How Stoned is Too Stoned to Drive? The Feds Want To Know

by Aaron Cole

Updated: December 18th, 2020 Published: December 14th, 2015

Puff, puff, pass that bill. Federal authorities want to know how stoned is too stoned for drivers, according to a provision in the recently signed Federal Highways Bill.

The new law directs U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to study the effects of marijuana on drivers and present those findings to Congress by the end of 2016.

As more states legalize marijuana — Oregon and Alaska joined Washington and Colorado with legal pot, and 12 states have decriminalized possession — Congress asked the department to determine how to train police to spot stoned drivers and how to test them.

According to a Gallup Poll this year, 47 percent of American surveyed said they thought marijuana would make the roads less safe in states with legalized cannabis.

Authorities in Colorado initially struggled with how to test drivers and measure levels of THC in their systems. Colorado’s threshold of 5 nanograms of THC to qualify as “too stoned to drive” was met with opposition in 2012. Medical marijuana proponents said the per se limit was too low, but the limit was passed into law anyway.

Interestingly, Westword’s pot critic in Denver, William Breathes, had a resting THC level three-times the legal limit the newspaper discovered in 2013.

This year, the University of Iowa discovered that the marijuana equivalent for 0.08 blood-alcohol content (the legal limit for drunk driving in many states) is roughly 13 nanograms of THC. But marijuana and alcohol are very different drugs. Marijuana lasts far longer in users’ blood streams and is difficult to metabolize.

“Everyone wants a Breathalyzer which works for alcohol because alcohol is metabolized in the lungs,” Andrew Spurgin, a postdoctoral research fellow with the UI College of Pharmacy said in a statement announcing the results. “But for cannabis this isn’t as simple due to THC’s metabolic and chemical properties.”

Nonetheless, the feds want to know how stoned is too stoned, and how many stoned drivers are drunk too. (Anecdotally: Many Denver police officers say that they issue more DUI and driving while stoned tickets at the same time than they issue drugged driving tickets alone.)

It looks like the feds just got a lot of money to find out.

#Colorado #Denver #DruggedDriving #DUI #Marijuana #Stoned #TransportationDepartment

Aaron Cole

More by Aaron Cole

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 32 comments

Corey Lewis on Dec 15, 2015

"12 states have decriminalized possession" What does this mean, you just get a fine but not a ride in a police car?

Like Reply
Lou_BC on Dec 15, 2015

Decriminalization just means it is not a criminal code violation. One way to look at is a speeding ticket versus speeding causing death. There will be infractions but they won't mean criminal court or a criminal record. Too many violations would mean a bump up to criminal court. Canada looked at decriminalization a long time ago but once Conservatives got elected the whole idea went up in smoke ;) With that being said, what constitutes an impairment threshold will also depend on which side of the political Isle (chasm) that you sit. The problem with testing for blood levels of marijuana is getting a person to a qualified lab and getting the blood work drawn and run. IIRC Marijuana has a fairly long serum 1/2 life so testing expediency might not be an issue but are you going to detain every suspect during the time it takes to confirm blood levels? Urine tests are cheap, quick and easy to administer but all they provide is a yes/no answer. THC tends to accumulate in adipose so i can see the court defense now..... my client is a former marijuana smoker who just went on a crash diet or the famous Canadian snowboarder who kept his Olympic Gold medal by claiming a failed test was due to "passive" 2nd hand smoke. (Aren't all marijuana smokers passive? LOL) This will be an interesting legal maze to navigate."

Like Reply
- Corey Lewis on Dec 16, 2015
  
  Thanks
  
  Like

Recent Comments

ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.