The “Save 502″ Clause

Just a brief follow-up to my post over the weekend criticizing Dominic Holden’s coverage of I-502. Holden has a much more level-headed news piece out that talks about a potential solution to the DUI issue:

Now, to quell the infighting and ultimately support legalization, two lawmakers are crafting legislation they intend to introduce when the legislature convenes on January 9 that would give pot-using patients legal shelter. A bill from state senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36) would exempt patients from DUI convictions solely for the presence of THC. Instead, “proof of actual impairment is required,” according to a memo she circulated. Meanwhile, Representative Roger Goodman (D-45) intends to include a similar provision in a bill that more broadly addresses alcohol DUIs.

At a recent discussion of Kohl-Welles’ bill, this particular problem was discussed (Roger Goodman was in attendance for that discussion, which is why he’s also working towards a resolution in one of his bills). This development gives me a lot of hope that greater numbers of folks can eventually get behind I-502.


  1. 1

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Has this issue been addressed by any other jurisdiction? The question here is the best way to protect medical marijuana patients from arbitrary arrests while simultaneously protecting the public from impaired drivers. Given that it’s much more a technical than philosophical problem, one doesn’t want to reinvent the wheel; if a certain approach has been proven to work elsewhere our state should copy it. Is this how other states have dealt with the same issue?

  2. 2


    Has this issue been addressed by any other jurisdiction?

    Colorado has been trying to figure out what to do with this for the past year. They set up a panel to determine what the limits should be, but failed to come up with one because the science is too unclear. Otherwise, my understanding is that no other state has a DUI law for marijuana set up the way NAW has written their initiative.

  3. 3

    Mimi spews:

    Nice try, but the legislators rarely get things like this even mentioned, much less addressed. I-502 was intentionally crafted to use patients as a scapegoat so the voters would like it better. There is no way the community is going to let this pass. Maybe if Alison had only listened when we told her it was bad idea to throw patients under the bus so she can smoke a joint legally, then we could have found something acceptable to all.

    But she had to have it her way or no way at all. So that’s what she will get. She really should stop telling others to learn to compromise until she is able to do it herself.

    That was her mistake, along with underestimating the reaction of the community as a whole. There are a lot more recreational users who also have patients as friends, and most understand what the DUIC limits will do, along with not being able to grow your own.

    There are a lot of highly intelligent people who have family members who are patients as well, and it seems that wasn’t taken into account either. Families are pissed that the ACLU would even consider this initiative, much less support it.

    Now the minions of NAW are sent to attack patients personally and accuse them of being lousy stoners, along with some more choice words. Imagine that, people who are fighting for recreational use calling patients greedy stoners!

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I would gladly give up my cannabis for good health. Anyone want to trade?

  4. 4

    grandmaster flash spews:


    been telling you all since day 1: the stoner crowd doesnt give a shit about medical pot patients. they never have and never will.

    its all about smoking their pathetic lives away without getting in trouble by John Q Law.

    will someone ask the stoners, like Lee, how much in taxes he is willing to pay for his ounce of pot?

    stoners wont pay any taxes…the underground market will thrive, just like it does now.

    its all bait and switch BS, right lee…..yes, you know im right.


  5. 5


    will someone ask the stoners, like Lee, how much in taxes he is willing to pay for his ounce of pot?

    If I ever start smoking pot again, I’d have no problem paying significant taxes whenever I buy it, especially if the money is going towards drug treatment or education.

  6. 6

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    It’s not clear to me what the point of state legalization is while you still have federal prohibition … unless you subscribe to the Confederate view of federalism.

  7. 7


    They said the same thing about medical marijuana and look how that has turned out (especially in Colorado).

  8. 8

    mookie blaylock spews:

    Shorter lee: its ok to break federal law, as long as its something I agree with. Other than that, fuck states rights.

  9. 9

    pat spews:

    take a second, think about this-if there were no laws-at all- prohibiting any kind of cannabis use, there would be no problem to address AT ALL. Wheres the carnage? The death and destruction? Reminder: i am referring to cannabis not alcohol and nicotine. There is ZERO evidence that cannabis use causes vehicular accidents and you can bet they have tried to prove otherwise! On a related note; its time for people who know better to quit perpetuating the incorrect stereotypes associated with cannabis use, like 502, its just stupid

  10. 10

    mookie blaylock spews:


    That’s bullshit and you know it…don’t belive me? Go check out what the nhtsa has to say….there is plenty of documentation that weed impairs driving.
    Are you people fucking stupid or something? Or just stoned? Any substance that alters your sense of reality will impair driving.

    Nice try assholes, but the fail…

    Insert another quarter and try again….

  11. 11

    pat spews:

    hey mookie,sounds like you get your info on cannabis from the ondcp and the dea, good luck with that

  12. 12

    Michael spews:

    If you’re weaving your way down the road, hitting the yellow and white lines at 10 under the limit, being a hazard, the police can stop you and get you off the roads regardless of what you’re on or even if you’re not on anything.

  13. 13

    mookie blaylock spews:


    Yes, that evil agency known as the national highway transportation safety administration.

    Who ya gona believe, them or a bunch of stoners?

  14. 14

    pat spews:

    who ya gonna believe? i aint into ‘faith’, sounds like you were a good D.A.R.E. student mookie

  15. 15

    mookie blaylock spews:


    Yo patty…I smoked a little weed in college…damn glad I never drove while high…also damn glad I grew up and left shit like pot behind…maybe its time you grew up too…

    But go ahead..smoke up, I don’t care. Just don’t blow smoke up our asses and claim it doesn’t impair ones ability to drive.

  16. 16

    pat spews:

    prove it mookie and then add your name to the other failed attempts. ps, why the need for baseless insults and name calling. did you say grow up? hey bartender, make it a double blub blub

  17. 17

    Mookie Blaylock spews:

    @ 9, etc…
    patty cake patty cake,

    No studies you say? hmmm…

    here’s one:

    Oh, and those evil canadians even chimed in:
    The Canadian Public Health Administration (CPHA) stated in its Nov. 21, 2005 internet “The Pot and Driving Campaign”:
    “Drugs that can help reduce the symptoms of a disease can also affect a person’s ability to drive safely. That is why some prescription drugs come with warnings not to drive for a certain amount of time after taking them.
    Cannabis impairs driving skills most severely during what is known as the acute phase, which typically lasts for up to 60 minutes after smoking.
    That is followed by post-acute (the phase after the acute one) and residual phases. The residual phase is 150 minutes or more after smoking [marijuana], during which impairment subsides rapidly.

    The degree of impairment during the residual phase depends on the amount of THC consumed. After smoking a so-called typical dose (about 20 mg) of THC, the residual phase lasts 2-3 hours.”

    Nov. 21, 2005 – Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA)

    and another:
    Jun 18 2011
    Driving after smoking even a small amount of marijuana almost doubles the risk of a fatal highway accident, according to an extensive study of 10,748 drivers involved in fatal crashes between 2001 and 2003.
    A study by the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research published in the British Medical Journal found that seven percent of drivers involved in a fatal highway crash used marijuana.

    are there studies that say the opposite? yep.

    But YOU said there were NO studies linking pot and impaired driving.

    you are just another lying stoner trying to get weed legal so you can smoke your shit and not get busted by the man.

    more bait and switch bullshit by the stoner crowd.


    go smoke your fucking pot, I dont give a fuck, just keep you loser ass off the highway so we dont have to deal with idiots like you who think they can toke out and get behind the wheel….the drunk drivers are bad enough.

  18. 22

    Mookie Blaylock, part deux spews:

    I can keep going, but you get the point…or maybe you dont…drug addled brain and all.

    I know there have been studies that have concluded pot doesnt have much of an effect on driving, so I get that. But YOU claimed there was NO studies citing the opposite…more bait and switch lies from the stoner crowd I guess – you guys are known for it.

    Look asshole, I dont care if you smoke your silly ass weed or not, doesnt make any difference to me – fuck, make it legal, I dont care.

    But keep your stupid stoned ass off the road after you have toked up. its bad enough us responsible folk have to deal with the drunk driving assholes…we sure as hell dont need to deal with fools like you who think they can toke up and get behind the wheel.


  19. 23

    Mimi spews:

    Here is why patients are not impaired. If you can’t understand it, let me know and I can try and dumb it down even more.

    The problem with NAW’s 5ng THC blood limit levels
    by Mimi Peck Meiwes on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 at 09:39

    New Approach Washington recently introduced an initiative to Washington state that would seriously cause harm to many cannabis patients in the state, by using improper scientific principle to set unrealistic limits to blood THC levels, thereby making it illegal for said patients to operate a motor vehicle even if they are not actually impaired.

    So let’s take a look at how that science works, and why this is such a serious flaw in their logic: It’s right there in the studies they use to base their numbers, a big disclaimer that states that while the average person shows impairment at these levels, some people showed no impairment at much higher levels. In the conclusion of the study, it is clearly noted that while impairment is often present at the stated level, there were individuals who were not impaired in any way at the same level.

    How can that happen? It’s pretty easy if you understand medical science. Many meds can cause unwanted side effects, so sometimes patients will start at a low dose and slowly increase the dose as their body adjusts. Doing this is called “titration” and it works quite effectively for a number of meds that can cause some serious issues if given in large doses without allowing the body time to adjust to the effects. When a medication is titrated in this way, the patient usually develops a “tolerance” to the effects of the drug, and is able to function quite normally once the tolerance develops adequately.

    There are a number of meds that require titration, as any good doctor knows and this holds true for cannabis as well. The simple fact is that once cannabis is titrated properly and a tolerance achieved, driving abilities are not impaired at all. In fact, some studies show some subjects improving their driving skills while using cannabis. Just like any medication, there is potential for abuse, but far less than prescription drugs.

    No one should drive impaired, but in the same respect, no one should be barred from driving based on inaccurate science and scare tactics. An entire population is being discriminated against so that a handful of people can have some access to recreational cannabis, while using scare tactics and hysteria to bar the most needy and vulnerable of our adults from a simple privilege. That’s not only not sound science, it’s cruel and inhumane for the persons who will be affected the most: the sick, the dying and the disabled.

    Not on my watch!

  20. 24

    Mookie Blaylock, part deux spews:


    alcoholics and heavy boozers use the same logic..

    ..guess what, they are out there killing people on the road.

    why is it so hard to understand?:

    whatever you are using – just stay home or have someone else drive….is it that hard to do?

    Im sorry if life cut you some shitty breaks – but dont put other peoples live in danger on road. There are always other options to getting behind the wheel.

  21. 25


    In the classic movie, Reefer Madness, it only took one joint for the main character to play the piano like a madman and then kill his girl friend, in a piano filled rage.
    Maybe all the people who are writing policy are afraid to any who ever smoked a joint getting behind the wheel.
    My thinking is to legalize it with the strict driving rule to get it passed, then work on getting the driving rules ratcheted down to the proper levels, if it’s too strict.

  22. 26

    Mimi spews:

    @25You really believe that’s going to work? serious. That’s like saying police won’t try and take advantage of the law. Right!

  23. 27


    The studies you quote Mookie are not actually studies, pe se of driving. This one is, paid for by the USDOT and then quickly shelved. It shows, as have other real time studies, that cannabis actually IMPROVES, rather than impairs in some cases. A study of Northwest pilots back in the day showed the same.. Cannabis improves performance.. Sorry, it is what it is..

  24. 28


    Mookie, you rely on government lies a lot for stability in your world. You seem to need structure at the cost of truth and reality. Are you a cop? Just Askin’, cause you talk that way… ;-Q