URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v16/n447/a08.html
Newshawk: http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Fri, 01 Jul 2016
Source: Sun, The (Yuma, AZ)
Copyright: 2016 The Sun
Contact: http://www.yumasun.com/sections/opinion/submit-letters/
Website: http://www.yumasun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1258
Author: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
LEGAL POT CAMPAIGN FACING QUESTIONS
Levels of Impairment Not Defined
PHOENIX - The campaign to allow recreational use of marijuana is on
amid questions of whether the measure would allow people to legally
drive while under the influence of the drug.
Supporters on Thursday submitted what they said were petitions with
258,582 signatures seeking to change the law. That is more than
100,000 more than the secretary of state's office needs to declare
valid to put the issue on the November ballot.
But amid the nearly 10,000-word proposal is language saying that
individuals cannot be penalized solely because they test positive for
not just marijuana metabolites that are left over weeks after using
the drug, but the actual "components of marijuana." And that would
include tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ), the psychoactive element of the drug.
Despite that, attorney Ryan Hurley, who represents the Campaign to
Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, insisted this would not permit
drugged driving. He pointed out that the measure also says the law
would not immunize someone from being charged with operating a motor
vehicle "while impaired by marijuana or a marijuana product."
But Hurley acknowledged that there is nothing in the proposal to
define what level of marijuana makes someone "impaired."
He said the legislature could enact a specific standard at which
someone is presumed impaired.
That's the situation with alcohol, where a blood-alcohol content of
0.08 is considered a "per se limit" which allows a court, absent any
other evidence, to conclude someone was driving while impaired.
"No they can't," countered Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery,
a foe of legalized recreational marijuana. He said the language of
the ballot measure itself precludes that.
"It says you can't be penalized solely on the basis of the presence
of the metabolites or marijuana," he said.
"A per se limit does exactly that," Montgomery said. "It says if you
have this much THC ( in ) nanograms per milliliter or over ( in your
blood ), you are impaired."
And there's something else: Even if lawmakers would approve a
presumptive limit, the actual number could be challenged by
supporters of marijuana use as arbitrary.
In Colorado, which legalized recreational use of the drug, the law
says drivers with five nanograms of active THC in their blood can be
prosecuted for driving under the influence of drugs.
"However, no matter the level of THC, law enforcement officers base
arrests on observed impairment," according to the Colorado Department
of Transportation.
Much of the debate that will play out between now and the November
election will be on the pros and cons of legalized recreational use
of the drug. That will include debate over whether marijuana is
better or worse than alcohol which - like marijuana would be if this
measure is approved - is legal for adults.
But there's another issue that is likely to generate some opposition.
The measure would limit the number of places where marijuana could
legally be sold to something in the 150 range, at least until 2020.
That is based on a prohibition capping dispensaries at no more than
10 percent of the number of places that can sell alcohol for
offpremises consumption.
Potentially more significant, the initiative gives first preference
for these limited number of licenses to the owners of the 99 medical
marijuana dispensaries already in operation. And more than a dozen of
the five-figure donations that have come in to put the measure on the
ballot are from these dispensaries.
But J.P. Holyoak, who chairs the initiative campaign, said this is
not any sort of restraint of trade.
"This is in no way, shape or form an oligarchy or a cartel," he said.
Holyoak said the limit exists to protect neighborhoods.
"Do we want marijuana stores or dispensaries on every other corner?"
he said. "Or is this something that should remain in a taxed,
regulated and limited basis so that it's not on every other street corner?"
By way of comparison, the web site Potguide.com lists about 170
dispensaries in Denver, though it says 71 of these sell only to
medical marijuana patients. Holyoak said initiative organizers here
believe that's too much and that 150 for the entire state is
sufficient, at least for the time being.
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom
|