That's weird. Last year, I was just as much in support of I-502 and this guy couldn't stop saying "Russ is absolutely right" about everything I said. (http://youtu.be/H8BRfe5nJI8)
I was recently interviewed by Keegan Hamilton of the Seattle Weekly regarding my research posted here on per se DUID statutes and the effects they had on DUID arrest statistics, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (see: Thirteen states have marijuana per se DUID statutes). Keegan’s piece was fair and entitled “Marijuana DUI Law Impact Remains Unclear Despite Analysis of Arrest Statistics”, which is true. His lede paragraph:
After Nevada enacted a strict “per se” law restricting the amount of THC motorists are allowed to have in their blood, drugged driving arrests increased a whopping 76 percent statewide. But when a similar policy took effect in Ohio, arrests there decreased by a modest 4.8 percent. Such is the conflicting data recently presented by NORML, which further muddies the debate about Washington’s proposal to legalize marijuana and start treating stoned drivers like drunks.
Keegan goes on to fairly report:
Taken with a sizable grain of salt, it makes interesting to look at how changes in arrest patterns were markedly different across the country. In addition the 76 percent spike in Nevada, Indiana drugged driving arrests shot up 33 percent after adopting a per se THC blood limit, while Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Iowa all saw modest single digit increases. Five states had single digit decreases in drugged driving arrests.
But for some people, all they had to see was that first sentence with “drugged driving arrests increased a whopping 76 percent statewide” to fire up the laptop for another round of Frighten The Patients!!! into voting against legalization of marijuana. This from a blog post entitled “Marijuana DUIs Went Up 76% In Nevada With Per Se Limit”
Numbers Put The Lie To Claims Washington’s I-502 Won’t Harm Patients
Well, if the message you’re sending them is “open season on medical marijuana patients,” then congratulations; mission accomplished!
After Nevada enacted a strict “per se” law restricting the amount of THC motorists are allowed to have in their blood, “drugged driving” arrests increased 76 percent statewide, reports Keegan Hamilton at Seattle Weekly.
What do you bet that a big portion of that 76 percent increase in cannabis DUIs came at the expense of medical marijuana patients — many of whom must medicate at a level such that they will show up over the limit any time they are tested?
As Keegan’s piece (if you bothered to read past the first sentence) pointed out, there is no way of knowing, since these law enforcement agencies haven’t been keeping separate track of marijuana DUIDs vs. other drug DUIDs vs. alcohol DUIDs. Now here’s some differences between Nevada and Washington, the details the author of this piece is not telling you, facts one can easily glean from reading the entire piece Keegan wrote on Seattle Weekly, or by merely paying close attention to the graphic included on this post. I know facts get in the way of sensationalism and page hits, but let’s indulge:
- Nevada can bust you per se for 2ng/mL of THC in blood, a lower threshold than I-502′s 5ng/mL
- Nevada can bust you per se for 10ng/mL of THC in urine, a standard that I-502 does not include and Washington law currently does not have
- Nevada can bust you per se for 15ng/mL of THC metabolites in urine, a standard that I-502 does not include and Washington law currently does not have
- Nevada can set up a roadside sobriety checkpoint and sniff around every driver who passes through, which is unconstitutional in Washington.
Also, if the author would care to follow up on the DUID stats in Nevada (which, again, are not the stats of only-marijuana DUIDs; they include alcohol DUIDs as well), he’d find that since medical marijuana passed there in 2000:
2001 = 8,824 Nevada DUIDs
2002 = 5,186 Nevada DUIDs*
2003 = Incomplete Data*
2004 = 9,133 Nevada DUIDs
2005 = 9,746 Nevada DUIDs
2006 = 11,060 Nevada DUIDs
2007 = 12,538 Nevada DUIDs
2008 = 14,445 Nevada DUIDs
2009 = 15,234 Nevada DUIDs
2010 = 13,412 Nevada DUIDs
*Hmm, what’s going on there with 2002 & 2003? Well, a little digging into the data (something I’m paid to do) and you find that unlike the rest of the years on this list, in 2002, the year before the per se DUID went into place, only 3 law enforcement agencies reported their arrest data to the FBI. In the other years, there were 31 to 34 of Nevada’s law enforcement agencies reporting. In 2003, the year the 2ng/mL per se DUID went into effect, Nevada’s data was so incomplete the FBI didn’t even bother reporting it in the Uniform Crime Report.
So, if we’re willing to concede a pattern of an upward trend in DUID arrests 2001-2009, then it’s safe to say 2002′s complete data would be at least 8,824, if not more DUID arrests. So the actual increase 2002-2004 is more likely around +3.5% or lower, not +76%. Also, interesting, is it not, that in 2010, DUID arrests dropped almost 12%! This as applications to Nevada’s program were quadrupling and when new applications out-numbered renewals 2.3-to-1.
Now, I knew all this as I wrote my original piece, but I decided to publish it as-is lest anyone accuse me of ignoring facts that might color the outcome. Here they are, the facts, number of DUIDs reported to the FBI the year before and the year after a per se DUID went into effect. Like any researcher, you start with a hypothesis (“Passing a per se DUID will make DUIDs go way up”) and you collect data to support or disprove the hypothesis. I contend, and Keegen pointed out, that this data is illustrative, but ultimately useless, since there are so many variables at play. Most notably, none of these states have legalized marijuana.
But since we’re illustrating and bringing up “Nevada is a medical marijuana state…”, let’s take a look at the other significant medical marijuana state in the debate, Michigan. Now, it’s true, Michigan’s per se passed in 2003 before its medical marijuana law did in 2008, but it isn’t like many of those medical marijuana patients in Michigan weren’t already toking before the law hit the books. After their per se DUID law passed, DUID’s dropped almost 9% from 50,022 to 45,568. What about after medical marijuana?
2008 = 35,534 Michigan DUIDs
2009 = 38,941 Michigan DUIDs
2010 = 34,882 Michigan DUIDs
So… there were 23% fewer DUID arrests in 2010 in Michigan than the year after per se DUID hit the books, even after registering 131,483 patients, even as the cops there can bust them per se for ANY ng/mL of THC in blood or urine. Also of note – for those 2008 & 2009 numbers, cops could also bust tokers for any metabolite in urine as well, until in 2010 their Supreme Court ruled metabolites aren’t drugs.
Finally, the caption on my picture used without my permission that reads “NORML’s “Radical” Russ Belville thinks a “huge rash of DUIs” which might follow passage of I-502′s per se THC blood limits might really be a good thing” is disingenuous and unbecoming of an alleged professional journalist. There is nothing good about anyone getting a DUI they don’t deserve; my quote clearly states that if such a thing happened, there would be public outrage. Also, the concluding “Washington patients, how do you feel about becoming part a “huge rash of DUIs?” Radical Russ seems to think you should take one for the cause”, is insulting, especially considering I smoke more pot more often than most Washington patients, though I’m once again not surprised to find the author forgetting about the 90% of Washington’s pot smokers who currently don’t have protection from prosecution for possession of a pound and a half and fifteen mature plants.
I’m also embarrassed about the “Tool of the Town” quip I made once, off-handedly, on my show – that was uncalled for. It also was so uncreative in comparison to the ad hominem attacks fostered by the author upon many of my readers who had visited his blog to offer comments. From here on out, I strive to be civil and attack ideas only. Foremost on my list: the idea that one should pass up the first opportunity one’s state has had in 40+ years of Drug War to finally begin dismantling prohibition because one fears they may smoke pot, drive, get pulled over, demonstrate impairment, fail a sobriety test, get taken for a blood draw, and have it come up >5ng/mL and be convicted of a DUID, which they’d be convicted of now if they went to court with >5ng/mL, unless they had $10-$15,000 to hire a really creative lawyer.
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to 'Stop Arresting Marijuana Smokers'. 
[...] Anti I-502 blogger selectively quotes DUID statistics to frighten medical marijuana patients [...]
Debate on I-502 @ Seattle City Hall on 4/20/2012
http://www.justin.tv/cannabisdefensecoalition/b/315649136
This is a more complete version of my opposition to the initiative. Its lengthly, so I understand if you don’t have time for it. But I reject your suggestion of what my opposition is, so if you really want to know why I reject it, see the link below.
Not entirely. I’ve elaborated quite a bit more than that. I have compared decrim states that already do have it better than what I-502 proposes. I think my biggest opposition is the whole trading liberty for security issue.
I made it more clear in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gLqJz-RZlw
I didn’t read that 10,000 Washingtonians are prosecuted for less than one ounce. That does seem like a lot. But if we look at Nevada’s increase in DUID arrests, the amount that their DUID arrests increased after they enacted their per se law, it would seem that they had an equal or greater amount in arrests, and quite honestly DUID arrests would be worse than simple possession. I’ve saw the penalties for both.
Is it that no one has found you this, or is it that you don’t accept what they say? And not all who are opposed are patients. As I understand it (I suppose I could be wrong), Vivian Mcpeak is not a patient, and I know many others who have been in this fight for a long time who are not patients who oppose I-502. I think you are unfairly grouping people together. But that doesn’t really bother me as much as the misrepresentation of how you often label patients as being greedy who oppose this. As if they would ACTUALLY have some kind of competition in the market from I-502. If anyone is savvy to SB 5073, its obvious there will be no state regulated market at all. It will still all be underground after I-502. Did anyone pay attention to what happened in Washington last April to “the best thing to happen to medical marijuana patients in Washington”. SB 5073 was the same thing. Lots of positive promotion, but in the end SB 5073 took a lot of rights away, and gave nothing new that is positive in return. Patients still only have an affirmative defense, no rights, there was no dispensaries, the exclusive exemption that doctors once had is gone, and the “serve one patient at any given time” wording is gone from Washington code because of SB 5073.
The propaganda we all heard about SB 5073 last year was “Washington is going to get legal dispensaries”. Didn’t happen last year, and it won’t happen this year either.
Except there is nothing in I-502 that requires an officer to do a field sobriety test in order to get blood. Probable cause is enough, and there is plenty of ways to get that.
Right now in Washington impairment has to be proven, and a victim of the arrest can successfully argue a case in court and win, even if their blood content is over 5ng. After I-502, a 5ng or greater blood content means guilty, and thats final.
Again I see very little benefit to I-502, and I think it is setting an awful precedence. I won’t support the initiative, because I don’t want to be a “activist in favor of new penalties”. I think that sends the wrong message. And there just isn’t enough benefit in this bill to really call this a step forward IMHO.
So, your opposition is based on the premise that that “DUID arrests do go up when new restrictive DUID laws are enacted.” But my review of the states with per se DUID http://stash.norml.org/bigbook/charts/Thirteen%20Per%20Se%20DUID%20States.jpg show that not to be the case. In the ten states where I could get data, five states had decreases in DUID arrests following imposition of a per se law.
You say “people are willing to take a huge gamble on an ounce of weed, that really is much of a problem for most anyway”, as if possession is no big deal in Washington State. Sure, if you’re in Seattle and have a small personal amount on you, you’ll be left alone. But still, 10,000 Washingtonians are prosecuted annually for possession <1oz. That’s a problem for 10,000 people who now have drug records, may have lost jobs, scholarships, financial aid, government housing, and a host of other consequences for being caught with weed.
You write “When the state is required to collect funds on a federally illegal substance, its a no-go.” conveniently ignoring the fact that numerous medical marijuana states are collecting funds on a federally illegal substance right now. The same “feds can enjoin” excuse being trotted out by Patients Against Pragmatism applies to medical marijuana, yet I don’t see the Seattle Cannabis Farmers Market shutting down.
This all seems based on the idea that you feel the chances are so remote for anyone to be busted for weed that we don’t need to bother with legalization (you imply you’re fine with California’s decrim of an ounce for a ticket.) I’d counter the chances are so remote you’ll be busted for DUID we don’t need to vote against legalization.
Once again, for the umpteenth time, we’ve had 14 years of medical marijuana, 100,000 patients, and millions and millions of miles driven. Washington has around 35,000 DUIDs a year and surely many many more traffic stops that don’t lead to DUID. So why is it not one of the Patients Against Pragmatism can find me the victim who’d be impacted by I-502? Because here are the steps required to be the victim who’d be worse off under I-502 than now:
1) Smoke pot all day every day to the point where you’d be at >5ng/mL all the time
2) Smoke so often that being at 5ng/mL doesn’t impair you
3) Get behind the wheel of a car and somehow attract the attention of a police officer, which would have to be no fault of your own, because you’re not impaired at 5ng/mL, right?
4) Have the officer suspect you of driving impaired, which would have to be misconduct on the officer’s part, because you’re not impaired at 5ng/mL, right?
5) Undergo a field sobriety test for the officer, which you would perform with flying colors, because you’re not impaired at 5ng/mL, right?
6) But somehow, you failed the field sobriety test, so the officer arrests you for DUID and takes you into the clinic for a blood draw
7) That blood draw, even after the time it took for your roadside stop and the drive over to the clinic, comes up at >5ng/mL
8) That blood draw is admitted into evidence, despite the attempts of your $10,000 DUID attorney to get it suppressed because the officer didn’t properly prove you were impaired enough to justify taking the blood draw.
9) With a 5ng/mL blood draw and officer testimony of your impairment, somehow your $10,000 DUID attorney gets you an acquittal.
In other words, Steps #1-#8 are exactly the same now as they will be under I-502. The patients who are terrified that they would get a DUID under I-502 are facing virtually the same risk right now every time they get behind the wheel. DUID prosecutions are generally a 80%-90% win rate for prosecutors right now, even closer to like 96%-99% if you have a >5ng/mL blood draw in evidence.
The ONLY thing I-502 changes with respect to DUID is #9 – your conviction will be 100% guaranteed at #9, rather than 96%-99% guaranteed.
So, should we eliminate 10,000 possession arrests every year at the cost of a 1%-4% chance of a DUID conviction for people who smoke pot all day and somehow managed to convince a cop they were impaired behind the wheel? Or should we vote along with the Drug Czar to defeat the ninth attempt in forty-one years to finally strike a blow against marijuana prohibition in America?
I don’t always agree with Steve Elliot’s work, I think he is more of a plagiarist than original in a lot of his work. However lets look at the facts.
Regardless if Nevada has stricter laws under their new DUID laws or not, it is obvious that even if their DUID laws mimicked I-502′s proposal, that arrests would go up. Would they go up 76%? Probably not. But who knows, maybe? What we do know from the report, is that DUID arrests do go up when new restrictive DUID laws are enacted.
I think that people are willing to take a huge gamble on an ounce of weed, that really is much of a problem for most anyway. Obtaining cannabis is easy in this day and age, and in Washington there are a lot less possession arrests than in most states already. Why trade liberty for security when the benefit really doesn’t out weight the loss? Seriously an ounce?
Anyone who is savvy to SB 5073 knows there will be no legal grows or dispensaries (stores). When the state is required to collect funds on a federally illegal substance, its a no-go.
There is also no provisions in I-502 for sharing/gifting/passing a joint. So sharing a joint will still be illegal.
I keep seeing NORML trying to justify this as “the first chance for legalization”.
Heck California decriminalized an ounce last year, and they didn’t add new DUID restrictions and penalties at all. I’d rather pay a $100 fine (not likely) than have a criminal DUID charge, ANY DAY!
Hmmm, I live in NV and since I’ve had my card (7 YEARS) I’ve been picked up 3 times. Of course I wasn’t smoking weed in my car so there was no reason to test me even though I was probably over 2 ng (limit in NV). I once ran a highway patolman out of his lane..ha-ha, he just yelled at me. Yeah, sure, I look like a cop and I’m bald, old, and white so that goes a long way to get me let go but just saying…
DON’T SMOKE WEED IN DA CAR… DAH!
be well
Yes on I-502