cannabisnews.com: Portman Bill is Excessive Portman Bill is Excessive Posted by CN Staff on April 20, 2004 at 20:29:40 PT By Paul Armentano Source: Cincinnati Post Imagine if it was against the law to drive home after consuming a single glass of wine at dinner. Now imagine it was against the law to do so after having consumed a single glass of wine two weeks ago. Sound absurd? No more so than newly proposed Congressional legislation by Ohio Rep. Rob Portman mandating that each state enact laws sanctioning anyone who operates a motor vehicle "while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance.'' While the expressed purpose of this legislation, the "Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004,'' is to target and remove drug-impaired drivers from our nation's roadways, the reality is that this poorly worded proposal would do little to improve public safety. Rather, it would falsely categorize sober drivers as "intoxicated'' simply if they had consumed an illicit substance, particularly marijuana, some days or weeks earlier. A case in point. John and Jane Doe attend a party. John enjoys a glass of wine while Jane takes a puff from a marijuana cigarette. The next day, John and Jane are pulled over. John is given a breathalyzer test and tests negative for alcohol. Jane is asked to submit to a urine test and tests positive for marijuana. Jane is then arrested for "driving under the influence of drugs,'' despite the fact that any impairment she experienced from smoking marijuana would have worn off hours earlier. That's because Portman's proposal, so-called "zero tolerance'' per se legislation, presumes individuals guilty of driving while intoxicated simply if trace levels of a controlled substances or even drug metabolites (inactive compounds indicative of past drug use) are detected in their bodily fluids -- even if the individual is neither under the influence nor impaired to drive. For anyone who enjoys an occasional toke from a marijuana cigarette, this news ought to be especially unsettling, as marijuana metabolites are often detectable in a person's urine for days or even weeks after the drug is consumed. Aside from being poorly drafted, this unfunded federal mandate from Congress is unnecessary. All states already have DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) statutes on the books. Most are "effect-based'' laws that forbid drivers to operate a motor vehicle if they are either "under the influence'' of a controlled substance, or if they have been rendered "incapable of driving safely'' because of their use of an illicit drug. This is a multidisciplinary standard that focuses on the totality of circumstances and rightly punishes motorists who drive while impaired from having recently used illicit drugs. There is no need for additional legislation, especially from the federal government. While driving under the influence of illicit and licit substances is obviously a serious issue, Portman's proposal neither addresses the problem nor offers a legitimate solution. "Zero tolerance'' laws are neither a safe nor sensible way to identify impaired drivers; they are an attempt to misuse the traffic safety laws in order to identify and prosecute recreational drug users. At a minimum, laws targeting drug drivers should identify "parent drugs'' (in other words, cocaine or THC), not simply inactive drug metabolites. Further, these laws must have scientifically sound cut-off levels that correlate drug concentration to impairment of performance, similar to the 0.08 BAC standard that now exists for drunk driving. There must also be assurances that the laws mandate any and all drug testing to be performed and confirmed by accredited state labs using uniform procedures and standards. Until these measures are in place, it is premature and illogical for Congress to strong-arm states to adopt this unnecessary and unsound "zero tolerance" drugged driving policy. Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC. Source: Cincinnati Post (OH)Author: Paul Armentano Published: April 20, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Cincinnati PostContact: postedits cincypost.comWebsite: http://www.cincypost.com/Related Articles & Web Site:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Congress Targets 'Drugged Driving'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18510.shtmlBill Would Penalize People for Being Highhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18475.shtmlPorter To Push for States To Punish Drug DUIshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18471.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #6 posted by Dankhank on April 22, 2004 at 19:44:09 PT Interesting At a minimum, laws targeting drug drivers should identify "parent drugs'' (in other words, cocaine or THC), not simply inactive drug metabolites. says Mr Armentano.The two drugs in the studies found to be the least dangerous to driving ability.I should send my little paper to him ...HMMMMMMMMM Freedom [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Dankhank on April 22, 2004 at 19:14:32 PT: ltr to Portman Here is the letter I emailed to Portman just now. I had to look at two of the six references to be abe to talk about all six I received afew weeks ago from the NHTSA.Rep. Rob PortmanIt is with great interest that I read of your desire for exhaustive testing of illegal drug use effects on driving. It is a good thing when our government desires to know the truth of an issue. Would that this testing could be employed to get ALL the facts about ALL drug use and all effects on driving ability.I wonder if you know, sir, that there are already a number of studies completed by the US Department of Transportation? I wish to direct your attention to the following six studies I received from the NHSTA in Feb 2004: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.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 Cannabis in combination with Alcohol is 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.Your legislative effort, H.R. 3922, “Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004” is misdirected in that it will mainly serve to penalize casual smokers, those who use Cannabis exclusively, and those who actually may have quit using Cannabis but still have measurable inactive metabolites in bodily fluids, hair, saliva …the science pushes on.Please have your staff obtain and review the studies I received from DOT. They should be adequate to begin an informed dialogue with experts more knowledgeable than I. I send this to you to help you gain some knowledge our government already has. I am confident that you will then craft a realistic law regarding realistic responses to drug-impaired driving. Thank You for your time. Freedom [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by billos on April 21, 2004 at 03:40:44 PT: We already have to worry about this........... because everyone who drug tests for employment will be going to hair samples vs. urine if the feds have their way.So, to everyone who is "all set" with a job, you don't have to sweat it. Any resound of hipocrasy here??I'm sorry but I don't remember this much Hub-Bub on this site regarding the new federal guidelines about drug testing as I now see about the DUIDs. One thing IS for sure though, I'ts war.I'm 52 and am looking and believe me I sweat it every day. I hear that even Block Buster video takes hair samples. I guess to be sure you won't get high and watch any of their movies. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Cannabis Enthusiast on April 20, 2004 at 22:01:08 PT This is total WAR on cannabists. This is now coming to be a true and EXTREME war on every aspect of anyone related to anything doing with cannabis. These a**holes want to completely exterminate any cannabist from even having the ability to drive their own car to work, etc.Rob Portman needs to be arrested for even thinking this damn thing up.If this passes, then that means every occassional pot smoker in the United States of AmeriKKKa will have to use mass transit to get to work, do errands, etc. And that means if you are an occassional pot smoker you will have to bring your groceries on the city bus too.This is pretty damn EXTREME, if you ask me. I wonder if this bill will pass. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Virgil on April 20, 2004 at 21:11:26 PT It is over the top alright What is the joke is that on any road if you only do the speed limit, you get run over or a horn. People pass cars on double yellow lines all the time when they do the speed limit. People think because they pay $300 a month on a car they can drive their technology at any speed they want. This is all about stacking charges and targeting people that already have their unalienable rights taken away from them. When it is speed that kills and injures like no other one factor, their is no real enforcement to slow things down. Of course speed uses more oil and ExxonMobil has to break their $20 billion in profits.Fascism is making its move with all kinds of laws with the most shocking being making 23 more crimes punishable by death. This is to send a chill to all dissent. America is now ruled by treason and for the federal government to strong arm such laws on the states is way over the limits the Constitution sought to restrain the federal governments power. 23 crimes could now be punished with death [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Petard on April 20, 2004 at 20:58:23 PT Just say "no" or nothing at all Without an actual search warrant issued by a court the police do not have the authority to search your body, nor confiscate your possessions, including body fluids or hairs. You DO have the right to remain silent, which includes body language such as having your eyes open for an encroachment officer to inspect for "signs of impairment" such as bloodshot eyes. (Close your eyes, don't look at the law encroachment officer)Just say "no" when requested for information or permission to incriminate yourself. You are not required to advise an encroachment officer where you are going, where you are coming from, what your business is, etc. Just tell them, I'm going "this direction" and coming from "that direction", things they can obviously see for themselves since they pulled up behind you. If they ask about about drugs, weapons, drinking, etc., just say "no", or, ask if you are under arrest and if not are you free to leave.Without your help they can't figure out a lot of stuff on their own. They know where to go for coffee and donuts and where to get a bottle of booze, that's about it. After all, they're cops. If they had brains they'd have a job doing something constructive and worth a decent living wage. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment