5 Nanograms Of THC In Your Blood? You’re Legally Stoned

You always knew that the legalization of weed was going to mean new laws regulating driving while baked, and Colorado is once again leading the way with a new bill, reports CBS4 Denver:

A plan is in the works to set a limit for people driving while under the influence of marijuana, and this time lawmakers say they’ll get it done.

There’s a lot of pressure on lawmakers after legalizing pot. As the number of users grows, there is growing concern the number of people driving under the influence will as well. In 2011, the most recent data available, 13 percent of deadly crashes in Colorado involved pot.

This is the third year lawmakers have tried to pass the bill, and they watered it down this time to make sure it gets through.

When it comes to alcohol, the law is clear. At .08 a person is too drunk to drive. But when it comes to marijuana, proving a person is too high to drive may be tougher.

“So we’re saying you’re presumed to be under influence of marijuana at five nanograms,” said Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs.

Under a bill by Waller the DUI limit will be five nanograms of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in pot. But even if a driver reaches that limit, he or she could get off…

[continues at CBS4 Denver]

, ,

  • LucidDreamR

    Being a medical marijuana patient; growing and smoking incredibly high quality bud each day- I’m willing to bet that even first thing in the morning after a full nights rest, and before smoking I already have 5 nanograms of THC in my blood. But I can assure you am far from “high”. Trying to enforce DUI in the same way as alcohol doesn’t make any sense whatsoever…. That said: even if they don’t find a better way to enforce this, I would gladly give up driving to be as close as I am now to this truly amazing plant. I’m reminded of the old hitchhiker’s adage: ass, gas or grass- yeah, I don’t think I’ll be stuck without transport anytime soon. ;)

    • Kevin Leonard

      double thumbs up, good sir

  • howiebledsoe

    The key word here is “blood test” Do you think it will be on the state’s dime? Think again. This is where they will ultimately make their money off of all of this.

    • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

      Yeah, this’ll be exactly the justification they need to do forced roadside blood-sample extractions.

      Unfortunately, that may be all the justification I need to do forced roadside blood-sample extractions.

  • Haystack

    As the article describes, it’s still unclear how this could be effectively implemented, but overall it seems like a pretty common sense step to me. You wouldn’t want someone driving who is baked out of his mind, but you also don’t want to be arbitrarily punishing pot users who are clearly safe to drive. You have to find some way to draw the line, no?

  • DeepCough

    I understand that legalization naturally entails regulation of this substance, but studies have shown that stoned smokers are safer drivers, so this bill should be reworked as “any who have 5 nanograms or more of THC in a given blood sample is off the hook.”

  • Itzmysoul

    How the heck is any normal person going to know when they get to 5 nano grams of THC? I feel like its going to end up being more of a judgment call from the officer to see if one is “too baked”.

    • dumbsaint

      Well, it’s a blood test so presumably to get to that point you’re probably too baked. Unless you’re being really obvious, or reek of pot, things may not get that far.

  • lazy_friend

    I am all for moderation when it comes to smoking pot. I’ve smoked tons of the stuff but have kicked the habit, leaving it just for especial occasions or medicine, instead of pot being my crutch. But if old ladies can drive, an intoxicated stoner should be able to drive without penalty.

    • rtb61

      Driving is pretty dangerous shit. Hell, I got wiped out by a sober person paying too much attention to a mobile phone who just simply misinterpreted the lights, a simple split second error, that I will suffer from for the rest of my life.
      Anything that affects it needs to be legislated against. Better designed cities, more accessible and flexible public transport, better social services distribution, also should be implemented to reduce the need to drive.
      The reality is way, way, to many people suffer and die as a result of driving and lot’s of stuff needs to be done to reduce the harm.

      • lazy_friend

        I agree on improved public transportation, but more legislation does not accomplish anything unless money is involved or violence, and money is short these days, so that means more violence. No thanks. Stoners drive pretty slow compared to everyone else ( not that I care if they get to drive or not). If you want safer driving you need cars that drive themselves, thats the way of the future. Or have cops drive you home instead of driving you to the big house. Alcohol manufacturers should be held accountable for drunk drivers then, they make the stuff, its not like people are crashing over getting drunk on home made moonshine, they are using mass produced beer and spirits. Corporations are people too, and people go to jail or die when they fuck up even by proxy. I am responsible, I didnt get enough sleep tonight but I have a bunch of errands to run, I need some shut eye before I can drive, and that’s what I will be doing after this. The way the government sees it, all these accidents are just population control.

  • BuzzCoastin

    another good example of why they must call the place
    The Land of the Free

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Louis-Arnold/1189489146 Louis Arnold

    5 Nanograms is the US military threshold for using pot; which is discovered up to 18 days after inhaling marijuana at a party. These idiots are attempting to delete Medical Marijuana users from their cars and their driver’s licenses over 10 years after MMJ legalization in Colorado. It is a FARCE.

21