When Colorado and Washington state each passed ballot measures legalizing marijuana for recreational use late last year, one legal challenge was resolved, but another was just beginning Before, marijuana was simply prohibited. Now it has to be regulated. With their new legal standards for possession and use, Colorado and Washington now have to draw hard lines on a rather hazy landscape, creating legal standards not just for for taxation and licensing, but also some far more nebulous questions, like how much marijuana is reasonable for a single person to possess, and even what constitutes legal intoxication. Meanwhile, forty-eight other states are watching closely to see exactly how they do it.
For Colorado, regulation of marijuana under the new state standards (which, by the way, could still be challenged by the federal government) came to a head last month at the state house as legislators hashed out just exactly how local and state authorities will handle these questions. They also tackled the thorniest issue of all, one that has been a sticking point for previous legalization efforts and one that is eventually bound to go 'round and 'round in courtrooms: what scientifically constitutes "under the influence" of marijuana, and how can clinicians and law enforcement determine if someone -- most importantly, a driver -- is too high for the public good?
Now the state of Colorado has offered up its answer. Under House Bill 1114, the answer is five nanograms. If a blood screen detects five or more nanograms of THC (that's delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) per milliliter of blood in a person's bloodstream, that individual is considered legally under the influence of drugs. Washington has also set its intoxication limit at five nanograms per milliliter.
But the question is not that simple. What is marijuana impairment -- what constitutes being "too high" to drive -- and how can we scientifically evaluate it, particularly in a law enforcement context? Moreover, how can police officers test for it conclusively at the roadside, where blood tests aren't available? How lawmakers define and answer these questions will have a lot to do with marijuana policy in the U.S. going forward, and unfortunately the body of science describing marijuana's effects on the brain and body -- though vast -- isn't exactly bound by broad consensus. Five nanograms per milliliter is a place for policy to start, but it's by no means the last word determining how high is too high.
TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
"Smoking is a very efficient way to deliver drugs to the brain," says Dr. Marilyn Huestis, a senior investigator at the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Intramural Research Program, part of the National Institutes of Health. "It goes into the lungs, into the heart, and gets pumped directly to the brain."
Huestis has spent a career studying the effects of marijuana on the brain and the psychomotor capabilities of individuals, both among acute users (those that use marijuana occasionally) and chronic users who partake of marijuana daily. Unlike alcohol, which requires at least a little bit of time to work its way into the bloodstream, marijuana has shown in Huestis's own studies to manifest itself within the first minute after use. From there, one's ability to responsibly operate heavy machinery begins to come into question.
Cannabinoid receptors (known as CB1 receptors) in the brain are found in many key regions, including the amygdala (responsible for processing memory and emotional reactions) as well as the basal ganglia and cerebellum (responsible for motor control, among other things). "We know that when people smoke marijuana the lose some of their peripheral vision," Huestis says. "We know it affects the passage of time, or the idea of how rapidly time is passing. It affects balance. And one of the most interesting areas it affects is the prefrontal cortex."
The prefrontal cortex is what separates us from other animals, Huestis says. It's home to our executive function, the place where we take in and process information and use it to make choices about various courses of action. Cannabis impacts our executive function, which can slow or alter decision-making abilities. Moreover, it makes our brains work harder, Huestis says, and not necessarily in a good way. In tests, an individual dosed with cannabis can often perform a task just as well as he or she would if sober. But brain imaging of dosed individuals shows that it requires much more brainpower to complete that task. That means that under the influence of cannabis the ability to handle multiple tasks simultaneously, or to divide attention effectively, dwindles significantly. Even more specific to driving, marijuana has been shown in various studies to affect what's known as "standard deviation of lateral pursuit," or that natural, somewhat innate ability to hold an automobile more or less right in the middle of a traffic lane.
None of this -- reduced peripheral vision, slowed decision making, inability to multitask -- enhances one's ability to drive. Humans are more prone to distraction when dosed with cannabis, and in the context of a moving vehicle a misperception of the passage of time translates to a misperception of distance as well, at least in the sense of how quickly a car traveling at a given speed will reach some distant object.
That being said, Huestis notes, individuals under the influence of cannabis -- unlike those under the influence of alcohol -- tend to be aware of their impairment. Some studies have shown that stoned drivers are more cautious behind the wheel and tend to drive more slowly. But that's not really any kind of compensation. Driving is an exercise in timing, multitasking, and situational awareness -- and not one well suited for the cannabinoid-impaired.
THE ELUSIVE MARIJUANA 'BREATHALYZER'
"The properties of marijuana are not going to liken themselves very much to a 'breathalyzer' type test," says Dr. Christina Hantsch, a toxicologist working within the Loyola University Health System. "I think it's going to have to be a different bodily fluid if you're looking for more immediate testing."
Why? For one, THC is fat-soluble, which means it can be absorbed by the body's fat cells and remain within the metabolism for extended periods of time. For heavy users, THC can remain within the body for days, making it difficult to connect the presence of THC in a person's bloodstream with that person't current state of impairment. For chronic users the picture is even murkier. Regular marijuana users who stop using cannabis can still have detectable amounts of THC in the bloodstream even 30 days after they cease using. There are even documented cases of former chronic users that haven't had a dose of cannabis in years testing positive for THC while undergoing rapid weight loss, Hantsch says. THC is really good at tucking itself away in the body's fat cells, and it can remain there for a really long time.
Complicating things further still: an emerging body of scientific evidence suggests that this residual THC in the bloodstream of chronic users might still cause impairment. Though the effects of these trace amounts of THC in the bloodstream don't manifest themselves with nearly the intensity that a fresh blast of THC to the CB1 receptors does, both Huestis and Hantsch note that there is research out there suggesting that just because these levels of THC are relatively low doesn't mean they aren't having some impairing effects on the psychomotor skills of both acute and chronic users for the duration that THC remains in the bloodstream.
All that is to say that detecting the presence of THC in the bloodstream doesn't necessarily correlate to impairment, and there's certainly no overwhelming body of hard science that can draw connections between a specific amount of THC in the blood (like, say, five nanograms per milliliter) and a specific degree of impairment. Things grow more dubious still at the place where government really needs certainty the most: at the roadside.
The most promising solution for the problem of roadside THC testing in recent years has been oral specimen testing (read: saliva sampling). Several academic and government labs as well as commercial companies have developed various tests claiming they can detect THC in the bloodstream via handheld devices that analyze a swab taken from inside a subject's mouth. But the results have been mixed -- mostly mixed degrees of disappointment.
"Oral fluid testing actually went into effect in Australia in 2004," Huestis says. "The reason it didn't get going in Europe or the U.S. is because the roadside devices were, frankly, terrible."
You can get really good results from THC testing via oral sample in the lab, Huestis says, but the problems with collecting and analyzing samples at the roadside became immediately apparent to early adopters of the portable oral specimen technology. First, THC is so lipophilic that it had a tendency to stick to the collection devices themselves, which dulled the sensitivity of the analysis from the point of that samples were collected. Saliva is also loaded with enzymes that break molecules down, so in the period between collecting the oral sample and getting it to a lab for analysis the samples would continue to degrade themselves, further skewing the results.
But assuming there was an oral specimen test that was effective for accurately measuring THC in the bloodstream at the roadside, there's still the problem of correlating it to impairment, which is ultimately what law enforcement officers are concerned with, especially in a context where possession and use are no longer strictly prohibited.
"There's still a lot of work to be done to really tie in all those connections, to say that if you do pick up this level of a marijuana metabolite in a oral fluid specimen there is some solid scientific evidence that also indicates some degree of impairment or effects on the behavior of the individual," says Dr. Stephen Kahn, a professor of pathology and toxicologist at Loyola University's Stritch School of Medicine. "And that's harder to do than with blood ethanol."
Nonetheless, the state of both the science and the technology is improving. The tools for oral specimen detection and analysis improve each and every year, Huestis says, and her own lab recently folded trials of a new portable oral specimen diagnostic into experiments there. Under controlled conditions in which the THC levels of dosed subjects were being tested independently in the lab this new portable device showed impressive efficacy, Huestis says, with very low incidence of false negatives or false positives.
Huestis thinks we'll see these kinds of tests used by law enforcement in the U.S. within 3-5 years. Kahn is less willing to put a firm projection on the adoption of such technologies, but he does believe that the science will eventually become good enough to gain the confidence of the courts and law enforcement.
"I think it's absolutely going to happen," Kahn says. "But I'm just not sure how long it will take."
Ya, i realized last night my argument was a bit flawed. It turned more personal and defensive. I'm in no way trying to claim marijuana doesn't cause impairment. The point i'm trying to make is that daily smokers do have a tolerance and smoking a bowl or two before driving isn't going to affect your ability to drive. Moreover, the people who are not daily smokers, and have never tried or only tried it a few times are making the assumption that smoking a bowl is the equivalent to getting drunk as opposed to having a beer.
Yeah, no worries. I understand your point from personal and scientific perspective, and in some respect I agree with you. In all honesty, I'm really not all that worried about high drivers, but bad drivers that are high, that could be a recipe for disaster. I can honestly say the effects of marijuana aren't so drastic when it comes to driving, especially because in studies they find that high drivers tend to drive slower...However, as with any newly introduced legal drug, there is a responsibility from the government to implement laws to ensure the safety of its citizens. This article indicates the starting point.
Ha, bad drivers will be bade drivers. Take bad drivers and add in distracting variables (marijuana, phone, makeup, ect.) and you've always got a recipe for disaster. Let's side step the whole debate about what to do with high drivers by just finding a way to get the irresponsible drivers off the road lol.
Step one: How about a test the requires me to answer more than 10 multiple choice questions about the color of a stop sign before we hand out learners permits? It's not like people go back and learn more about traffic laws or who has the right of way after they've taken these disgustingly easy tests.
... i really don't like that i can't edit a post to fix spelling and grammatical errors I've missed.
Yeah, that may be one place to start, and possibly more effective than saliva testing for THC levels. Kind of like a sobriety test they do on drivers, but with questions and pyschomotor tests that gauge the level of impairment by THC. I actually think that is something that will likely be added to roadside sobriety tests, and the tests will likely be based off of feasible experiments done in lab to estimate levels of impairment.
Nevaeh. you think Jason`s storry is great, on thursday I bought Lotus Elise since I been earnin $6729 this-last/4 weeks and-more than, ten-k lass-month. it's certainly my favourite job I have ever had. I began this 9-months ago and right away was making more than $73.. per-hr. I follow this website, Go to site and open Home for details
@theKid11, you realize that a huge portion of the US smokes marijuana, right? You also realize that they have been for a long, long time. If your argument was sound, we'd have seen far more cases than the two friends you reported. I'm sorry, it's not a big "epidemic" and it never will be. Your friends just as likely got into accidents because they are bad drivers. Being stoned may not have had anything to do with it. Same goes for the story of the guy dropping a masonry wall, you assume marijuana caused him to have an accident but guess what? With so many smokers, you're assured there will be some overlap in people that smoke and people that have accidents but that doesn't mean one causes the other.
Yes, I do. I also realize the it's he most used illicit drug in the world. Alcohol is the most used legal drug.
Perhaps you are just in denial, or refuse to accept the potential harm people could place on themselves or others by smoking and then hopping in a vehicle. Marijuana is the SECOND leading cause behind alcohol for motor vehicle accidents. Yes, as I said, bad drivers will be more likely to get in an accident regardless of any intoxication, but intoxication increases their likelihood of getting in an accident. In other words, impairment often CAUSES accidents. Whether you are mentally impaired because you are a bad driver, or you are mentally impaired because you smoked before getting in the car. So yes, marijuana can CAUSE car accidents, it just isn't the ONLY cause for an accident.
People seem to take the definition of causality to an extreme. No, marijuana will not ALWAYS CAUSE an accident when a person smokes and then drives, but yes, it CAN CAUSE an accident, and often does.
It would be entirely irresponsible for any state government to not implement laws that protect the safety of its people, particularly when a previously illegal drug has made the transition to a legal one. Please don't mistake my opinion for a dislike of marijuana. Marijuana is fascinating to me, and spectacularly mild when it comes to health concerns and psychoactive effects of other legal drugs (ex: alcohol), but you need to read up on the facts and quit living in denial if you think that it is okay for people to continue to drive around stoned in a place where it is legal to smoke MJ.
Here is some info you can read up on.
Impact of Prolonged Cannabinoid Excretion in Chronic Daily Cannabis Smokers' Blood on Per Se Drugged Driving Laws; 2013 (Mateus M. Bergamaschi et al).
Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis; 2012 (Asbridge M, Hayden JA, Cartwright JL).
They need to make it legal! Yeah!!!no.. but really they need to make a can only start car if there is no marijuana in your system. It will come in a few years. But should push for it now..