cannabisnews.com: Law Quantifies Drugged-Driving Levels Law Quantifies Drugged-Driving Levels Posted by CN Staff on August 17, 2006 at 08:26:14 PT By Alayna DeMartini, The Columbus Dispatch Source: Columbus Dispatch Ohio -- Pot smokers have another reason to be paranoid now. Starting today, a state law makes it easier to nail Ohioans who drive stoned. It has long been illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, but the new law spells out specific limits for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, LSD and PCP, as well as for the byproducts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Backers of the law say the limits for each drug are designed to be equivalent to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol content for drunken drivers. But local defense attorneys warn that drugs such as marijuana remain in a person’s system long after the drug affects them. So a motorist who smokes a joint on a Friday night could test over the marijuana limit on Tuesday, said Columbus lawyer Jon Saia. "How will the officer know if the person smoked marijuana three days before? " he asked. Officials of the State Highway Patrol say the limits were set high enough to measure only drugs taken within a few hours of the test. The levels match those set by Nevada, the first state to enact a law setting levels at which a motorist is presumed to be impaired. Ten other states have similar laws. The Ohio law is expected to make it easier to convince a jury or judge that a motorist was under the influence of drugs. Previously, to convict a drugged motorist, the prosecution had to rely primarily on the arresting officers’ observations and how the person performed on roadside tests, said Lt. Shawn Davis of the Highway Patrol. When a motorist was tested for drugs, prosecutors had to bring in an expert witness, Davis said. "If I testified the driver tested having 500 nanograms of marijuana, everyone said, ‘What does that mean?’ " he said. "That’s one of the things we always battled." Cases sometimes were thrown out of court because of uncertainty about impairment levels, he said. Under the new law, motorists are presumed to be impaired if they have, for example, at least 10 nanograms of marijuana per milliliter of urine or two nanograms per milliliter of blood. (A nanogram is a billionth of a gram, and a milliliter is one thousandth of a liter.) Mitchell Ford was tested for drugs on Sept. 30, 2003, after he made an illegal turn in Xenia and crashed into 38-year-old motorcyclist Duane Thomas, killing him. Ford tested positive for marijuana, but the results couldn’t be used in court, because the officer didn’t observe signs of impaired driving. Ford was charged with aggravated vehicular homicide. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, involuntary manslaughter, and was sentenced to a year in jail and lifelong loss of his driver’s license. Ford’s sentence likely would have been harsher had there been no doubt that his system contained enough marijuana to affect his driving, said Thomas’ sister, Deborah Eick. "I know he’d be serving more time," she said. "People think they’re flying under the proverbial radar when they’re smoking marijuana or taking other drugs." The penalty for the first conviction for driving under the influence of drugs is the same as for the first drunken-driving offense: up to six months in jail, a $1,000 fine and a license suspension for three years. Drivers who refuse to submit to a drug test lose their license for a year. The new law says that any motorist testing over the drug limits is impaired, just as the drunken-driving law says that a driver whose blood-alcohol level is 0.08 percent or above is impaired. But "unlike someone who’s drinking and gets behind the wheel, a person who’s smoking marijuana and is high (often drives) more cautiously," said Alfred Staubus, a forensic toxicologist and retired Ohio State University professor who often testifies at trials. "Some studies show marijuana can be found to even enhance driving — because they’re concentrating so hard to not get stopped." The law exempts prescription medications, and a driver can’t be stopped on suspicion of impairment alone. But if an officer thinks a traffic regulation has been violated and stops a car, then smells pot, sees drugs or thinks the driver is impaired, the officer can ask the driver to perform fieldsobriety tests, such as walking a straight line. There is no equivalent of the Breathalyzer test for motorists suspected of being high on drugs. But if a driver fails the roadside tests, the officer can request that he or she submit to a urine or blood test for drugs. The urine sample can be collected at a police station or Highway Patrol office. The blood sample must be taken at a hospital. Defense attorneys commonly challenge the validity of urine tests because of the room for error, Saia said. Saia does not expect a sharp increase in drug testing of drivers. As he put it, to arouse an officer’s suspicion, "the person is going to have to be acting really crazy." Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH)Author: Alayna DeMartini, The Columbus Dispatch Published: Thursday, August 17, 2006Copyright: 2006 The Columbus DispatchContact: letters dispatch.comWebsite: http://www.dispatch.com/ Related Articles: Drugged-Driving Legislation Misleading & Unfairhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20338.shtmlPortman Bill is Excessive http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18691.shtmlCongress Targets 'Drugged Driving'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18510.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #31 posted by afterburner on August 20, 2006 at 10:54:01 PT paul armentano #3 Thanks, Paul, for the comprehensive list. It good to see that at least some states are hearing our message about NON-PSYCHOACTIVE cannabis metabolites.Any law that tests for inactive metabolites is a statute of prohibitionist moralizing, masquerading as a highway safety law. Any judge or jury that convicts a motorist on the basis of tests for inactive metabolites is NOT searching for "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"!Most of the threshold limits proposed are reactionary and absurd. "The most meaningful recent culpability studies indicate that drivers with THC concentrations in whole blood of less than 5 ng/mL have a crash risk no higher than that of drug-free users." (--2005 Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the Influence of Cannabis. See link below) So, why are states setting legal threshold levels below 5ng or even as low as 1ng, the lowest amount detectable by current tests? This is not science. This is not safety. This is a cultural vendetta against a minority group in society, deemed by government witch-hunters to be socially-undesirable!Alcohol, prescription sedatives and narcotics are a much greater threat to road safety than moderate levels of cannabis. Plus, "road rage" is rarely caused by even those drugs: a combination of rage and sedated lack of coordination would make for a very quick loss of control over that "hurtling mass of metal" on four small rubber pads."Road rage" is usually a product of overuse of legal and illegal stimulants (tobacco, coffee, cocaine, methamphetamine). Remember, the 1980s when everyone seemed to be in a hurry all the time, greedy and grasping, on your bumper, flipping you off, going way over the posted speed limits. "Speed kills" was a popular saying in the 1970s. How many people ignored that warning in the 1980s to their own peril and damage to others around them? How many today still follow the dictates of chemically-induced "road rage" and menace the highways. If the legislators and the police were serious about road safety, they would focus on sedated drivers (including fatigue) and "road raged" drivers instead of wasting their time and our money and lives harassing and scapegoating cannabis drivers. Myth: Marijuana is a major road safety hazard http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html#myth6Marijuana Myths, Claim No. 12: Marijuana is a Major Cause of Highway Accidents The Vaults of Erowid http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth12.shtml2005 Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the Influence of Cannabis http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf (PDF) "Even frequent users of cannabis do not seem to have a higher accident risk than nonusers, as long as they are not under the acute influence of the drug, i.e., there appear to be no extended effects of cannabis use on traffic safety beyond the period of acute impairment."Cannabis Facts for Canadians - Drugged-Driving Info Resources http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/druggeddriving.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by whig on August 17, 2006 at 22:24:02 PT FoM Yes, well they aren't like ants they are more like cats. Cats are friendly but they are also predators and they are territorial. That's how I feel about libertarians I know because I am still friends with them and talk to them sometimes. I just have a difference of perspective and I think cannabis helps a lot to gain that changed perspective. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by FoM on August 17, 2006 at 22:21:01 PT whig OK I think I'll sleep on how that could be. Society is the building block for a country. Take ants. They work together doing different things to preserve their lifestyle. I'm saying that because I don't know what we should call a bunch of ants. Maybe a nest. [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by whig on August 17, 2006 at 22:01:55 PT FoM No, really. Libertarians don't believe in society in the sense that they don't believe it exists at all. You can't explain it to them because it's like discussing God with an atheist. They will only accept it as a polite fiction. [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by FoM on August 17, 2006 at 21:10:53 PT Whig That's very good. I didn't know the libertarians don't believe in a society. I'm not sure I understand that. In my opinion is we fracture society and family values (not the kind they think are family values) we can't make it as a country. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by whig on August 17, 2006 at 21:04:17 PT FoM #22 What you say about capitalism -- you're right and it's something I was posting about earlier today:http://cannablog.wordpress.com/2006/08/17/how-conservatives-think/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by Hope on August 17, 2006 at 19:49:12 PT Lol! That's so true, User 123 [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by user123 on August 17, 2006 at 19:41:26 PT: Well Well Well "The law exempts prescription medications" That pretty much says it all. I'm nostalgic for the days when all we had to worry about was a stain on a blue dress. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by charmed quark on August 17, 2006 at 17:25:01 PT Well - it's better than the "zero tolerance" At least it's not one of those states that has passed laws saying ANY measureble amount of a banned substance ( or its metabolites) is de facto drugged driving.Of course, most studies have not been able to find any connection to cannabis intoxication and impaired driving, so I wonder how they came up with their limit. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by FoM on August 17, 2006 at 16:53:56 PT One Thing Good About War When Vietnam ended there just wasn't much to do anything about. That is when people started snorting Coke and drinking more alcohol then during the Vietnam War's ending. Capitalism took a hold of some people and look where we are now. Self centered, I have a right, Get out of my face, broken marriages, unruly children and more. Now here we are again and a war that could become a World War looms over our heads. Some Christian Churches are really happy because they think Jesus is going to get them out of here soon. When that becomes a focus people lose interest in life and plans for the future but we are to occupy until He comes if you believe that. So the peaceful people come back to life and stand up because they can't let it happen again if they can help it. Like I've said before these are the worst of times and the best of times once again. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Hope on August 17, 2006 at 16:42:00 PT "all of us" means "those of us here...in this place on a regular basis"...or even occasionaly.People who want people in jail over cannabis are fearful and the monks admonition likely won't sink in them and all the people like them.A far as something awful fixing to happen to the world. Has it ever ceased? Someone, somewhere is always suffering.Three villages were wiped out in Ecuadoor, I think, last night, by a volcano eruption.I'm going to proceed, with caution... I can pray against the horror that certainly can be, and look for and expect something wonderful...something good...sometime...somewhere...somehow. Perhaps in replacement of something bad with something good. Something wonderful. Soon or right now or in two weeks, or ten years or three centuries. I'm focusing on the "something good" and "something wonderful" and not forgetting the the ever lurking "something bad"'s out there. Think on it. Pray on it. Meditate on it. Believe it.Fear is not good for you. We all know that. That's why those who try to rule others by fear are always the losers.The discomfort of living under the principles of fear becomes unbearable and those who are chafed at the wrong of it rise up. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by Hope on August 17, 2006 at 16:24:58 PT pray for Love, and remain detached from fear Sounds like a VERY good idea.It's pretty much what most, if not all of us, try to do every day of our lives. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Toker00 on August 17, 2006 at 16:22:40 PT Evil released on the world. My wife just informed me that Tibetan Monks were given permission to inform us that a great evil was released upon the world on July 12. This is when the US/Isreal assault on Lebanon began. They ask that the Peoples of the World pray for Love, and remain detached from fear. Toke. Love. Peace. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Hope on August 17, 2006 at 16:18:28 PT excuse me... Not every thing Clinton was accused of was something to "snicker" about. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Hope on August 17, 2006 at 16:16:10 PT Neil Beaming!(He should be anyway.)Bless him! [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Hope on August 17, 2006 at 16:14:18 PT Lol! Comment 12! [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Hope on August 17, 2006 at 16:12:30 PT Bush I have to admit...as to just a "regular guy", I would probably like George Bush. I might even like him a lot. But as a President, unlike Clinton's great transgression, he's not been doing that stuff that just makes you snicker or lying about and participating in the snickery or unwise stuff he was participating in. (The adulterous man lacketh judgement.") The things Bush is accused of aren't things to snicker at.Who makes the most money off an impeachment? We need to consider that and we also have to accept, that no matter what they say, government people won't take "responsibility" for what they've done in any meaningful way at all. It will be lip service and it will cost us all a lot. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Toker00 on August 17, 2006 at 16:10:47 PT Yeah, FoM, like that song by that guy, um, you know...what's his name? It starts with an N. He's very anti-war. A true American/Canadian HERO. He's got lots of friends, a band, you know...NEIL! That's it! Neil Young! Gotta love 'im.Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Toker00 on August 17, 2006 at 16:02:38 PT Sorry, Hope. I'm not perfect. I just thought if we have to do this sh*t, then let them pay for it and not let opportunists profit from our loss of liberty. I understand completely how wrong this and most other "governments" are. It was certainly not meant as a lay down and let them roll over us surrender.Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on August 17, 2006 at 15:51:34 PT Woo Woo Woo Toker00 Let's Impeach The President For Lieing. Sounds like a song to me! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Toker00 on August 17, 2006 at 15:48:56 PT FoM: Another reason for the diversion from War on the news channels. Got this in an e-mail.White House war-makers masquerading as peacemakers A message from Ramsey ClarkThe Fall nationwide newspaper campaignWe've placed ads in the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Globe, USA Today and other papers, and each time we do we bring thousands of new people into the impeachment movement who become a growing force putting pressure on their Congressional representatives to introduce articles of impeachment.Help finance the Fall nationwide newspaper campaign by clicking here .Dear Toker00, (just kidding, they used my real name here.)Once again President Bush has deceived the American people to open the way for a war of aggression, this time against Lebanon. Had it been successful, regime change in Syria and Iran were next on his agenda. It is now clear that the assault on Lebanon was agreed on and planned by the U.S. and Israel long before Hezbollah, reacting to Israel’s brutal assault against Palestine, captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12 of this year which was claimed to justify bombing all of Lebanon. After his tragically criminal war in Iraq and the emerging failure of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, President Bush apparently believes he can fool most of the people all of the time.While Europe and the Arab world overwhelmingly called for an immediate cease fire, President Bush and his administration declared Israel "has the right to defend itself," supported the invasion and rejected a cease fire. The world watched in anguish as Israeli aircraft destroyed villages, towns and civilian facilities throughout Lebanon. Hezbollah fighters stopped a massive Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon and rained thousands of missiles into northern Israel. Every belligerent utterance of George W. Bush, our “War President,” and his war seeking assistants, referenced Hezbollah, Syria and Iran in the same breath. All received their special insults, as did the Muslim world, called “Islamic Fascists” by the President of the United States.After it became clear that Israel had failed to achieve any of its proclaimed military objectives and U.S. officials had acknowledged that Israel was losing the war, the U.S. reversed its position and contributed to a negotiated cease fire to protect Israel. President Bush praised Israel as the Victor and claimed credit for the cease fire. The Lebanese people, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and the world that watched the month of mayhem knew better. Israel did not even obtain the release of its two captured soldiers. Israel is withdrawing from Lebanon. People are returning to their villages. Hezbollah is leading the rebuilding of Lebanon, its prestige at an all time high in Lebanon, the Muslim world and beyond.Israel is in turmoil. Former Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decried the “mismanagement of the War” in the Knesset, and vowed that Israel will learn from its mistakes.The fear and hatred generated by this brutal war of aggression makes peace more remote.Probably 1200 Lebanese were killed, 75 percent civilian, and 140 Israelis, 80 percent military, with thousands injured, and an estimated $10 billion in property damage in Lebanon, 99 percent civilian. How long can the American people accept a President who places himself above the law, who repeatedly wages wars of aggression, authorizes excessive force, the targeting of civilians, indiscriminate destruction, collective punishment, torture, disappearance, unlimited, illegal detention and dismisses them all with lies? How long will our nation endure this war by and against terrorism that he is creating?Lebanon had hurt no one. It will be decades before it recovers if let alone. Like Palestine and Iraq it is a land of diverse and wonderful peoples of ancient and modern cultures. Beirut is one of the most glorious cities of the Mediterranean with snow capped mountains an hour's drive away. There are still stands of virgin cedars from which Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem was built in peaceful commerce. Two thousand six hundred years ago, the prophet Ezekiel wrote of Tyre as a place “of perfect beauty... Thy borders are in the midst of the sea... Thy builders have perfected thy beauty...” truth that millions of people have observed over the millenniums. Today Tyre lays in ruin once again from Israeli assault as the world has witnessed by television.Can we doubt that President Bush will attack yet another country, if We, the People, fail to do our duty? Can he learn that you make more friends by helping feed children than by killing them?We must act to Impeach George W. Bush and his criminal cohorts now.We've placed ads in the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Globe, USA Today and other papers, and each time we do we bring thousands of new people into the impeachment movement who become a growing force putting pressure on their Congressional representatives to introduce articles of impeachment. Help finance a fall nationwide newspaper campaign for impeachment, including your local paper.Sincerely,Ramsey Clark [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Hope on August 17, 2006 at 15:32:14 PT It's still us, though! "...should be paid for by the government which passed the law..."The Beast of government that has grown and grown in this country is already sucking it's citizens and all their posterity dry! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Toker00 on August 17, 2006 at 14:58:49 PT Don't need no more LIES! Don't need no more LAWS! Ever notice how some Lies and Laws go hand in hand? Someone will tell a Lie, and there's a Law to enforce it. 9-11 was an inside job, but they lied, blamed it on a concept, and there's the Patriot Act. Someone said cannabists were a danger in the workplace, pisstesting was born. Anslinger's Lies, Cannabis Prohibition. Why are there no laws to enforce the Truth? War is wrong. There should be a law against it, is there? Unconstitutional Laws should be abolished, have they been? Shouldn't there be a law against saying a law is constitutional when in reality it arguably isn't?When a law is passed, and enforcing that law does more harm to the law breaker than the law breaker's crime does to the victim or society, then that law should be considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL. When a law is passed requiring drug testing, that testing should be paid for by the government which passed the law, allowing you to use your own private doctor instead of allowing pop-up industries to profit from the passing of a law. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Hope on August 17, 2006 at 11:12:08 PT "...they probably would want to test them too.&quo Of course! When your business and livlihood is "testing", you want to test everything possible! It's "money in the bank" for them...and they want it! [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by laduncon on August 17, 2006 at 10:23:08 PT "The law exempts prescription medications" That says it all... [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by ekim on August 17, 2006 at 10:08:28 PT doj and states start biggest push on dui ever yesterday on c-span it was anounced that the biggest combined police and fed effort to catch and arrest dui will take place from now to after labor day. \ ck points were mentioned as a much needed tool for the effort. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on August 17, 2006 at 10:01:14 PT Paul I'm glad I don't drive anymore. I still have a license but I do my best not to have to drive. Time for horse and buggys to become popular again but they probably would want to test them too. It's all very sad. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by paul armentano on August 17, 2006 at 09:58:06 PT Impairment Is Not Necessary... Please Note: Driver impairment is not necessary to be convicted under this statute. Under the law's strict interpretation -- as recently upheld by the Supreme Court of Michigan (People v Derror) -- a person can be found guilty of DUID if they are found to be driving with any trace amount of a controlled substance or metabolite in their body -- even if the driver is not impaired.As found by the Court: the statute “does not require [driver] intoxication, impairment, or knowledge of that one might be intoxicated; it simply requires that the person have ‘any amount’ of a schedule I substance in his or her body when operating a motor vehicle. … That the statute might apply to some persons who are not actually ‘under the influence’ of [illicit drugs] does not render the statute unconstitutional.” Specific to marijuana, the Court found: "It is irrelevant that an 'ordinary' marijuana smoker allegedly does not know that 11-carboxy-THC could last in his or her body for weeks. ... It is irrelevant that the 'ordinary person' cannot determine, without drug testing, when the schedule I substance is no longer detectable in the body. ... It is irrelevant that a person who is NO LONGER 'UNDER THE INFLUENCE' OF MARIJUANA COULD BE PROSECUTED under the statute." (Emphasis mine)As one who lobbied against this proposed measure in Ohio for three years, let me tell you that this was a heart-breaker to lose. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by paul armentano on August 17, 2006 at 09:43:57 PT Additional States With Zero Tol DUID Laws Other states with zero tolerance DUID laws or per se DUID laws for cannabis and/or cannabis metabolites:ArizonaArizona has a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis, cannabis metabolites, and other controlled substances. (Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 28-1381)Arizona's law calls for mandatory imprisonment of 24 hours and not more than six months upon conviction for a first offense.GeorgiaGeorgia has a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis, cannabis metabolites, and other controlled substances. (Georgia Annotated Section 40-6-391)Georgia's law calls for mandatory imprisonment of 24 hours and not more than 12 months upon conviction for a first offense.IllinoisIllinois has a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis, cannabis metabolites, and other controlled substances. (Illinois Compiled Statutes, Section 625 ILCS 5/11-501)Violating the law is punishable by up to 12 months in jail upon conviction for a first offense.IndianaIndiana has a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis, cannabis metabolites, and other controlled substances. (Indiana Code Annotated, Section 9-30-5-1 & Section 9-30-5-2) Violating the law is punishable by up to 60 days in jail upon conviction for a first offense.IowaIowa has a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis and other controlled substances. Cannabis metabolites are excluded under the law. (Code of Iowa, Section 321J.2) Iowa's law calls for mandatory imprisonment of 48 hours and not more than 12 months upon conviction for a first offense.MichiganMichigan has a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis and other controlled substances. Cannabis metabolites are excluded under the law. (Michigan Vehicle Code 257.625 Section 8) Michigan's law took effect in October 2003.NevadaNevada has a per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis, cannabis metabolites, and other controlled substances.Under Nevada's law, motorists with detectable levels of THC in the blood above 2 ng/ml or detectable levels of THC-COOH in the urine above 15 ng/ml are guilty of DUID. (Nevada State Code, Section 484.379)PennsylvaniaPennsylvania has a per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis and other controlled substances. Cannabis metabolites are excluded under the law. (75 Pa. C.S.A. 3802(d) & 34 Pa.B. 919) Under Pennsylvania's law, motorists with detectable levels of THC in the blood above 5 ng/ml are guilty of DUID. Pennsylvania's law took effect in October 2003.Rhode IslandRhode Island has a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis and other controlled substances. Cannabis metabolites are excluded under the law. (General Laws of Rhode Island, Section 31-27-2) Violating the law is punishable by up to 12 months in jail upon conviction for a first offense.UtahUtah has a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis, cannabis metabolites, and other controlled substances. (Utah Code Annotated, Section 41-6-44 & Section 41-6-44.6) Utah's law calls for mandatory imprisonment of 48 hours and not more than 6 months upon conviction for a first offense. WisconsinWisconsin has a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis and other controlled substances. Cannabis metabolites are excluded under the law. (Wisconsin State Code, Section 346.63) Wisconsin's law took effect in January 2004.Minnesota and Virginia also have similar DUID laws, but both states EXCLUDE cannabis and/or cannabis metabolites under the statute. http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6669 [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Toker00 on August 17, 2006 at 09:40:07 PT Alco/Cannabists Looks like combining the two may be on the way out. Most people who are charged w/cannabis intoxication were pulled over because of the alcohol affects on their driving. Cannabists will just have to give up drinking and driving, and Joe Sixpack will just have to stop smoking cannabis to avoid multi/intoxication charges. I'm not saying cannabists don't have accidents, just that most accidents which indicate cannabis intox. also list alcohol, which in my opinion, is the Primary intoxicant. I doubt that many drivers who toke will be involved in traffic stops. Alcoholics who drink, toke and drive give Responsible cannabists a bad name. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on August 17, 2006 at 08:27:26 PT Another Law Just another law to protect the insurance companies. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment