Our latest item about THC driving limits, and co-sponsoring Representative Claire Levy's short-lived change of heart about a 5 nanogram standard, spurred plenty of conversation. Here's a post in which a reader suggests that the lack of scientific proof about a reasonable limit wouldn't be tolerated if the subject was booze.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
We already have laws against driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
The limits proposed in this bill are arbitrary and have no scientific evidence to back them up.
They are attempting to treat MMJ like alcohol, which has fairly consistent and predictable effects on judgment, motor skills and metabolism rates between individuals as evidenced in numerous studies. Studies investigating the same issues with marijuana are not so defined, and results vary wildly between test subjects, particularly between casual users and patients.
As a patient, I do know that if I use cannabis to sleep at night, I'm totally fine to drive to work in the morning, 12 hours later. But I couldn't tell you on a bet how much THC has built up in my bloodstream after using MMJ for the last few years.
I would argue that my judgement behind the wheel in the morning is much more calculated, controlled and reasoned than someone who just pounded a Starbucks 31 ounce "Trenta" size caffeine H-bomb which they sucked down while driving at 70 mph.
Yet this arbitrary number of 5 nanograms that was pulled out of someone's ass could very well keep me from ever driving legally again. The biggest problem is that I really have no way of knowing at this point.
Show us the studies. Show us the science. Real science was required when setting limits for alcohol. Those laws were based on factual evidence and passed very carefully with metered judgement after long debate.
But then again, our baseball stadium isn't named Kush Field, now is it?
For more memorable takes, visit our Comment of the Day archive.