test ( as you are supposed to so you are not flushing) I did a practice test 4 days after that and my level was at 34ng/mL then 2 days later after exercising the day after the first test, i got down to 15ng/ml so i knew I would be safe.
Now all of you do the math. This means that if you smoke ganja at all you are pretty much at risk of getting well over 5ng/ml up to a week after you smoked last.
This is absolute government ignorance
|
mushhead91


Registered: 10/16/10
Posts: 189
Loc: California, USA
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: veggie]
#14172740 - 03/23/11 09:31 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
There is so much that goes into making you impaired while driving with cannabis. Tolerance is a big thing, because a first time smoker probably wont even be able to drive off a single hit, while someone with a big tolerance will be able to drive after smoking a whole blunt with no issues.
I hope they don't do this in California.
-------------------- Hit list: Marijuana | Hashish | Psilocybin Mushrooms | Ecstasy | LSD | Mescaline | DMT
|
3Cajun1Mo8
Fung Padawan



Registered: 11/07/10
Posts: 698
Last seen: 16 days, 16 hours
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: mushhead91]
#14172930 - 03/23/11 10:01 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
when they make a THC breathalyzer we are all fucked
|
frostz
Stranger


Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 284
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: veggie]
#14173139 - 03/23/11 10:33 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
This is bullshit because THC can stay in your blood for up to a month making it stupid to charge someone with a DUI who wasn't actually DUI. I think there should be sobriety tests to determine whether a person is intoxicated by marijuana. I'm sure there are some pretty sure-fire ways to tell if a person is high or not. And then, if the person is determined to be high the blood should be tested for THC and if found a DUI charge should then be applied.
|
veggie

Registered: 07/25/04
Posts: 17,504
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: frostz]
#14173168 - 03/23/11 10:38 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think this would be a bad law. I believe only 2, maybe 3, other states have anything similar, and this would be the most liberal in the country. Everywhere else has a zero tolerance and any presence of thc in the blood will result in a dui. What this will do is protect people from getting a dui who smoked yesterday/last week/three weeks ago just like people who had a few beers days ago don't get a dui today.
|
Capers
Man About Town


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 16,200
Loc: United States
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: veggie]
#14173341 - 03/23/11 11:13 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I smoke potent weed everyday while driving to and from school and I've noticed I'm among the safer drivers on the road.
Many of the other drivers exceed the speed limit by 10+ mph, follow too closely or leave their lights off when it's dim out. Most of these people probably didn't smoke before driving, but if a safe driver got pulled over after smoking, he/she would face a misdemeanor.
This law sounds bad to me regardless, but I'm glad a legislator is trying to increase the level.
|
user1837483975


Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 2,161
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: Capers]
#14174062 - 03/24/11 03:33 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I have driven while baked off my tits and I can tell you, it should not be legal. My comprehension of what I was actually doing was minimal, my sense of reality was distorted and on top of that I was having hallucinations of me repeating certain tasks (like changing gears) over and over again. It made driving difficult to say the least. I drove MUCH too slowly as any speed over about 50km/h felt like I was going way too fast.
I think its fine to drive while buzzed or maybe even a bit high, but once you are in the zone of severe mental impairment you shouldn't be on the road - to me it is much more dangerous than driving drunk.
|
Capers
Man About Town


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 16,200
Loc: United States
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: user1837483975]
#14174252 - 03/24/11 05:25 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Hallucinations, WTF?
More dangerous than driving while drunk -- not even close.
|
mylfgur
Untitled



Registered: 05/23/10
Posts: 1,282
Loc: Ohio
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: user1837483975]
#14174465 - 03/24/11 07:34 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Canberra said: I have driven while baked off my tits and I can tell you, it should not be legal. My comprehension of what I was actually doing was minimal, my sense of reality was distorted and on top of that I was having hallucinations of me repeating certain tasks (like changing gears) over and over again. It made driving difficult to say the least. I drove MUCH too slowly as any speed over about 50km/h felt like I was going way too fast.
I think its fine to drive while buzzed or maybe even a bit high, but once you are in the zone of severe mental impairment you shouldn't be on the road - to me it is much more dangerous than driving drunk.
So you smoke like what, once a year?
|
3Cajun1Mo8
Fung Padawan



Registered: 11/07/10
Posts: 698
Last seen: 16 days, 16 hours
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: mylfgur]
#14174495 - 03/24/11 07:44 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I wish weed got me that high still
|
crokms
Duke of Nuts



Registered: 11/29/10
Posts: 281
Loc: Mountain State
Last seen: 11 years, 10 hours
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: veggie]
#14174621 - 03/24/11 08:36 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
i dont know how to feel about this bill. on one hand,its screwing over alot of people who get high and drive. but on the other,its a small step towards legalization. i think theyre putting theses limits up because they want to better understand the effects of marijuana. they know that legalization is immenent and i think theyre trying to get more medical or scientific info be4 they let everyone get stoned and fly around in cars.
-------------------- Its not always about the harvest Sometimes, the hunt is just as good
|
Humility
Working on it



Registered: 10/07/08
Posts: 6,745
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: user1837483975]
#14174980 - 03/24/11 10:17 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Canberra said: I have driven while baked off my tits and I can tell you, it should not be legal. My comprehension of what I was actually doing was minimal, my sense of reality was distorted and on top of that I was having hallucinations of me repeating certain tasks (like changing gears) over and over again. It made driving difficult to say the least. I drove MUCH too slowly as any speed over about 50km/h felt like I was going way too fast.
I think its fine to drive while buzzed or maybe even a bit high, but once you are in the zone of severe mental impairment you shouldn't be on the road - to me it is much more dangerous than driving drunk.
I
Instead of jumping to "since I can't do this we should violently oppress people who do"
Why not just go with "I'm not a safe/competent (I don't mean to be inflammatory there) driver while stoned, or perhaps heavily stoned so I oughtn't participate in that behavior."
I've driven high on cannabis, LSD, Mescaline, mushrooms, amphetamines (OMG), opiates, benzodiazepenes, alcohol (I haven't had a drink since I've been 18-19 or so and haven't drunk and driven since I was 17 or so), and probably other substances I'm forgetting.
I *assure* you that driving while intoxicated, and doing it safely is possible. The drugs that impair one most thoroughly are (imo and in this order) Alcohol, opiates, mushrooms and LSD. It can be a hell of a lot more distracting to have a car full of individuals with you, especially teenagers; or say to be eating a sandwich and drinking a drink than smoking a blunt with a friend or solo.
All of my "impaired driving" took place at night on "mostly" closed roads. That said I drove as if I had tractor trailers on either side.
--------------------

|
thedream
The Most High

Registered: 12/25/10
Posts: 592
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: Humility]
#14175537 - 03/24/11 12:24 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What a load of horseshit this bill is. If stoned driving was such a problem we would have already seen mass accidents occurring, its not like people weren't driving stoned to the bone before this bill so were are all the accidents?
For once i would like to see science trump politics. What did they just put some numbers up on a dart board and see which number they hit? Why don't they actually do a scientific study to see at what levels of THC causes significant impairment, or is that too logical of a thing to do?
Oh they can't because they have to get approval from the government but the government probably wouldn't approve of the study. I can't wait till all the old people in congress die off........
|
BothHands
Dog Coffee



Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 13,177
Loc:
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: MagicMaker]
#14175570 - 03/24/11 12:31 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MagicMaker said: got to post this again
this is FUCKED!!
5ng/ml of urine is absolutely absurd. When had I probation I had to take piss tests at a hospital in which the cut off was 12 ng/ml. Now first of all lets establish an estimate of how much that is, hypothetically speaking.
Lets say you smoke 1 gram of nugget that is 10% THC. Maybe your average beasters or so. So depending on your source people accept that a 150lb male has about 5 liters of blood. Now I know this is a urine test but urine is a product of your blood breaking down in a sense. So 1 gram of 10% nugget - .1grams "THC/derivtatives" or .1 grams = 100 000 000 nanograms into /5 liters or 5000ml of blood is = 20,000ng/mL of blood right when it peaks in your blood, which is about 15 min. After initial absorption the half life is about 30minutes but then slows to closer to 20-30 hours.
All this figures I am getting from a pharmacology book i have that I took a class on in college. It also said the we absorb only about 25% of the THC through smoking. So lets say the number was 5000ng/mL then after 30 min its 2500 then 1hr 1250 then 1.5hrs 625 then 2 hrs 312.5 2.5hrs 156 3 hrs etc, anyway to get down to five nanograms that is MANY hours after you smoked over a day easy ( some one do the math)
Now i know it doesnt work quite so straight forward like that as they test for derivatives in your urine. THC and its derivatives also do what is called depot binding which means if bonds to fat cells and that can affect the excretion process. Also reported high vs blood concentration are not directly proportional.
I can personally attest that when I was a daily smoker at least 1 gram a day. I stopped for a weak before my drug test, my test had to be done from a hospital, and I knew the cut off was 12ng/mL. I worked out and drank water for 3 or 4 days after i quit and then chilled out a little be4 the test ( as you are supposed to so you are not flushing) I did a practice test 4 days after that and my level was at 34ng/mL then 2 days later after exercising the day after the first test, i got down to 15ng/ml so i knew I would be safe.
Now all of you do the math. This means that if you smoke ganja at all you are pretty much at risk of getting well over 5ng/ml up to a week after you smoked last.
This is absolute government ignorance
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. The urine tests look for THC metabolites, not THC itself. The THC metabolites can stay for weeks after you smoke, but I believe levels of actual THC drop of far more quickly than that.
|
user1837483975


Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 2,161
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: Humility]
#14176223 - 03/24/11 02:37 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mylfgur said: So you smoke like what, once a year?
Quote:
zappateer said: Hallucinations, WTF?
More dangerous than driving while drunk -- not even close.
Quote:
3Cajun1Mo8 said: I wish weed got me that high still
I don't want to get into a pissing contest, but obviously none of you have ever smoked as much as I have.
Quote:
Humility said: Instead of jumping to "since I can't do this we should violently oppress people who do"
Why not just go with "I'm not a safe/competent (I don't mean to be inflammatory there) driver while stoned, or perhaps heavily stoned so I oughtn't participate in that behavior."
I've driven high on cannabis, LSD, Mescaline, mushrooms, amphetamines (OMG), opiates, benzodiazepenes, alcohol (I haven't had a drink since I've been 18-19 or so and haven't drunk and driven since I was 17 or so), and probably other substances I'm forgetting.
I *assure* you that driving while intoxicated, and doing it safely is possible. The drugs that impair one most thoroughly are (imo and in this order) Alcohol, opiates, mushrooms and LSD. It can be a hell of a lot more distracting to have a car full of individuals with you, especially teenagers; or say to be eating a sandwich and drinking a drink than smoking a blunt with a friend or solo.
All of my "impaired driving" took place at night on "mostly" closed roads. That said I drove as if I had tractor trailers on either side.
It's all about dose my friend. You can't really compare two different drugs unless you have a equivalent dose (and therefore equivalent "impairment"), which can be hard or impossible.
I wasn't trying to say that driving while stoned should be illegal just based off my experience, I was just pointing out that driving while very stoned can be dangerous.
|
3Cajun1Mo8
Fung Padawan



Registered: 11/07/10
Posts: 698
Last seen: 16 days, 16 hours
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: user1837483975]
#14176680 - 03/24/11 03:47 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Lol Canberra i dont know if ive smoked more or less than you but since i was 14 ive smoked literally everyday give or take a week or two. and im turning 21 tuesday. there was maybe a 1 or 2 weeks in this entire 7 years that i went without weed and the days were never consecutive.
I think people who dont smoke have this idea of what being "Stoned" is, and they compare it to drugs like alcohol which is a completely different thing. Anyone who smokes on the regular should have no difficulty operating a motor vehicle. Not that this point will ever get across to lawmakers.
|
Smitington
Unidentified Flying Object


Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: 3Cajun1Mo8]
#14177194 - 03/24/11 05:06 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Arguing that cannabis does not affect your driving, or that it actually improves your driving is not the stance to take imo. The general public is never going to go for this/we have to show responsible attitudes towards weed for it to become accepted. I believe NORML posted on their site that a responsible cannabis user never smokes and drives. That being said, we definitely need a better test for cannabis impairment. The current laws are absolutely absurd.
--------------------
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 10 hours, 7 minutes
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: Smitington]
#14177968 - 03/24/11 07:18 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Smitington said: Arguing that cannabis does not affect your driving, or that it actually improves your driving is not the stance to take imo.
While that is often true for many people, you are correct that it isn't a good stance to take.
I wish there was a real test for impairment. If there was though, a lot of old/slow people would get DUI's while sober all the time.
It is easy to measure reaction time, but I am not sure how well reaction time correlates with actual driving ability.
|
Amsu Jackal
Urcan Refugee



Registered: 01/24/09
Posts: 227
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: [CO] THC DUI bill passes second reading in spite of spirited debate [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#14179370 - 03/24/11 11:20 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
id just like to see them try to take my license away for me refusing to let them stick a needle in me every goddamn time they think im high. i have dreads that go down to my mid-back, a lot of people see me and automatically think im carrying weed or high. i get problems from cops sometimes but i never am high or have anything on me when im in public. theyre probably going to try to stick me multiple times a week, and i wont take that. i absolutely refuse to let them take my blood from me just because they think i *might* be high but cant prove anything. urine is one thing but no needle is ever going into me. fucking cops think we're all pincushions for them to do whatever they want to us. if i let one take my blood, more will follow and before i know it im going to have a bunch of needle marks on my arms and people will think i do heroin or some shit. FUCK. THAT.
-------------------- Perfect calm is the sensation of pure awareness.
|
|