Pubdate: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Feedback: http://www.sfgate.com/select.feedback.html Address: 901 Mission St., San Francisco CA 94103 Contact: 2002 Hearst Communications Inc. Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/ Author: Ray Delgado IDAHO LAW HITS LEGAL POTHOLE In S.F. Advocates Say Ruling Good For States' Rights Bay Area pot advocates hailed a San Francisco appellate court ruling that allows Idaho residents to legally drive under the influence of marijuana as long as they are not driving erratically and can pass a field sobriety test. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco ruled yesterday that an Idaho man's impaired driving conviction could not stand because while Idaho law makes it illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol and narcotics, it doesn't classify marijuana as a narcotic. The ruling overturned the conviction of 21-year-old Matthew Patzer, who was pulled over by police in September 1998 because of a broken tailgate light but wasn't driving erratically and passed a field sobriety test. The ruling also overturned an illegal weapons conviction against Patzer, who had a cache of homemade grenades and weapons in his truck when he was pulled over. Although the ruling involves a technicality in Idaho law and has no effect on California drivers, marijuana advocates hailed the decision because it recognized a state's drug laws over stronger federal laws that do classify marijuana as an illegal substance. "It's a good ruling for state's rights elements," said Jeff Jones, the executive director of the Oakland Cannabis Club. "I'd like to see the ability for states to implement local laws over the existing federal laws." Dale Gieringer, the coordinator of California's chapter of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, also supported the ruling because of the impairment standard that it held up. "It makes a lot of sense to show that somebody must be impaired and studies have shown that marijuana users aren't as dangerous on the roads as those who drink," Gieringer said. Gieringer said that law enforcement officers throughout the country should rely solely on field sobriety tests to determine someone's impairment in cases involving all drugs and alcohol and not automatically arrest somebody because they admitted to using marijuana. "When somebody's really stoned, they have a hard time balancing on one foot, " Gieringer said. "It depends on the person, it depends on the pot. You can't measure it in joints. That's why the field sobriety test is what should be used to determine it." According to Gieringer, a National Highway Transportation Administration study conducted in the Netherlands showed that drivers who smoked marijuana drove more cautiously than those who consumed equal amounts of alcohol, who tended to speed up and overcompensate for their diminished capacity. "There is obviously a level of impairment but it's not as high as alcohol," said Gieringer. NORML's Web site also cites a study conducted in Australia that showed drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to have an accident than those who were drug-free. The research, done by a pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide and an Australian transportation organization, said the difference was not great enough to be statistically significant but could be explained by anecdotal evidence that marijuana smokers were more cautious and drove more slowly because of altered time perception. It is unclear what action will be taken in Idaho as a result of the San Francisco ruling. Idaho Senate Judiciary Chairman Denton Darrington said he had assumed marijuana was a narcotic under state law, and that the statute might need to be reviewed. But he questioned whether yesterday's decision would hold up on appeal. Patzer's attorney, Fredilyn Sison of the office of the Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho, applauded the decision. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth