Posted on April 23, 2013 by News Admin
Earlier this month, the latest version of a THC driving bill that had failed the past two years seemed to be on a steady march to passage despite e-mail protests and petitions.
But no: Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-1 to squash the measure again.
Why? One advocate believes the legislation was doomed by the killer combo of persistent critics and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling of a few days ago.
As we've reported, driving while stoned is currently illegal under Colorado law. But unlike in the case of alcohol, there's no number at which a marijuana-using driver is considered to be officially impaired -- and cannabis activists see that as a good thing, since the science on the subject is infinitely less certain than it is in the case of booze. Nonetheless, the medical marijuana industry boom caused assorted legislators to believe one was needed anyhow.
Legislation from 2011 and 2012 would have established THC intoxication at five nanograms per milliliter of blood and made this standard per se -- meaning that a test registering five nanograms or more would be seen as irrefutable proof of intoxication. In response, critics argued that because THC tends to linger in users for longer periods of time, it's next to impossible to determine actual impairment via a blood test, at least under presently available technology.
This year, the five nanogram limit was still part of the legislation, known as HB 1114, but the per se language vanished from the measure, sponsored by Representative Rhonda Fields. Instead, the text referred to "permissible inference," which would allow people who register at five nanograms or above to present other evidence in court to prove that they weren't actually impaired, rather than being considered guilty as a result of the test reading.
Marijuana attorney Rob Corry saw this change as only a slight improvement over the previous legislation, making the new proposal 95 percent bad as opposed to 100 percent.
Fields, however, considered the standard to be necessary given what's thought to be increased marijuana use in the area due to previously existing medical marijuana laws and the signing of Amendment 64, which allows adults 21 and over to use and possess small amounts of cannabis recreationally in Colorado. Moreover, in an interview earlier this month, she expressed confidence that innocent people wouldn't be convicted as a result of the limit.
"The bill looks for active THC in the system, not inactive THC," she told us. "If someone is a chronic user, like medical marijuana patients who use it as part of their treatment, we won't be looking at something that's residue. We'll only be looking at the active THC level."
These arguments helped the bill win approval in the House, and since a number of major marijuana industry groups had lifted their objections to the bill after the permissible inference addition, most observers expected the legislation to also get over the hump in the Senate, where it had stumbled the past two years. Instead, Senator Steve King, a co-sponsor of the measure, was the only member of the five-person Senate Judiciary Committee to vote in its favor -- a far easier win for opponents than in the previous two victories.
The size of the defeat resulted from "a combination of things," says attorney and marijuana-reform advocate Warren Edson. "I don't want to sound Pollyanna-ish, but there were a dedicated bunch of activists who were pretty persistent even when it looked so certain that the bill was going to get through. They kept plugging away and organizing and having people write their legislators."
The other key, in his view, was "a Supreme Court case that talked about requiring a court order for a blood test."
The case in question, known as Missouri v. McNeely, revolved around one Thomas McNeely, who was pulled over for speeding and then forced to take a blood test for possible alcohol intoxication even after he'd refused to give his consent. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the Supreme Court justices maintained that the reasons for not waiting for a warrant before administering the test didn't hold water.
"Warrantless intrusions of the body are not to be undertaken lightly," the opinion states.
This ruling complicated the THC driving bill, which called for blood testing to determine whether a driver had exceeded the proposed five nanogram per milliliter limit, and prompted new arguments about how it did and didn't apply. For example, Edson allows, "Senator King said our driving implied-consent laws included blood tests."
As Edson explains, "our implied-consent law in Colorado says that if you refuse to take a breath test, you lose your license for a year. And King was saying similarly that by signing up to be a driver in Colorado, you're agreeing to give officers the ability to give you a roadside blood test without a warrant.
"That argument didn't work well with the other legislators," Edson goes on. "There were discussions about e-warrants -- a warrant the cop could get sent to him on the side of the road. But there was lots of testimony yesterday about how those could take hours to get" in addition to the days, or even longer, before blood-test results came back.
Edson doesn't know which of these factors tipped the balance against the bill, but he's pleased that it's gone down in flames again. In his view, the permissible-inference change that seemed to mute objections from many marijuana-industry groups was "bogus. At least you could argue in some capacity that your client wasn't actually intoxicated, but it's hard to imagine what rare circumstance that would be successful in. It just wasn't appropriate justice -- and on top of that, setting a non-scientific five nanogram standard as Colorado's level of intoxication would have flowed down to everything from family court fights to social-services cases. It was the equivalent of punishing people for having two glasses of wine every night."
In Edson's view, the THC driving bill concept shouldn't be resurrected "until we get technology that actually tells us whether or not an individual is intoxicated -- because why should we be enacting laws that incarcerate and punish people who aren't? That's what they were proposing."
At the same time, however, he expects that such legislation will rise from the dead again next year. "As long as Coloradans keep electing people like Senator King," he says, "this is going to keep rearing its ugly head despite its total lack of a scientific basis."
Here's the U.S. Supreme Court ruling about blood testing and warrants: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: Missouri v. McNeely
We've helped thousands of happy customers start & run their medicinal & recreational businesses in all legal states. Whether you're serious, curious or just looking to gather information, GreenZipp can help.
Primarily through word-of-mouth alone, GreenZipp has become the company people trust to help start and run their legal marijuana businesses. For the last 4 years, people have been using GreenZipp because it's famously easy, straight forward, with no hidden costs. Combine that with our best-in-the-biz customer service, and you've got a unique and delightful offering of products and services.
We've been in business for 5 years, so you can depend on us to alleviate the anxieties and pressures of starting and running your business. Not once, has a single customer ever been in trouble with the law - ever. We're extremely proud of that number. Our job is to keep you safe and compliant with regulations and allow you to run your company without fear or anxiety. We've gone and will continue to go to the ends of the earth for our customers. Learn more about our company.
Many customers come to us saying that they've been told they need a lawyer to start their businesses. Sure, you can definitely use them, but you don't need them. Heck, you can even do it yourself if you don't mind putting in the time and making some costly mistakes from time to time. We take the complicated, confusing and time-consuming process of starting or running your marijuana business and boil it down to plain, detailed and easy-to-follow steps. Or, we can just do the whole process for you.
Here's the best part: We're so effective, lawyers and law firms hire us to service their marijuana industry clients for them.
Absolutely. You can see how our customers feel about us via an independently certified, 3rd party review website. We're extremely proud of our 5 out of 5 Star rating.
We offer a free Starter Package to help people understand the industry and us a little better. Check it out.
New business owners, seasoned entrepreneurs, investment groups and law firms all rely on GreenZipp. We've been fortunate to earn the repeat business of our customers, including some of the top lawyers and law firms in the country.
There's a lot of (mis)information out there. At best, it's usually speculation from non-professionals, old wive's tales or completely fabricated. It can be tough to navigate. With that in mind, here are a few things we've prepared for you:
GreenZipp is a medical & recreational marijuana consulting firm that's helped thousands of customers establish and run their marijuana businesses in all legal states since 2010. With industry-leading, streamlined and cost-effective products and services that abolish hourly & hidden fees, we'll be sure to make you happy.
We’ll send periodic news, new product releases and exclusive promotions.