millerboycott.com

As I've noted in the past, driving under the influence of marijuana ("stoned driving") is becoming increasingly common — and difficult to determine what levels cause impairment and for how long.  See, for example, Identifying and Proving DUI Marijuana.  In fact, some governmental studies indicate that marijuana has little if any effect on the ability to safely operate a vehicle.  See DUI Marijuana: Does Marijuana Impair Driving?  

Faced with the difficulties of proving that a driver was actually impaired, states are turning to the simple — but unjust — expedient of ignoring whether the driver was actually impaired and simply making it a crime to have the chemical compounds of marijuana in his body.  See, for example, Driving + Trace of Mariijuana = DUI. This is roughly the equivalent of changing the existing DUI laws to criminalize driving with any detectable amount alcohol in your system —  even if you are stone sober.  

Notice the changing focus of the DUI laws (alcohol, drugs and marijuana) away from the original goal of public safety.  The focus is shifting from the original question, "Was the driver impaired by alcohol and/or drugs so that his ability to safely operate a vehicle was impaired — and thus a potential danger to the public?" to "What is the easiest way to accuse and convict?"

A news story a couple of days ago presents a clear example of this…
 

Arizona Court Ruling Upholds DUI Test for Marijuana

Phoenix, AZ.  Feb 13 — An appeals court has issued a ruling that upholds the right of authorities to prosecute pot smokers in Arizona for driving under the influence even when there is no evidence that they are actually high.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals focuses on the chemical compounds in marijuana that show up in blood and urine tests after people smoke pot. One chemical compound causes drivers to be impaired; another is a chemical that stays in people's systems for weeks after they've smoked marijuana but doesn't affect impairment.

The court ruled that both compounds apply to Arizona law, meaning a driver doesn't have to actually be impaired to get prosecuted for DUI. As long as there is evidence of marijuana in their system, they can get a DUI, the court said.

The ruling overturns a decision by a lower court judge who said it didn't make sense to prosecute a person with no evidence they're under the influence…

The Court of Appeals said the Legislature adopted the decades-old comprehensive DUI law to protect public safety, so a provision on prohibited substances and their resulting chemical compounds should be interpreted broadly to include inactive compounds as well as active ones.

The case stems from a 2010 traffic stop in Maricopa County. The motorist's blood test revealed only a chemical compound that is found in the blood after another compound produced from ingesting marijuana breaks down.

According to testimony by a prosecution criminalist, the compound found in the man's blood doesn't impair the ability to drive but can remain detectable for four weeks…

So in Arizona you can be arrested for DUI if blood tests indicate you've smoked marijuana — possibly before driving…..And even if the chemical compounds are inactive — that is, have no effect whatever!

The insanity goes on…. 

(Thanks to Joe.)
 

DUI BLOG

 I’ve discussed in the past how difficult it is (1) to recognize and identify whether a person’s driving ability is impaired by marijuana, and (2) to prove with observable and chemical evidence the existence of that impairment.  See, for example, DUI Marijuana: Does Marijuana Impair Driving? and Driving + Trace of Marijuana = DUI.

The following news story does an excellent job of highlighting some of the issues of a growing problem:
 

New Wrinkle in Pot Debate: Stoned Driving

Denver, CO.  March 18  – Angeline Chilton says she can’t drive unless she smokes pot. The suburban Denver woman says she’d never get behind the wheel right after smoking, but she does use medical marijuana twice a day to ease tremors caused by multiple sclerosis that previously left her homebound.

"I don’t drink and drive, and I don’t smoke and drive," she said. "But my body is completely saturated with THC."

Her case underscores a problem that no one’s sure how to solve: How do you tell if someone is too stoned to drive?

States that allow medical marijuana have grappled with determining impairment levels for years. And voters in Colorado and Washington state will decide this fall whether to legalize the drug for recreational use, bringing a new urgency to the issue.

A Denver marijuana advocate says officials are scrambling for limits in part because more drivers acknowledge using the drug.

"The explosion of medical marijuana patients has led to a lot of drivers sticking the (marijuana) card in law enforcement’s face, saying, `You can’t do anything to me, I’m legal,’" said Sean McAllister, a lawyer who defends people charged with driving under the influence of marijuana.

It’s not that simple. Driving while impaired by any drug is illegal in all states.

But it highlights the challenges law enforcement officers face using old tools to try to fix a new problem. Most convictions for drugged driving now are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test.

Authorities envision a legal threshold for pot that would be comparable to the blood-alcohol standard used to determine drunken driving.

But unlike alcohol, marijuana stays in the blood long after the high wears off a few hours after use, and there is no quick test to determine someone’s level of impairment — not that scientists haven’t been working on it.

Dr. Marilyn Huestis of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a government research lab, says that soon there will be a saliva test to detect recent marijuana use.

But government officials say that doesn’t address the question of impairment.

"I’ll be dead — and so will lots of other people — from old age, before we know the impairment levels" for marijuana and other drugs, said White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske.

Authorities recognize the need for a solution. Marijuana causes dizziness, slowed reaction time and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they’re high…

Physicians say that while many tests can show whether someone has recently used pot, it’s more difficult to pinpoint impairment at any certain time.

Urine and blood tests are better at showing whether someone used the drug in the past — which is why employers and probation officers use them. But determining current impairment is far trickier.

"There’s no sure answer to that question," said Dr. Guohua Li, a Columbia University researcher who reviewed marijuana use and motor vehicle crashes last year.

His survey linked pot use to crash risk, but pointed out wide research gaps. Scientists do not have conclusive data to link marijuana dosing to accident likelihood; whether it matters if the drug is smoked or eaten; or how pot interacts with other drugs.

The limited data has prompted a furious debate.

Proposed solutions include setting limits on the amount of the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana, THC, that drivers can have in their blood. But THC limits to determine impairment are not widely agreed upon.

Two states place the standard at 2 nanograms per milliliter of blood. Others have zero tolerance policies. And Colorado and Washington state are debating a threshold of 5 nanograms.

Such an attempt failed the Colorado Legislature last year, amid opposition from Republicans and Democrats. State officials then set up a task force to settle the question — and the panel couldn’t agree.

This year, Colorado lawmakers are debating a similar measure, but its sponsors concede they don’t know whether the "driving while high" bill will pass.

In Washington state, the ballot measure on marijuana legalization includes a 5 nanogram THC limit.

The measure’s backers say polling indicates such a driving limit could be crucial to winning public support for legalization…

The White House, which has a goal of reducing drugged driving by 10 percent in the next three years, wants states to set a blood-level standard upon which to base convictions, but has not said what that limit should be.

Administration officials insist marijuana should remain illegal, and Kerlikowske called it a "bogus argument" to say any legal level of THC in a driver is safe.

But several factors can skew THC blood tests, including age, gender, weight and frequency of marijuana use. Also, THC can remain in the system weeks after a user sobers up, leading to the anxiety shared by many in the 16 medical marijuana states: They could be at risk for a positive test at any time, whether they had recently used the drug or not.
 

(Thanks to Andre Campos.) 
 

DUI BLOG

There is no doubt that texting while driving is dangerous. Each year, Coral Gables car accidents are caused by distracted driving. In fact, car collisions across Florida are caused regularly by drivers who are thinking about or engaged with someone other than driving. Numerous studies have shown that the use of mobile devices while driving is dangerous – yet Florida remains one of only 15 states not to ban texting while driving.

Last year, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) called for a national ban on all mobile device use while driving. The NTSB wants to ban not only texting and driving, but the use of any mobile device for any reason other than an emergency. The agency even wants to prohibit hands-free devices. The recommendation comes after a number of high-profile studies have suggested that mobile devices play a role in many traffic collisions. According to the National Safety Council, 28% of all car accidents in the US are caused by drivers who text or talk on cell phones while driving. As well, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has announced that in 2011, 3092 traffic fatalities in the US occurred in crashes that were caused at least in part by a distracted driver.

Some experts have compared distracted driving to drunk driving. At one time, there were few laws and social pressures to prevent people from driving after drinking. However, growing awareness about the dangers as well as increasing numbers of Coral Gables drunk driving accidents and US drunk driving accidents pushed legislators and the general public into action. New laws, coupled with public education have made most Coral Gables drivers aware that drinking and driving leads to Coral Gables traffic accidents.

There has been a similar trend with distracted driving, argue experts. At one time, cell phone use while driving was not seen as a serious problem. However, advocacy groups and even celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey have spoken out about the dangers of distracted driving.

Legislators in a number of states have passed laws banning texting and driving. Federal rules already prohibit commercial drivers from texting and driving. If experts are correct, the wide-spread acceptance of the dangers of distracted driving is next, and distracted driving will be seen as socially unacceptable – and may be as widely illegal – as drunk driving.

Until a ban is in place across the nation, Florida lawmakers continue their efforts to pass legislation regarding distracted driving. Advocacy groups in Coral Gables and across Florida continue to raise awareness about the issue and each day drivers make the right decision to turn off their mobile devices before getting in their cars. The court system also allows victims of distracted drivers to take legal remedies. If you have been injured in a Coral Gables pedestrian accident or traffic accident caused by a distracted driver, you can seek legal redress for your injuries, medical costs, lost income, and other damages.

Florida Car Accident Lawyer Blog

A few years ago, MADD readjusted their prohibitionist crosshairs from drunk drivers to include under-age drinking generally – regardless of any driving.  As I pointed out in a previous post (MADD continues shift toward prohibition), the organization amended their official "Mission Statement" of preventing drunk driving:

By 1999, MADD had greatly expanded its work on preventing underage drinking and emerging research underscored our efforts to prevent youth alcohol use. MADD’s efforts in this area were also encouraged and supported by the government, corporations, educators, the media and public. The mission statement was officially changed to make preventing underage drinking a free-standing prong of the mission. The updated mission, which continues to guide the organization today, read “The mission of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking.”

So…where are we going with MADD’s so-called "War on Drunk Driving"?

Boy, 13, Suing Livonia Over Forced Alcohol-Breath Test


Detroit, MI.  Sept. 20 – A 13-year-old boy is suing the city of Livonia for allegedly forcing him and his friends to take an alcohol-breath test without a warrant during a school picnic, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court today.

According to the lawsuit: “A 13-year-old middle schooler with no history of alcohol abuse or disciplinary problems, was forced to take a breathalyzer test by the Livona police based on an unfounded accusation that he had been drinking during a school field trip to Rotary park.”

The breath test ultimately showed that the boy – an 8th grader at Discovery Middle School in Canton – had not been drinking, “but he should not have been subjected to the procedure in the first place,” the suit stated.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the boy and his mother, said the breathalyzer amounted to an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.

“Federal and state courts have ruled over and over again that if a teen is not driving, the police need a search warrant to administer a breath test,” said ACLU staff attorney Dan Korobkin. “The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement is designed to prevent exactly what happened in this case. When there is no evidence that a child has done anything wrong, he should never be subjected to this degrading and embarrassing procedure in front of his teachers and peers.”

According to the lawsuit, the incident happened during an eighth grade graduation celebration in Livonia’s Rotary Park. The plaintiff, who had graduated from Discovery Middle School in Canton, went into the woods with some friends for a short walk, the lawsuit stated.

When they returned, they were accused of drinking by the assistant principal who had followed them into the woods and found an empty liquor bottle on the ground, the suit stated. The students said that the bottle did not belong to them and that they weren’t drinking, but the assistant principal didn’t believe them and called the police, the lawsuit said.

When officers arrived, they forced the students to take a breath test without their consent, and without notifying the parents of the accusations, the ACLU argues.

The teens each registered a blood-alcohol level of 0.00, proving their innocence.

“My son has always been taught to respect his educators and law enforcement,” said Tina Barbee, the plaintiff’s mother, said in an ACLU press release. “In June, he was taught a very different lesson – educators and police make mistakes. Although a wrong was done, I truly believe it can be made right. My son is standing up for his constitutional rights so that what happened to him doesn’t have to happen to anyone else.”

 
MADD is well along the path toward its eventual goal.

(Thanks to Joe Cadillic.)
 

DUI BLOG

I suppose it was inevitable….

Passengers Get Prison Terms in Fatal Drunk Driving Accident

Saitama, Japan.  Feb. 15 — Two men were sentenced to two years in prison Monday for abetting a fatal traffic accident caused by another man who had given the pair

a ride in his car after drinking alcohol in Kumagaya, Saitama Prefecture, in 2008.

The Saitama District Court ruled that the two men’s consent to the third man’s offer to give them a lift had encouraged him to drive, despite their obligation to stop him

from getting behind the wheel while under the influence…

In the ruling, presiding Judge Makoto Tamura said the two men’s acceptance of the driver’s offer after drinking together had helped him to decide to drive.

Prosecutors had demanded eight years’ imprisonment for both. Oshima and Sekiguchi had pleaded innocent during their trial.

The focus of the trial was whether the pair were aware that the driver had been intoxicated at the time, and whether they had turned a blind eye to his drunken driving…

Guess what Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s next brilliant idea will be to end drunk driving driving?
 

DUI BLOG

MADD continues to claim victory in it’s aging "War on Drunk Driving", citing its own self-serving statistics.  See for example, Lies, Damned
Lies and Madd Statistics, MADD "Statistics Again Debunked and A Closer Look at DUI Fatality Statistics.  But the reality is that unconstitutional laws, unfair procedures, Draconian penalties and rampant denial of due process have done little if anything to reduce the incidence of drunk driving.

40 Million in U.S. Driving Drunk or Drugged

Bloomberg Business News, Dec. 9 – Despite massive efforts to curb drunk driving, some 30 million Americans are driving drunk and another 10 million are driving drugged each year, federal officials report.

In fact, in some states the number of drunk and drugged drivers tops 20 percent, according to a report released Thursday by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

"This is a pretty high percentage of people that are operating a motor vehicle under the influence of something," said Peter Delany, director of SAMHSA’s Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality…

On the plus side, there has been a small drop in the rate of drunk and drugged driving in the past few years.

Data from 2002 to 2005 shows the annual rate of drunk driving has dropped from 14.6 percent to 13.2 percent, compared with data from 2006 to 2009. In the same time periods, the annual rate of drugged driving dropped from 4.8 percent to 4.3 percent, according to the report.

In all, 12 states had a reduction in drunk driving, and seven have seen lower levels of drugged driving…

Anna Duerr, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said her organization was pleased to see a decline in the numbers of drunk and drugged drivers. 

MADD is declaring victory in its "War on Drunk Driving" after a slightly more than one-percent drop?  As I wrote over four years ago, perhaps it’s time to take another approach to the drunk driving problem.  See Time For a Change.

DUI BLOG