Top

blog

Stories

 

Smoking Marijuana a Month Ago Could Get You a DUI Today Under Proposed Law

Categories: Marijuana

Thumbnail image for cheech chong driving profile.JPG
Uh-oh, Stedenko.
Updated at the bottom: A group of current and former law enforcement officers has urged the lawmaker to withdraw this bill. First posted at 7:03 a.m.

The problem with lawmakers is that they feel the need to make laws, even when they're unneeded or unfair.

The pro-marijuana group NORML is up in arms this week over a proposal by L.A.-area state assemblywoman Norma J. Torres that would would make it a crime to drive with any level of cannabis in your bloodstream.

While that might sound reasonable, consider:


Marijuana can stay in your bloodstream for two weeks, one month, even longer. (It's why your stoner friends tell you to give it a break for 2-4 weeks before a job interview).

So, let's say you're a perfectly legal medical marijuana user and you have a doctor's appointment two days from now. You put the pipe down and, on that morning, you drive. You're pulled over, your blood or urine is tested, and you're busted for DUI.

But you're not at all high.

"It's ridiculous," California NORML director Dale Gieringer tells the Weekly. "It criminalizes every pot smoker in the state."

They're busting you for being high previously. That's the plan, anyway.

According to the language of Torres' proposal, which we're told is backed (of course) by law enforcement lobbyists:

norma j torres.JPG
Norma J. Torres represents Pomona and other points east.

It is unlawful for any person who has any level of cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoid compound in his or her blood or urine to drive a vehicle ...

Your ass is grass (and not the good kind, either) if weed is ...

... in a person's blood or urine at the time of driving the vehicle if the substance is present at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after driving.

So, basically, if you're a medical pot user you pretty much can't drive.

The backstory here is that cops have had a hard time seeing convictions for pot DUI arrests because there's no scientific standard -- like alcohol's .08 level -- for how much would make you impaired. But ... a jury could still convict you if they believe there was reasonable proof you were stoned behind the wheel.

Also, there is some evidence that stoned-driving accidents are on the rise in California, although cannabis supporters point to research with contrary conclusions.

In any case, officers of the law, clearly, want another tool to bust you (and make a little money in the process).

NORML's Gieringer argues that the bill might have a hard time getting through some of the legislature's more powerful committees, however.

It's next stop is the assembly public safety committee. Gieringer:

I would be astonished if the legislature were so foolish as to pass this bill. It will have a tough time partly because it has to go through some committees which I think have good sense on marijuana policy.

Those who oppose the measure can sit back and take it and let the cops' lobbyists have their way in Sacramento. Or you can take action.

[Update at 3:13 p.m.]: The group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) today sent a letter to Torres urging her to withdraw the proposal.

It reads, in part:

It is absolutely conceivable that, if passed, this bill will become the foundation for DUI checkpoint abuses where the answer to the simple question, 'are you a legal medical cannabis patient?' will result in arrest and conviction under circumstances where impaired driving never occurred. And if it happens to the same patient on three occasions, they will face a mandatory ten-year prison sentence, all while still being innocent.

Stephen Downing, a retired LAPD deputy chief, adds:

Keeping impaired drivers off the road is one of law enforcement's most important jobs, but this bill has no basis in science. Enacting this legislation would not only be disastrous for our state's legal medical marijuana patients, but would impede public safety for all Californians by distracting police from catching actually dangerous drivers. Assemblymember Torres should withdraw this legislation immediately.

Read the whole letter here.

[@dennisjromero / djromero@laweekly.com / @LAWeeklyNews]

My Voice Nation Help
28 comments
mccafferty.max
mccafferty.max

so like what happened to the otherside... why dont pigs get pissed test constantly... isnt it known there can be corruption.. nope only in the poorer populations! politicians haha nope. the people!

Cherry Gurl
Cherry Gurl

This is the same BS tactics just like using obscure IRS tax laws are being used in CA to raid people's property.  This stupidity has got to stop!

ZZardozz
ZZardozz

It's ironic that the very thing that makes cannabis safe, is the same thing that allows us to be caught.  The long retention of cannabinoids in the body is due to the fact that they parallel our own endogenous cannabinoids made by our own bodies.  The body rejects any substance that is toxic very quickly, which is why somebody could use amphetamines on Friday, would test clean on Tuesday.   The body quickly purges all traces of these substances.  Of course, the drugs that have this feature also happen to be the worst drugs a person can take, like heroin, amphetamines, cocaine, and alcohol.    So, I guess the message is that, at least where getting caught by drug tests is concerned, you are more likely not to get caught using these terrible drugs than you are for using cannabis, the safest substance of them all. 

aemm
aemm

@ZZardozzthx for well explained. THC are found in human breast milk. Doesn't look too promising in terms of liberties confined to the privacy of your own body. Prison will come to you for petty reasons. Human Resource, Cops, Government -- coercing us to pee in a cup to accomplish self incrimination. The older we grow the more bullies we meet on the path of life.

ZZardozz
ZZardozz

Norma Torres knows all that, and she doesn't care, according to her Facebook page.  To hear her talk, you would think that DUID arrests were going through the roof, which they are not.  She is a prohibitionist, plain and simple, and just wants to create hardships for those who do not live according to her idea of how life should be.  

Trevor
Trevor

What I wrote to Norma:"I appreciate your enthusiasm to enhance public safety, but your marijuana DUI proposal as it stands is absurd, and makes you look foolish. As someone who has personally confronted the horror of drunk driving slaughter, I'm all for laws that make sense and actually protect people from those selfish enough to drive under the influence. This is not in that category at all. This just looks like you're trying to undermine state sovereignty by pushing your own personal anti-marijuana agenda, using this DUI backdoor to further prohibition-era laws. Well, just know that it is an insult, not only to our democratic system, but also to the memories of all those lost from LEGITAMATELY irresponsible driving."

Sadga
Sadga

AND OF COURSE their is NO being proposed for all these PHARMACEUTICALs

WATCH : Hemp for Victory.. Our govermnent made a video Promoting Americans the Grow Hemp for FUEL, Medicinal purposes, 1,000 reasons/products , That will FREE Us ALL from being SO Dependent on Foreighn Countries

Also Our Goverment has a patent for Medical Marijuana and still claims it has no medicinal value,, Funny The patent they have is for Medicinal properties of Marijuana

WE ARE BEING HELD DOWN ., RISE  EVERYONE RISE

IF YOU DONT USE MARIJUANA , SUPPORT THE TRUE PATIENTS

JUST THINK ONE DAY THEY TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO XXXXXXXX.HOW MANY RIGHTS HAVE WE LOST THIS PAST 10 YEARS

DO YOUR RESEARCH PEOPLEWE ALL NEED TO STAND TOGETHER !

Hikebikecreek
Hikebikecreek

She must be on crack and she should be legal to drive in 24 hours..... 

Theright2smoke
Theright2smoke

Everyone knows DUI Is illegal, the question is how can they ticket or arrest me for say, smoking a joint before bed tonight, then in the morning I drive to the store for coffee, am I stoned? no, under the influence? no, marijuana in my system? of course same goes for some pain pill(which idn take) take a pill at bed time drive the next day. dui? not. pain meds in your system yes...its Just yet another ploy against everyone to control us...land of the free my ass....and for the record I'm not ashamed to be a pothead, a legal one or not...#theright2smoke

It's not 420 everywhere
It's not 420 everywhere

Marijuana is against the law and so is driving while under it's influence, period. I have nothing against medical marijuana users if they are legit. I do have a problem with every body else out there who hides behind medical marijuana only to be a pot head.

BudHappy
BudHappy

I would rather be around a pothead than a drunk anyday!

big al
big al

does that include the drunks booze is legal and more people die under the influence of booze than marijuana .. Not to mention the pill epidemic   in this county .. or maybe if i guy was high on pills and as long as he got them form a doctor that would be ok ... open your mind brother

xhtfusie
xhtfusie

you're missing the point! do you understand what this bill would mean? it's completely unconstitutional.

Dr.T
Dr.T

what has a pot head ever done to make you worry bout them who cares if they use pot for whatever reason it is, thats like me saying i hate ppl who smoke cigs, its the same thing except cigs r strong n nasty & it causes cancer, but its your choice so whatever, but y have a problem just do yo thang, & im sure its bad what u do, just so u kno i smoke joints everyday & im the most healthiest person ever "oh yeah baby!..... Dont knock it til u try it! p.s. im a very happy Girl! until im out.....

Dicci
Dicci

What about all the people on all the other legal drugs. This law proposal is ludicrous and it must be stopped.

Kevin Hunt
Kevin Hunt

Anecdotal evidence warning:  I have never heard of anyone in my social circles wreck their car because they were "under the influence" of marijuana.  I have heard of plenty of wrecks associated with alcohol.  We have established, reasonable BAC limits for drunk driving. A per se limit of zero for marijuana does not make sense.  A field sobriety test is the answer here, as Mike Parent has mentioned.

Duncan20903
Duncan20903

Convicting someone who is not impaired for impaired driving does not increase highway safety even a little bit and it's a travesty of justice.

A very valid argument can be made that arresting the unimpaired will in fact cause a decrease in highway safety. Why would a stoned person bother to wait to sober up before driving if he's going to be convicted of impaired driving either way?

Trevor
Trevor

...other than not being a selfish prick and endangering the lives of others, you're right, no reason.This law is completely stupid, but so is anyone who is cavalier about driving high (or drunk). Just ask the families of drunk driving victims.

Don Skakie
Don Skakie

So High always=Impaired? Please cite established science. No one wants to be on the road with impaired drivers or deny liberty to anyone not impaired. Let's get it right.

ZZardozz
ZZardozz

It is interesting to note that in states that allow for medicinal cannabis, their alcohol DUI rate went down by 10%.   But nobody should drive when they really can't drive well, regardless the reason.   

MikeParent
MikeParent

Call it what it is, a Prohibitionist ploy to Criminalize people who are not criminals.   "Under the Influence" does not apply if you're not under the influence.  Instead, how about using recorded "Field Sobriety Tests" in lieu of some arbitrary test. We now have the technology to present that evidence at trial if the person cares to refute the charges.  It would also apply to people who are impaired and not using alcohol or marijuana, for which there is no test, e.g. pain meds. Is there any proof that the test they propose is an indication that the person tested is actually impaired? Obviously not.Leap member,  NYPD, ret.

ZZardozz
ZZardozz

They only care whether or not their law was complied with, and not whether or not the driver is actually impaired.   That is beside the point.  I think that a field sobriety test is the only thing that should be used.  

Don Skakie
Don Skakie

Right. Right. Wrong. FST's are not evidence in court, but rather a tool for probable cause leading to a blood draw. I'd hate to be the patient doing one in uneven gravel in bad weather. There is a reason they are voluntary.

Don Skakie
Don Skakie

That's why our newest proposal to remove adult penalties in WA state requires recorded video evidence of impairment before blood levels can be considered in court.http://www.cannabischildprotec...Yes On 1223/Yes On 514

Jack Draak
Jack Draak

 Thank you, Mike, for your lucidity.  It aggrevates me that new and superfluous laws are constantly being passed; impaired driving is already against the law.  Mike's suggestion to employ field tests for reaction time and perception can already be used within the current laws and as an added bonus they also apply to ANY individual who is impaired - REGARDLESS of WHY they are impaired.  The WHY is fully inconsequential; sadly the WHY is the only reason this is being discussed - someone is trying to either get votes and/or bolster revenue by fanning the flames of controversy. This will only result in people getting burned.  How about sensible policy for a change? Oh right, that makes too much sense.

From the Vault

 

General

Music

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places Los Angeles

    Voice Places

    Find everything you're looking for in your city

  • Happy Hour App

    Happy Hour App

    Find the best happy hour deals in your city

  • Daily Deals

    Daily Deals

    Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city