UPDATE: Further research shows that in 2002, the year before the per se DUID went into place, only 3 Nevada 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 (2001′s figure), 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.
Also, thanks to Karen O’Keefe from MPP who updated us on Arizona and Delaware’s exemption for medical marijuana patients for all THC and THC-COOH per se DUID statutes. Montana’s “Repeal Lite” on medical marijuana instituted a 5ng/mL THC blood standard against patients only and can only be used to substantiate charges, not win prosecution, which still relies on proving impairment.
Washington State’s I-502 initiative will legalize an ounce of marijuana, a pound of edibles, or 72 ounces of tinctures, create a state-licensed distribution and retail for marijuana, but also institute a “per se DUID” statute that has some marijuana activists rejecting this opportunity to legalize marijuana. In Colorado, a bill to institute a “per se DUID” that was killed last year is back in the legislature. And in the halls of the ONDCP, institution of these “per se DUID” statutes is a major policy goal of the Drug Czar.
In examining the issue, it would be helpful for everyone in the debate to have a good look at the facts. One fact that has been surprisingly omitted thus far in the debate is the fact that thirteen US states currently have “per se DUID” statutes far worse than what either Washington or Colorado are proposing.
Data from FBI Uniform Crime Reports, NORML.org State DUID Laws, and "Drugged Driving Research: A White Paper" by Robert L. DuPont for NIDA - click for larger version
Washington and Colorado have proposals that institute a 5ng THC/mL of blood as the per se standard. (“Per se” just means that level of THC itself is a crime, regardless of any other extenuating circumstances. Flunking the test equals guilt, no excuses.) This is active THC in the bloodstream – the psychoactive cannabinoid that gets you “high” – that we’re measuring. The “pee tests” people may be familiar with from work, parole or probation, or joining the military, for examples, are testing inactive metabolites of THC, known as THC-COOH. This is a crucial difference, as inactive THC-COOH remains detectable for days, weeks, or even months after last use of marijuana in some people, and since it is a metabolite, that tells us the active impairing THC has already been metabolized. In fact, if you had just smoked marijuana for the first time ever, there wouldn’t be any metabolites detected in your system until after you’d already been not-high for some time. In a sense, a urine test for THC-COOH isn’t an impairment test, it’s an “I was impaired some time a while ago” test. So despite any disagreements about how much or how long someone may consume cannabis and how impaired or unimpaired they may be, we must agree that the THC in blood standard is at least measuring the impairing cannabinoid.
Of all the states with per se statutes, Pennsylvania had the one closest to the new proposals. The Keystone State instituted a 5ng/mL per se DUID in 2004, since amended down to 1ng/mL in 2011 (which is actually a “zero tolerance”; the 1ng/mL is just the lowest amount that can be registered in order to file charges). Pennsylvania also has constitutionally allowed roadside sobriety checkpoints, where police can stop and get a good look (and whiff) of every driver who passes through. The result? In 2005, there were 41,464 DUID arrests, a 5% increase in DUID arrests over 2003. Still, only 38 of 10,000 drivers in Pennsylvania is busted for DUID, a figure that is 74 in 10,000 for Washington State, currently without a per se.
Next would be Ohio. It has a 2ng/mL per se DUID that passed in 2006, plus sobriety checkpoints and a three-day mandatory minimum consecutive days in jail for failing the test. Ohio also has the greatest amount of decriminalized marijuana for personal possession; up to 100 grams (over 3.5 ounces) is considered a “minor misdemeanor”, meaning no criminal record, no jail, and a $150 fine. The result? In 2005 there were 20,126 DUID arrests; in 2007, there were 19,155 DUID arrests, a decrease of 5% over the previous year. Only 27 out of 10,000 drivers are arrested for DUID.
The worst of the states may be Georgia and Utah. There is zero tolerance in those states for any THC or metabolite, there are roadside sobriety checkpoints, there is no medical marijuana or decriminalization, and there is a mandatory minimum jail stay of a day (Georgia) or two (Utah). Plus it is safe to say there is a certain political climate unfriendly to pot smokers in both states. In Georgia, passing zero tolerance was followed by a 9.5% increase in DUID arrests (Utah data are unavailable at this time – I can’t find FBI UCR data prior to 1996.) Of all the states I could find data on, it seems Nevada has the greatest two-year increase in DUID arrests (76%), followed by Michigan (33%). Five of the states had two-year declines in DUID arrests.
It is difficult to draw perfect conclusions on this data. Different numbers of law enforcement agencies report to the FBI from year to year, that can skew the numbers. We don’t take into account increases in numbers of drivers or millions of miles driven over those two year periods. DUI arrest statistics don’t break down into alcohol vs. marijuana vs. drugs. However, based on these data, I’d find it hard to believe if, as some I-502 opponents have predicted, we see a mass increase in DUID arrests to the point where former <1oz possession stops all become DUID blood draws. Washington State had around 10,000 <1oz arrests in 2010 and 34,098 DUID arrests. Presuming the current marijuana DUIDs in that total would be busted anyway with the new law, there would have to be a 29% increase in DUID arrests over two years, all of them cannabis only, to make this nightmare come true.
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to 'Stop Arresting Marijuana Smokers'. 
[...] Originally Posted by Messiah Decoy Thanks for addressing my point fellas but I would like to know the typical procedure when someone is suspected of driving stoned at this point in time. Anyone know? Do they take you in for a piss test? The procedure is that they first have to catch you violating a traffic law. If they pull you over without cause the case can be thrown out, regardless of your test result. You then have to exhibit "objective signs of impairment", giving the officer probable cause to arrest you under suspicion of DUI. If he has reasonable suspicion that you are impaired by something other than alcohol, he can take you to a hospital for a blood draw. They look for any drug, not just THC. You then get sent home and the blood is sent off to a toxicologist. Later on, the prosecutor reads the arrest report and decides whether to request your blood draw info from the toxicologist. That + the officer's statement is usually enough to win a conviction. All of this happens right now. I-502 implements a 5ng active THC per se limit similar to the .08 limit for alcohol. It acts like an instruction to the jury that this is all that is required to prove impairment. This comes into play at trial, not before. The officer never sees the result until that time if at all. 502 changes NOTHING about the public's interaction with the police. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, 502 also makes a distinction between active THC and carboxy THC. A distinction not made right now. The vast majority of marijuana DUI convictions are for less than 5ng of active THC, sometimes just carboxy. In my view, having a limit will actually help defendants in most cases because they'll be able to now say they were under the legal limit. Juries are completely unaware at this point how much THC might actually result in impairment. I'll also add that 13 other states have MJ DUI laws. If 502 passes, of these states, Washington's will be the most permissive. The other states are zero tolerance, no distinction between active and carboxy, or a 1 or 2 ng threshold. Here's a decent writeup: Thirteen states have marijuana per se DUID statutes (UPDATED) | The NORML Stash Blog. [...]
[...] 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 [...]
[...] 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 [...]
[...] 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 [...]
[...] 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 [...]
[...] In Washington, another measure is going to be on the ballot. It’s got some concerning per se DUI law written into it, but I still urge people to vote for it. Why? Because that per se DUI law will likely go into effect eventually, as it has in so many other states [...]
Russ, there are a few things you should know about James, before you decide to waste any more of your valuable time. The first thing to know is that James has never won an actual legal case in his life, although he’s been convicted numerous times.
His latest encounter with reality in the legal system found him first convicted by a jury of his peers on a simple possession charge, then by a superior court on appeal, and then he was denied even a hearing by the state court of appeals. Get this, He didn’t even win a single motion through the whole trial and appeals process. And to think, he could have saved himself and the taxpayers a lot of money if he had only been well enough versed in the law to know that he needs a current authorization to use medical cannabis.
Don’t you find it paradoxical that James claims expertise in international law, yet he can’t avoid or beat a simple misdemeanor charge relating to the same legal subject he claims such expertise in?
James is currently banned from from many Washington state medical cannabis forums for his behavior and inability to realize that he’s just not that bright when it comes to the law in general, and specifically, medical cannabis law.
James claims to be an advocate for the medical cannabis cause. If you take a look at his actions though, he really is just posing in order to draw attention to himself, and to pursue vendettas against those whom he believes have done him wrong. If you want to take a look into the mind of a narcissistic paranoid schizophrenic, you need look no further than James.
Yes. When you can smoke marijuana and are not subject to criminal, civil, and administrative sanction, that is “legalization”. Y’all can argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin if you like, but when I can have pot in my pocket, have it be found by a police officer, and nothing bad happens to me, that is “legalization”.
Oooh, but it’s only an ounce… that’s not legalization! Why the hell does anyone need to have more than an ounce for personal recreation?
Oooh, but it doesn’t let me home grow… that’s not legalization! Yeah, you’re not allowed to distill gin at home either, but nobody says gin isn’t legalized.
Yes. This is the beginning. The feds aren’t going to legalize. A state will have to do it first. Then that state will have to fight the feds, and the feds will have to wriggle around international treaties, and it will be very messy. But the beginning doesn’t begin if initiatives don’t make the ballot and pass.
Which twelve states are you referring to where any adult 21 and over can have an ounce of marijuana and face no sanction whatsoever?
Apparently the “junk info” I’m so well-versed in got me a speaking gig at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy, one of the world’s most influential think tanks, debating a former adviser to the drug czar.
You run an internet dispensary list.
I’ve read enough analysis and actual text of the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to make your cut-and-paste wholly unnecessary. Your nonsense about call girls and complete denigration of people who use marijuana without a medical excuse (does that include Rastas?) leads me to believe further discussions with you will be fruitless.
Google: > > Exclusive: Why Can’t You Smoke Pot? Because Lobbyists Are Getting Rich Off of the War on Drugs
Thclist.com supports legalization with no NEW criminal penalties attached Russ. Do that and we are on board.. anything less is a HUGE lobbying sales gimmick for donations. The problem is y’all face though, is the treaties.. lobbying to have them changed may behoove the movement Russ..
Did anyone watch the cop and judge in grays harbor get shot and stabbed today ??
Google: >> Judge stabbed, deputy shot at Grays Harbor Courthouse
Google: >> Judge wounded in Montesano attack had sued over court security …
Lobbying for a metal detector at all odds.. what’s next ??
Here is your “PROHIBITION” russ.. wtf? are you smoking.. I want some dude !!
Why are you selling junk info to the public in the name of your employer ??
Or are you really that morally shallow ?
I would like to see your boss respond if you can’t Russ..
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs makes a distinction between recreational and medical and scientific uses of drugs. Numerous provisions state that nations are allowed to permit medical use of drugs. However, recreational use is prohibited by Article 4:
The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary . . . Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs.
Furthermore, the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances requires its Parties to establish criminal penalties for possession of drugs prohibited under the Single Convention for recreational use. If a nation wished to completely legalize marijuana, it would have to withdraw from the treaties. According to leading researchers in this area of law, every signatory has a right to do this.
So with this in mind–>>However, recreational use is prohibited by Article 4:
So your morals are :
I want access to an OZ. of weed so I can smoke recreational but, not drive and I want to deprive those whom under international and state medical laws the right to drive even though I know they are not actually impaired as they have a higher tolerance level well above 5ng/ml thc level of blood.
I would say you have some moral issues for sure Russ.
INTERNATIONAL TREATY LAW ARTICLE 4 bans recreational use world wide for any nation and for all their citizens. Our states and federal government have OBLIGATIONS under those treaties to have criminal sanctions against RECREATIONAL USE..but, not medical use or scientific use for it’s citizens.
Sorry Russ you have so many moral issues of not wanting to abide by the law and throw others under the law enforcement bus by a vote of the people, which will have an injunction filed which have no defense against due to the commerce clause.
The only non severable sections to be untouched will be DUID for all.. a strict liability crime.
So at the end of the day.. you just authorized a 5ng/ml state wide is all by voting it in to law… when in fact all leo already has the authority to arrest for impaired driving with no limits to prove impairment. It makes it hard to prosecute for cannabis as of today but, will be an automatic guilt for those whom under state, federal and international OBLIGATIONS have a right to use cannabis as a medicine which has no toxic levels to the human body.
I find it an issue for myself Russ, as I can not drive unless I have high levels of carboxy delta-11 in my system to actually un- impair my driving abilities. If I don’t, I am not safe to be on the road with my medical conditions.
So I find it just the opposite to your morals for sure.
I have spoken to leo, judges, and my local legislative body to these facts. And it is well documented as the federal government has such records as testimony I gave in a medical setting.
You do not wish to debate anymore because you have hit a brick wall with no way out of the REAL debate..
As for digging on the other supporters… . your the ONLY one blasting the airwaves and INTERNET with this B.S. .. looking for more donations..
As for the article I read.. when I am not busy with other things and helping protecting patients and providers rights.. I will post it here.. maybe today, maybe next week but, it will get done.
Maybe norml should just not endorse such horse crap being they should know better beings they just lost the commerce clause argument hands down.. for medical use.. I can only imagine the money needed to fight a recreational injunction under the commerce clause… sounds like sanctions to me.. HUGE sanctions for trying to argue what one knows is futile. This is called ETHICS of the profession..
I would like to see legalization with no criminal penalties attached.. that is TRUE LEGALIZATION.
Russ, if a call girl said her services are free.. would you enjoy it, or be very concerned you would leave with something you didn’t want for life.. we will presume you like call girls services like most men in society would unless they just have a moral issue of lying to themselves ….
Yep, it surly is a moral issue now isn’t it.
But you seem to be implying that
1. I-502 is “legalization”
2. That this is the beginning
I see 12 states that already have it better than what I-502 proposes.
“I read an article today which said norml backs legalization in the whole U.S. of A with DUID laws attached.”
Please supply me with a link to that so I can inform the writer about his publishing of a complete fabrication. It is the exact opposite of our stance.
NORML has always fought per se DUID. We fought with ACLU when they chose to include it, we fought with DPA when they chose to fund it (and, again, why is it y’all are so pissed at NORML but aren’t mounting anti-ACLU, anti-DPA, anti-MPP, anti-SSDP, anti-Peter-Lewis, and anti-George-Soros campaigns?) But we lost those fights and the DUID language was included.
But again (for the hundredth time), our prime directive is to end the arrest of people for smoking pot. Not smoking pot and driving. Smoking pot. Period.
I-502 will end the arrest of 10,000 people for smoking pot.
Now, I-502 will institute a discrimination against pot smokers and will not recognize a right of pot smokers to grow their own.
And NORML fights to secure pot smokers rights and end discrimination against them.
But those are priorities #2 and #3.
So as I analyze I-502 against my legalization priorities:
#1) End pot arrests – YES (1oz possession saving majority of pot smokers)
#2) Secure pot rights – SOME (right to buy, right to grow commercially, but not right to grow personally)
#3) Don’t discriminate against pot smokers – NO (per se DUID affecting small minority of pot smokers)
It’s pointless to discuss this further with you, because we agree on most of the facts (per se DUIDs suck and convict unimpaired drivers) but we disagree on the morality. You seem to believe that “the ends don’t justify the means” and that is a principled stand some people take – it ain’t right or wrong, it’s your morals. I believe that “the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few” and that is a principled stand some people take. It’s my morals.
Put it another way: You couldn’t turn to a pot smoker and say, “Sorry, you gotta take this DUI you don’t deserve so we can legalize an ounce.” I couldn’t turn to 10,000 pot smokers and say, “Sorry, you gotta take a day in jail and a drug criminal record you don’t deserve so people who smoke pot all day every day can feel less risky getting behind the wheel of a car.”
“Im not compromising my right to drive for a wee little ounce, and no authorization to grow or share.”
And there’s your mistake in analysis. Try it this way:
“I’m not compromising my right to drive to begin the end of prohibition!”
If by “behavior”, you mean “putting up tables of information and data available to anyone with a web connection”, then I guess I’m guilty.
Your inability to understand “support for legalization that contains a DUID provision I hate” versus “hatred of a stand-alone DUID provision” now appears deliberate.
As for this post’s application to Colorado… couldn’t you make the argument that with all these states with zero tolerances not really changing the the DUI arrests rates, doesn’t that mean testing for any amount is a futile waste of Colorado’s taxpayer dollars?
Google Medical Marijuana and Highway Deaths
Seems every state that enacted medical cannabis laws have less deaths due to cannabis users..
@ Patients against I-502,
I read an article today which said norml backs legalization in the whole U.S. of A with DUID laws attached..
Why the hell would they do that across america when states already have impaired driving laws ??
To complete the grudge against medical marijuana patients noted here:
NORML Owes The Medical Marijuana Community An Apology
By Steve Elliott ~alapoet~
January 6, 2012
NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre has called the medical marijuana industry a “legal farce” and “largely a sham” in an article which hit the web yesterday, creating a backlash among NORML’s many supporters (quite a few of whom likely just became former supporters) in the medicinal cannabis industry.
How many times must we repeat this? Attacking medical marijuana is not a good legalization strategy.
These are some sick twisted people running the legalization road show.. poor sheeple.
Take note, Colorado. Russ Belville is providing more ammunition for the folks trying to implement per se DUIC in your state…and NORML fully supports his behavior.
If this crap passes in Washington, Russ in Oregon, and myself in California will have it much better than Washingtonians. We already have decrim (which is all I-502 is), and we don’t have the added provisions of blood testing, THC limits, and added penalties. If I get pulled over with an ounce of weed, its a $100 ticket, a non-criminal infraction, and I go on my merry way. And for something like an ounce, the police don’t even really bother.
I think people in states like Oregon and California and a handful of others, that already enjoy these decrim laws, some of us apparently take it for granite.
Im not compromising my right to drive for a wee little ounce, and no authorization to grow or share.
I-502 is dumb law, and it is NOT “legalization”. Its worse than the decrim that Cali passed last year!
Unfortunately Russ,
The states can not change the feds obligations under the treaties. That is simply a wish lawyers want most to believe.
I am not a hater Russ. I just know how to read plain english. ( I guess I missed some silent supporters OOPs.)
Hell I used cannabis way before any medical laws came about, just like the most of us over 40 have.
I asked the question because the last court show down norml did for medical distribution came to an end like no other I have seen before in the history of norml.. on the commerce clause argument they didn’t argue against. 4 CASES Russ.. not just 1.
So all that was donated to norml got flushed down the drain.. with no chance of any wining appeal.
So I am a bit taken back on how those others you mentioned are going to fair out with donations to them also..
Seems a bit of a circle don’t you think ??
Selling a DUID to pass legalization is a bit of a hoodwink. Especially if we already have a DUID law for impaired driving of drugs..
Again, seems like a bit of a circle russ.
Heck Russ at least I am not attacking the bogus stats posted on the initiatives website..
You would really think I am a hater if I did that..
To answer your question: Yes. But not only will NORML and ACLU be fighting (and DPA and MPP and SSDP and all the other groups supporting I-502 that haters conveniently fail to mention) these injunctions, the Washington Attorney General will be fighting with all the resources of the state.
The treaties can’t change until the feds change. The feds won’t change until the states do. That’s why we support legalization at the state level.
Russ,
You claim to be open for debate of the real issues on legalization . Here is the lobster trap one must get out of before it will be allowed.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cannabis reform at the international level refers to efforts to ease restrictions on cannabis use under international treaties. Most cannabis reform organizations do not spend a great deal of resources on international cannabis reform, since success would require governmental assistance that has so far not been forthcoming. Decisions to change global drug regulations are usually reached by informal consensus; without such agreement, reform is virtually impossible.
Nations could withdraw from international drug control treaties, but they would almost certainly continue to face great pressure to comply with their provisions. As of January 1, 2005, 180 nations belonged to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The international drug control bodies exert a powerful influence across the globe, preventing even reform-minded nations such as the Netherlands from completely legalizing cannabis.
Internationally, the drug is in Schedule IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, that treaty’s most restrictive category.
Background
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs makes a distinction between recreational and medical and scientific uses of drugs. Numerous provisions state that nations are allowed to permit medical use of drugs. However, recreational use is prohibited by Article 4:
The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary . . . Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs.
Furthermore, the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances requires its Parties to establish criminal penalties for possession of drugs prohibited under the Single Convention for recreational use. If a nation wished to completely legalize marijuana, it would have to withdraw from the treaties. According to leading researchers in this area of law, every signatory has a right to do this.
So with this in mind–>>However, recreational use is prohibited by Article 4:
How does norml justify it’s “standards” you mentioned ?
Now with the treaties being the law of the land–>> Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be “the supreme law of the land.” The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word “shall” is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase “in pursuance thereof” in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.
The “supremacy clause” is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. – United States Senate
Origin of the Conception.—How did this distinctive feature of the Constitution come about, by virtue of which the treaty-making authority is enabled to stamp upon its promises the quality of municipal law, thereby rendering them enforceable by the courts without further action? The short answer is that Article VI, paragraph 2, makes treaties the supreme law of the land on the same footing with acts of Congress.
My question would be is norml or aclu going to fight the injunction which would follow I-502 passing the vote of the people ?
I mean, are we the people of the state of Wa. i.e. the tax payers suppose to fend off an injunction which is going to surly occur ?
I am sure the feds will not even mention the DUID part but, will for sure mention “recreational use” as completely prohibited under the treaties they signed.
For a example of what I am getting at please see Monson v. DEA in which was a hemp farm case in which the legislators themselves owned and operated a hemp farm which the DEA refused giving a registration to grow and sell to the public a non THC plant, seeds, and fibers.
I do not understand normls position backing something they should know is not viable.
Using the statistics your using here are relatively meaningless Russ.
I’m a lucky guy to be living in Nevada… not! The MMJ program is restrictive with zero support. We live like rats afraid to talk to other card holders. Having a card (and showing it) will be grounds for a pee test/blood test. I look like a cop so that helps but I pity the young crowd as they’re all suspects.
Total DUIs as reported to the FBI in their Uniform Crime Report. There is no breakdown of “cannabis only DUIs”.
Maybe I missed it in the stats, but are these Total DUI’s? Including for alcohol & other drugs ? Or is this cannabis only?