Make Sure You Don’t Think About This While Getting High

Now that the Colorado Senate has passed a DUI marijuana bill with a per se cutoff point of five nanograms per milliliter (5 ng/ml) of blood, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has issued one of their nationwide action alerts, reports Michael Roberts at Denver Westword.

With the proposal headed to the Colorado House, where it has a good chance of passage, NORML is doing the right thing. This is an execrable piece of legislation. According to the best research available, there is no correlation between 5 ng/ml and driving impairment in most drivers. In fact, experienced cannabis consumers often drive better than their non-toking peers, according to at least one Australian study.

So far, so good: NORML is standing up for the interests of marijuana consumers in Colorado, as they should.

Since medicinal cannabis patients would likely be the group most heavily impacted by such an absurdly low per se limit, it’s a good thing NORML is lining up against the measure.

And NORML is entirely correct in calling a 5 ng/ml limit “unscientific and unnecessary.”

But here’s where the cranial eruptions come in.

A “legalization” proposal headed for November’s general election ballot in Washington state includes the same exact per se cutoff point for THC — 5 ng/ml.

And NORML not only endorses Initiative 502, their media mouthpieces “Radical” Russ Belville and sidekick Ganja Jon (distinguished only by the fact that he’s far more obnoxious than even Russ) have been acting as attack dogs against anyone who dares point out this glaring flaw in what, even otherwise, wouldn’t be a very good excuse for real legalization.

I-502’s other shortcomings include continuing the ban on home cultivation for everyone but patients, having a zero THC cutoff point for drivers under 21, and limiting possession to one paltry ounce. Yeah, it’s a baby step alright — the kind where they fall backwards after taking it.

So why is a DUI bill considered so bad that it’s worth a nationwide NORML action alert when it’s being considered in Colorado, yet the group supports an identical limit in Washington?

Are we really supposed to be content with a rule that NORML considers unscientific and unnecessary for Colorado? I mean this thing was so bad, it generated a nationwide action alert, after all.

Do we in Washington have “Victim” written on our foreheads, or something?

Maybe the most interesting question is this: