Pubdate: Tue, 07 Sep 2010
Source: Daily Democrat (Woodland, CA)
Copyright: 2010 Daily Democrat
Contact:  http://www.dailydemocrat.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3030
Author: Joshua Melvin
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?224 (Cannabis and Driving)
Cited: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws 
http://www.canorml.org/

WHEN ARE PEOPLE TOO HIGH TO DRIVE?

A cop pulls over a motorist who's driving like he's drunk, but the 
officer suspects the driver may be high on marijuana. Unlike with 
alcohol, there's no objective way for police to detect whether 
somebody is impaired while driving under the influence of marijuana. 
There's no breath test for THC, pot's active ingredient, and no 0.08 
limit to drive like California law sets for alcohol in the blood.

Now, as Californians consider making the state the first in the 
country to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, police 
officials are concerned that Proposition 19 could put an extremely 
difficult burden on police: How will they determine whether a driver 
is too drugged to drive?

The blood alcohol concentration in one's breath pretty closely tracks 
how much booze is in a person's blood. Not so for THC, which is 
absorbed by the fat in a person's body and stays there for days or 
weeks after the marijuana is consumed.

That's because pot isn't metabolized by the body the same way alcohol 
is, said Steven Gust, an official at the National Institute on Drug 
Abuse. So just having THC in your system doesn't mean you're too 
intoxicated to drive.

That means officers base arrests only on observations, field sobriety 
tests and, ultimately, their judgment. To improve that judgment, the 
California Highway Patrol uses the Drug Recognition Expert program to 
train police throughout the state. More than 1,200 current officers 
have received the training and 55,000 arrests have been made using 
the program's evaluation techniques since 1992.

While there is no simple roadside THC test being used in California, 
police in Australia and parts of Europe have started using saliva 
tests during stops. Those are likely years away from general use and 
have raised some legal questions, Gust said.

But even if California police start using the saliva tests, the 
problem of no legal standard for THC intoxication remains.

Having a legal THC limit, for driving or public intoxication, hasn't 
been necessary because marijuana is illegal, said San Mateo Police 
Chief Susan Manheimer, who also heads the California Police Chiefs Association.

"It's a lot of science and years of work (to set a limit). Who's to 
say that any level is OK?" she asked.

The effect alcohol has on drivers has undergone decades of testing. 
The thousands of deaths attributed to drunken driving each year also 
pushed lawmakers and researchers to focus on coming up with a 
standard as well as increasingly stringent ways to enforce it, officials said.

Currently, prosecutors who want to prove drugged driving need to show 
the driver was under the influence and, as result, couldn't safely 
operate a vehicle. Prosecutors also need a positive drug test.

California has taken a less hard-line approach than that of 15 other 
states, including Arizona, Nevada and Utah, which have adopted the 
stance that any detectable level of THC is illegal. Manheimer said 
lack of a "per se" law, which makes illegal any detectable amount, 
and the unavailability of a simple roadside test have made it 
difficult to convict stoned drivers.

She predicted the situation will only get worse if voters pass 
Proposition 19 in November.

But Joshua Dale, head of the California DUI Lawyers Association, had 
this to say about Manheimer's concerns: "It's a bunch of hooey."

He said if an officer has made a valid arrest, the jury is good and 
so is the prosecutor, getting a drugged driving conviction is no 
easier or harder than in alcohol-related cases. If police want 
another layer of proof, he said, they should videotape and audio 
record stops for suspected driving under the influence. The evidence, 
if shown to a jury, will be enough to get a conviction as long as the 
person was impaired.

It's hard to say how big of a problem drugged driving already is in 
California because the Department of Motor Vehicles doesn't track the 
issue. But California arrested 214,800 drivers and convicted 162,000 
of them of DUI, which includes drugs and alcohol, in 2008 -- the most 
recent year available.

A 2007 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study 
does give an idea of drug use nationally among drivers. The survey 
found 16.3 percent of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for 
drugs, including 8.6 percent who were using ?marijuana. The survey 
also found cocaine in 3.9 percent and over-the-counter and 
prescription drugs in 3.9 percent.

But Dale Gieringer, head of the California wing of the National 
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, asks, "So what?"

He said marijuana use was twice what it is now in 1979 and there 
wasn't an epidemic then of stoned drivers running over people or 
smashing into each other.

"We've been there before," he said. "There is no difference. Just 
enforce the law."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom