We’ve Been Here Before: The Impact of Marijuana Legalization on DUI

marijuana legalization - LexipolBy Jim Concannon

The United States has a history of making intoxicating substances, like alcohol and marijuana, illegal under the guise of weakening moral values. So-called moral offenses—drinking alcohol, gambling, cheating on your spouse—offend some people to the point where they feel legislation banning or restricting such activities is needed. This, of course, is how Prohibition came into effect in 1919. But legislating morality has also proved difficult. As far back as 1926, RM Maciver warned that puritanical legislation was not necessarily a proper object of political lawmaking.(1) Prohibition was repealed just seven years later.

The same societal forces that led to the repeal of Prohibition are currently shaping the trend toward relaxing marijuana laws. A Gallup poll in November 2017 showed support for recreational marijuana legalization at 64 percent, a record high.(2)

That support is carrying over to the voting booth. In 2016, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and California passed legislation legalizing recreational marijuana use, joining four states that already had similar provisions. Additional states will likely follow suit; 21 other states legalized marijuana for medical use, and such laws are often a precursor to recreational legalization.

So, it’s safe to say we can expect recreational marijuana use to grow. For law enforcement officers who routinely patrol America’s roadways, that creates an interesting question: What impact will marijuana legalization have on driving?

Although the repeal of Prohibition led to a widespread societal acceptance of drinking alcohol, over time we as a society drew a line: Intoxication may be OK, but intoxicated driving is roundly ostracized, and DUI laws enjoy widespread public support. Recognizing that it may be inappropriate to legislate morality, we have agreed that it is entirely appropriate to regulate dangerous behavior. And we have used scientific research to help us determine how much is too much and how to detect whether a driver is intoxicated.

Looking back at how our understanding of alcohol intoxication and driving under the influence (DUI) evolved allows us to make certain predictions about the impact of marijuana legalization.

DUID Will Increase
The repeal of Prohibition not only brought social acceptance to drinking alcohol; it also caused an influx of drunk driving. In 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition nationwide. In the first six months of 1934, injuries and deaths due to DUI were four times higher in Chicago, and Los Angeles officials reported a vast increase in DUI.(3)

We can expect the same trend with marijuana. In fact, we’re already seeing it. In Washington, 19% of those arrested for intoxicated driving had THC in their system before marijuana legalization. Following legalization in 2012, the rate has increased steadily, reaching 25 percent in 2013, 28 percent in 2014, and 33 percent in 2015.(4) Correlation does not prove causation, but common sense tells us if more people are smoking pot, more drivers will be stoned.

Societal Attitude Toward Stoned Driving Will Change 
It seems evident to us now that drinking and driving is a dangerous act. However, that was not always the case. In the not-so-distant past, drinking and driving was not necessarily frowned upon; in fact, some considered it an act of free will. “Punishment” took form in civil court to compensate the injured party. Criminal sanctions were a topic of much debate, both socially and politically.

The industrial revolution brought machinery that made intoxicated behavior dangerous to bystanders. Intoxicated individuals in the past might merely fall off a horse or get in a bar fight. With machinery, mainly automobiles, a real danger existed that could impact innocent bystanders. Thus, there was some early recognition of the dangers of DUI. For example, around 1909, the Massachusetts highway commission implemented fines of up to $200 and incarceration of up to six months for the operation of an automobile recklessly while under the influence of liquor.(5) News reports from as early as 1887 point to the role of alcohol in train crashes, and the first report on the effect of drinking and operating motorized wagons was completed in 1904.(6)

However, the passage of the Volstead Act (National Prohibition) in 1919 made alcohol harder to obtain and consumption a possible crime. Thus, rates of drinking went down, drunk driving declined, and so did attention to the issue.(5) After the repeal of Prohibition, it took decades of DUI-related deaths before DUI laws became widely enacted, and longer before they were strictly enforced. That change came mostly due to grassroots efforts by organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana, we will likely not move as slowly; having learned the devastating effects of DUI, it should not be as great a leap to accept the effects of DUID. Nevertheless, we have a ways to go. Lee Vinsel, an assistant professor of science and technology studies at the Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey, has written about how a study by Ramaekers et al. (2004) is often miscited by marijuana users as proof that driving stoned is safer than driving straight.(7) (In fact, the study found that stoned drivers perform worse than straight drivers, but that they perform better than drunk drivers.) Stoned driving is still the stuff of comedy (Cheech and Chong, The Big Lebowski, Super Troopers). Stoned drivers are often depicted as driving too slowly, too timidly, in contrast with the aggressive, reckless actions of drunk drivers. Many people who acknowledge that it’s probably not safe to drive high argue that at least it’s safer than driving drunk.

Are we justifying dangerous behavior (stoned driving) because another behavior (drunk driving) is more dangerous? Most would agree that it is more dangerous to drive 150 miles per hour than it is to drive 100 miles per hour, but both driving patterns are hazardous and can impact innocent lives. Thus, both behaviors need legislative attention.

As the number of stoned drivers increases, we can expect a change in the attitude toward stoned driving. How quickly that attitude changes will likely rest on how quickly we can amass scientific evidence on the effects of stoned driving and develop a scientifically sound method of determining marijuana impairment.

Science Will Lag Behind
And that, in turn, leads to the third prediction. Even if we intuitively understand that driving stoned is dangerous, there will be a lag before we can scientifically prove it and test for it, and that, in turn, will impact law enforcement.

We saw this same lag with alcohol. After society recognized the social problem was real, and restrictions on intoxicated driving were enacted, evidentiary issues became apparent. There was no actual scientific data to back the argument that alcohol consumption indeed had a negative impact on skills necessary to operate a motor vehicle. Everyone knew it was dangerous and innocent lives were at stake, but a presumption of guilt requires tangible evidence based on scientific study.

In 1932, a Swedish study by Widmark was the first to establish the basic relationship between alcohol consumption and blood alcohol content (BAC).(6) In 1934, Herman Heise published the first-known research on the effects of alcohol on driving, and in 1954 Robert Borkenstein invented the first practical alcohol breath testing device.(6) The most famous drunk driving research paper, the 1964 Grand Rapids Study, conducted and written by Borkenstein, determined an actual relationship between the consumption of alcoholic beverages, BAC and the inability to safely operate a motor vehicle.(8)

Borkenstein’s Breathalyzer subsequently made it possible to measure BAC and how it was tied directly to impairment. Since then, additional research has continued to refine our understanding of the impact of alcohol on driving, with many states lowering legal BAC levels.
We’re in a similar situation with understanding the effects of stoned driving. Because marijuana is classified by the federal government as a schedule I drug and was determined to serve no medicinal function in addition to posing a high risk of addiction and abuse, clinical researchers were prohibited from conducting scientific research.(9) Thus, studies documenting the effects of THC on driving behavior are sparse in the United States.

We do know that marijuana, mainly dependent on the THC dose, reduces visual scanning, orientation ability, divided attention and psychomotor performance, and that it affects mood, memory and attention. These performance inhibitors, in turn, may impair temporal processing, complex reaction times and dynamic tracking.(10) And the seminal Ramaekers et al. (2004) study referenced earlier showed that THC impairs cognition, psychomotor function and driving performance in a dose-related manner.(11) Those researchers also found the detrimental effects of THC appear more prominent in highly automated driving behavior, as compared to more complex driving tasks that require conscious control.

The other major area ripe for scientific explanation is how to measure impairment. Alcohol dissipates at a measurable rate. Marijuana remains in a person’s system days after consumption—well after the intoxicating effects have worn off—making per se limits very challenging to prove or disprove. There’s a lot we don’t know, and we can expect a lag while science struggles to catch up. I fear we’re trying to speed up the process by placing a square peg (proposed DUID field testing) in a round hole (established DUI field testing). This is a cumbersome process with the potential for a dubious outcome.

At a Crossroads
So, we are at a crossroads—one that society has already traversed. We have (mostly) legalized marijuana, but we have done so without adequate tools for the inevitable outcome of legalization, impaired driving.

Every state has drug-impaired driving laws, including six states that have per se laws in effect for one more drugs. But DUID laws vary across states and are not nearly as clear-cut as DUI laws. Further, enactment of sanctions is only one-half of the equation. Arresting for a criminal code section is easy and frankly meaningless unless the state can successfully prosecute, and prosecution requires admissible evidence.

The current evidentiary trend has been to pigtail marijuana impairment to tried-and-true alcohol intoxication tests. Whether this will work—and how it’s playing out in the courts—will be the focus of my next article.

Lexipol’s Law Enforcement Policy Manual and Daily Training Bulletin Service provides essential policies that support officer decision-making in all facets of law enforcement operations. Contact us today for more information or to request a free demo.

James Concannon - LexipolJAMES CONCANNON retired as a sergeant with the Sierra County (CA) Sheriff’s Office, where he served since 2001. From 2011 to 2015, he served as Undersheriff, then returned to the sergeant rank after an administration change. Concannon earned his bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from Sacramento State University in California and his master’s in criminology, law and society from the University of California-Irvine. He is also a professional services representative for Lexipol, helping law enforcement agencies implement policy and training.

Citations
1. MacIver RM (1966) The Modern State. Oxford University Press.
2. Stebbins S and Suneson G. (Nov. 14, 2017) Pot initiatives: Predicting the next 15 states to legalize marijuana. USA Today. Retrieved 12/5/17 from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/11/14/pot-initiatives-predicting-next-15-states-legalize-marijuana/860502001/
3. Lerner BH (2011) One for the Road: Drunk Driving Since 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 21.
4. Couper F (June 15, 2015) Analysis of suspected impaired driving cases (DUI & DRE) received at the Washington State Toxicology Laboratory. Retrieved 12/5/17 from: http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House%20Judiciary/Bills/S.241/Witness%20testimony/S.241~Dr.%20Fiona%20Couper~Washington%20State%20Impaired%20Driving%20Data~3-24-2016.pdf
5. Lerner, p. 18
6. Fell JC and Voas RB (2006) Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD): The First 25 Years. Traffic Injury Prevention. 7(3):195–212.
7. Vinsel L. (Oct. 13, 2015) Smoke gets in your eyes. Aeon.co. Retrieved 12/15/17 from: https://aeon.co/essays/science-shows-it-s-safer-to-drive-high-than-straight-right
8. Lerner, p. 49
9. Winterbourne M. (2012) United States drug policy: The scientific, economic, and social issues surrounding marijuana. Retrieved 12/5/17 from: https://web.stanford.edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Winterbourne_SocSci_2012.pdf
10. Ronen A et al. (2010) The effect of alcohol, THC, and their combination on perceived effects, willingness to drive and performance of driving and non-driving tasks. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 42(6):1855–1865.
11. Ramaekers J, Berghaus G, Laar MV and Drummer O. (2004) Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 73(2):109–119.

le-one-sheet-cta

  • REQUEST MORE INFORMATION

    (844) 312-9500

Director Daniel Keen
Northampton (PA) Department of Corrections

“It came down to three main factors for us: safety, time and efficiency. This is a way to protect  the staff, public and inmates in the best interest of all.”

Major Jeff Fox
Vigo County (IN) Sheriff's Office

“Lexipol’s Implementation Services program was key to getting our manuals off the shelf. If it weren’t for that, we wouldn’t be implemented today. Departments should recognize their limitations and realize that they likely don’t have the resources to do it on their own. Implementation Services is key to getting it done.”

Chief Deputy Ray Saylo
Carson City (NV) Sheriff's Office

"It’s a huge priority of this administration to teach policy to our sergeants, and Lexipol’s Daily Training Bulletins help us do that. We are constantly drilling into them that policy will protect them as an individual officer. If they ensure that their people are following policy, even if they’re sued, they will be OK.”

Sgt. Bryan Ward
Cumberland County (PA) Sheriff's Office

"Calling Lexipol an insurance policy doesn’t do it justice, because it doesn’t capture the enormous power that partnering with Lexipol provides.”

Chief Deputy Klint Anderson
Weber County (UT) Sheriff's Office

“We spent a considerable amount of money and effort trying to develop and maintain comprehensive and legally based policies and procedures. Lexipol has relieved us of that burden and provided us with a policy system that we have great confidence in and that we can tailor to suit our particular goals and community standards.”

Sheriff Blaine Breshears
Morgan County (UT) Sheriff's Office

“We had a use of force lawsuit, and as soon as the attorneys discovered that we have Lexipol, they said, ‘We won’t have an issue there.’ Our policies were never in question.”

Lt. Craig Capps
White County (TN) Sheriff's Office

"I would recommend Lexipol to any law enforcement agency, whether three-person or 2,000-person—it makes no difference. The program works.”

Chief John Defore
Hiawatha, KS

“By offering 365 daily training bulletins to my officers, I am saving far more than the cost of the software every year. In fact, I was able to show my commissioners a cost savings by utilizing Lexipol for our policy and policy training needs.”

Captain Jeff Schneider
Yakima (WA) Police Department

“KMS tracks and logs when people acknowledge and accept updates, which is very important, and it lets us track who isn’t getting the updates so we can give them the appropriate attention.”

Chief David Maine
The Village of Hunting Valley (OH) Police Department

“What we had before Lexipol had been around for years. It was like every other policy manual I had seen: It didn’t get the updates it needed. The Lexipol manual is a living, breathing document.”

Chief Deputy Lauren Osborne
Surry County (NC) Sheriff’s Office

“If there’s a change as a result of case law, or a procedure that needs to change, Lexipol does the legwork, sends it to us, we approve it and send it out to our people for acknowledgement—and it’s all documented.”

Sheriff Gerald Antinoro
Storey County (NV) Sheriff’s Office

“Lexipol is one of the best products I have seen in my 30+ years in law enforcement.”

Deputy Chief John McGinty
Simi Valley (CA) Police Department

“You get sued for your policies or you get sued for your actions, or both. You can only do so much about actions. But having Lexipol gives me confidence that if we draw a lawsuit, our policies won’t come under attack.”

Chief Kelly Stillman
Rocky River (OH) Police Department

“I can’t say enough about the positives from a chief’s perspective. I don’t know why everyone isn’t with Lexipol.”

Chief Jeff Wilson
Orofino (ID) Police Department

“The Lexipol Policy Manual is easy to use, it’s convenient and you have peace of mind knowing that you have a thorough manual that is going to stand up to any challenge the agency may face.”

Chief Ralph Maher
Oak Creek (CO) Police Department

“With Lexipol, I know our policy manual is going to be up to date. I can turn my back on it today and tomorrow there will be any needed updates waiting for me. That allows me to focus on some of the other things I have to do as a chief.”

Chief Steven Vaccaro
Mokena (IL) Police Department

“If you compare Lexipol to other policy providers, Lexipol is the only one that has policy that has been vetted by other chiefs, industry experts and lawyers. All you have to do is tailor the policies to your agency’s needs.”

Commander Leslie Burns
Mercer Island (WA) Police Department

“Lexipol provides a huge advantage for agencies pursuing accreditation. The tools take about 60% of the difficulty out of the accreditation process. If you want to be accredited, this is the way to do it.”

Deputy Chief Robin Passwater
Kankakee (IL) Police Department

“If you don’t have Lexipol, even with a full-time person dedicated to policy, there’s almost no way you can keep updated on all the laws and also have the training component. It’s an excellent system.”

Assistant Chief Bill Holmer
Glen Ellyn (IL) Police Department

“It’s a no-brainer for me. Someone is watching for changes to laws for me, and then tweaking the content based on those changes or updates in best practices.”

Lt. Ed Alvarez
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) (CA) Police Department

“I like the mobile app because it tells me no matter where I am when I have updates to complete or when people take the DTBs. No matter where I am, I have access. The officers can get real-time updates. Everything is at their fingertips, any time.”

Chief Greg Knott
Basalt (CO) Police Department

“Lexipol gives you peace of mind because the policies that you’re implementing have been reviewed by professionals in the field and by attorneys—not just your agency’s legal counsel.”

Chief Corry Blount
Bartonville (TX) Police Department

“I feel comfortable that when we issue a policy, it covers what it needs to cover. It’s the most comprehensive policy content I’ve used in my career.”

Lt. Victor Pecoraro
Auburn (CA) Police Department

“The updates are super easy because you can pop them open, see the redline versions and be able to edit it on the fly. Once I learned I could do that, I was excited.”

Chief Joseph Morris
Arapahoe Community College (CO) Police Department

“Officers are not infallible. We have limited memories like everyone else. Working under stress presents more challenges. There are times we need to access policies in the field so we are comfortable in our decision making. The mobile application has been great for this!”

Captain Jesus Ochoa
Coronado (CA) Police Department

“Knowing that Lexipol is keeping our policies current means that there isn’t something else for us to worry about. We can focus on our jobs. That definitely gives us peace of mind.”

Chief Steven Vaccaro
Mokena (IL) Police Department

“If you compare Lexipol to other policy providers, Lexipol is the only one that has policy that has been vetted by other chiefs, industry experts and lawyers. All you have to do is tailor the policies to your agency’s needs.”

Jim Franklin, Executive Director
Minnesota Sheriffs' Association, MN

"Lexipol is, indeed, ahead of the curve with their unique risk management solutions in law enforcement. The Minnesota Sheriffs' Association has been eagerly anticipating the release of the Lexipol Custody Manual. Lexipol meets the needs of law enforcement and custodial agencies by recognizing the emerging challenges facing our agencies, and providing comprehensive tools and resources to reduce liability and risk in a professional and highly efficient manner. The Minnesota Sheriffs' Association is proud of its continued partnership with Lexipol."

Close [X]
Close [X]
Close [X]
Close [X]