CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 01, 2013 03:02 PM UTC
6 Comments
My understanding of biology and marijuana is a bit sketchy, but treating THC levels like they do blood alcohol levels doesn't seem realistic unless the idea is simply to find another way to convict majiuana users. THC remains detectable in the blood well after the high has worn off. Since THC is fat soluble and can accumulate in tissues, regular users may always have some level in their blood.
Will a 5 nanogram limit mean that marijuana users may have to avoid driving for days after they use pot? I don't know the rate THC is metabolized or what 5 nanograms represents in terms of sobriety. Is this an objective test that can be used to determine a person's ability to drive and the limits need to be more realistic? Or is a blood test a measure of an irrelevant proxy and lawmakers need to explore other ways to make sure drivers are safe
This really is the wrong way to test the statute. No one should be arguing for lighting up and then driving. My concern is what are the levels in the bloodstream two days after a big high.
1 day, indeed the next morning after a night of bonging. 2 days, etc. You're right, not a way to test to arrive at a level. I think this is an area, ala PEDs, where the testing will lag the behavior quite a bit
This is law enforcements way of disenfranchising the would be pot smokers. They know very well that a person who smokes 3/10th of a gram or whatever, what is that? a bowl?…. are not a major threat to the roadways. It's just like the Grand Junction PD telling the citizens it protects, that it is illegal to smoke it on your front porch but ok to smoke it on your back porch. They are hoping that people will just get bothered and scared and choose to not smoke it.
Marijuana opponents still consider it a class I drug, just as bad as mushrooms, meth, ecstasy and a plethora of other really nasty chemicals. It's pretty preposterous that they won't stand to reason, or even look at the scientific evidence to counter their deluded beliefs.
oh and it's not wrong to drive with 5 NANOgrams of THC in your bloodstream. Police only bust you if your driving is impaired. As the article shows, it doesn't seem like 5 ng will make much difference. Just be a responsible driver and everyone is happy.
Aurora Sentinel editorializes against marijuana DUID bill: