With pot legal, police worry about road safety

DENVER (AP) - It's settled. Pot, at least certain amounts of it, will soon be legal under state laws in Washington and Colorado. Now, officials in both states are trying to figure out how to keep stoned drivers off the road.
Colorado's measure doesn't make any changes to the state's driving-under-the-influence laws, leaving lawmakers and police to worry about its effect on road safety.
"We're going to have more impaired drivers," warned John Jackson, police chief in the Denver suburb of Greenwood Village.
Washington's law does change DUI provisions by setting a new blood-test limit for marijuana - a limit police are training to enforce, and which some lawyers are already gearing up to challenge.
"We've had decades of studies and experience with alcohol," said Washington State Patrol spokesman Dan Coon. "Marijuana is new, so it's going to take some time to figure out how the courts and prosecutors are going to handle it. But the key is impairment: We will arrest drivers who drive impaired, whether it be drugs or alcohol."
Drugged driving is illegal, and nothing in the measures that Washington and Colorado voters passed this month to tax and regulate the sale of pot for recreational use by adults over 21 changes that. But law enforcement officials wonder about whether the ability to buy or possess marijuana legally will bring about an increase of marijuana users on the roads.
Statistics gathered for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed that in 2009, a third of fatally injured drivers with known drug test results were positive for drugs other than alcohol. Among randomly stopped weekend nighttime drivers in 2007, more than 16 percent were positive for drugs.
Marijuana can cause dizziness and slowed reaction time, and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they're high.
Marijuana legalization activists agree people shouldn't smoke and drive. But setting a standard comparable to blood-alcohol limits has sparked intense disagreement, said Betty Aldworth, outreach director for Colorado's Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.
Most convictions for drugged driving currently are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test.
"There is not yet a consensus about the standard rate for THC impairment," Aldworth said, referring to the psychoactive chemical in marijuana.
Unlike portable breath tests for alcohol, there's no easily available way to determine whether someone is impaired from recent pot use.
There are different types of tests for marijuana. Many workplaces test for an inactive THC metabolite that can be stored in body fat and remain detectable weeks after use. But tests for current impairment measure for active THC in the blood, and those levels typically drop within hours.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, peak THC concentrations are reached during the act of smoking, and within three hours, they generally fall to less than 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood - the same standard in Washington's law, one supporters describe as roughly equivalent to the .08 limit for alcohol.
Two other states - Ohio and the medical marijuana state of Nevada - have a limit of 2 nanograms of THC per milliliter. Pennsylvania's health department has a 5-nanogram guideline that can be introduced in driving violation cases, and a dozen states, including Illinois, Arizona, and Rhode Island, have zero-tolerance policies.
In Washington, police still have to observe signs of impaired driving before pulling someone over, Coon said. The blood would be drawn by a medical professional, and tests above 5 nanograms would automatically subject the driver to a DUI conviction.
Supporters of Washington's measure said they included the standard to allay fears that legalization could prompt a drugged-driving epidemic, but critics call it arbitrarily strict. They insist that medical patients who regularly use cannabis would likely fail even if they weren't impaired.
They also worry about the law's zero-tolerance policy for those under 21. College students who wind up convicted even if they weren't impaired could lose college loans, they argue.
Jon Fox, a Seattle-area DUI attorney, said he's interested in challenging Washington's new standard as unconstitutional. Under due process principles, he said, people are entitled to know what activity is prohibited. If scientists can't tell someone how much marijuana it will take for him or her to test over the threshold, how is the average pot user supposed to know?
By contrast, he noted, the science on alcohol is well established. Some states publish charts estimating how many drinks it will take a person of a certain weight over a certain time to reach .08.
But such a challenge to Nevada's marijuana DUI limit failed in 2002, when the state Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature has broad authority to set driving standards. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that case, said Las Vegas DUI attorney Michael Becker.
"Marijuana affects everyone differently," Becker said. "The prevailing opinion of forensic toxicologists is that a 2-nanograms standard, such as exists in Nevada, absolutely results in convictions where individuals are not actually under the influence. But the 5-nanograms standard more closely approaches the mean threshold of prevailing opinion."
Colorado's legalization measure didn't set a driving standard - an intentional omission by the activists who wrote it because the issue has proven divisive. Lawmakers in Colorado, which has an established medical marijuana industry, have tried but failed three times to set a THC driving limit.
Drugged driving cases in Colorado were up even before the legalization vote. In 2009, the state toxicology lab obtained 791 THC-positive samples from suspected impaired drivers. Last year, it had 2,030 THC-positive samples.
Colorado lawmakers are preparing to take up driving standards yet again when they convene next year.
"I believe a 5-nanogram limit will save lives," said Colorado Republican state Sen. Steve King, sponsor of previous driving-high bills.
Colorado's measure doesn't make any changes to the state's driving-under-the-influence laws, leaving lawmakers and police to worry about its effect on road safety.
"We're going to have more impaired drivers," warned John Jackson, police chief in the Denver suburb of Greenwood Village.
Washington's law does change DUI provisions by setting a new blood-test limit for marijuana - a limit police are training to enforce, and which some lawyers are already gearing up to challenge.
"We've had decades of studies and experience with alcohol," said Washington State Patrol spokesman Dan Coon. "Marijuana is new, so it's going to take some time to figure out how the courts and prosecutors are going to handle it. But the key is impairment: We will arrest drivers who drive impaired, whether it be drugs or alcohol."
Drugged driving is illegal, and nothing in the measures that Washington and Colorado voters passed this month to tax and regulate the sale of pot for recreational use by adults over 21 changes that. But law enforcement officials wonder about whether the ability to buy or possess marijuana legally will bring about an increase of marijuana users on the roads.
Statistics gathered for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed that in 2009, a third of fatally injured drivers with known drug test results were positive for drugs other than alcohol. Among randomly stopped weekend nighttime drivers in 2007, more than 16 percent were positive for drugs.
Marijuana can cause dizziness and slowed reaction time, and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they're high.
Marijuana legalization activists agree people shouldn't smoke and drive. But setting a standard comparable to blood-alcohol limits has sparked intense disagreement, said Betty Aldworth, outreach director for Colorado's Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.
Most convictions for drugged driving currently are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test.
"There is not yet a consensus about the standard rate for THC impairment," Aldworth said, referring to the psychoactive chemical in marijuana.
Unlike portable breath tests for alcohol, there's no easily available way to determine whether someone is impaired from recent pot use.
There are different types of tests for marijuana. Many workplaces test for an inactive THC metabolite that can be stored in body fat and remain detectable weeks after use. But tests for current impairment measure for active THC in the blood, and those levels typically drop within hours.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, peak THC concentrations are reached during the act of smoking, and within three hours, they generally fall to less than 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood - the same standard in Washington's law, one supporters describe as roughly equivalent to the .08 limit for alcohol.
Two other states - Ohio and the medical marijuana state of Nevada - have a limit of 2 nanograms of THC per milliliter. Pennsylvania's health department has a 5-nanogram guideline that can be introduced in driving violation cases, and a dozen states, including Illinois, Arizona, and Rhode Island, have zero-tolerance policies.
In Washington, police still have to observe signs of impaired driving before pulling someone over, Coon said. The blood would be drawn by a medical professional, and tests above 5 nanograms would automatically subject the driver to a DUI conviction.
Supporters of Washington's measure said they included the standard to allay fears that legalization could prompt a drugged-driving epidemic, but critics call it arbitrarily strict. They insist that medical patients who regularly use cannabis would likely fail even if they weren't impaired.
They also worry about the law's zero-tolerance policy for those under 21. College students who wind up convicted even if they weren't impaired could lose college loans, they argue.
Jon Fox, a Seattle-area DUI attorney, said he's interested in challenging Washington's new standard as unconstitutional. Under due process principles, he said, people are entitled to know what activity is prohibited. If scientists can't tell someone how much marijuana it will take for him or her to test over the threshold, how is the average pot user supposed to know?
By contrast, he noted, the science on alcohol is well established. Some states publish charts estimating how many drinks it will take a person of a certain weight over a certain time to reach .08.
But such a challenge to Nevada's marijuana DUI limit failed in 2002, when the state Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature has broad authority to set driving standards. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that case, said Las Vegas DUI attorney Michael Becker.
"Marijuana affects everyone differently," Becker said. "The prevailing opinion of forensic toxicologists is that a 2-nanograms standard, such as exists in Nevada, absolutely results in convictions where individuals are not actually under the influence. But the 5-nanograms standard more closely approaches the mean threshold of prevailing opinion."
Colorado's legalization measure didn't set a driving standard - an intentional omission by the activists who wrote it because the issue has proven divisive. Lawmakers in Colorado, which has an established medical marijuana industry, have tried but failed three times to set a THC driving limit.
Drugged driving cases in Colorado were up even before the legalization vote. In 2009, the state toxicology lab obtained 791 THC-positive samples from suspected impaired drivers. Last year, it had 2,030 THC-positive samples.
Colorado lawmakers are preparing to take up driving standards yet again when they convene next year.
"I believe a 5-nanogram limit will save lives," said Colorado Republican state Sen. Steve King, sponsor of previous driving-high bills.
i'm  more worried about  people texting and talking on the phone than pot smokers .at least now you don't have to by your pot from your local meth/crack dealer.
there is not going to be more people getting hi ,just less people in jailÂ
 Apparently what they failed to realize is that for the last 40 years people have been driving while stoned. This statement from the police is akin to the war on drugs itself. ILLEGAL OR LEGAL, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY!!!! DUH!!!!!! ATLEAST WE HAVE ENJOYED A MUCH SAFER DRUG FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS, THAT BEING ALCOHOL. I MEAN REALLY, ALCOHOL DOESN'T MAKE PEOPLE BELIGERENT DROOLING, STUMBLING, VIOLENT ANIMALS THAT WILL CRACK THEIR HEAD ON THE CONCRETE AFTER FALLING AND LOSE THEIR WALLET AND CRASH THEIR CAR AND LOSE THEIR KEYS AND HAVE BLACKOUTS!!! UH-UH, NOPE THAT WOULD BE THE DEVIL'S DRUG MARIJUANA. WE MUST DESTROY THE HERB!!!!! ERADICATE IT FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANET IN THE NAME OF BEJEESUS!!!!!
This comment has been deleted
 @Wildstar how would a self-driving car eliminate traffic?Â
If they are serious about safety then they should have alcohol testers on all vehicles. If you are over a limit the car doesn't start. If you are IMPAIRED for whatever reason, the car doesn't start. We have that technology. We require brakes on all cars, but a brain? if you consider how easy it is to get in and drive without one, some might wonder why more trouble wasn't taken to be sure that a brain was included in the car..
I really hope to get pulled over and the police wanting my blood drawn, I do not use any drugs at all and I do not drink. We have a family attorney and he will be the first one I call on the way to the hospital. I know the police are going to go overboard with this and pull people over just because they feel like it.
There are lots of illegal users on the roads right now and so making it legal probably won't change the numbers that much. I don't think it's any safer if it's legal or illegal, either way those drivers are out there.
@Jatok I agree. I don't think it's going to make a huge difference. Those who are willing to drive while high (or drunk) are already doing so.Â
I want to see a study done. A multi-million dollar study (we do it fer other reasons).
Â
Group A gets to smoke when the get home from a hard days work. Group B gets to drink.
Add some intangibles. Rough day at the office? Nagging wife? Screaming kids?
Who is more likely to get angry or commit a crime?
Â
As we have no correlation to levels of 'intoxication', we can't compare the two when it comes to operating machinery.
To level the playing field, let's just start with one bong hit is equal to one shot. Seems fair to me.
The smokers gets 6 hits in an hour, and the drinker the same. Then they get to play video games. Video gaming has a direct correlation to driving.
Â
THEN, let's give them access to the others vice. The smokers get 3 shots an hour after the first 6 bong hits. The drinkers get 3 bong hits. Then more video games.
Â
What's the more 'evil'? We'll never know. This type of study will never take place. Why? Because people think alcohol is ok, and pot is bad.
Â
People die from drinking all the time. No one can say that about smoiking pot. Yet alcohol is ok.
Â
Â
 @bobalouie No I think as a society we are moving towards the notion that pot is no worse or not "as bad" as alcohol (personally, I think pot is good ; )), that's why the bill passed in this state and other states are moving that way too. I think the older generations still feel as you were saying, but as the older set fades out, we will see this new attitude toward pot really flourish, The cops are concerned about how to handle stoned (as in smoked way too much for their tolerance level) drivers. I think it's a valid concern. We need to tread carefully here.
so how before one of our good old boy wsp gets poped for dui after his weekend with the boys , one wreck ,one blood test , maybe some hits him givng a ticket , hope it never happens of course , but if its in his .or her blood thats it ,dui ,i just wonder how that cover up would go?
@greengrower WSP and every other law enforcement agency in this state has a policy that is clear and will not change. Although weed is now legal, law enforcement officers are forbidden from using it at all. That will not change.
By the way, were you stoned when you wrote that comment? That was quite the rambling sentence.
 @northwestsurfer Nah... Officers traditionally drive drunk.... look at how many in the past few years. :D)
At least any accidents will be low speed!
DUIs are hard enough to process and prosectue as it is, thanks to defense attornies and the liberal court system. Now it will be next to impossible. Might as well take DUI off the books... Or, at least, decriminalize it and make it a traffic infraction with a mandatory fine of $5000. As a civil infraction, the burden of proof is much lower.
 @ButtercupSprinkles A ton of money is made off of dui convictions. They aggressively prosecute everyone.
 @ButtercupSprinkles Officers proudly will take you to jail for DUII! Heck the courts even get in on the action financially along with attorneys... (jeepers)
The cops are very naive to think THIS is a major concern... If anything stoned drivers will be more paranoid and drive better! They need to be more worried about people under the influence of ALCOHOL,. Alcohol erases all judgement, impairs vision and balance, and can make you black out.. whereas marijuana does none of these things! Cops are trying to make this seem like an issue so they are backed up more for issuing DUI's for THC...
Just another excuse for them to pull you over if they "feel like it".
 @Patty Bray-Plumley They're still supposed to have reasonable cause to pull you over, but we all know how that works. Just drive legal and be careful and the vast majority of pot smokers should be fine. Just remember to never admit to anything. Cops can legally lie, you can not. So just refuse any tests and a search of your vehicle. Of course then they'll bring in a K9 and make a false hit on your car but you have to learn to play the game and whether you have been drinking or smoking, there is never any benefit to agreeing to anything the cop wants you to do. Just Say no as Mrs Reagan use to say.lol
 @Patty Bray-Plumley You'd rather some a**hole high out of his mind t-bones your car and possibly cripples you for life?
@Larry*X*K @Patty Bray-Plumley Get real. People smoke weed and drive already; this has been going on for decades.
Amazingly..... Legal to posses an ounce with nowhere to buy a legal ounce! Yippee! Buy a bong and nothing to smoke through your bong... whoopee do! Need a license to grow and sell legal marijuana no licenses to do so! Hooray... :( What was the vote for? Study, stall and wait! Civil disobedience and jury nullification pertaining to cultivation, distribution and smoking marijuana is the only way forward so far. If you wait for officials to make a decision you will be waiting forever.
 @Funky-Munky For a while you'll be able to just go on craigslist and buy. I'm sure quite a few will pop up there. But I would caution people. You never know who you are dealing with on craigslist and it could just be a thug looking to make some easy money off of robbing people.
 @Blindman I am terrified of the Craig's List.... Maybe I will shoulder tap at the weed clinics like a little kid wanting to buy alcohol. Ha! :D)
 @Funky-Munky I didnt think you were serious......just saying......LOL
 @Susabelle I was joking... It's this law that makes me lol it makes zero sense.
 @Funky-Munky  @Blindman Now that probably will get you arrested, you'll scare some poor glaucoma patient half to death!
 @Funky-Munky Sometimes I envy folks whose biggest problem and worry is where to buy dope, but then that feeling goes away in a few seconds when I realize what I'm being envious about :)
 @Larry*X*K Why are you even posting here? If you're not worried or have to much time on your hands find another article. Is this your greatest worry Funky-Munky's observations? pathetic. Have a day...  :D)
maybe stop being so naive and judgemental of other's people decisions and you wont even have to worry! Lots of people really depend on marijuana for pain, nausea, anxiety and dozens of other reasons. Doctors wouldn't perscribe it if it wasn't proven to HELP people!
I find it hard to believe that pot smokers have been waiting for it to be legalized before they started driving high. I call bluff on this one....
People have been driving in the state of WA after smoking pot for years, and nothing has happened. This is all so ridiculous, the state pushed this through with out thought. Texting is much more dangerous,.
I've seen plenty of collisions with injuries caused by impaired drivers under the influence of weed. You are wrong about "nothing" has happened.
 @ButtercupSprinkles Whenever I see comments like this I always want to ask questions, not because I dont believe you, but because I would like to understand the circumstances. Right now the definition of under the influence of pot is pretty fuzzy. Subjective at best. When you take in to account all the accidents that occur and really how many of them ONLY had pot as a contributing factor seems pretty low from the research I have found. So was it pot, or was it texting. was it pot or was another drug also present...... I've never seen a single one personally in my 30 plus years of driving, which in the course of things means about as much as your plenty of collisions......
 @Susabelle Just remember you are responsible and kind. You wouldn't drive stoned or drunk. Myself I won't either. I still will put my weed in the safe place in the vehicle, won't smell like a skunk and definitely won't drive under the influence. I think we will be alright.
 @Funky-Munky Well that does make more sense........but I still hold to prior statement. There just isnt enough trustworthy data for a convincing argument......either way really. I've seen the studies saying how awful it is, then find out that the data is skewed......then the flip side that says no problem at all...also skewed. The truth lies somewhere in the middle I'm sure. I'm in no way a proponent for stoned drivers........I do however feel like the dangers were already present and this new law wont really change it all that much. Â
 @Susabelle He is actually nice... weird. I am not a fan of L.E. but sprinkles is pretty patient with me... He helps provide information from time to time pertaining to certain articles.
 @Funky-Munky Really.........internet police.....I guess I better behave then.........
 @Susabelle Sprinkles is the local internet police... 22yrs. of service I believe..... :D)
Based on the comments I'm reading, I fully expect to see a drastic reduction in road rage, speeding, and generally douchy behavior by a lot of drivers on the road. But I'm going to call B.S. on that right now...
Misleading headline, "pot legal" , no it's not, Fed law trumps state law and Fed still says it " illegal".
 @lmdk2 It's actually not a misleading headline at all. It is legal according to state law. The whole "Federal law trumps state law" argument is what is misleading. Now go get an education.
 @Sovereign  @lmdk2 Wrong again > The rule is that the states law is valid UNLESS Congress intended for Federal law to preempt the states law. Therefore in this case Fed law is the law of he land. Your turn to get an education. Just one question > why do some people always have to add an insult to the end of their comment ?? Just wondering.
 @lmdk2 It's unfortunate that you mistook a suggestion as an insult. Why would you feel insulted?
last word freaks
Drunk drivers(weavers), text and drivers, Truck(semi) drivers, Cars packed with teens, Cars packed with teens and has oversized exhaust pipe, Middle aged Asian women, OMIH, that's old men in hats and women that look more backwards(mirror) than they do forward....short list of who i try to stay clear of.
 @Brokesince08 I also keep my distance from soccer mom with a car load of kids.......
it's still stupid. first we have to figure out, that pot smokers are the constant here, okay that leaves the non-pot smokers as the variable. now since the people that haven't smoked pot before didnt do it, that labels them as responsible and law abiding.
Â
as these new law-obiding citizens are now stately allowed to smoke pop, given their previous actions of not commiting illegal activities, would they be inclined the smoke and drive? the obvious answer is no. will we see an increase in pot DUI cases? more than likely at least to a small degree but it'll be from the stupid pot smokers who did it before but are now allowed to do it, not the new people.; they're already not responsible and responsibility is usually inversely proportional to poor actions.
Â
throw the idiots in jail
thats right send them pop smoker to jail
 @greengrower How do you smoke POP? I have never heard of this. Smoking off a pop can yes now that I have heard of... :D)