With adult responsible use comes the question of when someone is objectively intoxicated to impairment.
When promoting the decriminalization process of cannabis in Texas, it is quickly pointed out that one is promoting adult responsible use. The same way alcoholic beverage companies promote responsible use, reform groups do the same. But how could one definitely know that another hasn’t been responsible and is putting others in harm’s way? KHN.org proposes this concept’s issues and we still need to have this addressed for discussion when testifying to the legislature.
Of the methods currently in use, Colorado has enacted a “per se” law which outlaws driving if someone’s blood level of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, exceeds a set amount since THC is cannabis’ main intoxicant. The issue with this is that the number is practically arbitrary. There is no linear correlation of THC in the blood to the level of impairment. THC staying in your system creates this contrary where someone is not impaired at all from using because they haven’t been using, yet a blood test may say they are. Colorado has been having difficulty finding people guilty of driving while intoxicated during the alleged use of cannabis because it is difficult to convince a jury using that standard alone or even with a field sobriety test.
Field Sobriety tests are one of the tools that Colorado and Oklahoma use to determine impairment. Even then, the test is rather arbitrary and is never in your favor as it is designed to not be passed as DWI attorney Will Mitchell stated in an interview with KUT in Austin. “You’re not given the opportunity to practice. You’re not given information what the officer is looking for until you do it. Then, as few as two clues out of eight or four clues is going to get you arrested.”
Juries are starting to see this in trial and are declaring defendants not guilty based on both blood levels and field sobriety tests. Oklahoma claims to have a zero tolerance policy stating that impairment is impairment. Meaning that in their eyes that any blood level is enough for them to declare you intoxicated as they do not have a set limit per se law yet. Canada has implemented saliva tests, but they aren’t accurate either. It really becomes a scary concept for people who medicinally use cannabis and it puts them in a frame of mind of a normal healthy human being. Being normal, is criminalized for a person at that point. They’re not impaired but the state is arguing that they are, wrongfully.
What do we do then when sitting in front of a panel of legislators, and they bring up headlines such as “Legalized marijuana linked to a sharp rise in car crashes?” Ignoring that the second paragraph of the article literally states, “The new reports do not prove there’s a direct risk caused by the use of marijuana among motorists.” That hurdle appears easy to get across, but the next step isn’t so easy. How do we convince legislators that we can separate those that are responsible and not objectively impaired from the people who are being irresponsible and are objectively impaired, placing others around them in danger? What standard do we agree on until the technology is in place to make this determination scientifically?
The argument that one may frequently hear is that it is not safe until the technology is there. Unfortunately the technology will never be there if there isn’t a need legally. If necessity is the mother of invention, then it will never exist under that mentality. Why would anybody invest money into a project if they cannot fully test it due to draconian laws preventing such research from taking place? We need to move forward with these laws as it is not just right for the people in need to have access, but it stimulates the economy through the innovation of advanced technology. Until then, with which method does the public feel we have a consensus on what will be deemed the deciding factor? We need to be able to accept this as responsible adults, so that it’s not another wild west in how things are handled in the state of Texas.
Image Credit: NH Law Office