Medical marijuana: THC driving limits sponsor voted for one standard, prefers different one

[Skip_In_Boulder]

Last edited Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Has anyone seen any movement in their state legislatures to pass these types of bills?

By Michael Roberts Mon., Mar. 28 2011 at 8:51 AM

Update: Last week, we spoke to Representative Claire Levy, sponsor of a bill to set THC driving limits. She had originally set the standard at 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood; then, after listening to the concerns of medical marijuana community members, she backed an amendment changing the number to 8 nanograms. After the amendment failed, she said she was uncertain if she would vote for the bill with the original number -- but in the end, she wound up doing so. Why?

"I felt, on balance, it was better to have a per se limit set in law than to leave things the way they were," she says. "And I did want to send it on to the Senate, and have the Senate take another look at it."

Does that mean Levy would still feel more comfortable with the limit at 8 nanograms, as opposed to 5 nanograms? Yes -- but she stops short of actively lobbying senators to take up the 8 nanogram cause.

"It's not my place as a member of the House to tell the senators what to do," she maintains. "But if anybody asked me what I thought about it, I would tell them I offered that [the 8 nanogram standard] in the House, that I thought it was supportable, and that I'd support it if it came out of the Senate that way."

For more details, check out our earlier coverage, seen here.

(con't) http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/03/medical_marijuana_thc_driving_limits_bill.php

The bill as it has appeared in the Colorado Legislature.

CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A THC BLOOD CONTENT
THRESHOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING A PERSON WITH
THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF DUI PER SE.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2011A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/D32906E49DB93102872578180067E0CB?open&file=1261_01.pdf

[saras]

1. Is there any science at all supporting that number? or any number?

We've managed to go a hundred years with marijuana while consistently refusing to do good science on it. I'd be surprised if there was a radical change right now.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

2. I don't know but that is what I am currently researching

But on the surface this looks like Pseudo-science that's being presented here.

[saras]

3. I've been following maps.org for a long time. Good research is HARD

https://www.maps.org/

I can't say enough good stuff about them and their work (funding research and routing it through the bureaucracy)

The obviously bogus way to do it is do dose a bunch of people who don't use the stuff with synthetic THC and test their driving. That'll get a nice low number, especially if you choose the most annoying THC variant or mixture.

One thing is that I would NOT expect to find a simple bell curve. There should be separate populations of smokers and nonusers, who I'd expect to test quite differently.