The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Print Edition
Letter to the editor submissions
Have a strong opinion about something happening on campus or in Fort Collins? Want to respond to an article written on The Collegian? Write a Letter to the Editor by following the guidelines here.
Follow Us on Twitter
How to Increase eCommerce Sales with SEO
How to Increase eCommerce Sales with SEO
February 28, 2024

With the development of the online shopping market, SEO has become a crucial factor in driving targeted traffic and increasing sales. Effective...

5 nanograms of THC for DUID in Colorado is a half-baked idea

Kevin JensenThe notion that we should set an arbitrary limit of 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood to prosecute Colorado drivers under the presumption of DUID is flawed, half-baked, not supported by science and feels absolutely un-American.

Yes, this is the same driving regulatory proposal that died in the Colorado Senate not too long ago, but last Wednesday, just 48 hours after this same bill was defeated in the Senate, an amendment to H.B. 1317 approved by the Colorado House State Affairs Committee would set a 5 nanogram presumption limit for all drivers.

Ad

This same DUID standard has been rejected in Colorado multiple times in the past years, but this time, advocates for the standard have included provisions that would allow people caught over the 5 nanogram THC limit to argue in court that they were not impaired and try to prove their innocence — sounds a little backward, right?

But even this tactic to pass the 5 nanogram limit was killed by the Senate because they decided there just isn’t any science solidly backing an across the board set limit. Nonetheless, in order to placate police organizations and Colorado Deputy Attorney General David Blake, the 5 nanogram limit was added as an amendment to a bill establishing guidelines to regulate state-licensed marijuana shops last Wednesday.

FOX31 Denver reports “The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and the County Sheriffs of Colorado were so upset over the initial draft of H.B. 1317 that the groups were threatening to write a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to intervene,” if the amendments they wanted weren’t added.

First of all, what a bunch of tattletales.

Second, as Jacob Sullum points out, such a move would be an outrageous betrayal by officials who have a duty to enforce Colorado law, which now includes the legalization and regulation of marijuana as part of our state constitution.

The 5 nanogram limit itself is a poor solution to our perceived need of more protection against people getting behind the wheel while stoned, but it seems that Colorado law is already more than adequate to deal with this.

Executive Director of the Medical Marijuana Industry Group Michael Elliott says Colorado’s current law has “a 90 percent conviction rate (of DUIDs) and has led to a 19 percent reduction in traffic fatalities over the last four years.”

In addition, as Ed Wood writes, in Colorado, “more than 70 percent of the blood samples tested from drivers arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana are below 5 ng of THC. Today, those drivers are charged with DUI, and many are convicted. Few of them would be charged or convicted under a 5 ng permissible limit.”

You see, Colorado’s current DUID law bans driving while impaired to the slightest degree, but we don’t have any set limit on how much THC can be in the blood before legally being under the influence of drugs.

Ad

Currently, if a law officer determining a DUID looks at the behavior of the driver and the circumstances of the arrest — like if they fail a field test with THC in their system — then the case can be made for a DUID.

With a 5 nanogram limit, this would all change, and may allow infrequent users who may be seriously impaired to get away with it, while simultaneously opening heavy medicinal cannabis users up to DUID prosecution when they may not even be impaired.

Driving under the influence should be determined by impairment, not by some standard backed by questionable science. You can’t pull somebody over and test their THC level like you can with alcohol — drug testing can only be done with blood drawn by a medical professional, with a delay of 1 to 3 hours along with it.

Even then the test is flawed since everybody’s tolerance, frequency with which they smoke and body type are all different, making it difficult to determine the actual impairment of the individual at the time of arrest based on a blood test alone.

I understand the appeal of a 5 nanogram limit. No, it’s not really backed by science, but it’s a quick fix and stoned drivers sound scary.

I am against impaired driving in any form and to any degree (which is already law in Colorado), but a 5 nanogram limit would unnecessarily criminalize the innocent while possibly letting actual offenders get away scot-free.

I’d rather we use something like an objective, roadside administered, reflex-testing video game to test actual driver impairment than operate under an arbitrary 5 nanogram limit presumption of guilt.

Content Managing Editor Kevin R. Jensen is a senior English major. His column appears Wednesdays in the Collegian. He can be reached at  kjensen@collegian.com or on Twitter @kevinrjensen.

View Comments (13)
More to Discover

Hey, thanks for visiting Collegian.com!
We’d like to ask you to please disable your ad blocker when looking at our site — advertising revenue directly supports our student journalists and allows us to bring you more content like this.

Comments (13)

When commenting on The Collegian’s website, please be respectful of others and their viewpoints. The Collegian reviews all comments and reserves the right to reject comments from the website. Comments including any of the following will not be accepted. 1. No language attacking a protected group, including slurs or other profane language directed at a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, physical or mental disability, ethnicity or nationality. 2. No factually inaccurate information, including misleading statements or incorrect data. 3. No abusive language or harassment of Collegian writers, editors or other commenters. 4. No threatening language that includes but is not limited to language inciting violence against an individual or group of people. 5. No links.
All The Rocky Mountain Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • S

    suckaducka720Dec 22, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    i was pulled over by denver police and gave them blood but it had been about three hours since i smoked…..am i at risk? im an occasional user.

    Reply
  • T

    ThisguyhereApr 21, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    I agree… I’m a smoker myself and at first I had trouble driving while baked off my ass, but after doing it for a few months I got better and better. Now I drive flawlessly while I’m high. I can sit there and smoke an eighth blunt and drive past a row of cops and not get pulled over. In fact, when I’m with friends, I’m usually the driver even if it’s not my vehicle because of how well I do stoned. I certainly agree that for beginners driving stoned is dangerous and that there should be a way to administer safety among the issue, but not to where it would incriminate people like me who could pass a driving test stoned.

    Reply
  • A

    Andrew KuhnFeb 15, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    “legal weed was detected in the bodies of dead drivers three times more often during 2010 when compared to those who died behind the wheel in 1999”. No shit Sherlock, weed wasn’t legal in ’99

    Reply
  • T

    TayJan 1, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    Judging by your sentence structure and complete ignorance, i’m guessing you didn’t graduate high school and i’m sure they know your name at more than a few local bars you fucking peasant.

    Reply
  • M

    MedICKNov 1, 2013 at 9:19 pm

    Cops would never be smart enough to learn phlebotomy for a ‘THC blood test’.. only half joking.. however this would raise an issue as to why such an ‘invasive search’ on one to determine impairment while driving would be necessary. I see breathalyzers and potentially better devices to test THC levels saliva being the route that lawmakers turn to for stopping ‘DUID’. It will be years before there is a definitive “0.08 value” for THC like there is alcohol. The scrutiny on ‘DUID’s’ will come down to law enforcement and civil cases where specific examples of impaired driving can be made precedent, and loop-holed scientific research will then attend to the outcry of public officials to set forth stringent DUID laws that neither side will fully accept – similar to DUI/DWI laws currently. Just a prediction, obviously state-to-state laws will vary widely.

    As for the 5ng limit and back to the OP.. I commend the OP on the ‘half baked’ reference, however this wouldn’t even give a true toker justice. Refer to this article: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/06/19/max-drosi-marijuana-dui-blood-testing/
    where “one noted drug researcher recommends 15-30ng/ml” – I think a range would give a marijuana user some leeway and possibly a way for lawmakers to create a DUID Tier system where driving more impaired is more serious (simple enough). Instead of the ludicrous Zero-tolerance laws that will put many innocent and Rec and Medical/Rx-pot users alike behind bars for driving under the influence of what would be the equivalent of drinking a teaspoon of booze in creating a THC limit at 5ng or less.

    Reply
  • A

    Anders EckstrandOct 16, 2013 at 7:45 pm

    Once again the law shows its extreme lack of scientific knowledge and implementation. The law in this country really does exist outside of reality, science is the BEST way to quantify and define this thing we call existence. Religion and wealthy conservative ideaoligies have lost, they just can’t give it up……who’s the real addict, the one who smokes once a day, or the one who uses vast amounts of money to twist the law into a delusional ideology year after year, essentially destroying “democracy”?

    Reply
  • A

    Anders EckstrandOct 16, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    You’ve been flagged for abuse. You’re the reason this country is in the
    shitter, thanks for being a horrible person, good day. 😉

    Reply