Idaho law: driving under the influence of marijuana isn’t illegal!
Thursday, July 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm | By: Radical Russ
Holy shnikes! I think my next road trip home to visit the folks just got a whole lot more fun!*
(AP) In Idaho, you can drive high as long as you can drive straight.
Marijuana users can drive legally in the state as long as their driving isn’t erratic and they can pass a field sobriety test, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that while it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, Idaho law doesn’t list marijuana as a narcotic.
The ruling overturned an impaired driving conviction against Matthew Patzer, 21, who was stopped for a broken tailgate light in 1998 and admitted to police he’d smoked marijuana at a party. The appeals court said Patzer could not automatically be presumed impaired; he wasn’t driving erratically and passed two field sobriety tests.
“Given the distinction drawn by the statute, there is no basis to conclude that impairment may be presumed upon admission of use of a non-narcotic drug,” the appeals court wrote.
*Note: This is a joke. NORML reminds you to never smoke and drive impaired.
If only it were true.I LIVE AND DRIVE IN IDAHO.And yes you go to jail for it this is Idaho remember.We have a hard time even talking about it.I have been trying to get the word out so we can at least talk and let people know the truth.Someday we will be on track with the rest of the (SMART STATES).
It is true. The 9th Circuit rightly realized that Idaho law does not treat driving under the influence of marijuana as per se evidence of impairment. Now, if you’re caught driving with weed and you were swerving all over the lane and couldn’t pass a field sobriety test, then of course the Idaho cops are going to (rightly) arrest you. And the mere possession of marijuana in your car is also going to get you a cozy cell.
But in this case, the guy passed the sobriety test, was driving well, didn’t have marijuana on him, only admitted to smoking at a party beforehand, and Idaho declared that to mean he was DUII. Since DUII requires alcohol or a narcotic, and Idaho (correctly, I might add) doesn’t consider marijuana a narcotic, there’s no DUII.
God bless Idaho…I think I’m gonna take a trip and spend some vacation dollars in Idaho.
That *Note about it being a joke is confusing.
If the AP article is true, it’s amazing, considering Idaho’s dismal record with medical marijuana initiatives.
I’ve only ever felt “impaired” by the strongest weed, and then only for about an hour. Some national standards like we have for alcohol would be nice, if we could get approval to study it. For example, eating versus smoking cannabis. Even vaporization has slightly different physical effects than smoking.
We need massive studies here in the U.S., though they’ve already been done elsewhere, to dispel the myths of “cannabis impaired driver dangers”.
Some studies in “Free” countries have shown that marijuana users are far safer drivers than alcohol consumers, even when “high” or “stoned” as opposed to “drunk” or “under the influence” of alcohol. Cannabis makes you more careful, and perception of dangers is somewhat enhanced.
Of course, I understand the caveat against driving impaired, but we need to nail down: What is impaired? I drive better high, since my pain is compartmentalized. Pain is a much greater impairment/distraction while driving than euphoric clear thinking and increased care-taking with regard to traffic situations.
Sorry, but I have to be clear that my “drive home will be more fun” isn’t interpreted to mean “I love driving stoned!”
My bad Russ, I missed your opening asterisk.