Cannabis News NORML - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws
  Lawmakers Aim for Zero Tolerance of Pot-Smokers
Posted by CN Staff on May 06, 2004 at 08:16:35 PT
By John Lasker, Athens News Contributor  
Source: Athens News 

justice As the federal government continues to prod states into passing or improving their Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) laws, or potentially face significant hits to future federal financing for highways, Ohio marijuana activists are asking how many more teeth will the law have?

An enhanced drug-driving law for Ohio, marijuana activists concede, is a certainty for the near future. Two federal bills "encouraging" states to crack down on drug driving are currently being floated on Capitol Hill.

One bill, introduced earlier this month in Cincinnati by Hope Taft and U.S. Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, encourages states to adopt a "zero-tolerance" blood-level measure to combat drugged driving while also securing funding to fight the war on drugs. In comparison, alcohol has .08 blood-level requirement for adults' arrest in nearly every state. That level equates to several beers or drinks over two to four hours for a normal-sized person.

The other bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nevada, on March 4, again encourages states to enhance their drug-driving laws by 2006 or lose 1 to 50 percent of federal highway funds allocated from 2007 through 2013. This bill also calls for mandatory minimums for those convicted.

Already, the bills have inspired state-level officeholders to act.

In Ohio, two high-ranking Republican state senators have introduced Senate Bill 215. The bill calls for a zero- tolerance level, making it a criminal offense if a driver has "any amount of a controlled substance or a metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's whole blood, blood serum or plasma, or urine."

In other words, officers and prosecutors can demand drug screenings for those pulled over for a moving violation. Thus, if a partygoer took a puff of a marijuana "blunt" at the weekend party, considering THC metabolites can remain in one's system for several days, he or she could potentially be busted while driving to work the following week.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol has publicly said a level of zero will make it easier to prove in court if someone was drugged driving.

Others worry about the fairness of the stricter laws.

"First of all, I think it's a huge violation of your privacy," said Thomas Simon, president of the Ohio University student group, Students for Sensible Drug Policies. OU's SSDP chapter is part of a "a national watchdog effort" to educate students about unfair drug policies.

"They want to take a blood test and discover marijuana that you smoked two weeks ago? This is definitely an attack against marijuana smokers," added Simon.

Co-sponsors of the Ohio bill are Majority Whip Jeff Jacobson, R-Butler Township, and Steve Austria, R-Beavercreek, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, which deals with the state's criminal laws.

The federal bills are mobilizing pro-marijuana activists on a national level as well. Many believe the law is another attempt to crack down on the nation's marijuana smokers, who number somewhere between 8 and 10 million.

Since the late 1990s, several states have passed "zero-tolerance per se" statutes similiar to the bill introduced in Ohio. Zero tolerance per se laws, however, do have a measurable standard. In Nevada, for example, if a driver's blood is found to be under 3 nanograms per milliliter of THC, the driver is not considered impaired.

That's the significant difference between Ohio's bill and Nevada's law: The Ohio bill is strictly zero tolerance, confirmed an aide from Austria's office.

This amounts to arbitrary discrimination, according to opponents of zero tolerance drugged-driving laws.

"Cannabis consumers need to be aware that these kind of 'zero tolerance' laws have nothing to do with public safety or whether someone is driving impaired, and everything to do with discrimination," charged Mikki Norris, director of the Cannabis Consumers Campaign, a California-based movement lobbying for the civil rights of marijuana smokers. "Drugged-driving laws base someone's guilt on the mere presence of THC in one's body and have nothing to do with the offense for which the person is being charged."

Yet in Nevada, the law has not caused the public uproar some marijuana activists predicted. Nevada's law was inspired in part by the tragic story of Jessica Williams, now serving a lengthy DUID and manslaughter sentence for driving into and killing six teenagers in 2001. Williams tested positive for marijuana but argues in her appeal that she wasn't high at the time of the accident.

"Can Nevada police require that you go to the station for a drug screen, hold your arm down and require you to take a blood test? Yes they can," said Omar Sofradzija, a traffic reporter for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

But has the law been vigorously enforced, with scores of sober people saying they were strong-armed into getting needled, and subsequently suffering through the ordeal that's akin to a drunk-driving conviction?

"We really haven't heard all that much," Sofradzija said about public complaints of sober drivers being arrested for having illegal drug metabolites in their system.

Police officers in Las Vegas, said Sofradzija, are using discretion. They're applying traditional DUI tactics such as using smell and sight to nab offenders, he said. He suggested, for example, that if a van is pulled over for driving erratically and also reeks of freshly smoked pot, the driver probably will win himself a ride in the back seat of a police cruiser.

Jennifer Knight, spokesperson for Nevada's Committee to Control and Regulate Marijuana, said her group hasn't heard of any serious complaints either. On the other hand, Knight said she's confused as to why drugged-driving laws seem targeted at marijuana smokers.

"That's the perception, but the truth is, a lot more accident deaths are caused by people and their speed, their reckless driving," she said, "not those under the influence.

"According to the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety," Knight continued, there were 365 fatalities in 2003, 117 were alcohol-related only, 40 were alcohol and drugs, and 26 were drugs only. Depending on how you crunch the statistics, 18 percent included some form of drug, and 7 percent were drugs only."

Knight is in the midst of signature blitz that could put a statewide legalization referendum on the upcoming November ballot in Nevada. The law will allow possession of an ounce for personal use, but also will increase penalties for those convicted of manslaughter while under the influence of marijuana.

The government is fairly open nonetheless about whom DUID laws are targeting. Ohio Gov. Bob Taft's wife Hope Taft, perceived by marijuana activists as a high-profile "drug warrior," singled out Ohio teenagers during the Cincinnati press conference that introduced the federal bill encouraging states to enact zero-tolerance duid laws, officially called The Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act. One out of five Franklin County high-school seniors had driven while high on marijuana during the last year, claimed Hope Taft, citing a survey.

Taft has an advisory position with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the federal government's command center for the war on drugs. The chief democratic sponsor for this bill is Rep. Sander levin of Michigan.

"The numbers are staggering right now (people driving high)," claimed Kyle Downey, communications director for U.S. Rep. Portman. "And the burden of proof is on the law-enforcement officer to determine whether a driver is under the influence."

Statistics issued from Portman's office maintain that 11 million people drove under the influence of some illegal drug during 2002. Marijuana activists have countered by saying there's not that many pot smokers in the United States.

Unlike the other national DUID bill, Portman's bill does not penalize states that refuse to enact a zero-tolerance statute. It does promise financial incentives for those that do, however. These incentives then would be used to finance the training of law-enforcement officers on how to better identify drug users, along with developing faster and on-site drug testing.

Zero tolerance laws continue to come under criticism from all sides of the debate.

Law-enforcement circles argue that police need an instant test similar to the one for alcohol. Hope Taft claims that teenagers are increasingly turning to marijuana because they believe police have a harder time detecting it than alcohol.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a study that drivers high on marijuana are prone to "slowing down or increasing effort... As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small." Drinking by far causes greater problems for drivers, while a mixture of drinking and marijuana is almost equally as bad, the study said.

Several other studies have supported this "marijuana-only" argument. They basically say that it's practically impossible to know how a certain drug and its amount can affect particular drug users and their driving habits.

"I am not advocating for people to be able to smoke and drive, like a person should not drink and drive," said Norris of California's Cannabis Consumers Campaign. "That said, a person can have a drink without being in a drunken state or too drunk to drive. Before someone can be accused of 'drugged driving,' research needs to be done on levels that coincide for likely impairment due to the use of a drug, based on science not politics. For most people, a couple of tokes will not cause that degree of impairment."

Complete Title: Lawmakers Aiming for 'Zero Tolerance' of Pot-Smoking Drivers

Source: Athens News, The (OH)
Author: John Lasker, Athens News Contributor
Published: May 5, 2004
Copyright: 2004 Athens News
Contact: news@athensnews.com
Website: http://www.athensnews.com/

Related Articles & Web Sites:

SSDP
http://www.ssdp.org/

Regulate Marijuana
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/

Cannabis Consumers
http://www.cannabisconsumers.org/

Portman Bill is Excessive
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18691.shtml

Bill Would Penalize People for Being High
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18475.shtml

Porter To Push for States To Punish Drug DUIs
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18471.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #19 posted by observer on May 07, 2004 at 11:08:39 PT
Zeroing Out Pot Smokers
An enhanced drug-driving law for Ohio, marijuana activists concede, is a certainty for the near future.

That is because there is no upper limit to punishments. However much one is punished today for the heinous crime of taking cannibis, tommorrow, such punishment won't be enough. Saving the children will require that the government "do something." Since the only tool available to government in the service of force and coercion, is punishment, more punishment will be applied. This is what has always happened.

So, punishments are racheted up. What may have been a cruel punishment yesterday, is acceptable today. This is how we now have people put away for years as dealers in Alabama, whose only "crime" was passing a joint within a mile of a school, or having the audacity to ask for a jury trial.

No, there's no upper limit to punishent. Especially when it comes to marijuana smokers. The dark side of humanity is all full of creativity and imagination when it comes to (righteously, of course!) punishing the sins of one's fellows.

So, paint cannabis users as dealers. Dealers are evil incarnate; monsters, and vampires. http://adrugwarcarol.com/ADWC.php?last=80 http://adrugwarcarol.com/ADWC.php?next=45 http://adrugwarcarol.com/ADWC.php?next=61

There's no limit to the punishment that vampires (i.e., "drug dealers and users" = any pot smoker) deserve, in the eyes of the Righteous. They're just doing God service, by punishing those evil vampire druggies.

People don't blink when "druggies" are slain. Most don't even care. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread7399.shtml#5 The "Good Americans" -- the Bible-belt ones who just know pot smokers deserve death for destroying their body-temples, or being pharmakeia witches or whatever it is that goodly christians use to rationalize destroying pot smokers -- those "Good Americans" are pleased as punch to help snuff druggies. It makes them feel closer to their god.

So when you hear "zero-tolerance" of pot, remember what is really meant by many Men and Women of god. They really mean they want zero pot smokers. If that means having to blow away, or bash the brains out of pot heads, then that is just fine with them.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #18 posted by The GCW on May 06, 2004 at 19:33:38 PT
Zero tolerance?
“As a cannabis activist having zero tolerance for cannabis prohibition” Wed, 3 Dec 2003

“I have zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance,…” Tue, 11 Nov 2003

“I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance, and was pleased to read…” Fri, 14 Nov 2003

“I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists” Sat, 15 Nov 2003

“zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists…” Thu, 6 Nov 2003

“I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance, so I was pleased to read…” Thu, 30 Oct 2003

“I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance, so I was pleased to read,” Fri, 17 Oct 2003

“I have zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance, so I was pleased to read Rebecca Schoenkopf's "George Bush's Joint" Fri, 17 Oct 2003

“In the Bible I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance,…” Fri, 3 Oct 2003

“I have zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and was pleased to read” Mon, 6 Oct 2003

“I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis/hemp ( marijuana ) prohibitionist and their terrorizing ignorance, so I was pleased to read, Keith Stroup, "NORML Questions marijuana bust," Sun, 05 Oct 2003

“I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance, so I was pleased to read "Pot Prop May Go On '04 Ballot" Wed, 1 Oct 2003

“EDITOR: I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance, which is the fuel for the war on drugs, so I was pleased to read the letter,…” Thu, 25 Sep 2003

“…I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance, so I was pleased to read…” Mon, 22 Sep 2003

”I'm having zero tolerance for cannabis ( marijuana ) prohibitionists and their terrorizing ignorance, so I was pleased to read…” Fri, 03 Oct 2003

“America has been criticized for its discredited, zero tolerance, draconian drug policies and its associated use of the prison system.” Fri, 23 May 2003

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #17 posted by kaptinemo on May 06, 2004 at 15:42:35 PT:

And that *is* it, isn't it?
"A dying culture". Well, McLuhan has been right in just about eveything he predicted, namely in that the media would degenerate into style without substance.

A dying culture...one that in it's death lashes out at it's supplanters, in hopes of scoring a lasting wound. Or worse, seeks to inject the newborn with a sick form of innoculation, preserving a portion of itself to bedevil future generations with its' particular neuroses. The Apollonian culture of the antis has had it's last hurrah, but is insanely jealous of the Dionysian one that will someday replace it.

Too bad it doesn't have the good graces to simply bow to the inevitable...

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #16 posted by mayan on May 06, 2004 at 15:39:10 PT
Got Freedom?
The war on terror is over. The terrorists won. Now, they will have more freedom than we do.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #15 posted by afterburner on May 06, 2004 at 14:28:14 PT
'They keep piling new laws on top of old laws and
...what do they actually think will be accomplished by all this?'

57. "... The more regulations there are,

The poorer people become.

The more people own lethal weapons,

The more darkened are the country and clans.

The more clever the people are,

The more extraordinary actions they take.

The more picky the laws are,

The more thieves and gangsters there are....

75. "The reason people starve

Is because their rulers tax them excessively.

They are difficult to govern

Because their rulers have their own ends in mind....

76. "When people are born they are gentle and soft.

At death they are hard and stiff.

When plants are alive they are soft and delicate.

When they die, they wither and dry up.

Therefore the hard and stiff are followers of death.

The gentle and soft are the followers of life...."

--Tao Te Ching

Translated by Charles Muller http://www.hm.tyg.jp/~acmuller/contao/laotzu.htm

"Q: Are you in favor of legalizing marijuana and hallucinogenic drugs?

A: My personal point of view is irrelevant, since all such legal restrictions are futile and will inevitably wither away. You could as easily ban drugs in a retribalized society as outlaw clocks in a mechanical culture. The young will continue turning on no matter how many of them are turned off into prisons, and such legal restrictions only reflect the cultural aggression and revenge of a dying culture against its successor. " - Marshall McLuhan, interviewed in Playboy -

ego transcendence follows ego destruction as day follows night.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #14 posted by Dankhank on May 06, 2004 at 14:27:41 PT
Duplications?
Not even , Afterburner has crafted a good version of my studies, everybody may have it to use, just USE it and the fine links that I got from one , Observer, excellent member of this forum.

Peace to all who fight ...

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #13 posted by RasAric on May 06, 2004 at 13:50:12 PT
Perhaps it is time...
that potsmokers aim for zero tolerance of lawmakers

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #12 posted by FoM on May 06, 2004 at 11:19:40 PT
Just a Small Comment
At the rate our country is going people will need to smoke Cannabis to keep from becoming overwhelmed at what is happening in our country and the world. I bet new stats will show a marked increase in Cannabis use over this next year. They keep piling new laws on top of old laws and what do they actually think will be accomplished by all this? It will help insurance companies not have to pay big claims in accidents. That is the only benefit I see.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #11 posted by Sam Adams on May 06, 2004 at 11:15:30 PT
RasEric
Good point about leaving...where would we go? We've used extortion and blackmail on most countries around the world to ban cannabis, from South America to Jamaica to Nepal to Afghanistan to England to Canada.

I read something recently that said we (the U.S.) currently have military operations in 120 countries! We have 1.4 million ACTIVE military troops, and we can't maintain a force of 138,000 in Iraq. It's because the rest are all stationed around the globe.

Which brings up the Rome analogy again - Spartacus was able to lead a rebellion up and down the Italian peninsula TWICE because all of Rome's armies were off fighting on the frontiers. If we want to be safe, why do we have 75,000 troops in Germany? 25,000 in England? 25,000 in Italy? 40,000 in South Korea? Meanwhile the Coast Guard is woefully underfunded and understaffed.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on May 06, 2004 at 10:49:04 PT:

They just keep pushing and pushing and pushing
not expecting a backlash because it's only those damn' 'druggies' that'll get caught.

But this time? They *think* they have an ironclad means of oppression, but they'll soon learn as they always do that the very means used will backfire. More and more of the Middle Class are facing their children's prospects for a better life ruined because of the HEA loan restrictions for drug convictions...which more often than not means cannabis. More and more, they are realizing just how damaging this witch-hunt has become.

Now, if their kiddies get pulled over, and a (poorly trained) cop sticks a (possibly dirty) needle into them to gain a blood sample, and they come up with metabolities from that joint smoked 3 weeks ago, there goes Johnny or Suzy's future. Not only no college, but no FREEDOM. "Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not collect $200"

The antis have been turning the screws with even greater haste and earnestness than ever before. They realize that a clock is ticking away in the background. A timer, running backwards.

At the terminus is a realization on the part of the Middle Class that the drug laws are not only not working, but ruinously expensive and liable to be used against their own children with disastrous results. To attack us successfully, they *have* to get as many instruments of oppression nailed down as they can before the backlash against threatening Middle Class children over cannabis begins to gain force, as it did in the 1970's.

History is indeed repeating itself, friends; our victories in the field of the courts and public opinion have prompted this desperate gambit on the parts of the antis, as this measure is aimed almost exclusively at cannabis consumers due to the metabolite issue. The antis are worriedly pulling out as many stops as they can without appearing as if they were. But they are sweating bullets all the same.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #9 posted by Dankhank on May 06, 2004 at 10:09:34 PT
Copy, Paste and Send to All Pols and All Media ...
Cannabis/Driving Studies

Australia: No Proof Cannabis Put Drivers At Risk (2001) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1849/a09.html UK:Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.html University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\1999\03990325110700.htm Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06.html Pot News Bot - http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pot

The following is MY research ---------Dankhank Lawton OK

DOT HS 808 078 "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance" Final Report, Nov. 1993 Conclusions on page 108 of the copy I received from the NHTSA are interesting and informative. A sample : "It is possible to safely study the effects of marijuana on driving on highways or city streets in the presence of other traffic." "Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving ability and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these."

DOT HS 808 939 "Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance" July 1999 Conclusion on page 39 midway of paragraph 5.1 of the copy I received: The addition of the new data, (for marijuana), broadens the range of reactions that may be expected to occur in real life. This range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety.

DOT HS 809 020 "Visual Search and Urban City Driving under the Influence of Marijuana and Alcohol" March 2000: Conclusion 1 on page 24 of the copy I received. "Low doses of marijuana taken alone, did not impair city driving performance and did not diminish visual search frequency for traffic at intersections in this study."

General Discussion on page 22 …. Previous on-the-road studies have also demonstrated that subjects are generally aware of the impairing properties of THC and try to compensate for the drug's impairing properties by driving more carefully (Hansteen et al, 1976; Casswell, 1979; Peck et al, 1986; Robbe 1994).

DOT HS 809 642 "State of Knowledge of Drug Impaired Driving" Sept 2003: Experimental Research of Cannabis, page 41 midway: "The extensive studies by Robbe and O'Hanlon (1993), revealed that under the influence of Marijuana, drivers are aware of their impairment, and when experimental tasks allow it, they tend to actually decrease speed, avoid passing other cars, and reduce other risk-taking behaviors."

DOT HS 808 065 "The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers" Oct. 1992 In discussing the "Distribution of Ratings on Driver Responsibility" Table 5.12 page 64 of the copy I received, paragraph (p.65); "Responsibility , drugs and alcohol, third paragraph, "the following appears: "Note that the responsibility rates of the THC-only and cocaine-only groups are actually lower than that of the drugfree drivers. Although these results too are inconclusive, they give no suggestion of impairment in the two groups. The low responsibility rate for THC was reminiscent of that found in young males by Williams and colleagues (1986). This study is remarkable in it's propensity to attack itself as inconclusive.

Forensic Science Review Vol. 14, Number One/Two, Jan 2002, surely must be the reference of note regarding metabolic functions and where the THC goes following ingestion. This review discuses THC and it's metabolites; THCCOOH, 11-OH-THC to mention the most discussed. Location and type of measured quantities of these and other metabolites should be easy to use to determine if a driver is "stoned" or was stoned yesterday, or last week. Mention was made of a man who had measurable levels of metabolites sixty-seven days after ingesting Cannabis.

Chap IX paragraph D, "Summary" appears to be of two minds. While stating: "Studies examining Cannabis' causal effect through responsibility analysis have more frequently indicated that THC alone did not increase accident risk …" it continues optimistically suggesting that further exhaustive research may rebut that.

All of the studies agree that combining Cannabis with any other drug, such as Alcohol ... a major deleterious effect on driving skills, as is benzoates with Cannabis … it rapidly becomes evident that Cannabis in combination with any number of other drugs is not to be desired, but that Cannabis and Cocaine alone in all six studies have the smallest perceived safety risk of all the drugs and drug combinations tested.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #8 posted by afterburner on May 06, 2004 at 10:03:20 PT
''Four dead in O-hi-o'' by National Guard, Not Pot
Zero-tolerance is idiotic and unattainable, just ask any engineer. Eventhough the US government expects a lower tolerance for machine parts and electronic components than for the general market, the government is not so foolish as to expect zero-tolerance.

The continuing fixation on using zero-tolerance in assessing DUI motorists shows that law-makers have no regard for science, but every regard for superstition and propaganda. Hope Taft, the Ohio Governor's wife, is an advisor for OiNkDCP, the source of most of today's GAO-sanctioned disinformation about cannabis, medical cannabis, forced treatment, and cannabis driving.

Despite a preponderance of world-wide studies indicating little, if any, threat to road safety caused by drivers who partake of cannabis, the US government continues to harp on the danger of driving under the influence of non-intoxicating metabolites:

Many studies indicate that even when the driver is "high," the driver is Not impaired to any significant degree. See The [Canadian] Senate Committee Report on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little impact on the skills involved in automobile driving." (Page 19) http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/summary-e.pdf

also: [ Cannabis/Driving Studies

Australia: No Proof Cannabis Put Drivers At Risk (2001) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1849/a09.html

UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.html

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\1999\03\990325110700.htm

Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html

Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06.html ]

Even in the prohibitionist USA, Department of Transportation studies indicate little "impairment" for cannabis-only drivers: [ DOT HS 808 078 “Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance” Final Report, Nov. 1993 Conclusions on page 108 of the copy I received from the NHTSA are interesting and informative. A sample : “It is possible to safely study the effects of marijuana on driving on highways or city streets in the presence of other traffic.” “Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving ability and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these.”

DOT HS 808 939 “Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance” July 1999 Conclusion on page 39 midway of paragraph 5.1of the copy I received: The addition of the new data, (for marijuana), broadens the range of reactions that may be expected to occur in real life. This range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety.

DOT HS 809 020 “Visual Search and Urban City Driving under the Influence of Marijuana and Alcohol” March 2000: Conclusion 1 on page 24 of the copy I received. “Low doses of marijuana taken alone, did not impair city driving performance and did not diminish visual search frequency for traffic at intersections in this study.”

General Discussion on page 22. Previous on-the-road studies have also demonstrated that subjects are generally aware of the impairing properties of THC and try to compensate for the drug’s impairing properties by driving more carefully (Hansteen et al, 1976; Casswell, 1979; Peck et al, 1986; Robbe 1994).

DOT HS 809 642 “State of Knowledge of Drug Impaired Driving” Sept 2003: Experimental Research of Cannabis, page 41 midway: “The extensive studies by Robbe and O’Hanlon (1993), revealed that under the influence of Marijuana, drivers are aware of their impairment, and when experimental tasks allow it, they tend to actually decrease speed, avoid passing other cars, and reduce other risk-taking behaviors.”

DOT HS 808 065 “The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers” Oct. 1992 In discussing the “Distribution of Ratings on Driver Responsibility” Table 5.12 page 64 of the copy I received, paragraph (p.65); “Responsibility , drugs and alcohol, third paragraph, ”the following appears: “Note that the responsibility rates of the THC-only and cocaine-only groups are actually lower than that of the drugfree drivers. Although these results too are inconclusive, they give no suggestion of impairment in the two groups. The low responsibility rate for THC was reminiscent of that found in young males by Williams and colleagues (1986). This study is remarkable in it’s propensity to attack itself as inconclusive. ]

So, in the words of the prohibitionists, "More studies are needed" before any changes are made to existing legislation. Maybe, if the British Lung Foundation, NIDA, and Professor John Henry, all work together with George Ricaurte, they can concoct some bogus studies to placate the lawmakers. Law first, then, science: sounds like religion (of the worst kind) to me. The Earth is flat, in the center of the universe, the Pope said so (once upon a time).

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by warhater on May 06, 2004 at 09:45:50 PT:

Lobby your Congress People....
...and don't forget to vote. This is yet another freedom robbing Republican project. GWB himself endorses this nonsense. I am against the fed withholding highway funds to force states to pass traffic laws. I think it violates spirit of the constitution.

"The Ohio State Highway Patrol has publicly said a level of zero will make it easier to prove in court if someone was drugged driving."

The problem is it also allows them to "prove" you were drugged driving even if you haven't smoked for a week. I think you will see jury nullifications if this becomes common practice. With all the real criminals we have you would think our law enforcement people could find something productive to do.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on May 06, 2004 at 09:33:16 PT
They're rebuilding their system I think
The fire smoked out the computers for Pot TV. They had to send most of their equipment out to be micro-cleaned by professionals. They must be reinstalling now. They promised new shows on Pot TV tomorrow.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by RasAric on May 06, 2004 at 09:19:41 PT
Off subject
Anyone know why Cannabis culture's site is down?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on May 06, 2004 at 09:14:00 PT
What my hairddresser said
I was getting my hair done yesterday and my hairdresser mentioned this drugged driving BS and said he was really worried and was looking for a way to fight back.

He's a Howard Stern fan. He's not politically active. Now he wants to start donating money to the marijuana movement BECAUSE of this BS.

It is scary to be arrested for the joint you smoked last month.

This scares people enough to make them let go of cash and get active.

So let's all use the hell out of it before these morons come to their senses and realize they're once again doing something so stupid and extreme that it helps the marijuana movement more than it hurts it.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by RasAric on May 06, 2004 at 09:06:54 PT
This makes me sick and depressed
America...land of the free?....NOT. Try land of the highest incaceration rate worlwide, or home of the worlds police force; but land of the free?....NO, definitely not! Even if/when pot becomes legal there will still be the rogue official vigilantes. This country blows.

"If you don't like this country then leave". Here's a quote frequently spouted by the mindless flag wavers. I would leave but what's the point? They're just taking over the world so it won't matter where you go to live peacefully. Gotta stand my ground and fight the power.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by The GCW on May 06, 2004 at 09:00:40 PT
Mandatory minimums for not being impaired.
"This bill also calls for mandatory minimums for those convicted."

So someone who is not even impaired is subject to mandatory hatred because they use the plant cannabis?

My contempt meter is going up.

420

Historically the U.S. Federal Government is a blackmailer!

Let Us stick this broom up Your butt or We'll not smooth Your road.

Filthy.

May God rebuke them.

The Green Collar Worker



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on May 06, 2004 at 08:55:35 PT
I've got another idea!
How many accidents are caused by drivers over 70? Let's introduce zero tolerance for drivers over 70. Don't worry, seniors, they won't enforce it unless you're driving recklessly. I promise!

Of course, in our society, the old rule the young, so don't expect this any time soon.

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on May 06, 2004 at 08:16:35