BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2500
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2500 (Frazier) - As Amended: April 21, 2014
SUMMARY : Creates per se limits on driving under the influence
of specified drugs. Specifically, this bill : provides that it
is unlawful for a person to drive a vehicle if his or her blood
contains any of the following:
1)Amphetamine in the amount of 100 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood;
2)Cocaine in the amount of 50 nanograms, or more, per milliliter
of whole blood;
3)Cocaine metabolite in the amount of 50 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood;
4)Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol of marijuana in the amount of 2
nanograms, or more, per milliliter of whole blood;
5)Heroin in the amount of 50 nanograms, or more, per milliliter
of whole blood;
6)Heroin metabolite 6-monoacetylmorphine in the amount of 10
nanograms, or more, per milliliter of whole blood;
7)Methamphetamine in the amount of 100 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood;
8)Morphine in the amount of 50 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood; or
9)Phencyclidine in the amount of 10 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 2500
Page B
1)Provides that it is unlawful for any person who is under the
influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the
combined influence of alcoholic beverage and drugs, to drive a
vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 23152 subd. (a).)
2)Provides that it is unlawful for any person who is addicted to
the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 23152
subd. (c).)
3)States that the fact that any person charged with driving
under the influence of any drug or under the combined
influence of alcohol and any drug that he or she is, or has
been, entitled to use under the laws of this state shall not
constitute a defense against any violation of the driving
under the influence laws. (Veh. Code, § 23630.)
4)States that it is unlawful for any person who has 0.08% or
more by weight of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a
vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 23152 subd. (b).)
5)Provides that it is unlawful for any person who is addicted to
the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 23152
subd. (c).)
6)States legislative intent that a person be subject to enhanced
mandatory minimum penalties for multiple offenses within a
period of ten years, regardless of whether the convictions are
obtained in the same sequence as the offenses had been
committed. (Veh. Code, § 23217.)
7)States that if a person is convicted of a first violation of
driving under the influence of alcohol, or drugs, or the
combined influence of alcohol and drugs, that person shall be
punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than
96 hours, at least 48 hours of which shall be consecutive, nor
more than six months, and by a fine of not less than $390 nor
more than $1,000. (Veh. Code, § 23536 subd. (a).) Further
states that the person's privilege to drive a motor vehicle
shall be suspended. (Veh. Code, § 2356 subd. (c).)
8)Provides that if a person is convicted of driving under the
influence of alcohol, or drugs, or the combined influence of
alcohol and drugs, and the offense occurred within ten years
of a separate violation of driving under the influence, that
AB 2500
Page C
person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail
for not less than 90 days nor more than one year and by a fine
of not less than $390 nor more than $1,000. States that the
person's privilege to drive a motor vehicle shall be
suspended. (Veh. Code, § 23540 subd. (a).)
9)Provides that if a person is convicted of a violation of
driving under the influence of alcohol, or drugs, or the
combined influence of alcohol and drugs, and the offense
occurred within ten years of a separate violation of driving
under the influence, that person shall be punished by
imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor
more than one year, and the person's privilege to drive a
motor vehicle shall be revoked. (Veh. Code , § 23546 subd.
(a).)
10)Provides that in prosecution for driving under the influence
(DUI), it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had
0.08% or more blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level at the
time of driving the vehicle if his or her BAC level is 0.08%
at a chemical test performed within three hours after the
driving. (Veh. Code, § 23152.)
11)Provides that in a prosecution for DUI, it is a presumption
affecting the burden of proof that if the person had 0.05%, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood, it shall be presumed
that the person was not under the influence of an alcoholic
beverage at the time of the alleged offense. (Veh. Code, §
23610 subd. (a)(1).)
12)States that if there was, at that time, 0.05% or more but
less than 0.08%, by weight, of alcohol in the person's blood,
it shall be presumed that the person was not under the
influence of an alcoholic beverage, but the fact may be
considered with other competent evidence in determining
whether the person was under the influence of an alcoholic
beverage at the time of the alleged offense. (Veh. Code, §
23610 subd. (a)(2).)
13)Provides that if there was at that time 0.08% or more, by
weight, of alcohol in the person's blood, it shall be presumed
that the person was under the influence of an alcoholic
beverage at the time of the alleged offense. (Veh. Code, §
23610 subd. (a)(3).)
AB 2500
Page D
14)States that in any county where the board of supervisors has
approved, and the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has
licensed, a program or programs pursuant to law, the court
shall also impose as a condition of probation that the driver
shall enroll and participate in, and successfully complete a
driving-under-the-influence program, licensed pursuant to law,
in the driver's county of residence or employment, as
designated by the court. (Veh. Code, § 23538 subd. (b).)
15)Provides that the court shall refer a first offender whose
blood-alcohol concentration was less than 0.20%, by weight, to
participate for at least three months or longer, as ordered by
the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least 30
hours of program activities, including those education, group
counseling, and individual interview sessions described by
law. (Veh. Code § 23538 subd. (b)(1).)
16)States that the court shall refer a first offender whose
blood-alcohol concentration was 0.20% or more, by weight, or
who refused to take a chemical test, to participate for at
least six months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a
licensed program that consists of at least 45 hours of program
activities, including those education, group counseling, and
individual interview sessions described by law. (Veh. Code, §
23538 subd. (b)(2).)
17)States that the court shall order a person to participate in
an alcohol and drug problem assessment program pursuant to
law, inclusive, and the related regulations of the State
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, if the person was
convicted of a violation of a DUI, as specified, that occurred
within 10 years of a separate DUI, as specified, that resulted
in a conviction. (Veh. Code, § 23646 subd. (b)(1).)
18)Provides that a court may order a person convicted of a DUI,
as specified, to attend an alcohol and drug problem assessment
program pursuant to this article. (Veh. Code, § 23646 subd.
(b)(2).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
AB 2500
Page E
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "AB 2500
provides law enforcement tool to combat drugged driving by
enacting a per se standard prohibiting a person from driving
while under the influence of illegal drugs.
"Drugged driving has been increasing at an alarming rate. The
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) recently released a study
indicating that nearly twice as many California drivers, 14%
versus 7.3%, tested positive for drugs that may impair driving
abilities than did for alcohol. Of those tested positive for
alcohol, 23% tested positive for at least one other drug as
well.
"The Institute for Behavior and Health conservatively
estimates that 20% of all vehicular crashes in the United
States are caused by drugged driving. This translates into
over 6,700 deaths, 440,000 injuries and nearly $60 billion in
costs annually.
"National roadside safety studies have revealed that drugs
were present more than seven times as frequently as alcohol
among weekend nighttime drivers, with over 16% testing
positive for drugs versus only 2% being at or above the legal
limit for alcohol. Further, Trauma room studies have shown
that 51% of patients tested positive for illegal drugs,
compared to 34% who tested positive for alcohol.
"The enactment of a per se standard for drugged driving has
been identified as one of the major initiatives of the Obama
Administration's 2010 National Drug Control Strategy. In
fact, federal Department of Transportation regulations have
required a per se standard on commercial drivers since 1988.
"Currently, 17 states (Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana,
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia
and Wisconsin) have established a per se type of standard for
drugged driving."
2)Conflicting Evidence on Per Se Standards for Driving Under the
Influence of Drugs : Under existing law, if a person's driving
is impaired by being under the influence of a drug, he or she
can be arrested and charged under Vehicle Code Section
23152(a). A preliminary alcohol screening test is not
AB 2500
Page F
determinative of blood alcohol content, but is a field
sobriety test which may be used as a further investigative
tool in order to establish reasonable cause to believe a
person was driving a vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol. (See Vehicle Code § 23612 subd. (h).) If the
officer decides to use the preliminary alcohol screening test,
the officer shall advise the person that he or she is being
asked to take the test to assist the officer in determining if
he or she is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or a
combination of alcohol and drugs. The person's obligation to
submit to a chemical analysis of his or her blood, breath, or
urine is not satisfied by the person submitting to a
preliminary alcohol screening test. (Veh. Code § 23612 subd.
(i).)
If the preliminary alcohol screening test indicates that there
is no alcohol present, this may be an indicator of driving
under the influence of drugs, taken together with other
factors which provided the peace officer with the reasonable
cause to stop the driver, such as erratic driving, failure of
other field sobriety tests, etc. The existing law provides
that a person who chose a breath test may also be requested to
submit to a blood or urine test if the officer has reasonable
cause to believe that the person was driving under the
influence of a drug, or under the combined influence of
alcohol and a drug, and if the officer has a clear indication
that a blood or urine test will reveal evidence of the person
being under the influence. (Vehicle Code § 23612 subd.
(a)(2)(C).) That section also requires the officer to state
in his or her report the facts upon which that belief and
clear indication are based.
Although existing law provides the opportunity to obtain a blood
or urine test that will reveal if the person is under the
influence of drugs or under the combined influence of alcohol
or drugs, the bill's sponsor has stated that law enforcement
experiences significant difficulty obtaining filings or
prosecutions in cases in which the driver had detectable
amounts of drugs in his or her system, but did not have the
requisite 0.08% blood alcohol concentration in conjunction
with the drugs.
This bill seeks to change the standards for determining
whether a driver was under the influence at the time he or she
AB 2500
Page G
was pulled over by a law enforcement standard. The new
standards would be a variety of per se amounts of specified
drugs. This means that if a driver was operating a motor
vehicle with the specified amount of a specified drug in their
system they would be automatically determined as driving under
the influence, regardless of the observations of the officer,
the quality of their driving, or their performance on a field
sobriety test.
This bill prescribes the following per se amounts as a
violation of driving under the influence of these specified
drugs:
Amphetamine in the amount of 100 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood;
Cocaine in the amount of 50 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood;
Cocaine metabolite in the amount of 50 nanograms, or more,
per milliliter of whole blood;
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol of marijuana in the amount of
2 nanograms, or more, per milliliter of whole blood;
Heroin in the amount of 50 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood;
Heroin metabolite 6-monoacetylmorphine in the amount of 10
nanograms, or more, per milliliter of whole blood;
Methamphetamine in the amount of 100 nanograms, or more,
per milliliter of whole blood;
Morphine in the amount of 50 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood; or
Phencyclidine in the amount of 10 nanograms, or more, per
milliliter of whole blood.
Previous bills on this issue have sought to ban the presence
of any measurable amount of any of these substances in the
system of a driver at the time they are pulled over by law
enforcement. Proponents of this legislation argue that these
AB 2500
Page H
amounts are congruent with acceptable standards of impairment
while operating a motor vehicle. Opponents argue that these
amounts are not indicative of impairment and may represent
residual amounts of narcotics in the system of drivers. The
opponents object on the basis that these amounts may indicate
that the person used the specified substance, but that the per
se amounts do not indicate that a person was under the
influence. Proponents counter that it is too difficult to
convict a person of drugged driving if law enforcement has to
prove that the defendant is under the influence based on
observations (including observed driving), field sobriety
tests, and chemical tests. They would prefer that the
chemical tests stand alone, and that a conviction should
result if a specified drug is present at a specified level in
the system of the driver.
3)Office of National Drug Control Policy Drugged Driving Fact
Sheet : The sponsor of this bill provided a fact sheet from
the Office of Drug Control Policy, dated December of 2012.
According to the report, "[d]rugged driving poses threats to
public safety, as evidenced by the number of fatal crashes
each year on our highways. Law enforcement officials see the
tragedies that too often result when people take drugs and
drive. Fortunately, trained Drug Recognition Experts can help
to identify drugged drivers and make our roadways safer.
Research demonstrates that drugs, even those prescribed by a
physician, can impair perception, judgment, motor skills, and
memory - critical skills for safe and responsible driving.
Recent surveys have shown how pervasive drugged driving has
become in the United States. The Obama Administration
recognizes the seriousness of the issue and is taking steps to
reduce drugged driving. For example, President Obama has drawn
much-needed attention to the issue of drugged driving by
declaring December National Impaired Driving Prevention Month
in 2010, 2011, and 2012. The President's goal is to reduce
drugged driving by 10 percent by 2015. To reach this mark, the
Administration is working to advance initiatives to improve
public awareness, enhance law enforcement training, improve
screening methodologies, and collect more comprehensive data
to support effective policy-making."
4)The Time it Takes for a Drug to Be Eliminated from the System:
According to a report issued by the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime:
AB 2500
Page I
Drugs vary by their elimination half-lives, which is
the time required for the blood levels to decline by
50%. The half-life of a drug is heavily influenced by
a variety of factors, including the individual's age,
sex, physical condition and clinical status. A
compromised liver and the concurrent presence of
another disease or drug have the potential of enhancing
the toxic effects of the drug by slowing down the
elimination process. Under different clinical
conditions, however, the process may be speeded up.
Therefore, great variation may be found in the
half-lives of the same drug.
Approximately six half-lives are required to eliminate
99% of any drug. Because the half-life of cocaine is
relatively short, averaging one hour, only six hours
are needed for the elimination of 99% of the drug.
Cocaine metabolites have a longer half-life and can be
detected for a considerably longer period of time
through urine drug assays. Compared with cocaine,
phenobarbital has a much longer half-life (80 to 120
hours), so that at least 480 hours, or 20 days, are
required to eliminate 99% of the drug. Since there is
much variation in the half-lives of different drugs and
the absolute amount of drug present can be very small,
it is crucial that the appropriate body fluid for
analysis is selected for testing.
Elimination of ethanol [alcohol] follows a different
pattern. Its levels decline almost linearly over time.
The average elimination rate is between 15 mg/100 ml
and 20 mg/100 ml (0.015-0.02 per cent) per hour,
although rates of between 10 mg/100 ml and 30 mg/100 ml
(0.01-0.03 per cent) per hour have also been observed.
In the alcoholic patient, the elimination rate is
generally higher. In forensic calculations, a rate of
15 mg/100 ml (0.015%) per hour is usually used.
(http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulleti
n/bulletin_1993-01-01_2_page005.html)
5)Can Per Se Limits Determine Impairment at the Time of
Driving? : Opponents' most persuasive arguments are that per
se limits do not indicate that a driver is actually under the
AB 2500
Page J
influence at the time they are operating a vehicle. If a
defendant is to be punished for driving under the influence,
they should actually be under the influence at the time of the
alleged offense. Otherwise, drivers are merely being
convicted of driving under the influence for having ingested a
substance (legally or illegally) at some point prior to
driving.
According to a 2011 National Highway Transportation and Safety
Administration, Drug Recognition Expert Training Manual<1>,
"Toxicology has some important limitations. One limitation is
that, with the exception of alcohol, toxicology cannot produce
'per se' proof of drug impairment. That is, the chemist can't
analyze the blood or urine and come up with a number that
"proves" the person was or wasn't impaired." As the bill
relates to the presence of THC (marijuana) in the system of a
driver, "It is difficult to establish a relationship between a
person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance
impairing effects. It is inadvisable to try and predict
effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently
impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH
concentrations<2>."
The presence of drugs in the system of a driver is not a good
fact. However, under current law that evidence can be used to
argue that a driver was under the influence at the time they
drove a vehicle. This bill would state that a person is in
fact guilty if they have the proscribed amounts in their
system at the time they were driving. The science appears
conflicted on this issue and it is not clear that a driver
would necessarily be guilty at these levels. In fact, many
proponents have argued for a 5 nanograms standard for driving
under the influence of marijuana. The states that do have per
se limits are inconsistent on the standards set. The 2
nanogram limit proposed in this bill is legislation is on the
low end of those five states have set numerical limits. Other
states have adopted zero tolerance standards which permit no
measurable amount in the system, but that is not the approach
--------------------------
<1>
http://www.maine.gov/dps/bhs/impaired-driving/law-enf-resources/d
re/documents/7daystu1-10-11.pdf
<2>
http://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.
htm
AB 2500
Page K
of this bill.
6)Standard of Proof : "For a defendant to be guilty of driving
while under the influence of drugs in violation of Vehicle
Code Section 23152(a), 'the drug(s) must have so far affected
the nervous system, the brain, or the muscles of the
individual as to impair to an appreciable degree the ability
to operate a motor vehicle in a manner like that of an
ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of
his or her faculties," citing People v. Enriquez , 42 Cal. App.
4th at p. 665; Gilbert v. Municipal Court, 73 Cal. App. 3d at
p. 727. "Driving while under the influence of drugs involves
a greater degree of impairment of an individual's faculties,
and in that respect is not similar to merely being under the
influence of drugs." [ People v. Canty , 32 Cal. 4th 1266
(2004).]
This bill, in establishing a "per se" standard that would
presume a person was under the influence if he or she had a
specified amount of a drug, in his or her system, would
effectively abolish the standard of proof set forth in the
above-cited cases. Is it reasonable to presume that a person
is in violation of the law prohibiting driving under the
influence of drugs if the drugs have not "impaired to an
appreciable degree the ability to operate a motor vehicle in a
manner like that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person
in full possession of his or her faculties?" ( Canty, supra.)
7)No Exceptions for Prescription Medications : This bill fails
to include any exception for the ingestion of prescription
medications. Opponents of this legislation have indicated
that people who use marijuana medicinally and at heavier
levels can have much higher THC levels than 2 nanograms and
that they are not under the influence. These measurements are
the residual effects of medicinal use. Perhaps the author
should consider an exception to the per se requirements for
holders of prescriptions. Those drivers could still be
convicted of driving under the influence under the current
system of enforcement, based on a totality of the
circumstances (officer's observations, observed driving, field
sobriety tests, and chemical tests).
8)Approved Medical Uses of Amphetamines : "Amphetamines and
amphetamine congeners are a large group of chemically related
AB 2500
Page L
central stimulant drugs; among the best known are
dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine), methamphetamine (Methedrine)
and methylphenidate (Ritalin). Amphetamines continue to be
prescribed to treat attention deficit disorders in both
children and adults. Hyperactive children do not usually
outgrow their problems, although the symptoms may change. In
adolescence they are often academic underachievers with poor
social skills and low self-esteem, who may become juvenile
delinquents. Many of the symptoms also persist in adult
life." [Lester Grinspoon and James B. Bakalar, Medical Uses
of Illicit Drugs , Schaffer Library of Drug Policy.
[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/
hemp/medical/meduse.htm.]
That article also states "today, cocaine is used in medicine
mainly as a topical analgesic in eye, ear, nose, and throat
surgery and fiber tube optical examinations of the upper
respiratory and digestive tracts. It has a combination of
properties that cannot be duplicated by any of the synthetic
local anesthetics: intense constriction of blood vessels
(important whenever bleeding must be prevented), long duration
of anesthesia (one hour), and low toxicity. [L]egally, the
coca leaf and all its derivatives containing cocaine are
classified under Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act.
Amphetamines and related drugs continue to be the drug
treatment of choice in the treatment of narcolepsy, a disorder
marked by an uncontrollable desire for sleep or sudden attacks
of sleep during the daytime. It usually begins in adolescence
and never completely remits. Dextroamphetamine or
methylphenidate may be necessary for a narcoleptic person
whose work is dangerous but most victims of narcolepsy can
perform satisfactorily without drugs if they take at least one
nap a day."
[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/meduse.htm.]
It appears from the above authorities that not only are there
approved medical uses for two of the three drugs covered by
this bill, one of the drugs, amphetamines, are currently being
prescribed in large numbers to treat ADHD and, to a lesser
extent, narcolepsy. Although preeminent in children and
adolescents, ADHD can continue into adulthood, requiring
continued prescription of Ritalin and related drugs.
Amphetamine salts are a less studied FDA-approved treatment for
AB 2500
Page M
ADHD. Some common types of amphetamine salt products include
Adderall, Adderall XR CII, and Dexedrine . Focus on ADHD.
[http://www.focusonadhd.com/treatment/medical_treatments.jhtml#
Amphetamine Salts].
9)Argument in Support : According to the California Police
Chiefs Association , "AB 2500 will finally give law enforcement
a tool to effectively combat drugged driving. The bill will
create a per se standard which will prohibit drivers from
being behind the wheel of their automobile with any detectable
amount of controlled substances in their system, or, in the
case of marijuana, any detectable amount of Delta IX THC in
the driver's system.
"Enactment of a per se standard for drugged driving has been
identified by the Obama Administration's 2010 National Drug
Control Strategy as one of its major initiatives. Moreover,
federal Department of Transportation regulations have required
a per se standard on commercial drivers since 1988. There is
no rational reason not to require all drivers to operate under
a drugged driving per se standard.
"Drugged driving has been increasing in California. The
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) recently released a study that
found more California drivers tested positive for drugs that
impair driving (14 percent) than did for alcohol (7.3
percent). Positive tests for marijuana were most prevalent,
at 7.4 percent. Of those testing positive for alcohol, 23
percent also tested positive for at least one other drug.
When drivers combine alcohol and drug use the impairing
effects of both substances can be increased."
10) Argument in Opposition: According
to California NORML , "We wish to reiterate our opposition to
AB 2500 (Frazier) as amended, which would criminalize driving
with specified trace levels of marijuana or other controlled
substances in one's blood regardless of actual impairment.
As documented in the appendix below, the government's own
experts acknowledge that there exists no scientific basis for
determining driving impairment from levels of THC or other
controlled substances in the blood.
"In specific, with regards to the proposed per se DUI standard
AB 2500
Page N
of 2 nanograms/milliliter THC in blood, the science is clear
that such levels do not constitute impaired driving. Blood
levels above 2 ng/ml have been detected for as long as six
days after last use in chronic users, far longer than the
measurable impairment period of 2.5 - 4 hours. As a result,
AB 2500 will wrongly criminalize countless non-impaired
drivers as DUI.
"Unlike alcohol, the blood level of marijuana's major active
constituent, THC, has no direct relation to the actual dosage
consumed or active in the body. Instead, it reflects recency
of use, spiking to high levels immediately after smoking then
declining quickly to lower levels within an hour or so
regardless of dosage. Like alcohol, for which non-zero blood
levels are permitted under California law, THC can occur at
low concentrations with no adverse impact on driving. Unlike
alcohol, THC can remain detectable in the blood for hours and
days after last use, long after any impairment has faded.
Regular users tend to develop tolerance to THC impairment,
allowing them to drive safely. Medical users have even
manifested improved driving skills with THC levels as high as
71 ng/ml THC in blood.
"Numerous studies have found no higher accident risks in
drivers with THC in blood; some have even reported lower
risks, perhaps because marijuana induces more cautious
driving. Studies of driving accidents have consistently found
that marijuana poses a significantly lesser hazard than
alcohol and other drugs, such as prescription narcotics.
Studies have variously estimated that THC-positive drivers
have a 1.2 - 2.3 times higher average statistical risk for
accidents, less than drivers with low, legal amounts of
alcohol. These risks are uneven for different drivers and far
less than those for alcohol at the legal limit (4.5 - 8.5
times). Thus, AB 2500 irrationally punishes marijuana more
harshly than alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs.
"Government experts agree that there is no clear, per se
threshold for driving impairment. According to the U.S
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration it is
"inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC
concentrations alone," as "concentrations of parent drug and
metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as
dose." See Appendix below.
AB 2500
Page O
"We note that similar consideration apply to the other
controlled substances covered in AB 2500. Alcohol is unique
in being the only drug for which blood concentrations have
been shown to offer a clear threshold for impairment. AB 2500
would therefore wrongly criminalize countless non-impaired
drivers with trace amounts of other drugs, including some
legally prescribable narcotics.
"There is no evidence of a drug DUI crisis in California.
California ranks among the top states in the nation with
regards to highway safety. Even while the availability of
medical marijuana has expanded, California's highway fatality
rate has continued to post record lows in recent years.
Neither has there been any surge in DUIs, arrests for which
have declined by 5% from 2003 to 2012. California prosecutors
currently enjoy a 79% conviction rate for DUI, up
substantially from 64% since 1989.
"California's present DUI law is sound. The law properly
allows drug tests to be considered along with other relevant
evidence in determining whether a driver is DUI. A study of
states that have adopted per se drugged driving laws found "no
evidence that they reduce driving fatalities." If California
is interested in better detection of drug-impaired driving, it
should consider performance tests that measure actual
impairment, rather than chemical residues in the system.
"In 2012, the Governor signed AB 2552 to collect better
statistics on drug DUI arrests in California. These data
ought to be tracked and assessed before enacting any new drug
DUI legislation. Likewise the federal government is currently
assessing drug DUI policy; until this is completed, it would
be premature to revise California's current laws.
"In sum, AB 2500 will wrongly criminalize thousands of
unimpaired drivers, including many seriously ill medical
cannabis patients; significantly increase the cost of DUI
enforcement; put innocent drivers at risk of blood testing;
and do nothing to improve highway safety."
11)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 289 (Correa) 2013-2014 legislative session, created a
AB 2500
Page P
zero tolerance for drugged driving per se standard. SB 289
failed passage in Senate Public Safety Committee.
b) AB 2552 (Torres), Chapter 753, Statutes of 2012, was
originally a zero tolerance for drugged driving per se
standard bill but was amended in the Assembly to modify the
penal code to allow the tracking of charges for drugged
driving as distinguished from driving under the influence
of alcohol.
c) AB 1215 (Benoit), 2007-2008 legislative session, created
a zero tolerance for drugged driving per se standard. AB
1215 failed Assembly Public Safety.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of Highway Patrolmen
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Council on Alcohol Problems
California Police Chiefs Association
California Narcotics Officers' Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
International Faith Based Coalition
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
Americans for Safe Access
The Brownie Mary Democratic Club of Los Angeles
The Brownie Mary Democratic Club of Sacramento County
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California DUI Lawyers Association
California NORML
Crusaders for Patients Rights
Drug Policy Alliance
Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
AB 2500
Page Q
3 private individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744