1
00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:07,720
Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Ethan Nadelman, and this is Psychoactive, a production

2
00:00:07,760 --> 00:00:11,600
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures. Psychoactive is the

3
00:00:11,600 --> 00:00:15,000
Speaker 1: show where we talk about all things drugs. But any

4
00:00:15,120 --> 00:00:18,760
Speaker 1: views expressed here do not represent those of I Heart Media,

5
00:00:18,880 --> 00:00:23,480
Speaker 1: Protozoa Pictures, or their executives and employees. Indeed, heat as

6
00:00:23,520 --> 00:00:26,400
Speaker 1: an inveterate contrarian, I can tell you they may not

7
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:30,720
Speaker 1: even represent my own and nothing contained in this show

8
00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:33,680
Speaker 1: should be used as medical advice or encouragement to use

9
00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:45,919
Speaker 1: any type of drug. Hello, Psychoactive listeners. Today's topic is

10
00:00:45,960 --> 00:00:51,880
Speaker 1: the subject of marijuana and driving. Now that's obviously something

11
00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:54,560
Speaker 1: that lots of us, you know, wonder about, whether it's

12
00:00:54,560 --> 00:00:58,200
Speaker 1: because we ourselves use marijuana, or use marijuana and drive ourselves,

13
00:00:58,280 --> 00:01:01,000
Speaker 1: or we know people who do. There's a lot of

14
00:01:01,040 --> 00:01:04,560
Speaker 1: debate about it politically, with people saying we can't legalize

15
00:01:04,600 --> 00:01:07,399
Speaker 1: marijuana till we've resolved this issue, and other people saying

16
00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:10,679
Speaker 1: it's not really a major issue. So what I decided

17
00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:14,200
Speaker 1: was to have the person who may be the world's

18
00:01:14,360 --> 00:01:18,000
Speaker 1: leading expert on this subject come on and join me

19
00:01:18,120 --> 00:01:21,800
Speaker 1: on Psychoactive. His name is Paul Armentano. He is the

20
00:01:21,920 --> 00:01:25,280
Speaker 1: deputy director of Normal for many years. He's been working

21
00:01:25,319 --> 00:01:29,440
Speaker 1: at Normal since which is the same year that I

22
00:01:29,480 --> 00:01:32,959
Speaker 1: founded the Lindusmis Center, which eventually became Drug Policy Alliance,

23
00:01:33,000 --> 00:01:35,679
Speaker 1: So we're talking like twenty eight years. And he is

24
00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:39,160
Speaker 1: widely regarded in the world of people who think and

25
00:01:39,240 --> 00:01:43,080
Speaker 1: study marijuana as sort of the brain, the brain about marijuana,

26
00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:46,120
Speaker 1: the one who is familiar with the thousands and thousands

27
00:01:46,120 --> 00:01:49,320
Speaker 1: of studies, who has synthesized it. Now. Normal is, of

28
00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:53,440
Speaker 1: course the organization of the marijuana consumer, and so Paul

29
00:01:53,480 --> 00:01:56,600
Speaker 1: obviously comes to this from a certain political perspective, one

30
00:01:56,640 --> 00:02:00,000
Speaker 1: that favors the legalization of marijuana, but also very much

31
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:04,480
Speaker 1: to an advocate of responsible marijuana use. So Paul, thank

32
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:08,160
Speaker 1: you ever so much for joining me on Psychoactive. Well,

33
00:02:08,200 --> 00:02:11,640
Speaker 1: thank you Ethan for having me and as someone who,

34
00:02:11,919 --> 00:02:15,160
Speaker 1: when I was cutting my teeth on this issue, looked

35
00:02:15,240 --> 00:02:18,720
Speaker 1: to someone like you as the brains of the marijuana movement,

36
00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:22,080
Speaker 1: I am flattered by your compliments. Well, I mean, Paul,

37
00:02:22,120 --> 00:02:24,359
Speaker 1: I have to tell you, for so many years it's

38
00:02:24,440 --> 00:02:27,079
Speaker 1: like when a marijuana question pops up, you know who's

39
00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:29,120
Speaker 1: the go to person. And the fact that you work

40
00:02:29,160 --> 00:02:31,919
Speaker 1: at a fellow advocacy organization. On the one hands, a

41
00:02:31,960 --> 00:02:34,320
Speaker 1: plus sometimes to be a negative because you think people

42
00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:37,080
Speaker 1: are gonna be biased. But what if consistently seen with

43
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:40,120
Speaker 1: your writing and your research on this is that you

44
00:02:40,200 --> 00:02:42,919
Speaker 1: really have an objective perspective, and I think that you're

45
00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:45,400
Speaker 1: basically not just thinking about how this issue plays out

46
00:02:45,400 --> 00:02:47,880
Speaker 1: in terms of the legalization debates, but also how do

47
00:02:47,919 --> 00:02:51,240
Speaker 1: we make sure that people who use marijuana stay safe

48
00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:55,080
Speaker 1: and don't hurt anybody else. Absolutely, you know, I've always

49
00:02:55,120 --> 00:03:00,120
Speaker 1: approached this issue from the standpoint of we want to

50
00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:04,000
Speaker 1: have evidence based policies, and in order to have evidence

51
00:03:04,000 --> 00:03:07,040
Speaker 1: based policies, there's got to be somewhat out there who's

52
00:03:07,080 --> 00:03:12,280
Speaker 1: reviewed and understood and synthesize the evidence. And this is

53
00:03:12,360 --> 00:03:16,760
Speaker 1: something where we have data, we have facts, But for

54
00:03:16,919 --> 00:03:21,680
Speaker 1: so often the narrative that exists in this country, whether

55
00:03:21,720 --> 00:03:25,040
Speaker 1: it's around marijuana or a number of other public policies,

56
00:03:25,160 --> 00:03:29,040
Speaker 1: it isn't really driven by the facts and the data.

57
00:03:29,080 --> 00:03:32,640
Speaker 1: It's driven by rhetoric. It's driven by emotion. And being

58
00:03:32,800 --> 00:03:37,440
Speaker 1: cognizant of that, I did not want my own work

59
00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:40,680
Speaker 1: and the messaging that I would put out there to

60
00:03:40,960 --> 00:03:45,040
Speaker 1: be anything but evidence based That's always been my goal,

61
00:03:45,520 --> 00:03:47,920
Speaker 1: and I feel like by doing that we can have

62
00:03:48,040 --> 00:03:52,720
Speaker 1: better conversations and ultimately we can have better sensible policies. Okay,

63
00:03:52,720 --> 00:03:54,640
Speaker 1: So Paul, what I wanted to do is take our

64
00:03:54,680 --> 00:03:57,920
Speaker 1: audience through this step by staff, and at points there's

65
00:03:57,920 --> 00:04:01,480
Speaker 1: going to be elements of understanding we search methodology and

66
00:04:01,520 --> 00:04:04,320
Speaker 1: why certain studies are flawed or why certain studies are

67
00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:06,760
Speaker 1: gold standards. So I've asked Paul to try to explain

68
00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:09,280
Speaker 1: that as carefully as possible. But let's start off with

69
00:04:09,360 --> 00:04:13,280
Speaker 1: the first question, which is how does one test the

70
00:04:13,320 --> 00:04:17,360
Speaker 1: impact of marijuana on driving? Is it in driver simulators,

71
00:04:17,520 --> 00:04:20,080
Speaker 1: is it on people who are actually driving? What are

72
00:04:20,120 --> 00:04:24,200
Speaker 1: the different techniques for testing the impact of marijuana on driving. Well,

73
00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:28,040
Speaker 1: one thing to keep in mind, Eatan, is that researchers

74
00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:32,960
Speaker 1: have been posing this question for decades. This isn't something

75
00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:38,840
Speaker 1: that only post legalization investigators said, this is something we

76
00:04:38,880 --> 00:04:41,679
Speaker 1: ought to study, this is something we ought to understand better.

77
00:04:41,920 --> 00:04:46,920
Speaker 1: Researchers around the world have been looking into this issue

78
00:04:47,320 --> 00:04:51,400
Speaker 1: going back several decades. In fact, some of the earliest

79
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:55,159
Speaker 1: studies that we have were conducted in the Netherlands, but

80
00:04:55,200 --> 00:04:58,680
Speaker 1: they are actually sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety

81
00:04:58,720 --> 00:05:03,440
Speaker 1: Administration the United Dates, and in those studies, which probably

82
00:05:03,800 --> 00:05:07,000
Speaker 1: the methods that they use will not be replicated again

83
00:05:07,040 --> 00:05:11,200
Speaker 1: anytime soon. But in those initial studies, believe it or not,

84
00:05:11,680 --> 00:05:17,359
Speaker 1: subjects were permitted to smoke marijuana and then get behind

85
00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:21,880
Speaker 1: the wheel and drive in actual real world traffic. They

86
00:05:21,880 --> 00:05:25,760
Speaker 1: had a driving instructor in the passenger seat. The instructor

87
00:05:25,839 --> 00:05:28,440
Speaker 1: had the ability that was essentially a kill switch on

88
00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:31,800
Speaker 1: the car, and the instructor had the ability if he

89
00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:35,200
Speaker 1: or she desired to just shut the car off in

90
00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:38,640
Speaker 1: the middle of the experiment. But Nitz has did three

91
00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:44,479
Speaker 1: studies of this nature, one where individuals smoked marijuana drove

92
00:05:44,720 --> 00:05:49,680
Speaker 1: in real world conditions in it relatively rural areas, another

93
00:05:49,760 --> 00:05:52,920
Speaker 1: study where they drove in urban areas, and a third

94
00:05:53,000 --> 00:05:57,680
Speaker 1: study where they drove in rush hour congested traffic. And

95
00:05:57,760 --> 00:06:01,040
Speaker 1: that was one of the ways researchers chose to study

96
00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:04,800
Speaker 1: the impact of marijuana and driving. Interestingly, the drivers in

97
00:06:04,920 --> 00:06:08,880
Speaker 1: that study did not have accidents. Certainly, I could imagine

98
00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:12,159
Speaker 1: the liability if they did, but they did not. And

99
00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:14,800
Speaker 1: those studies were done again. They were published by the

100
00:06:14,880 --> 00:06:18,640
Speaker 1: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the early ninety nineties, But

101
00:06:18,800 --> 00:06:22,800
Speaker 1: since that time, NITZA sponsored additional studies, and many of

102
00:06:22,839 --> 00:06:27,720
Speaker 1: those are actually driving simulator studies. So again, individuals they'd

103
00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:31,480
Speaker 1: perform on a driving simulator test to get a baseline

104
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:36,520
Speaker 1: level of performance. Then they are administered cannabis and virtually

105
00:06:36,600 --> 00:06:40,440
Speaker 1: all of these instances they're inhaling cannabis, and then twenty

106
00:06:40,480 --> 00:06:43,599
Speaker 1: thirty minutes later they're asked to drive on a simulated

107
00:06:43,680 --> 00:06:48,200
Speaker 1: course and their performance is compared to their earlier baseline performance.

108
00:06:48,400 --> 00:06:50,680
Speaker 1: And there's a number of simulator studies that have been

109
00:06:50,720 --> 00:06:53,479
Speaker 1: done that way over the decades as well. Now, those

110
00:06:53,480 --> 00:06:57,200
Speaker 1: studies that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, I guess

111
00:06:57,240 --> 00:06:59,680
Speaker 1: you abbreviated NITCH, the ones they paid to do in

112
00:06:59,720 --> 00:07:02,560
Speaker 1: a those were back in the eighties early nineties. Those

113
00:07:02,560 --> 00:07:04,919
Speaker 1: are done the early nineties ah HA, And that was

114
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:07,760
Speaker 1: one of the ones that found essentially no difference between

115
00:07:07,800 --> 00:07:11,080
Speaker 1: marijuana users and drug free drivers. At the time, they

116
00:07:11,160 --> 00:07:16,880
Speaker 1: found very little difference in drivers performance after inhaling cannabis

117
00:07:17,040 --> 00:07:22,760
Speaker 1: versus their baseline performance. What they essentially identified was that

118
00:07:22,960 --> 00:07:27,360
Speaker 1: drivers under the influence of cannabis or cognizant that they

119
00:07:27,360 --> 00:07:31,600
Speaker 1: were under the influence and therefore they engaged in compensatory

120
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:36,040
Speaker 1: driving behaviors. In other words, they drove more slowly than

121
00:07:36,080 --> 00:07:40,160
Speaker 1: they had at baseline, they made fewer lane changes, they

122
00:07:40,280 --> 00:07:43,360
Speaker 1: left greater headway between their vehicle and the vehicle in

123
00:07:43,480 --> 00:07:47,640
Speaker 1: front of them. Essentially, there were minor differences and performance,

124
00:07:47,720 --> 00:07:52,120
Speaker 1: and those differences were fell into the category of compensatory driving.

125
00:07:52,280 --> 00:07:55,800
Speaker 1: And I imagine there's some bias built into this in

126
00:07:56,040 --> 00:08:00,520
Speaker 1: favor of marijuana's safety findings, because the people knew that

127
00:08:00,600 --> 00:08:02,760
Speaker 1: they were engaged in the test and that they were

128
00:08:02,800 --> 00:08:05,720
Speaker 1: being observed, so they were going to be ultra conscious

129
00:08:05,720 --> 00:08:09,480
Speaker 1: of trying to drive carefully. That's very likely. In fact,

130
00:08:09,560 --> 00:08:12,280
Speaker 1: when you look at some of the driving simulator studies,

131
00:08:12,640 --> 00:08:18,800
Speaker 1: you see greater differences between baseline performance and performance after

132
00:08:18,880 --> 00:08:22,680
Speaker 1: inhaling cannabis in the simulator studies. Then you saw those

133
00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:27,160
Speaker 1: initial on road studies, and the variable could very well

134
00:08:27,200 --> 00:08:30,640
Speaker 1: be that subjects in the latter studies knew they weren't

135
00:08:30,800 --> 00:08:34,040
Speaker 1: driving on the road they do they were essentially engaging

136
00:08:34,440 --> 00:08:36,760
Speaker 1: in in in a sort of a video game, and

137
00:08:36,840 --> 00:08:39,600
Speaker 1: that the stakes were not as high as were those

138
00:08:39,640 --> 00:08:42,320
Speaker 1: subjects that were actually driving on the road. A real

139
00:08:42,360 --> 00:08:46,600
Speaker 1: world traffic Now, when we talk about the notion of

140
00:08:46,840 --> 00:08:50,600
Speaker 1: driving under the influence of marijanners, but what does it

141
00:08:50,640 --> 00:08:54,000
Speaker 1: actually mean to say driving under the influence? I mean,

142
00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:56,680
Speaker 1: we know on the one hand that if you've just

143
00:08:57,000 --> 00:08:59,920
Speaker 1: gotten high and you're feeling high, you are under the influence.

144
00:09:00,080 --> 00:09:01,640
Speaker 1: And we know on the other hand that if you

145
00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:05,320
Speaker 1: haven't smoked marijuana in days but it's still showing up

146
00:09:05,320 --> 00:09:07,839
Speaker 1: in your urine because marijuanted tens to show up in

147
00:09:07,960 --> 00:09:10,520
Speaker 1: urine for a long time, that you're not driving under

148
00:09:10,520 --> 00:09:13,600
Speaker 1: the influence. But there must be something in between. Is

149
00:09:13,600 --> 00:09:16,160
Speaker 1: it all just a gray area for when one says

150
00:09:16,160 --> 00:09:19,319
Speaker 1: you're no longer under the influence, it's a gray area

151
00:09:19,600 --> 00:09:24,080
Speaker 1: to some respects under the law in certain jurisdictions that

152
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:30,960
Speaker 1: have imposed traffic safety laws that aren't based on identifiable impairment.

153
00:09:31,160 --> 00:09:35,920
Speaker 1: In those instances, theoretically you could have someone test positive

154
00:09:36,400 --> 00:09:40,119
Speaker 1: for marijuana and be charged with driving under the influence,

155
00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:44,160
Speaker 1: even absent of any evidence of impaired driving. But in

156
00:09:44,240 --> 00:09:47,520
Speaker 1: the majority of jurisdictions of this country that is not

157
00:09:47,679 --> 00:09:51,040
Speaker 1: the case. To be charged with driving under the influence

158
00:09:51,120 --> 00:09:54,680
Speaker 1: of drugs or driving under the influence of cannabis. There

159
00:09:54,760 --> 00:09:58,920
Speaker 1: has to be evidence of recent ingestion or exposure to

160
00:09:58,960 --> 00:10:02,520
Speaker 1: a controlled substance, and then there must be evidence that

161
00:10:02,600 --> 00:10:07,480
Speaker 1: someone is unable to drive a motor vehicle safely because

162
00:10:07,520 --> 00:10:11,400
Speaker 1: they are under the influence of that substance that they

163
00:10:11,520 --> 00:10:15,600
Speaker 1: recently ingested. And let me be clear that standard applies

164
00:10:16,000 --> 00:10:20,960
Speaker 1: regardless of the legality or illegality of the substance that

165
00:10:21,120 --> 00:10:25,120
Speaker 1: is consumed. But you know, I'm mostly think about situations like,

166
00:10:25,160 --> 00:10:27,480
Speaker 1: for example, if I take in edible and when I'm

167
00:10:27,520 --> 00:10:30,680
Speaker 1: coming down from the edible, it's seen my fatigue can

168
00:10:30,800 --> 00:10:33,960
Speaker 1: really come on fast. And I'm wondering like the point

169
00:10:34,000 --> 00:10:37,640
Speaker 1: at which we say somebody is no longer under the

170
00:10:37,760 --> 00:10:40,679
Speaker 1: influence of marijuana. And I'm just talking about not from

171
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:43,400
Speaker 1: a legal perspective, but in terms of people who use

172
00:10:43,480 --> 00:10:46,440
Speaker 1: marijuana and drive. Are there times when you're still under

173
00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:49,240
Speaker 1: the influence of marijuana, you thinking it can impact you're driving,

174
00:10:49,280 --> 00:10:52,800
Speaker 1: but not really aware of it. Sure, and Ethan, Again,

175
00:10:52,880 --> 00:10:55,560
Speaker 1: like so many of these questions, I imagine you'll oppose

176
00:10:55,679 --> 00:10:59,080
Speaker 1: to be these aren't novel questions. Again, Scientists have have

177
00:10:59,280 --> 00:11:02,560
Speaker 1: asked this question multiple times, and we have numerous studies

178
00:11:02,600 --> 00:11:04,840
Speaker 1: that have been designed to try and answer it. And

179
00:11:05,040 --> 00:11:07,880
Speaker 1: if one is to look at the totality of data

180
00:11:07,920 --> 00:11:11,959
Speaker 1: out there and try to find a consensus, it appears

181
00:11:12,000 --> 00:11:15,520
Speaker 1: that again, these are studies that are almost exclusively done

182
00:11:15,679 --> 00:11:19,880
Speaker 1: with subjects who are inhaling cannabis. So the timeline for

183
00:11:20,160 --> 00:11:25,120
Speaker 1: individuals using other formulations of cannabis like edibles or tinctures

184
00:11:25,200 --> 00:11:28,280
Speaker 1: or dabs are going to be entirely different. And I

185
00:11:28,320 --> 00:11:31,640
Speaker 1: would dare say right upfront has not been studied very much,

186
00:11:31,679 --> 00:11:35,319
Speaker 1: if at all. But with regard to inhaled cannabis, study

187
00:11:35,440 --> 00:11:39,440
Speaker 1: after study tells us that about twenty minutes, the forty

188
00:11:39,480 --> 00:11:43,760
Speaker 1: minutes perhaps sixty minutes after a person inhales cannabis is

189
00:11:43,760 --> 00:11:46,760
Speaker 1: when they are most acutely impaired when it comes to

190
00:11:46,840 --> 00:11:51,800
Speaker 1: psychomotor performance. And we know this based on a variety

191
00:11:51,840 --> 00:11:56,120
Speaker 1: of studies where individuals are given a number of psychomotor,

192
00:11:56,240 --> 00:12:01,080
Speaker 1: behavioral or cognitive tasks at baseline, they then in hail marijuana,

193
00:12:01,160 --> 00:12:04,400
Speaker 1: and then they continue to do those tasks again thirty

194
00:12:04,440 --> 00:12:08,360
Speaker 1: minutes later, sixty minutes later, two hours later, four hours later,

195
00:12:08,559 --> 00:12:12,480
Speaker 1: and what we see is the greatest differentiation from their

196
00:12:12,520 --> 00:12:16,079
Speaker 1: baseline performance tends to take place in that twenty to

197
00:12:16,240 --> 00:12:20,800
Speaker 1: sixty minute window, and then within about four hours after

198
00:12:20,880 --> 00:12:25,760
Speaker 1: that window they returned to their baseline performance altogether. There's

199
00:12:25,800 --> 00:12:29,040
Speaker 1: an interesting recent study that came out looking at driving

200
00:12:29,080 --> 00:12:34,360
Speaker 1: simulator tests, and to your question, individuals were asked when

201
00:12:34,480 --> 00:12:38,560
Speaker 1: they felt when they perceived that they had returned to

202
00:12:38,600 --> 00:12:44,160
Speaker 1: baseline performance, and interestingly, a number of subjects perceived the

203
00:12:44,200 --> 00:12:48,320
Speaker 1: fact that they did about one hour earlier or before

204
00:12:48,520 --> 00:12:53,360
Speaker 1: their actual objective performance returned to baseline performance. But again,

205
00:12:53,400 --> 00:12:57,400
Speaker 1: we're talking about maybe a total window of about four

206
00:12:57,520 --> 00:13:00,080
Speaker 1: to four and a half hours, but really about a

207
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:04,120
Speaker 1: forty minute window at that twenty to sixty minute point

208
00:13:04,320 --> 00:13:08,720
Speaker 1: where we see the greatest or most significant changes in performance.

209
00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:12,080
Speaker 1: So we have some folks thinking that the effects of

210
00:13:12,160 --> 00:13:16,559
Speaker 1: cannabis have worn off slightly before they actually have worn off.

211
00:13:16,840 --> 00:13:19,400
Speaker 1: And now are there also opposite studies? I think I've

212
00:13:19,440 --> 00:13:23,000
Speaker 1: seen where people think they're still somewhat in paired, but

213
00:13:23,080 --> 00:13:27,360
Speaker 1: in fact they're driving perfectly fine. Correct. What we see

214
00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:31,000
Speaker 1: in a number of different simulator studies and some close

215
00:13:31,200 --> 00:13:36,160
Speaker 1: course driving studies is that when individuals are asked to

216
00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:40,959
Speaker 1: assess their own performance after the fact, scientists will say, well,

217
00:13:41,000 --> 00:13:43,880
Speaker 1: how do you think you did. We have a number

218
00:13:43,960 --> 00:13:46,400
Speaker 1: of studies where the subjects will say, you know, I

219
00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:50,719
Speaker 1: think I did rather poorly, But then when their actual

220
00:13:50,840 --> 00:13:55,840
Speaker 1: performance is measured or assessed objectively, they did much better.

221
00:13:56,280 --> 00:14:00,400
Speaker 1: They drove much better overall than the subjects perceived that

222
00:14:00,440 --> 00:14:06,520
Speaker 1: they did. So they actually perceived themselves to perform worse

223
00:14:06,720 --> 00:14:10,200
Speaker 1: than they actually did perform, and we see that a

224
00:14:10,280 --> 00:14:14,079
Speaker 1: number of studies. We have one particular study where individuals

225
00:14:14,080 --> 00:14:17,440
Speaker 1: were given oral THHC and asked to drive on a

226
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:21,960
Speaker 1: closed course, and a number of subjects interestingly refused to

227
00:14:22,040 --> 00:14:24,720
Speaker 1: do so. They said, I don't feel that I can

228
00:14:24,840 --> 00:14:28,960
Speaker 1: operate this vehicle safely at this point in time, which

229
00:14:29,080 --> 00:14:32,360
Speaker 1: I bring up because it's so different than the reaction

230
00:14:32,520 --> 00:14:37,040
Speaker 1: we often associate with alcohol, where we've had public messaging

231
00:14:37,200 --> 00:14:41,000
Speaker 1: for decades that say, hey, look, take the keys from

232
00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:43,880
Speaker 1: somebody who might be wanting to drive under the influence

233
00:14:43,880 --> 00:14:47,080
Speaker 1: of alcohol. Because so many individuals under the alcohol, they

234
00:14:47,120 --> 00:14:51,280
Speaker 1: become overconfident in their ability to drive safely. We tend

235
00:14:51,280 --> 00:14:54,960
Speaker 1: to see just the opposite reaction with individuals that are

236
00:14:55,080 --> 00:14:58,040
Speaker 1: impaired by cannabis. So, Paul, I want to get into

237
00:14:58,080 --> 00:15:00,640
Speaker 1: this difference between marijuana and alcohol and to impact on

238
00:15:00,840 --> 00:15:03,920
Speaker 1: driving shortly, but let's just start by breaking down the

239
00:15:04,160 --> 00:15:07,240
Speaker 1: different aspects of driving that when we're looking at the

240
00:15:07,240 --> 00:15:11,240
Speaker 1: impact of marijuana, alcohol, a cycleactive drug or activity on driving,

241
00:15:11,560 --> 00:15:15,080
Speaker 1: we're talking about things like how fast people break, whether

242
00:15:15,120 --> 00:15:17,480
Speaker 1: they can keep a straight line, or whether they're weaving.

243
00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:20,000
Speaker 1: What are the other variables that people are being tested

244
00:15:20,000 --> 00:15:23,160
Speaker 1: for in terms of driving safety. So generally, when these

245
00:15:23,240 --> 00:15:26,480
Speaker 1: driving safety tests are done, they're assessing a number of

246
00:15:26,640 --> 00:15:30,600
Speaker 1: different objective metrics. They're looking at not just overall speed,

247
00:15:30,880 --> 00:15:34,440
Speaker 1: but the ability to maintain a consistent speed. They're looking

248
00:15:34,440 --> 00:15:37,200
Speaker 1: at how much headway drivers leave between their vehicle and

249
00:15:37,200 --> 00:15:40,400
Speaker 1: a vehicle in front of them. They're looking at reaction time,

250
00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:44,880
Speaker 1: break latency, how well drivers focus on not only what's

251
00:15:44,880 --> 00:15:47,080
Speaker 1: going on in front of them and traffic, but what's

252
00:15:47,120 --> 00:15:50,800
Speaker 1: also taking place in their peripheral vision. They're looking at

253
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:54,880
Speaker 1: what's something known as standard deviation and lateral positioning, which

254
00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:56,880
Speaker 1: is really just a fancy way of saying, do these

255
00:15:56,920 --> 00:15:59,240
Speaker 1: drivers weave? Do they stay in their lane, or do

256
00:15:59,280 --> 00:16:02,520
Speaker 1: they weave across us the median? Those are largely the

257
00:16:02,680 --> 00:16:05,280
Speaker 1: issues that are being assessed. Certainly, if we're talking about

258
00:16:05,280 --> 00:16:08,800
Speaker 1: a driving simulator study, scientists will assess as they're a

259
00:16:08,840 --> 00:16:12,200
Speaker 1: greater likelihood that they had a motor vehicle accident during

260
00:16:12,240 --> 00:16:14,880
Speaker 1: the course of the simulated driving test than they did

261
00:16:14,880 --> 00:16:17,320
Speaker 1: at baseline. Those are the sort of metrics that are

262
00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:19,800
Speaker 1: looked at. I see. Okay, So let's get down to

263
00:16:19,840 --> 00:16:24,200
Speaker 1: the basic alcohol versus marijuana differential, right, I mean, I

264
00:16:24,200 --> 00:16:28,280
Speaker 1: think there's a broad awareness that alcohol is problematic for driving.

265
00:16:28,520 --> 00:16:31,520
Speaker 1: And if you could just explain what makes alcohol so

266
00:16:31,680 --> 00:16:36,000
Speaker 1: problematic and then why is marijuana less so well, they

267
00:16:36,240 --> 00:16:41,520
Speaker 1: manifest in very different ways. In fact, in some respects,

268
00:16:41,600 --> 00:16:45,160
Speaker 1: very opposite ways. As I mentioned earlier, one of the

269
00:16:45,200 --> 00:16:48,480
Speaker 1: telltale signs of someone under the influence of alcohol is

270
00:16:48,520 --> 00:16:52,440
Speaker 1: they tend to become overconfident in their driving abilities, and

271
00:16:52,600 --> 00:16:55,800
Speaker 1: as a result, they tend to engage in more reckless

272
00:16:56,000 --> 00:17:00,120
Speaker 1: driving behavior then they would win sober. They drive at

273
00:17:00,120 --> 00:17:03,840
Speaker 1: a faster speed, they make more lane changes, they drive

274
00:17:03,880 --> 00:17:07,240
Speaker 1: in a more aggressive manner, and when you ask them

275
00:17:07,280 --> 00:17:11,439
Speaker 1: to assess their own performance, they tend to believe that

276
00:17:11,480 --> 00:17:16,040
Speaker 1: they're performing better than they actually are. With cannabis, we

277
00:17:16,200 --> 00:17:19,800
Speaker 1: tend to see a lot of shifts in the opposite direction.

278
00:17:19,960 --> 00:17:23,679
Speaker 1: Individuals tend to become less confident in their ability to

279
00:17:23,800 --> 00:17:28,679
Speaker 1: drive a vehicle safely. They become overly acutely aware of

280
00:17:28,760 --> 00:17:31,560
Speaker 1: the fact that they are under the influence, and as

281
00:17:31,600 --> 00:17:35,080
Speaker 1: a result, they try to minimize their risks during that

282
00:17:35,119 --> 00:17:39,000
Speaker 1: period of time by engaging in compensatory driving behavior. They

283
00:17:39,080 --> 00:17:41,880
Speaker 1: engage in fewer lane changes, they drive at a more

284
00:17:42,000 --> 00:17:45,879
Speaker 1: slow speed, they leave greater distance between their vehicle and

285
00:17:45,920 --> 00:17:49,560
Speaker 1: the vehicle in front of them. They engage in behaviors

286
00:17:49,600 --> 00:17:53,320
Speaker 1: that would allow them to try to minimize their risks,

287
00:17:53,480 --> 00:17:57,360
Speaker 1: whereas under the influence of alcohol, people tend, whether knowingly

288
00:17:57,440 --> 00:18:00,760
Speaker 1: or unknowingly, to engage in behaviors that are more likely

289
00:18:00,760 --> 00:18:03,280
Speaker 1: to maximize their risk of an accident. It is a

290
00:18:03,440 --> 00:18:07,560
Speaker 1: consistent finding. Again, whether we're talking about driving on a

291
00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:12,080
Speaker 1: closed course, driving in a driving simulating machine, or these

292
00:18:12,119 --> 00:18:14,720
Speaker 1: early studies that we talked about from the Netherlands where

293
00:18:14,720 --> 00:18:20,160
Speaker 1: individuals drove in actual real world traffic consistently across the board,

294
00:18:20,480 --> 00:18:24,879
Speaker 1: subjects drive more slowly than they did at baseline in

295
00:18:25,280 --> 00:18:28,359
Speaker 1: all of these different models, and again, just like driving

296
00:18:28,359 --> 00:18:31,680
Speaker 1: more slowly as a consistent finding throughout the literature, this

297
00:18:31,760 --> 00:18:34,800
Speaker 1: is also a consistent finding drivers under the influence of

298
00:18:34,840 --> 00:18:38,359
Speaker 1: cannabis tend to weave. They weave more so under the

299
00:18:38,359 --> 00:18:41,359
Speaker 1: influence of cannabis than they did at baseline. That is

300
00:18:41,400 --> 00:18:44,840
Speaker 1: a finding we see again and again and again, and

301
00:18:44,920 --> 00:18:47,159
Speaker 1: in terms of safety vs. Of you, the car in

302
00:18:47,240 --> 00:18:49,960
Speaker 1: front of you, in terms of observation of traffic lights

303
00:18:50,000 --> 00:18:53,959
Speaker 1: turning yellow, red things, they tend to leave more headway. Again,

304
00:18:54,000 --> 00:18:57,920
Speaker 1: because that's compensatory behavior. There are in some instances there

305
00:18:57,920 --> 00:19:01,040
Speaker 1: can be some change in reaction time may react slightly

306
00:19:01,040 --> 00:19:04,480
Speaker 1: more slowly, although that is an inconsistent finding that is

307
00:19:04,520 --> 00:19:08,000
Speaker 1: not afining you see throughout the literature. You also see

308
00:19:08,040 --> 00:19:11,400
Speaker 1: in some studies but not others, a lack of driver's

309
00:19:11,400 --> 00:19:15,280
Speaker 1: ability to respond quickly to things that might be in

310
00:19:15,320 --> 00:19:18,359
Speaker 1: their peripheral vision as opposed to what's happening right in

311
00:19:18,359 --> 00:19:21,240
Speaker 1: front of them. But what about tolerance. I mean, it's

312
00:19:21,320 --> 00:19:23,600
Speaker 1: the question that if you're a regular marijuana user, as

313
00:19:23,640 --> 00:19:26,560
Speaker 1: you get older, more experienced, you just develop a tolerance

314
00:19:26,600 --> 00:19:28,840
Speaker 1: to the effects of marijuana. Or is it that I'm

315
00:19:28,880 --> 00:19:32,040
Speaker 1: actually learning how to drive high or is that the

316
00:19:32,080 --> 00:19:35,640
Speaker 1: same thing. No, I believe it's tolerance. The data on this,

317
00:19:35,920 --> 00:19:40,680
Speaker 1: I think is pretty clear and consistent. Certainly anecdotally, I'm

318
00:19:40,760 --> 00:19:44,159
Speaker 1: sure you and your audience has heard the individuals that

319
00:19:44,200 --> 00:19:48,800
Speaker 1: are more habitual consumers of cannabis perceive becoming tolerant to

320
00:19:48,880 --> 00:19:51,880
Speaker 1: some degree, certainly more so, or they have a more

321
00:19:51,920 --> 00:19:54,960
Speaker 1: blunted effect that they might have had from cannabis when

322
00:19:54,960 --> 00:19:57,040
Speaker 1: they were more naive to it. By tolerance, you mean

323
00:19:57,040 --> 00:20:01,680
Speaker 1: basically experiencing less of the psychoactive effect. Yes, yes, and

324
00:20:01,680 --> 00:20:04,040
Speaker 1: and the data backs dat up. In fact, there's some

325
00:20:04,160 --> 00:20:09,800
Speaker 1: recent data providing a biological theory as to why that

326
00:20:09,880 --> 00:20:12,320
Speaker 1: would be the case. But clearly, I think it is

327
00:20:12,359 --> 00:20:16,520
Speaker 1: safe to say that the more frequently a person uses cannabis,

328
00:20:16,560 --> 00:20:20,119
Speaker 1: the more tolerant they become to some not all, of

329
00:20:20,160 --> 00:20:23,840
Speaker 1: the effects of cannabis. But with respect to psycho motor

330
00:20:24,000 --> 00:20:27,520
Speaker 1: influencing effects, those are effects that people do tend to

331
00:20:27,560 --> 00:20:31,560
Speaker 1: become more tolerant to over time when again they're frequent

332
00:20:31,680 --> 00:20:35,399
Speaker 1: users of cannabis. Now, of course, cannabis has a dose

333
00:20:35,520 --> 00:20:39,560
Speaker 1: related response, So even someone who might be tolerant to

334
00:20:39,600 --> 00:20:42,199
Speaker 1: the effects of cannabis, if they were suddenly going to

335
00:20:42,320 --> 00:20:45,560
Speaker 1: use a much more concentrated form of cannabis, are a

336
00:20:45,600 --> 00:20:49,040
Speaker 1: much more higher potent form of cannabis. One would not

337
00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:53,160
Speaker 1: expect them to suddenly be tolerant to that dosage or

338
00:20:53,280 --> 00:20:57,520
Speaker 1: that potency simply because they become somewhat tolerant to lower

339
00:20:57,560 --> 00:21:01,359
Speaker 1: potency cannabis over time. Now, Paul, you're saying that when

340
00:21:01,400 --> 00:21:04,840
Speaker 1: it comes to things like edibles and the drinkables and

341
00:21:04,880 --> 00:21:07,480
Speaker 1: all these other sorts of things, there's really very little

342
00:21:07,520 --> 00:21:10,000
Speaker 1: evidence out there right now as to whether or not

343
00:21:10,080 --> 00:21:13,120
Speaker 1: their impact on driving will turn out to be similar

344
00:21:13,119 --> 00:21:16,960
Speaker 1: to this impact of smoking marijuana. That is correct. Again,

345
00:21:17,280 --> 00:21:20,320
Speaker 1: most of the studies, in fact, almost all of them

346
00:21:20,359 --> 00:21:23,000
Speaker 1: I can only think of a handful of exceptions, have

347
00:21:23,200 --> 00:21:27,239
Speaker 1: looked at inhaled cannabis. I think researchers did this for

348
00:21:27,280 --> 00:21:30,120
Speaker 1: a number of reasons. One, we're talking about, in some

349
00:21:30,160 --> 00:21:34,280
Speaker 1: cases studies going back thirty forty years, inhaling cannabis through

350
00:21:34,440 --> 00:21:37,960
Speaker 1: joints or through marijuana cigarettes was the primary way people

351
00:21:38,160 --> 00:21:41,240
Speaker 1: use cannabis at that time, so the studies reflect that.

352
00:21:41,440 --> 00:21:44,240
Speaker 1: I think there's also some expediency to this as well.

353
00:21:44,600 --> 00:21:48,879
Speaker 1: We know that the effects of inhaled cannabis are fairly rapid,

354
00:21:49,040 --> 00:21:52,159
Speaker 1: so when designing a study, I think it's easier for

355
00:21:52,240 --> 00:21:55,040
Speaker 1: researchers to design to study where people inhale cannabis and

356
00:21:55,040 --> 00:21:58,960
Speaker 1: then they begin testing them literally minutes later. As opposed

357
00:21:59,040 --> 00:22:01,200
Speaker 1: to if we were going to design to study looking

358
00:22:01,240 --> 00:22:04,440
Speaker 1: at oral absorption with th HC, we're gonna be talking

359
00:22:04,480 --> 00:22:08,080
Speaker 1: a much longer timeline and one that's much more variable

360
00:22:08,359 --> 00:22:11,400
Speaker 1: from subject to subject to subject. You could have twenty

361
00:22:11,480 --> 00:22:15,120
Speaker 1: subjects all taking the same oral dosage of th HC,

362
00:22:15,520 --> 00:22:18,280
Speaker 1: but the duration of effect and the onset of effects

363
00:22:18,320 --> 00:22:21,600
Speaker 1: could literally be different for all twenty of them. But

364
00:22:21,680 --> 00:22:24,680
Speaker 1: why is that so different from marijuana. There's somebody who's

365
00:22:24,720 --> 00:22:27,800
Speaker 1: taking edible every day. They're going to be familiar with effects,

366
00:22:27,800 --> 00:22:30,240
Speaker 1: They're going to be experienced, they're gonna have tolerance, right

367
00:22:30,400 --> 00:22:32,679
Speaker 1: as opposed to somebody who's a naive or doesn't know

368
00:22:32,800 --> 00:22:35,920
Speaker 1: his dose. Is that radically different than it is with smokables.

369
00:22:35,960 --> 00:22:39,719
Speaker 1: The difference between the two has to do with the

370
00:22:39,760 --> 00:22:44,320
Speaker 1: fact there's much greater variation of effect from dose to

371
00:22:44,440 --> 00:22:48,160
Speaker 1: dose with oral administration of th HC, and that's simply

372
00:22:48,320 --> 00:22:52,240
Speaker 1: due to what we call the pharmacokinetics of th HC,

373
00:22:52,480 --> 00:22:56,919
Speaker 1: which refers to how the body absorbs the active drug

374
00:22:57,320 --> 00:23:01,280
Speaker 1: once it's been ingested. When a person in hails cannabis.

375
00:23:01,480 --> 00:23:04,960
Speaker 1: Th HC goes from the lungs to the blood stream

376
00:23:05,119 --> 00:23:08,959
Speaker 1: very quickly and then passes the blood brain barrier within minutes,

377
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:11,960
Speaker 1: and a person begins to feel the effects during that

378
00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:15,879
Speaker 1: period of time. It's a very different process when a

379
00:23:15,920 --> 00:23:20,440
Speaker 1: person consumes th HC orally like in an edible. In

380
00:23:20,520 --> 00:23:24,119
Speaker 1: that case, they consume an edible, th HC goes to

381
00:23:24,200 --> 00:23:27,280
Speaker 1: the stomach. From there it goes to the liver. The

382
00:23:27,440 --> 00:23:32,480
Speaker 1: liver metabolizes THC, and this is a key point, and

383
00:23:32,560 --> 00:23:36,320
Speaker 1: when it does so, it converts th HC to another

384
00:23:36,560 --> 00:23:40,080
Speaker 1: equal potent or some people would argue even more potent

385
00:23:40,119 --> 00:23:44,920
Speaker 1: metabolite or byproduct known as eleven hydroxy th hc from

386
00:23:44,960 --> 00:23:49,440
Speaker 1: the liver. Then both eleven hydroxy th HC and th

387
00:23:49,600 --> 00:23:52,399
Speaker 1: HC go to the blood stream. They then go past

388
00:23:52,600 --> 00:23:55,879
Speaker 1: the blood brain barrier. That's why then ninety minutes, a

389
00:23:55,960 --> 00:23:58,560
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty minutes later a person begins to feel

390
00:23:58,600 --> 00:24:02,239
Speaker 1: the effects. But like the effects they typically feel with

391
00:24:02,320 --> 00:24:05,879
Speaker 1: smoking cannabis, where they're largely just feeling the effects of

392
00:24:05,920 --> 00:24:09,280
Speaker 1: th HC, in this case they're feeling the effects of

393
00:24:09,320 --> 00:24:14,479
Speaker 1: simultaneously of th HC and eleven hydroxy th hc, And

394
00:24:14,560 --> 00:24:18,680
Speaker 1: because that eleven hydroxy th hc is at least as

395
00:24:18,720 --> 00:24:21,800
Speaker 1: potent as th hc, they're feeling not only a more

396
00:24:21,880 --> 00:24:25,639
Speaker 1: amplified effect, but a slightly different effect. They're feeling the

397
00:24:25,680 --> 00:24:29,480
Speaker 1: effect of two psychoactive compounds at that point in time,

398
00:24:29,840 --> 00:24:33,040
Speaker 1: and the degree to which the liver how much eleven

399
00:24:33,080 --> 00:24:36,320
Speaker 1: hydroxy th hc it produces, that can change from day

400
00:24:36,359 --> 00:24:38,760
Speaker 1: to day based on whether a person has a full

401
00:24:38,840 --> 00:24:41,720
Speaker 1: stomach or an empty stomach, or the way their body

402
00:24:41,800 --> 00:24:45,480
Speaker 1: at that moment metabolized th hc. It's a very different,

403
00:24:45,640 --> 00:24:50,240
Speaker 1: less predictable experience I see. And comparing all this to alcohol.

404
00:24:50,480 --> 00:24:53,960
Speaker 1: With alcohol, people develop a tolerance to the psychoactive effects

405
00:24:54,000 --> 00:24:57,280
Speaker 1: as well. But is that less consequential in terms of

406
00:24:57,280 --> 00:24:59,959
Speaker 1: the safety of their driving than it is with marijuana.

407
00:25:00,119 --> 00:25:02,920
Speaker 1: You know, that's a very good question, Ethan. We hear

408
00:25:02,960 --> 00:25:06,080
Speaker 1: this from time to time from the public policy standpoint,

409
00:25:06,280 --> 00:25:08,239
Speaker 1: where do you bring up things like, well, you know,

410
00:25:08,280 --> 00:25:11,680
Speaker 1: people become tolerant to all sorts of substances that can

411
00:25:11,720 --> 00:25:15,040
Speaker 1: influence driving behavior. But when we look at say, traffic

412
00:25:15,080 --> 00:25:18,360
Speaker 1: safety laws as they pertain for alcohol, there is no

413
00:25:18,480 --> 00:25:22,640
Speaker 1: exception that says, well, Hey, this is the standard that

414
00:25:22,680 --> 00:25:25,960
Speaker 1: we hold some people up to for driving under the influence,

415
00:25:26,080 --> 00:25:29,399
Speaker 1: but we hold individuals who are alcoholics are habitual drinkers

416
00:25:29,440 --> 00:25:31,960
Speaker 1: to a different standard because they have tolerance. I think

417
00:25:31,960 --> 00:25:35,960
Speaker 1: it's an interesting philosophical discussion. I don't have the answer

418
00:25:36,320 --> 00:25:39,560
Speaker 1: in that I'm simply not as familiar with some of

419
00:25:39,560 --> 00:25:43,679
Speaker 1: the literature with regard to tolerance for alcohol and the

420
00:25:43,760 --> 00:25:47,639
Speaker 1: degree to which somebody who is a habitual alcohol drinker

421
00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:50,920
Speaker 1: develops a greater tolerance for the skills necessary to drive

422
00:25:50,960 --> 00:25:55,120
Speaker 1: a vehicle safely. But certainly we are aware that alcohol

423
00:25:55,520 --> 00:25:59,960
Speaker 1: does impact people differently depending on if they are more

424
00:25:59,880 --> 00:26:03,480
Speaker 1: or less naive or more or less experienced with the drug.

425
00:26:03,680 --> 00:26:06,560
Speaker 1: And we know this comes into play even with traffic

426
00:26:06,600 --> 00:26:10,240
Speaker 1: safety laws, and that you can have a person who

427
00:26:10,480 --> 00:26:14,480
Speaker 1: is very naive to alcohol clearly be under the influence

428
00:26:14,760 --> 00:26:17,760
Speaker 1: by having one or two drinks and being below the

429
00:26:17,800 --> 00:26:21,199
Speaker 1: point oh eight threshold. And conversely, you could theoretically have

430
00:26:21,359 --> 00:26:25,199
Speaker 1: somebody who is a much more experienced alcohol drinker who

431
00:26:25,240 --> 00:26:28,639
Speaker 1: would perform better than that naive person, even though they

432
00:26:28,720 --> 00:26:31,200
Speaker 1: might have a hire blood alcohol content at that time.

433
00:26:32,680 --> 00:26:48,880
Speaker 1: We'll be talking more after we hear this add when

434
00:26:48,880 --> 00:26:51,480
Speaker 1: it comes to alcohol, right, it's now accepted across the

435
00:26:51,560 --> 00:26:55,280
Speaker 1: United States, right, that point o a of blood alcohol

436
00:26:55,440 --> 00:26:58,000
Speaker 1: content is the maximum, except in Utah, where I think

437
00:26:58,000 --> 00:27:01,440
Speaker 1: it's point oh five. And in most states they basically

438
00:27:01,480 --> 00:27:04,560
Speaker 1: have either zero or point oh two for people under

439
00:27:04,560 --> 00:27:07,359
Speaker 1: the age of twenty one, and something either at the

440
00:27:07,600 --> 00:27:11,080
Speaker 1: kid level or slightly above for commercial drivers, bus drivers,

441
00:27:11,160 --> 00:27:13,879
Speaker 1: things like that. But in the case of cannabis, it

442
00:27:14,000 --> 00:27:17,000
Speaker 1: sounds like that sort of per se level that it

443
00:27:17,040 --> 00:27:20,200
Speaker 1: makes some sense in the alcohol field. But even so

444
00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:22,600
Speaker 1: they sent it does make sense in the alcohol field,

445
00:27:22,600 --> 00:27:25,400
Speaker 1: given the variability of how people experience alcohol, it makes

446
00:27:25,480 --> 00:27:30,040
Speaker 1: dramatically less sense in the marijuana field. The cannabis field,

447
00:27:30,080 --> 00:27:32,679
Speaker 1: whether you're talking about certainly urine, which can show up

448
00:27:32,680 --> 00:27:35,320
Speaker 1: for weeks after but even blood tests. Is that right?

449
00:27:35,680 --> 00:27:39,000
Speaker 1: And why? Yeah, you're absolutely correct, And there's a whole

450
00:27:39,040 --> 00:27:42,320
Speaker 1: lot to unpack here with what you said first. With

451
00:27:42,440 --> 00:27:45,520
Speaker 1: respect to alcohol, you're correct that there is this point

452
00:27:45,520 --> 00:27:49,800
Speaker 1: of eight fairly universal standard that exists in almost every

453
00:27:49,800 --> 00:27:52,240
Speaker 1: state except for Utah. But let's keep in mind it

454
00:27:52,320 --> 00:27:56,320
Speaker 1: wasn't always point away. This standard has changed over time

455
00:27:56,720 --> 00:28:00,719
Speaker 1: does some degree, based on what the science tells US,

456
00:28:00,840 --> 00:28:04,520
Speaker 1: but by at large, it's also changed just with respect

457
00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:08,360
Speaker 1: to what society will tolerate. The fact is it used

458
00:28:08,359 --> 00:28:10,760
Speaker 1: to be higher in this country. Now it's point oh a.

459
00:28:11,160 --> 00:28:13,480
Speaker 1: There's a push to make it point oh five. But

460
00:28:13,560 --> 00:28:16,440
Speaker 1: if we look abroad, there's some countries like Sweden where

461
00:28:16,440 --> 00:28:19,120
Speaker 1: the limits point oh two. Now they're not looking at

462
00:28:19,119 --> 00:28:23,120
Speaker 1: different data in Sweden and basing their public policy off

463
00:28:23,119 --> 00:28:26,480
Speaker 1: different data that we are here. We understand that the

464
00:28:26,560 --> 00:28:29,960
Speaker 1: higher blood alcohol content one has, the more likely to

465
00:28:30,040 --> 00:28:32,680
Speaker 1: engage in activities that are increase the risk of accident.

466
00:28:32,960 --> 00:28:36,760
Speaker 1: So it's not just about that, it's about what as

467
00:28:36,880 --> 00:28:41,600
Speaker 1: a society, what risk we're willing and unwilling to accept.

468
00:28:41,880 --> 00:28:45,040
Speaker 1: And clearly in some European countries and some other parts

469
00:28:45,040 --> 00:28:47,360
Speaker 1: of the world, I would dare say where alcohol is

470
00:28:47,440 --> 00:28:51,200
Speaker 1: less sort of entrenched in the culture, they're less willing

471
00:28:51,280 --> 00:28:55,400
Speaker 1: to accept driving accidents attributable to alcohol. And in the

472
00:28:55,480 --> 00:28:58,480
Speaker 1: United States were war willing to accept it. But we're

473
00:28:58,560 --> 00:29:00,640
Speaker 1: less willing to accept it now. We might have been

474
00:29:00,680 --> 00:29:03,760
Speaker 1: several decades ago, and that's why the standard has gone down.

475
00:29:03,880 --> 00:29:08,960
Speaker 1: But with respect to how alcohol is very different. The

476
00:29:09,040 --> 00:29:13,680
Speaker 1: real key is that we know through decades worth of

477
00:29:13,760 --> 00:29:20,280
Speaker 1: data that there is a correlation between the more one

478
00:29:20,400 --> 00:29:24,840
Speaker 1: drinks and the higher their blood alcohol content, and that

479
00:29:25,240 --> 00:29:31,480
Speaker 1: their maximal level of driving impairment coincides with their maximal

480
00:29:31,640 --> 00:29:36,960
Speaker 1: blood alcohol levels. Okay, so as blood alcohol levels rise,

481
00:29:37,120 --> 00:29:42,480
Speaker 1: a person's driving performance becomes worse, and that coincides with

482
00:29:42,560 --> 00:29:45,200
Speaker 1: the more they drink, and then as their levels their

483
00:29:45,240 --> 00:29:49,320
Speaker 1: blood alcohol content levels fall, they begin to return to

484
00:29:49,440 --> 00:29:53,680
Speaker 1: baseline performance. So we have this linear model. That linear

485
00:29:53,840 --> 00:29:57,959
Speaker 1: model doesn't exist for cannabis, and frankly, we don't have

486
00:29:58,000 --> 00:30:00,160
Speaker 1: to just single out cannabis here. It doesn't the this

487
00:30:00,360 --> 00:30:05,120
Speaker 1: for the majority of psychotropic substances that impair driving performance.

488
00:30:05,360 --> 00:30:09,200
Speaker 1: That's why this per se model that has changed over

489
00:30:09,240 --> 00:30:12,320
Speaker 1: the years and that doesn't even have a global consensus

490
00:30:12,360 --> 00:30:17,400
Speaker 1: only exists for alcohol. If alcohol didn't follow this linear model,

491
00:30:17,440 --> 00:30:22,200
Speaker 1: because the body largely absorbs alcohol the same way each time,

492
00:30:22,240 --> 00:30:24,720
Speaker 1: and we can make as sets ements based on weight

493
00:30:24,960 --> 00:30:27,960
Speaker 1: with regard to blood alcohol levels. If we didn't have

494
00:30:28,120 --> 00:30:31,640
Speaker 1: that linear correlation, we wouldn't have per SE levels for alcohol.

495
00:30:31,640 --> 00:30:34,000
Speaker 1: In fact, per SE levels for alcohol only date back

496
00:30:34,040 --> 00:30:37,080
Speaker 1: about forty or fifty years. The reason we don't have

497
00:30:37,280 --> 00:30:42,080
Speaker 1: these levels for cannabis or opioids or a number of

498
00:30:42,120 --> 00:30:46,240
Speaker 1: other drugs that we don't impact driving performance is because

499
00:30:46,280 --> 00:30:51,360
Speaker 1: there is no linear correlation. When a person inhales cannabis.

500
00:30:51,400 --> 00:30:55,240
Speaker 1: Their THHC blood levels are highest within five to ten

501
00:30:55,320 --> 00:30:59,440
Speaker 1: minutes after inhaling cannabis, but as we talked about earlier,

502
00:30:59,480 --> 00:31:02,760
Speaker 1: their dry having performance is going to be most impacted

503
00:31:02,960 --> 00:31:06,960
Speaker 1: twenty the sixty minutes after they had inhaled cannabis. But

504
00:31:07,120 --> 00:31:10,160
Speaker 1: during that period of time, their th HC blood levels

505
00:31:10,160 --> 00:31:14,000
Speaker 1: aren't going up. They're actually going down, So they're falling

506
00:31:14,600 --> 00:31:17,200
Speaker 1: at a time when a person is most likely to

507
00:31:17,240 --> 00:31:20,400
Speaker 1: be under the influence. And then after they fall rapidly,

508
00:31:20,720 --> 00:31:25,000
Speaker 1: they begin the plateau about three or four hours after inhalation,

509
00:31:25,120 --> 00:31:27,520
Speaker 1: and they don't go down to zero, but they plateau

510
00:31:27,680 --> 00:31:31,120
Speaker 1: around two or three nanograms per milli leader and they

511
00:31:31,160 --> 00:31:35,040
Speaker 1: stay there for hours, so that those levels can still

512
00:31:35,080 --> 00:31:38,880
Speaker 1: be detectable long after the effects of th HC have

513
00:31:39,080 --> 00:31:42,800
Speaker 1: worn off. So we have this absolute lack of correlation

514
00:31:43,080 --> 00:31:47,160
Speaker 1: where we can detect th HC and blood, but that

515
00:31:47,480 --> 00:31:51,280
Speaker 1: test will not tell us when this person was most

516
00:31:51,280 --> 00:31:54,520
Speaker 1: recently exposed to cannabis, and it doesn't tell us anything

517
00:31:54,600 --> 00:31:58,200
Speaker 1: with respect to whether or not they're impaired. We all

518
00:31:58,240 --> 00:32:02,320
Speaker 1: agree the influence cannabis can be somewhat problematic, and we'll

519
00:32:02,360 --> 00:32:05,200
Speaker 1: get into shortly how it compares to other risks. But

520
00:32:05,360 --> 00:32:08,640
Speaker 1: in terms of what the testing should be, I mean,

521
00:32:08,680 --> 00:32:11,920
Speaker 1: we hear opponents of legalization saying we can't lealize marijuana

522
00:32:11,960 --> 00:32:15,280
Speaker 1: until we figure out this driving due influence of marijuana issue, right,

523
00:32:15,320 --> 00:32:17,280
Speaker 1: I mean you hear that being used as a political issue,

524
00:32:17,280 --> 00:32:19,400
Speaker 1: but it's also being raised in a legitimate way by

525
00:32:19,440 --> 00:32:22,160
Speaker 1: law enforcement to say, you know, we don't know exactly

526
00:32:22,200 --> 00:32:24,640
Speaker 1: how to handle this or what to do. So when

527
00:32:24,680 --> 00:32:26,920
Speaker 1: you look at the other things that are emerging, the

528
00:32:27,160 --> 00:32:31,600
Speaker 1: sort of breathalyzer type things, or swabbing the mouth for saliva,

529
00:32:31,880 --> 00:32:33,880
Speaker 1: or I think somebody came up with an app of

530
00:32:33,960 --> 00:32:36,960
Speaker 1: some sort, what do you think are the cutting edge,

531
00:32:37,000 --> 00:32:39,800
Speaker 1: the most practical and most pragmatic in terms of detecting

532
00:32:40,080 --> 00:32:44,200
Speaker 1: impair driving involving cannabis. Well, number one, we need to

533
00:32:44,240 --> 00:32:49,720
Speaker 1: get away from drug detection, because that's all a breathalyzer test,

534
00:32:49,800 --> 00:32:53,560
Speaker 1: for instance, is. Now keep in mind, we have breathalyzers

535
00:32:53,640 --> 00:32:57,680
Speaker 1: that detect the level of alcohol and breath that test

536
00:32:57,800 --> 00:33:01,680
Speaker 1: in and of itself would be used if we didn't

537
00:33:01,840 --> 00:33:06,480
Speaker 1: have other data correlating well at alcohol levels with impairment.

538
00:33:06,680 --> 00:33:10,320
Speaker 1: So keep in mind, the only reason a breathalyzer detection

539
00:33:10,520 --> 00:33:15,840
Speaker 1: test is valid and has utility for alcohol is because

540
00:33:15,840 --> 00:33:17,840
Speaker 1: we have the other side of the coin. We have

541
00:33:17,960 --> 00:33:20,840
Speaker 1: all of this data that tells us with some degree

542
00:33:20,840 --> 00:33:24,360
Speaker 1: of certainty that if a person tests positive at this level,

543
00:33:24,520 --> 00:33:28,400
Speaker 1: we can make these presumptions. We lack the ability to

544
00:33:28,560 --> 00:33:32,360
Speaker 1: make those presumptions with cannabis, and again with all of

545
00:33:32,400 --> 00:33:36,200
Speaker 1: these other substances out there that also impaired driving performance.

546
00:33:36,360 --> 00:33:40,800
Speaker 1: So the question here isn't can we come up with

547
00:33:40,960 --> 00:33:45,280
Speaker 1: a th HC detection test, for instance, even a roadside

548
00:33:45,280 --> 00:33:49,040
Speaker 1: detection test. We already have those. We have oral saliva

549
00:33:49,160 --> 00:33:51,400
Speaker 1: testing that could be administered at the side of the road.

550
00:33:51,640 --> 00:33:54,800
Speaker 1: We have breath detection testing for th HC. That's not

551
00:33:54,920 --> 00:33:59,960
Speaker 1: the problem. The problem is we don't learn any information

552
00:34:00,000 --> 00:34:04,440
Speaker 1: sation that we need to know from those tests. Simply

553
00:34:04,520 --> 00:34:08,520
Speaker 1: detecting somebody with THHC and their breath tells us very

554
00:34:08,600 --> 00:34:12,799
Speaker 1: little because we can't correlate the detection regardless of the

555
00:34:12,880 --> 00:34:17,520
Speaker 1: quantity detected with recent exposure and with impairment. Of performance.

556
00:34:17,719 --> 00:34:21,200
Speaker 1: So we need to move away from this idea that

557
00:34:21,239 --> 00:34:25,600
Speaker 1: we need to have different ways to detect certain compounds

558
00:34:25,680 --> 00:34:28,960
Speaker 1: in one system to the question of how do we

559
00:34:29,120 --> 00:34:33,520
Speaker 1: have the ability to provide law enforcement officers with the

560
00:34:33,600 --> 00:34:40,080
Speaker 1: ability to use validated tests and measurements of impairment of performance.

561
00:34:40,440 --> 00:34:45,360
Speaker 1: We know that there are different skills and behaviors that

562
00:34:45,680 --> 00:34:50,840
Speaker 1: tend to be influenced by cannabis. We mentioned reaction time earlier.

563
00:34:51,040 --> 00:34:56,080
Speaker 1: Another one is short term memory recall. Another objective metric

564
00:34:56,440 --> 00:35:00,480
Speaker 1: is perception of time. That's confirmed in the literature. People

565
00:35:00,600 --> 00:35:04,440
Speaker 1: under the influence of cannabis tend to underestimate the passage

566
00:35:04,440 --> 00:35:08,000
Speaker 1: of time. So the idea here is that we could

567
00:35:08,000 --> 00:35:12,520
Speaker 1: train officers like we do already. We have drug recognition

568
00:35:12,560 --> 00:35:16,319
Speaker 1: evaluators police officers who go through trading and they have

569
00:35:16,360 --> 00:35:20,239
Speaker 1: a twelve step protocol to determine if one is under

570
00:35:20,280 --> 00:35:23,680
Speaker 1: the influence of a substance other than alcohol. Based on

571
00:35:23,920 --> 00:35:27,560
Speaker 1: how these subjects perform on this twelve point protocol, we

572
00:35:27,600 --> 00:35:33,800
Speaker 1: can incorporate into those sort of protocols these validated measurements

573
00:35:33,840 --> 00:35:37,240
Speaker 1: for whether or not someone's under the influence of cannabis.

574
00:35:37,280 --> 00:35:40,560
Speaker 1: The time perception test within the d R is known

575
00:35:40,560 --> 00:35:44,640
Speaker 1: as the Romberg test. It's already there, but there's other

576
00:35:44,840 --> 00:35:48,640
Speaker 1: parts of that twelve step protocol that are really highly questionable,

577
00:35:48,800 --> 00:35:52,080
Speaker 1: looking at things like pupil dilation that really isn't relevant

578
00:35:52,200 --> 00:35:54,279
Speaker 1: or not to whether one may or may not be

579
00:35:54,400 --> 00:35:58,080
Speaker 1: under the influence of cannabis. But we could incorporate things

580
00:35:58,120 --> 00:36:03,080
Speaker 1: like short term memory recall using app technology. We could

581
00:36:03,520 --> 00:36:09,400
Speaker 1: incorporate reaction time by having individuals do handheld performance tests.

582
00:36:09,480 --> 00:36:12,520
Speaker 1: I think that's really the future of where this needs

583
00:36:12,560 --> 00:36:15,520
Speaker 1: to go, because then we're not just addressing the issue

584
00:36:15,680 --> 00:36:19,000
Speaker 1: of allowing officers to identify who may or may not

585
00:36:19,080 --> 00:36:21,399
Speaker 1: be driving under the infanso of cannabis, but it would

586
00:36:21,400 --> 00:36:25,120
Speaker 1: allow officers to determine who may or may not simply

587
00:36:25,160 --> 00:36:29,640
Speaker 1: be driving impaired, regardless of why they're driving impaired, whether

588
00:36:29,680 --> 00:36:31,600
Speaker 1: it's from a lack of sleep, or whether it's from

589
00:36:31,600 --> 00:36:34,480
Speaker 1: a prescription medication, or whether it's from a controlled substance.

590
00:36:34,760 --> 00:36:38,200
Speaker 1: So there's some analogies here beteen testing of the impact

591
00:36:38,239 --> 00:36:41,720
Speaker 1: of drugs on driving and testing about whether somebody's impaired

592
00:36:41,760 --> 00:36:44,279
Speaker 1: in the workplace, where ultimately it's not did you or

593
00:36:44,280 --> 00:36:46,840
Speaker 1: didn't you consume a drug. It's are you in fact

594
00:36:46,920 --> 00:36:48,960
Speaker 1: able to do the job you're called upon to do,

595
00:36:49,040 --> 00:36:52,319
Speaker 1: whether it's driving or your work job in a responsible

596
00:36:52,320 --> 00:36:56,000
Speaker 1: and safe way. Absolutely, and we're seeing these sort of

597
00:36:56,040 --> 00:37:00,359
Speaker 1: technologies being developed. There's a handheld technology known as Ruin

598
00:37:00,840 --> 00:37:04,319
Speaker 1: that has been used in clinical studies. There's a very

599
00:37:04,400 --> 00:37:08,840
Speaker 1: interesting study looking at Druid and comparing the results using

600
00:37:08,960 --> 00:37:12,560
Speaker 1: Druid to the results of officers who are trained in

601
00:37:12,719 --> 00:37:17,400
Speaker 1: standardized field testing. So individuals in the study either were

602
00:37:17,520 --> 00:37:20,719
Speaker 1: or were not under the influence of cannabis, and officers,

603
00:37:20,760 --> 00:37:24,640
Speaker 1: again trained officers ran them through the standard field sobriety

604
00:37:24,640 --> 00:37:28,239
Speaker 1: test battery and they also tested them using the components

605
00:37:28,280 --> 00:37:30,839
Speaker 1: of the Druid app, which again measures things like short

606
00:37:30,960 --> 00:37:35,759
Speaker 1: term memory, recall, reaction time, perception of time, perception of

607
00:37:35,800 --> 00:37:39,120
Speaker 1: the passage of time. And what the study found was

608
00:37:39,239 --> 00:37:43,319
Speaker 1: that it was the use of the impairment application, the

609
00:37:43,440 --> 00:37:47,040
Speaker 1: Druid app that was more sensitive and more accurate in

610
00:37:47,160 --> 00:37:50,200
Speaker 1: identifying the subjects who were actually under the influence of

611
00:37:50,239 --> 00:37:53,920
Speaker 1: cannabis than was the field sobriety tests things like the

612
00:37:53,960 --> 00:37:57,560
Speaker 1: one legs stand the walk in turn tests that have

613
00:37:57,760 --> 00:38:01,320
Speaker 1: been in existence for decades. Believe it or not ethan

614
00:38:01,640 --> 00:38:06,520
Speaker 1: have only been validated to identify individuals under the influence

615
00:38:06,520 --> 00:38:09,280
Speaker 1: of alcohol, and believe I know plenty of defense attorneys

616
00:38:09,280 --> 00:38:11,600
Speaker 1: who would claim that even that part of the equation

617
00:38:11,719 --> 00:38:15,960
Speaker 1: is questionable. But the reality is is when scientists have

618
00:38:16,160 --> 00:38:19,960
Speaker 1: taken the field sobriety tests and applied it the subjects

619
00:38:20,040 --> 00:38:24,640
Speaker 1: under the influence of other substances other than alcohol, there's

620
00:38:24,719 --> 00:38:28,239
Speaker 1: no correlation between how subjects perform on those tests and

621
00:38:28,280 --> 00:38:32,919
Speaker 1: whether or not they're actually impaired. Unfortunately, all these decades later,

622
00:38:33,200 --> 00:38:36,319
Speaker 1: many police are still using the field sobriety tests to

623
00:38:36,560 --> 00:38:40,200
Speaker 1: make determinations or guests of bits about whether people are

624
00:38:40,239 --> 00:38:43,520
Speaker 1: impaired by substances other than alcohol, when again, the test

625
00:38:43,640 --> 00:38:47,160
Speaker 1: was never designed for that purpose. So you're a fan

626
00:38:47,200 --> 00:38:49,360
Speaker 1: of the druid app is perhaps being one of the

627
00:38:49,400 --> 00:38:53,280
Speaker 1: best options out there for detecting real impairment. I do

628
00:38:53,640 --> 00:38:56,880
Speaker 1: because again I'm aware of the different components of the

629
00:38:56,920 --> 00:39:01,640
Speaker 1: tests and that those are scientifically validated measurements, in this

630
00:39:01,719 --> 00:39:05,160
Speaker 1: case for cannabis. Now, you know, critics of something like

631
00:39:05,200 --> 00:39:07,880
Speaker 1: this will say, you know the problem here, Paul, is

632
00:39:07,920 --> 00:39:11,560
Speaker 1: how are we going to establish the baseline performance? Because

633
00:39:11,640 --> 00:39:14,600
Speaker 1: every individual is going to have a different baseline, and

634
00:39:14,680 --> 00:39:18,160
Speaker 1: perhaps an app like this is a valid technology for

635
00:39:18,200 --> 00:39:22,120
Speaker 1: the user for somebody who is wondering whether or not

636
00:39:22,360 --> 00:39:24,839
Speaker 1: they are safe to drive, but it would be more

637
00:39:24,920 --> 00:39:27,600
Speaker 1: difficult to use in the workplace or to have used

638
00:39:27,600 --> 00:39:31,440
Speaker 1: by law enforcement, because they won't know if the person

639
00:39:31,560 --> 00:39:35,879
Speaker 1: is testing in a way that varies from their baseline performance,

640
00:39:36,040 --> 00:39:39,160
Speaker 1: to which I'd say, the way we go about trying

641
00:39:39,160 --> 00:39:41,800
Speaker 1: to solve that problem, and the way the makers of

642
00:39:41,880 --> 00:39:45,240
Speaker 1: Druid are e fact going about this, is by having

643
00:39:45,840 --> 00:39:51,279
Speaker 1: massive amounts of people use the app to gauge baseline performance,

644
00:39:51,360 --> 00:39:54,520
Speaker 1: and then have them use the app after they've used

645
00:39:54,760 --> 00:39:59,560
Speaker 1: particular substance, so we can have generalized baselines, so we

646
00:39:59,560 --> 00:40:03,799
Speaker 1: can have some idea what the average person's performances on

647
00:40:03,840 --> 00:40:07,880
Speaker 1: this app versus their average performance if in fact they're impaired,

648
00:40:07,960 --> 00:40:10,880
Speaker 1: and we essentially have baseline data that we can compare

649
00:40:11,080 --> 00:40:15,560
Speaker 1: somebody's performance too. I think there is a feasibility and

650
00:40:15,680 --> 00:40:19,040
Speaker 1: being able to do that. It's not perfect, but it

651
00:40:19,120 --> 00:40:23,279
Speaker 1: provides I think a very important and necessary tool that

652
00:40:23,440 --> 00:40:26,759
Speaker 1: currently we're lacking both in the workplace and again with

653
00:40:26,840 --> 00:40:30,360
Speaker 1: respect to this question of roadside testing. Well, one of

654
00:40:30,400 --> 00:40:32,720
Speaker 1: the things I've liked about the way that you've written

655
00:40:32,719 --> 00:40:35,040
Speaker 1: and spoken on this issue is the way which you

656
00:40:35,160 --> 00:40:38,799
Speaker 1: compare the relative risks of driving into the influence of

657
00:40:38,840 --> 00:40:43,239
Speaker 1: cannabis to other substances and also to other activities, and

658
00:40:43,320 --> 00:40:46,120
Speaker 1: putting it in perspective right, And so we all know

659
00:40:46,200 --> 00:40:49,719
Speaker 1: that alcohol, by enlarge, is more dangerous in cannabis for

660
00:40:49,760 --> 00:40:53,240
Speaker 1: the vast majority of drivers. We also know that combining drugs,

661
00:40:53,280 --> 00:40:56,920
Speaker 1: if you combine alcohol with marijuana, it escalates everything. If

662
00:40:56,920 --> 00:41:00,160
Speaker 1: you combine opioids or benzos like valium or ambulent ever,

663
00:41:00,320 --> 00:41:02,840
Speaker 1: it escalates the dangers. I think at one point I

664
00:41:02,880 --> 00:41:05,680
Speaker 1: read that you were saying that even things like antihistamines

665
00:41:05,800 --> 00:41:10,320
Speaker 1: r antibiotics have some psychoactive effect, they can impact driving.

666
00:41:10,440 --> 00:41:13,520
Speaker 1: So could you put the risk element of cannabis if

667
00:41:13,560 --> 00:41:17,640
Speaker 1: you compare driving of cannabis with driving drug free, and

668
00:41:17,680 --> 00:41:21,560
Speaker 1: then with driving under the influence of other substances, how

669
00:41:21,560 --> 00:41:23,719
Speaker 1: does it rate compare to all of these. Yeah, I'm

670
00:41:23,719 --> 00:41:27,600
Speaker 1: really glad you asked that question, Ethan, because context is

671
00:41:27,680 --> 00:41:30,799
Speaker 1: really key here, and there is a spectrum. There is

672
00:41:30,840 --> 00:41:34,719
Speaker 1: a spectrum of risk, and there are behaviors people engage

673
00:41:34,719 --> 00:41:38,799
Speaker 1: in every day that increase, at least theoretically, the risk

674
00:41:38,840 --> 00:41:42,360
Speaker 1: of a motor vehicle accident. So the question really shouldn't

675
00:41:42,360 --> 00:41:46,600
Speaker 1: be does cannabis potentially increase this risk? The question should

676
00:41:46,640 --> 00:41:52,440
Speaker 1: be where on the spectrum of increased risks does cannabis fall.

677
00:41:52,760 --> 00:41:57,960
Speaker 1: And we have again so much data assessing this issue,

678
00:41:58,280 --> 00:42:00,960
Speaker 1: much of the data being you know, very consistent, yielding

679
00:42:01,000 --> 00:42:03,600
Speaker 1: the same result again and again. So to answer this

680
00:42:03,680 --> 00:42:06,600
Speaker 1: question we need to have an understanding of what is

681
00:42:06,640 --> 00:42:11,320
Speaker 1: an odds ratio. And an odds ratio estimates the probability

682
00:42:11,480 --> 00:42:13,760
Speaker 1: of an event like say, in this case, a motor

683
00:42:13,880 --> 00:42:17,600
Speaker 1: vehicle accident, versus the probability that such an event will

684
00:42:17,680 --> 00:42:21,919
Speaker 1: not occur. And so if there is a greater likelihood

685
00:42:22,040 --> 00:42:25,600
Speaker 1: that engaging in a certain behavior is more likely to

686
00:42:25,680 --> 00:42:29,200
Speaker 1: increase the likelihood of a certain outcome, that leads to

687
00:42:29,280 --> 00:42:32,480
Speaker 1: an Odds ratio that is greater than one. If the

688
00:42:32,560 --> 00:42:36,759
Speaker 1: behavior has no impact on increasing or decreasing the risk

689
00:42:36,800 --> 00:42:38,799
Speaker 1: of an outcome, then you have an odds ratio of one.

690
00:42:39,080 --> 00:42:41,839
Speaker 1: And of course, if the behavior you engage in decreased

691
00:42:42,040 --> 00:42:43,640
Speaker 1: the risk of that outcome, you have to have an

692
00:42:43,680 --> 00:42:47,560
Speaker 1: odds ratio below one. If you look at the dozens

693
00:42:47,640 --> 00:42:50,960
Speaker 1: and dozens of studies that have been performed throughout the

694
00:42:51,000 --> 00:42:55,560
Speaker 1: world to assess do people that have th HC in

695
00:42:55,680 --> 00:42:59,080
Speaker 1: their system or do th HC positive drivers, do they

696
00:42:59,080 --> 00:43:03,000
Speaker 1: have a greater or a lesser likelihood than a drug

697
00:43:03,120 --> 00:43:07,320
Speaker 1: free driver in being and involved in a motor vehicle accident.

698
00:43:07,640 --> 00:43:12,360
Speaker 1: You see that the odds ratio associate with the THHC

699
00:43:12,520 --> 00:43:16,360
Speaker 1: positive driver tends to be between about one point two

700
00:43:16,360 --> 00:43:20,960
Speaker 1: at one point four. That translates to about a twenty

701
00:43:21,000 --> 00:43:25,040
Speaker 1: increased risk of accident compared to a drug free driver. Now,

702
00:43:25,080 --> 00:43:27,880
Speaker 1: some individuals might say, well, Paul, that sounds really high,

703
00:43:28,120 --> 00:43:33,520
Speaker 1: that sounds really problematic. The reality is, on this spectrum

704
00:43:33,560 --> 00:43:38,240
Speaker 1: we talked about of behaviors that people engage in every day,

705
00:43:38,280 --> 00:43:41,120
Speaker 1: and odds ratio of one point two or one point

706
00:43:41,239 --> 00:43:47,480
Speaker 1: three is exceedingly low. Again, you mentioned alcohol earlier. Individuals

707
00:43:47,520 --> 00:43:51,799
Speaker 1: who are alcohol positive drivers but positive for levels of

708
00:43:51,840 --> 00:43:55,799
Speaker 1: alcohol below the legal limits tend to at a minimum

709
00:43:55,800 --> 00:43:58,759
Speaker 1: have an ODDS ratio of four, which would make them

710
00:43:58,800 --> 00:44:02,040
Speaker 1: four times are likely to be involved in a motor

711
00:44:02,120 --> 00:44:06,000
Speaker 1: vehicle accident compared to an alcohol free driver. You mentioned

712
00:44:06,040 --> 00:44:10,360
Speaker 1: anahistamines earlier. The odds ratio social with anahistamines is about

713
00:44:10,400 --> 00:44:14,360
Speaker 1: one point one two or twelve percent. Is slightly lower

714
00:44:14,400 --> 00:44:18,040
Speaker 1: than the risk associated with cannabis, but it's higher than one.

715
00:44:18,560 --> 00:44:22,600
Speaker 1: That's not because I think anahistames are taking anahistamines are

716
00:44:22,640 --> 00:44:26,920
Speaker 1: impairing people's ability to drive, but because I would presume

717
00:44:27,160 --> 00:44:31,719
Speaker 1: that people taking anahistamines are not feeling very well that

718
00:44:31,840 --> 00:44:35,080
Speaker 1: day and they may be more distracted drivers. We see

719
00:44:35,120 --> 00:44:39,400
Speaker 1: the same result with penicillin, for instance. Again, i'd argue

720
00:44:39,440 --> 00:44:42,560
Speaker 1: people that are sick are taking penicillin, they're more distracted drivers.

721
00:44:42,600 --> 00:44:45,800
Speaker 1: Therefore they're more likely to be engaged in accidents. Driving

722
00:44:45,800 --> 00:44:49,440
Speaker 1: with two or more people in the same vehicle doubles

723
00:44:49,560 --> 00:44:52,480
Speaker 1: the risk of an auto accident. And certainly one can

724
00:44:52,680 --> 00:44:55,840
Speaker 1: have multiple passengers in the car and you're not violating

725
00:44:55,840 --> 00:44:59,560
Speaker 1: the traffic safety laws. But we know that behaviors associated

726
00:44:59,560 --> 00:45:02,480
Speaker 1: with an in priest risk of accident. Tuning the radio

727
00:45:02,800 --> 00:45:06,200
Speaker 1: nearly doubles one's risk of accident, and certainly some of

728
00:45:06,239 --> 00:45:09,800
Speaker 1: the drugs you mentioned opioids, we associate with a doubling

729
00:45:09,840 --> 00:45:12,920
Speaker 1: the risk of motor vehicle accident. Us of benzo diaz

730
00:45:12,960 --> 00:45:16,080
Speaker 1: apines more than double the risk of accident. Use of

731
00:45:16,160 --> 00:45:20,760
Speaker 1: amphetamines more than six times the risk of accident. So again,

732
00:45:21,239 --> 00:45:26,400
Speaker 1: context here is very important. It's not saying that cannabis

733
00:45:26,400 --> 00:45:30,000
Speaker 1: doesn't potentially influence some of the skills necessary to drive

734
00:45:30,040 --> 00:45:34,280
Speaker 1: a vehicle safely. It's not saying that THHC positive drivers

735
00:45:34,320 --> 00:45:38,640
Speaker 1: present no risk, but the risk they do present compared

736
00:45:38,680 --> 00:45:41,960
Speaker 1: to so many of these other behaviors is relatively low.

737
00:45:42,120 --> 00:45:45,440
Speaker 1: And let me just conclude this by saying these figures

738
00:45:45,480 --> 00:45:50,200
Speaker 1: applied individuals who test positive for th HC alone, because

739
00:45:50,200 --> 00:45:55,520
Speaker 1: you are absolutely correct that this risk goes up exponentially

740
00:45:55,760 --> 00:45:59,360
Speaker 1: when th HC is used in combination with alcohol. I

741
00:45:59,520 --> 00:46:04,000
Speaker 1: worry about the idea of passing these arbitrary, one size

742
00:46:04,000 --> 00:46:07,279
Speaker 1: fits all and flexible standards. Would we know that there

743
00:46:07,360 --> 00:46:11,279
Speaker 1: is so much variability here. I also think it is

744
00:46:11,520 --> 00:46:16,600
Speaker 1: entirely reasonable to expect there to be a preponderance of

745
00:46:16,680 --> 00:46:21,279
Speaker 1: evidence showing impairment of driving performance in order for the

746
00:46:21,360 --> 00:46:26,960
Speaker 1: state or a prosecutor to get a impaired driving conviction. Again,

747
00:46:27,520 --> 00:46:30,960
Speaker 1: if we're looking at this from a legal standpoint, in

748
00:46:31,040 --> 00:46:35,120
Speaker 1: the majority of states right now, in order to charge

749
00:46:35,200 --> 00:46:39,520
Speaker 1: somebody with driving under the influence of marijuana, the state

750
00:46:39,640 --> 00:46:42,680
Speaker 1: has to establish that there was evidence the driver recently

751
00:46:42,719 --> 00:46:47,080
Speaker 1: consumed cannabis and that consumption impaired their ability to drive

752
00:46:47,120 --> 00:46:50,160
Speaker 1: a motor vehicle safely. I don't think that's a very

753
00:46:50,200 --> 00:46:54,800
Speaker 1: difficult standard for the state to meet. And I say

754
00:46:54,840 --> 00:46:57,359
Speaker 1: this from the standpoint of someone who has been a

755
00:46:57,440 --> 00:47:01,560
Speaker 1: legal consultant, an advisor and involved in dozens in the

756
00:47:01,640 --> 00:47:05,160
Speaker 1: defense of dozens and dozens of these sorts of prosecutions.

757
00:47:05,560 --> 00:47:09,160
Speaker 1: I know the evidence that is presented in these cases.

758
00:47:09,520 --> 00:47:14,000
Speaker 1: Usually the driver admits to having used cannabis. Usually there's

759
00:47:14,080 --> 00:47:18,000
Speaker 1: evidence of recent use of cannabis in the car. Usually

760
00:47:18,239 --> 00:47:22,279
Speaker 1: you have a person engaging in very poor performance. When

761
00:47:22,280 --> 00:47:24,879
Speaker 1: the d r E is interacting with them, or when

762
00:47:24,880 --> 00:47:29,000
Speaker 1: the arresting officers interacting with them, there is usually quite

763
00:47:29,080 --> 00:47:32,200
Speaker 1: a bit of evidence, including the reason for the poll

764
00:47:32,239 --> 00:47:35,560
Speaker 1: over itself, well, the person weaved across the media and

765
00:47:35,560 --> 00:47:38,480
Speaker 1: the person refused to stop at the stop sign. That

766
00:47:38,760 --> 00:47:43,279
Speaker 1: totality of evidence, I believe, is what ought to be

767
00:47:43,400 --> 00:47:48,319
Speaker 1: necessary to go forward with and get a d UI conviction.

768
00:47:48,960 --> 00:47:51,799
Speaker 1: That's the way we do this when it comes to

769
00:47:51,880 --> 00:47:56,640
Speaker 1: other substances. Frankly, it's also the way we do prosecutions

770
00:47:56,640 --> 00:48:00,560
Speaker 1: with regard to alcohol and instances where somebody seems to

771
00:48:00,600 --> 00:48:04,279
Speaker 1: be based on their driving impaired by alcohol but is

772
00:48:04,400 --> 00:48:07,839
Speaker 1: under the point oh eight limit. Police don't just let

773
00:48:07,840 --> 00:48:10,319
Speaker 1: that person go and say, well, go ahead, go on

774
00:48:10,440 --> 00:48:12,560
Speaker 1: your way. I think you're too impaired to drive, but

775
00:48:12,600 --> 00:48:14,279
Speaker 1: you're under the point of wait on, nothing I can

776
00:48:14,280 --> 00:48:17,040
Speaker 1: do about it. No, they charge them with d u I,

777
00:48:17,320 --> 00:48:19,920
Speaker 1: and then they have to meet the same standard for

778
00:48:20,000 --> 00:48:22,680
Speaker 1: a d u I alcohol conviction that they would have

779
00:48:22,719 --> 00:48:24,719
Speaker 1: to meet for a d u I drug conviction. And

780
00:48:24,760 --> 00:48:27,719
Speaker 1: I can tell you when we look at data with

781
00:48:27,800 --> 00:48:33,239
Speaker 1: regard to drug driving convictions in states like Washington and

782
00:48:33,400 --> 00:48:38,040
Speaker 1: other states, there's almost no criminal prosecution that is more

783
00:48:38,160 --> 00:48:42,200
Speaker 1: likely to yield a criminal conviction than driving under the influence.

784
00:48:42,719 --> 00:48:46,880
Speaker 1: I've seen no evidence that the law is not sufficient

785
00:48:47,000 --> 00:48:50,640
Speaker 1: or that officers and prosecutors are unable to meet their

786
00:48:50,719 --> 00:48:56,160
Speaker 1: burden of proof in these cases. Let's take a break

787
00:48:56,200 --> 00:49:11,239
Speaker 1: here and go to an ADM. Well, I got a

788
00:49:11,239 --> 00:49:14,720
Speaker 1: proposal for you. So, given what you said before about

789
00:49:14,800 --> 00:49:18,240
Speaker 1: tolerance as well, what do you think about the idea

790
00:49:18,680 --> 00:49:22,239
Speaker 1: that bureaus of Motor vehicles should be able to give

791
00:49:22,280 --> 00:49:26,040
Speaker 1: a test to drivers where somebody shows up. It says

792
00:49:26,160 --> 00:49:28,880
Speaker 1: I want to get a stamp on my driver's license

793
00:49:28,960 --> 00:49:32,360
Speaker 1: that allows me to drive under the influence of cannabis,

794
00:49:32,480 --> 00:49:35,959
Speaker 1: and that the Bureau Motor Vehicle should administer tests where

795
00:49:36,000 --> 00:49:39,480
Speaker 1: people a driver gets high before driving and then has

796
00:49:39,520 --> 00:49:41,080
Speaker 1: the same kind of test that they might have a

797
00:49:41,160 --> 00:49:42,920
Speaker 1: similar sort of test they have, you know, like when

798
00:49:42,960 --> 00:49:45,480
Speaker 1: they first get their driver's license, right, and if they

799
00:49:45,480 --> 00:49:50,040
Speaker 1: can establish that their driving is unaffected by their cannabis consumption,

800
00:49:50,160 --> 00:49:53,920
Speaker 1: they would get a stamp saying I'm okay to drive high.

801
00:49:54,000 --> 00:49:56,280
Speaker 1: What do you think, Well, that's why I love you, Ethan.

802
00:49:56,320 --> 00:50:01,480
Speaker 1: You're a big picture guy or a um I it's

803
00:50:01,520 --> 00:50:03,680
Speaker 1: the first time I've heard such a proposals, the first

804
00:50:03,719 --> 00:50:06,600
Speaker 1: time I've considered such a proposal, I would dare say,

805
00:50:06,640 --> 00:50:11,840
Speaker 1: I think there's counter proposals that are more realistic because

806
00:50:11,880 --> 00:50:15,600
Speaker 1: they're more simplistic. Look, one lesson I think we can

807
00:50:15,719 --> 00:50:18,760
Speaker 1: take away from our experience with driving under the influence

808
00:50:18,800 --> 00:50:22,840
Speaker 1: of alcohol is not that we need a breathalyzer test

809
00:50:22,960 --> 00:50:26,319
Speaker 1: for marijuana, which I think would have no utility. But

810
00:50:26,719 --> 00:50:30,160
Speaker 1: is this I'm old enough to remember when you could

811
00:50:30,239 --> 00:50:32,600
Speaker 1: drive with an open container of alcohol in the car

812
00:50:32,800 --> 00:50:36,960
Speaker 1: and then you couldn't because again our American culture change,

813
00:50:37,080 --> 00:50:40,720
Speaker 1: the level with which we prioritize trying to discourage driving

814
00:50:40,760 --> 00:50:44,400
Speaker 1: under the influence changed, and then the state's changed it

815
00:50:44,400 --> 00:50:47,000
Speaker 1: along and said, you know what, if you're driving a vehicle,

816
00:50:47,280 --> 00:50:50,520
Speaker 1: you simply can't have an open container of booze in

817
00:50:50,560 --> 00:50:53,640
Speaker 1: the car. Doesn't matter. If you could say, well, look

818
00:50:53,680 --> 00:50:56,720
Speaker 1: I just I'm drinking one beer and driving. I'm not drunk,

819
00:50:56,840 --> 00:50:59,759
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. The state says you can't do that.

820
00:51:00,760 --> 00:51:05,200
Speaker 1: When I talk to people about this issue, you know, Ethan,

821
00:51:05,800 --> 00:51:09,640
Speaker 1: they don't know a metabolite from a nanagram and they

822
00:51:09,680 --> 00:51:13,600
Speaker 1: don't want to. They don't care if somebody's operating a

823
00:51:13,600 --> 00:51:16,719
Speaker 1: motor vehicle with five nanograms of th HC in their

824
00:51:16,719 --> 00:51:20,359
Speaker 1: blood or twenty nanagrams of carboxy TC and their urine

825
00:51:20,400 --> 00:51:22,480
Speaker 1: because they don't know what those things are and they

826
00:51:22,480 --> 00:51:25,160
Speaker 1: don't know what those numbers mean. What they tell me

827
00:51:25,280 --> 00:51:29,719
Speaker 1: is I don't want someone smoking cot and driving. That's

828
00:51:29,760 --> 00:51:33,960
Speaker 1: what they say. So why not apply a similar standard

829
00:51:34,040 --> 00:51:36,480
Speaker 1: like we have with the open container law that says, look,

830
00:51:36,520 --> 00:51:39,040
Speaker 1: if you're gonna get behind the wheel, there's no smoking

831
00:51:39,080 --> 00:51:42,680
Speaker 1: in the car. You're not smoking your passengers aren't smoking,

832
00:51:42,760 --> 00:51:46,120
Speaker 1: and if a law enforcement officer pulls you over and

833
00:51:46,280 --> 00:51:49,399
Speaker 1: finds evidence that somebody's been smoking in the car, you've

834
00:51:49,480 --> 00:51:53,359
Speaker 1: all violated the traffic safety law. That could be the

835
00:51:53,480 --> 00:51:57,080
Speaker 1: arbitrary line I could live with, And in those cases

836
00:51:57,120 --> 00:52:00,759
Speaker 1: there be no need to even try to established whether

837
00:52:00,840 --> 00:52:03,440
Speaker 1: or not the person was impaired or under the influence,

838
00:52:03,520 --> 00:52:06,759
Speaker 1: because they've broken the law simply by the act of

839
00:52:06,920 --> 00:52:10,480
Speaker 1: using cannabis wild driving. Well, look, you're being very pragmatic here.

840
00:52:10,520 --> 00:52:13,240
Speaker 1: I do appreciate that when we look around the country

841
00:52:13,280 --> 00:52:16,040
Speaker 1: at the various states, are there states that are just

842
00:52:16,080 --> 00:52:18,520
Speaker 1: doing this absolutely wrong with in terms of like per

843
00:52:18,560 --> 00:52:21,960
Speaker 1: se amounts for marijuana, and are there some states that

844
00:52:22,000 --> 00:52:24,160
Speaker 1: are doing it sort of better than most, And for

845
00:52:24,200 --> 00:52:30,000
Speaker 1: that matter, what about internationally? Unfortunately, I wouldn't say there's

846
00:52:30,040 --> 00:52:33,680
Speaker 1: really an example of anyone getting this totally right. But

847
00:52:33,840 --> 00:52:36,759
Speaker 1: of course we do have states like say California that

848
00:52:36,800 --> 00:52:40,560
Speaker 1: has had medical access now for several decades and adult

849
00:52:40,640 --> 00:52:43,759
Speaker 1: use access for several years, and they've maintained the same

850
00:52:43,760 --> 00:52:46,440
Speaker 1: traffic laws during this entire period of time. They have

851
00:52:46,480 --> 00:52:50,160
Speaker 1: an effect based standard, which, as I mentioned earlier, is

852
00:52:50,200 --> 00:52:53,319
Speaker 1: the standard that the majority of states have that say, look,

853
00:52:53,400 --> 00:52:55,560
Speaker 1: this isn't about what levels you may or may not

854
00:52:55,719 --> 00:52:58,600
Speaker 1: have of some compound in your blood or urine. This

855
00:52:58,640 --> 00:53:01,759
Speaker 1: is about whether the state can prove you recently consumed

856
00:53:01,840 --> 00:53:06,600
Speaker 1: a psychoactive substance and whether you demonstrably were impaired by

857
00:53:06,640 --> 00:53:10,040
Speaker 1: that psychoactive substance while you were driving. Again, I think

858
00:53:10,120 --> 00:53:11,880
Speaker 1: that's the way we do it, but I think we

859
00:53:11,880 --> 00:53:14,400
Speaker 1: could do it better. I think we could have better

860
00:53:14,480 --> 00:53:17,640
Speaker 1: training for drug recognition evaluators. I think we could have

861
00:53:17,840 --> 00:53:22,040
Speaker 1: more of them. I think any legalization a law, or

862
00:53:22,120 --> 00:53:26,239
Speaker 1: that law becoming enacted should go part and parcel with

863
00:53:26,480 --> 00:53:31,080
Speaker 1: a public service campaign that alerts people to the potential

864
00:53:31,200 --> 00:53:35,040
Speaker 1: risks about drug driving, that makes people aware that such

865
00:53:35,120 --> 00:53:39,000
Speaker 1: behavior is illegal. I think retailers who are selling these

866
00:53:39,080 --> 00:53:43,320
Speaker 1: products could be trained with regard to messaging and talking

867
00:53:43,320 --> 00:53:46,680
Speaker 1: about risks of drug driving. I think there is a

868
00:53:46,800 --> 00:53:50,480
Speaker 1: lot more that we could do to bring attention and

869
00:53:50,560 --> 00:53:54,640
Speaker 1: awareness to this issue and to educate the consumers to

870
00:53:54,719 --> 00:53:57,960
Speaker 1: dissuade them from engaging in this behavior. And then, of

871
00:53:58,000 --> 00:54:00,160
Speaker 1: course there's some examples of states that I think are

872
00:54:00,160 --> 00:54:03,280
Speaker 1: going about this all wrong. Washington State is a state

873
00:54:03,320 --> 00:54:08,040
Speaker 1: that imposes an inflexible five nanogram per milli leader standard

874
00:54:08,320 --> 00:54:12,080
Speaker 1: for the detection of th HC and blood. We can't

875
00:54:12,160 --> 00:54:15,799
Speaker 1: correlate five nanograms of th HC with either recent use

876
00:54:15,800 --> 00:54:19,719
Speaker 1: of cannabis or impairment. Somebody might have five nanograms of

877
00:54:19,760 --> 00:54:23,239
Speaker 1: th HC because they use cannabis ninety minutes ago or

878
00:54:23,280 --> 00:54:26,680
Speaker 1: because they used it five days ago. There's no ability

879
00:54:26,760 --> 00:54:29,760
Speaker 1: for us to back extrapolate based on that test result.

880
00:54:29,880 --> 00:54:33,799
Speaker 1: That's a bad law. Interesting. So, Paul, you know, I

881
00:54:33,840 --> 00:54:36,400
Speaker 1: see all these studies coming out. You know this for

882
00:54:36,560 --> 00:54:39,960
Speaker 1: years now. Did the legalization of medical merril wan these

883
00:54:39,960 --> 00:54:43,440
Speaker 1: are the early studies increase auto accidents or not? And

884
00:54:43,520 --> 00:54:45,960
Speaker 1: more recently, did the legalization of marij wand in a

885
00:54:46,000 --> 00:54:50,760
Speaker 1: particular state increase auto accidents auto fatalities or not? Sure?

886
00:54:50,880 --> 00:54:55,200
Speaker 1: That's a great question. This is probably the one question

887
00:54:55,320 --> 00:54:59,359
Speaker 1: post legalization that is asked the most, either this or

888
00:54:59,400 --> 00:55:01,799
Speaker 1: what's the packed on kids? Are more kids going to

889
00:55:01,920 --> 00:55:06,040
Speaker 1: use marijuana after legalization than did before? Just like that question,

890
00:55:06,120 --> 00:55:09,600
Speaker 1: people ask well, what's the impact on traffic safety with

891
00:55:09,680 --> 00:55:13,120
Speaker 1: regard to medical marijuana laws? And I would dare say

892
00:55:13,160 --> 00:55:15,680
Speaker 1: there's very few researchers that are studying the impact of

893
00:55:15,680 --> 00:55:19,200
Speaker 1: medical marijuana legalization on traffic safety anymore. For quite some

894
00:55:19,239 --> 00:55:21,640
Speaker 1: time there were, but now it's moved on to looking

895
00:55:21,640 --> 00:55:23,480
Speaker 1: at the effect of adult use laws. But if we

896
00:55:23,520 --> 00:55:26,960
Speaker 1: looked at the totality of data, looking at traffic safety

897
00:55:27,000 --> 00:55:31,440
Speaker 1: trends post medical marijuana, we saw no uptick in traffic accidents.

898
00:55:31,480 --> 00:55:33,719
Speaker 1: In fact, in a number of states we saw a decrease,

899
00:55:33,960 --> 00:55:38,000
Speaker 1: and some studies also showed an overall decrease in accidents overall,

900
00:55:38,200 --> 00:55:42,080
Speaker 1: including accidents due to alcohol and accidents due to opioids.

901
00:55:42,239 --> 00:55:46,000
Speaker 1: With regard to adult use, which is what it's really

902
00:55:46,120 --> 00:55:50,520
Speaker 1: more people's minds now. Initially, sort of the first wave

903
00:55:50,560 --> 00:55:53,279
Speaker 1: of studies we saw coming out of Colorado and Washington.

904
00:55:53,680 --> 00:55:57,839
Speaker 1: In Oregon, we saw no uptick in accident rates. And

905
00:55:57,880 --> 00:56:01,200
Speaker 1: then as the pool has gotten somewhat larger, and I

906
00:56:01,200 --> 00:56:05,880
Speaker 1: would dare say more importantly retail access has become more

907
00:56:05,920 --> 00:56:08,960
Speaker 1: prevalent in some of these states, some of this data

908
00:56:09,000 --> 00:56:13,239
Speaker 1: has gotten more inconsistent. In particular, there's some data out

909
00:56:13,239 --> 00:56:17,759
Speaker 1: of Colorado that shows an uptick in accidents, and then conversely,

910
00:56:18,120 --> 00:56:21,120
Speaker 1: you'll see data from a state like Thevada that, over

911
00:56:21,160 --> 00:56:24,640
Speaker 1: the same period of time shows a decrease in accidents.

912
00:56:24,719 --> 00:56:28,040
Speaker 1: So what to make of this? And I would dare

913
00:56:28,120 --> 00:56:33,279
Speaker 1: say there is variabilities here, or there are confounding factors

914
00:56:33,400 --> 00:56:37,360
Speaker 1: here that are leading to these disparate results that probably

915
00:56:37,400 --> 00:56:40,840
Speaker 1: have very little to do with marijuana or the law,

916
00:56:41,080 --> 00:56:43,919
Speaker 1: because when we look at say a state like Colorado

917
00:56:44,040 --> 00:56:47,080
Speaker 1: that's had a very different result with regard to traffic

918
00:56:47,120 --> 00:56:50,600
Speaker 1: safety than a state like Nevada, the reality is is

919
00:56:50,640 --> 00:56:54,280
Speaker 1: they essentially have the same law, they have the same

920
00:56:54,320 --> 00:56:59,520
Speaker 1: regulatory scheme. If marijuana was independently linked to this change

921
00:56:59,520 --> 00:57:03,600
Speaker 1: in traffic safety patterns or driving habits, we should see

922
00:57:03,640 --> 00:57:07,240
Speaker 1: consistent results across the board. But we're not. We're seeing

923
00:57:07,280 --> 00:57:11,600
Speaker 1: a wide variation and traffic safety from state to state

924
00:57:11,640 --> 00:57:14,320
Speaker 1: to state. I think that has a whole lot less

925
00:57:14,320 --> 00:57:17,240
Speaker 1: to do with marijuana and marijuana law, and a whole

926
00:57:17,280 --> 00:57:21,120
Speaker 1: lot more with other demographic shifts and changes in driving

927
00:57:21,160 --> 00:57:23,880
Speaker 1: behavior that are taking place in some states and not

928
00:57:23,960 --> 00:57:27,800
Speaker 1: others over these same periods of time. Curious given that

929
00:57:27,880 --> 00:57:32,160
Speaker 1: it's a federal agency, right the National Highway Safety Traffic

930
00:57:32,160 --> 00:57:34,880
Speaker 1: Safety Administration. Between the study it did net back in

931
00:57:36,080 --> 00:57:39,240
Speaker 1: finding no difference between marijuana users and drug free drivers,

932
00:57:39,320 --> 00:57:42,640
Speaker 1: and then you're describing this twenty fifteen study as sort

933
00:57:42,640 --> 00:57:46,600
Speaker 1: of a gold standard. Has the agency been out there

934
00:57:46,840 --> 00:57:50,720
Speaker 1: and basically being frank about these results, or do they

935
00:57:50,840 --> 00:57:53,360
Speaker 1: feel a need to pull their punches because they don't

936
00:57:53,360 --> 00:57:55,920
Speaker 1: want to be risked being seen as promoting the wrong message.

937
00:57:56,160 --> 00:57:59,640
Speaker 1: That's a great question, Ethan. I'm glad you asked normal

938
00:57:59,840 --> 00:58:03,920
Speaker 1: and our fact sheets, and in my messaging about cannabis

939
00:58:03,920 --> 00:58:08,600
Speaker 1: and driving, I cite NITSA probably more than any other source.

940
00:58:08,920 --> 00:58:12,240
Speaker 1: I cite their studies, I cite their fact sheets, I

941
00:58:12,360 --> 00:58:17,520
Speaker 1: cite their website, all of which contain I would dare say,

942
00:58:17,640 --> 00:58:26,680
Speaker 1: very objective, nonpartisan, non rhetorical, evidence based information about cannabis

943
00:58:26,720 --> 00:58:31,919
Speaker 1: and driving and accident safety and traffic risk. Yet publicly,

944
00:58:32,440 --> 00:58:37,080
Speaker 1: I'm really not aware of representatives from NITZA speaking out

945
00:58:37,120 --> 00:58:40,920
Speaker 1: on this issue whatsoever. Now, let me give you an

946
00:58:40,920 --> 00:58:44,320
Speaker 1: anecdote that always stood in my mind. I was asked

947
00:58:44,320 --> 00:58:48,880
Speaker 1: to testify before legislative hearings in Washington State many years ago,

948
00:58:49,040 --> 00:58:52,800
Speaker 1: shortly after legalization had passed, and there were hearings that

949
00:58:52,880 --> 00:58:57,000
Speaker 1: were being held on drug driving, and in particular, this

950
00:58:57,240 --> 00:59:02,439
Speaker 1: troubling five Dana gram standard that had been enacted part

951
00:59:02,480 --> 00:59:07,160
Speaker 1: and parcel with legalization. And I flew into Olympia and

952
00:59:07,280 --> 00:59:10,640
Speaker 1: I was in the office of the Member of the

953
00:59:10,680 --> 00:59:13,960
Speaker 1: state Legislature who was the chair of this committee who

954
00:59:14,000 --> 00:59:17,560
Speaker 1: had called for these hearings, And I said, who else

955
00:59:17,600 --> 00:59:20,800
Speaker 1: are you bringing into this hearing? And he mentioned, for instance,

956
00:59:20,840 --> 00:59:23,160
Speaker 1: Marilyn Houstis, who at the time worked at the n

957
00:59:23,240 --> 00:59:26,360
Speaker 1: I d A and also has probably forgotten more about

958
00:59:26,400 --> 00:59:30,120
Speaker 1: this issue than nine percent of people know, very well

959
00:59:30,160 --> 00:59:34,600
Speaker 1: respected voice in this arena. And he mentioned another researcher

960
00:59:34,640 --> 00:59:37,920
Speaker 1: who at the time had published several papers on this issue,

961
00:59:37,920 --> 00:59:39,840
Speaker 1: who at the time was at Yale, but has since

962
00:59:39,920 --> 00:59:43,240
Speaker 1: passed away, unfortunately. And I told him, I said, that's great,

963
00:59:43,680 --> 00:59:46,160
Speaker 1: You've got a really good panel of experts here, but

964
00:59:46,200 --> 00:59:48,480
Speaker 1: who you really ought to have here is someone from

965
00:59:48,640 --> 00:59:53,000
Speaker 1: NITSA because they've sponsored the research that we're all going

966
00:59:53,040 --> 00:59:56,200
Speaker 1: to be talking about. And he said, you know what,

967
00:59:56,600 --> 00:59:59,880
Speaker 1: I have a great relationship with NITSA. I've worked with

968
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:03,200
Speaker 1: agency and a number of other traffic safety issues over

969
01:00:03,240 --> 01:00:06,240
Speaker 1: the years. We worked with them when we pass seatbelt

970
01:00:06,320 --> 01:00:09,600
Speaker 1: legislation here in Washington State. I'm gonna take you up

971
01:00:09,600 --> 01:00:11,760
Speaker 1: on that. I'm going to contact them and we're gonna

972
01:00:11,760 --> 01:00:14,760
Speaker 1: hold another round of hearings and NITSA will be there. Well,

973
01:00:14,800 --> 01:00:17,520
Speaker 1: sure enough, a few weeks later, they held another round

974
01:00:17,560 --> 01:00:21,640
Speaker 1: of hearings, but there was no representative from NITZA testifying.

975
01:00:22,000 --> 01:00:24,320
Speaker 1: So I contacted the chair once again and I said,

976
01:00:24,320 --> 01:00:26,400
Speaker 1: well happened, And he said, you know, Paul, was the

977
01:00:26,440 --> 01:00:30,280
Speaker 1: strangest thing. I've had good relationships with this agency for years.

978
01:00:30,320 --> 01:00:32,320
Speaker 1: I've never had any issue with them, but when I

979
01:00:32,360 --> 01:00:34,960
Speaker 1: talked to them about testifying on this issue, they just

980
01:00:35,000 --> 01:00:38,919
Speaker 1: showed absolutely no interest. Now, as best I can tell,

981
01:00:39,320 --> 01:00:42,640
Speaker 1: that hasn't changed. And it's really unfortunate because you have

982
01:00:42,720 --> 01:00:46,640
Speaker 1: states and lawmakers in the public all grappling with this issue,

983
01:00:47,040 --> 01:00:53,080
Speaker 1: and arguably the premier traffic safety agency in this country

984
01:00:53,080 --> 01:00:56,600
Speaker 1: that actually would theoretically have a lot to say and

985
01:00:56,720 --> 01:01:01,320
Speaker 1: would be listened to, is largely silo done the issue again,

986
01:01:01,400 --> 01:01:04,160
Speaker 1: at least publicly. If you want to go into their

987
01:01:04,200 --> 01:01:07,360
Speaker 1: website and their archives, you will find most of the

988
01:01:07,400 --> 01:01:10,360
Speaker 1: information we've discussed today. Yeah, it sounds a lot like

989
01:01:10,480 --> 01:01:13,080
Speaker 1: National stud on drug abuse, which is only slightly beginning

990
01:01:13,080 --> 01:01:15,520
Speaker 1: to evolve now. But we exist in order to find

991
01:01:15,560 --> 01:01:18,640
Speaker 1: what's wrong with drugs. To study drug abuse not drug

992
01:01:18,760 --> 01:01:21,840
Speaker 1: use or safety or levels of safety. And it sounds

993
01:01:21,840 --> 01:01:24,000
Speaker 1: like NITZA was a little bit in the same situation

994
01:01:24,080 --> 01:01:26,919
Speaker 1: where they would find themselves hearing a headline in which

995
01:01:26,920 --> 01:01:31,400
Speaker 1: it says NITZA officer explains that marijuana presents relatively low

996
01:01:31,480 --> 01:01:34,080
Speaker 1: level of risk compared to a B, C, D, E F.

997
01:01:34,120 --> 01:01:38,160
Speaker 1: And g let me tell you this ethan Nitza study

998
01:01:38,160 --> 01:01:41,439
Speaker 1: that took place at Virginia Beach, argueing the most important

999
01:01:41,560 --> 01:01:44,919
Speaker 1: study we have on this issue. It used the very

1000
01:01:45,000 --> 01:01:48,280
Speaker 1: same methodology that was used to develop the initial per

1001
01:01:48,320 --> 01:01:51,120
Speaker 1: se standards for driving under the infants of alcohol. This

1002
01:01:51,280 --> 01:01:58,080
Speaker 1: study took years to conduct. I remember waiting for so

1003
01:01:58,120 --> 01:02:00,560
Speaker 1: long for the results of this report. Are Remember an

1004
01:02:00,560 --> 01:02:03,520
Speaker 1: interaction I had with Marilyn Houstons at a conference several

1005
01:02:03,600 --> 01:02:07,080
Speaker 1: years earlier where we were debating different studies, and we

1006
01:02:07,160 --> 01:02:11,560
Speaker 1: agreed that I said, when Nitza comes out with the study,

1007
01:02:11,800 --> 01:02:14,720
Speaker 1: I will live or die by the results of that study,

1008
01:02:14,800 --> 01:02:16,880
Speaker 1: because that's really going to tell us what we need

1009
01:02:16,920 --> 01:02:19,920
Speaker 1: to know. And we both agreed on that. I recall

1010
01:02:20,240 --> 01:02:24,400
Speaker 1: when they dropped that study. They did so on a

1011
01:02:24,600 --> 01:02:28,880
Speaker 1: Friday afternoon at about four thirty in the afternoon, before

1012
01:02:28,880 --> 01:02:32,520
Speaker 1: a three day weekend, before a holiday on Monday. That

1013
01:02:32,720 --> 01:02:36,680
Speaker 1: study was not meant to get any attention. A very

1014
01:02:36,720 --> 01:02:41,200
Speaker 1: interesting So, Paul, what about other types of marijuana and locomotion?

1015
01:02:41,440 --> 01:02:43,840
Speaker 1: Like I remember hearing forever that, well, you know, the

1016
01:02:43,960 --> 01:02:47,120
Speaker 1: risks of marijuana driving are typically overstated, but when it

1017
01:02:47,160 --> 01:02:51,000
Speaker 1: comes to flying, what pilots need and simulators there there's

1018
01:02:51,000 --> 01:02:54,400
Speaker 1: a really negative result. And then conversely, I was sort

1019
01:02:54,400 --> 01:02:57,040
Speaker 1: of prepping for my conversation when you looked at marijuana

1020
01:02:57,040 --> 01:02:59,680
Speaker 1: and bicycling and it was a little study saying no impact.

1021
01:02:59,840 --> 01:03:01,680
Speaker 1: And then I wonder about these things that show people

1022
01:03:01,680 --> 01:03:04,480
Speaker 1: who are motor boating, you know, having more accidents, and

1023
01:03:04,560 --> 01:03:06,880
Speaker 1: is it because of alcohol or marijuana? But what can

1024
01:03:06,920 --> 01:03:10,840
Speaker 1: you tell us about marijuana's effect on other types of locomotion?

1025
01:03:11,400 --> 01:03:14,360
Speaker 1: Not as much. Again, the focus here has really been

1026
01:03:14,400 --> 01:03:17,800
Speaker 1: on driving. And when we talk about the skills that

1027
01:03:17,880 --> 01:03:21,680
Speaker 1: are influenced by cannabis, again we're talking about skills that

1028
01:03:21,800 --> 01:03:25,520
Speaker 1: really overlap with some of the skills needed to drive

1029
01:03:25,640 --> 01:03:29,080
Speaker 1: a motor vehicle safely. I'm not a pilot. I would

1030
01:03:29,080 --> 01:03:32,760
Speaker 1: imagine there are a whole lot more and perhaps different

1031
01:03:32,920 --> 01:03:35,800
Speaker 1: skill sets that are necessary to operate or fly a

1032
01:03:35,880 --> 01:03:39,680
Speaker 1: plane safely, then might be to drive a motor vehicle safely.

1033
01:03:39,800 --> 01:03:42,000
Speaker 1: Or perhaps I'm wrong and there's a lot of overlap

1034
01:03:42,120 --> 01:03:44,560
Speaker 1: and they're very similar. I really don't know. I don't

1035
01:03:44,560 --> 01:03:47,560
Speaker 1: think break latency perhaps would be an issue with flying

1036
01:03:47,560 --> 01:03:51,240
Speaker 1: in a jet airliner for instance, same thing with motor boating.

1037
01:03:51,320 --> 01:03:55,400
Speaker 1: So again, I think those are things that theoretically we

1038
01:03:55,520 --> 01:03:59,080
Speaker 1: can speculate about, but there's very little data. There was

1039
01:03:59,120 --> 01:04:02,160
Speaker 1: a study, a very famous study you might remember it

1040
01:04:02,240 --> 01:04:06,200
Speaker 1: Ethan that looked at pilots or used a flight simulator study,

1041
01:04:06,400 --> 01:04:09,840
Speaker 1: and it looked at individuals who were users of marijuana

1042
01:04:09,880 --> 01:04:13,040
Speaker 1: but hadn't used marijuana in the previous twenty four hours

1043
01:04:13,080 --> 01:04:16,920
Speaker 1: that showed their performance on a flight simulator was horror

1044
01:04:17,160 --> 01:04:20,920
Speaker 1: than those individuals who didn't use marijuana at all. And

1045
01:04:20,960 --> 01:04:24,200
Speaker 1: the federal government would trought out this study, probably for

1046
01:04:24,280 --> 01:04:26,320
Speaker 1: the first decade and a half of my work at

1047
01:04:26,360 --> 01:04:29,600
Speaker 1: normal the claim that marijuana could impact your cognitive and

1048
01:04:29,640 --> 01:04:32,600
Speaker 1: behavioral skills for twenty four hours later. But I haven't

1049
01:04:32,640 --> 01:04:35,440
Speaker 1: seen anyone talk about that. That studied a while, and

1050
01:04:35,480 --> 01:04:39,640
Speaker 1: I can say when the time came to replicate those results,

1051
01:04:39,760 --> 01:04:42,840
Speaker 1: they were not replicated. And I haven't heard much about

1052
01:04:42,840 --> 01:04:46,160
Speaker 1: it since. Would you have any problem knowing that your

1053
01:04:46,280 --> 01:04:49,840
Speaker 1: uber or lift driver was a daily marijuana consumer. I

1054
01:04:49,840 --> 01:04:53,160
Speaker 1: would not. I would have a problem if I was

1055
01:04:53,240 --> 01:04:56,240
Speaker 1: aware or if they notified me of the fact that

1056
01:04:56,280 --> 01:05:00,480
Speaker 1: they had just consumed marijuana. And the prior six minutes

1057
01:05:00,640 --> 01:05:03,400
Speaker 1: are thirty minutes before picking me up, you know. Paul

1058
01:05:03,480 --> 01:05:06,320
Speaker 1: also thinking about some of the absurdities of the marijuana

1059
01:05:06,440 --> 01:05:09,920
Speaker 1: laws and the number of states where the penalty for

1060
01:05:10,080 --> 01:05:15,320
Speaker 1: marijuana possession was having your driver's license taken away even

1061
01:05:15,440 --> 01:05:18,720
Speaker 1: if you were you know, stopped or arrested just taking

1062
01:05:18,760 --> 01:05:20,840
Speaker 1: a walk on the street or in a park or

1063
01:05:20,880 --> 01:05:23,360
Speaker 1: what have you. And I wonder what's happened with those

1064
01:05:23,440 --> 01:05:25,000
Speaker 1: laws and how do they ever get going in the

1065
01:05:25,040 --> 01:05:28,760
Speaker 1: first place. So those laws are the passage of those

1066
01:05:28,840 --> 01:05:32,080
Speaker 1: laws predated me. When I first came on board in

1067
01:05:32,120 --> 01:05:35,640
Speaker 1: the mid ninety nineties, we were engaged in a push

1068
01:05:35,720 --> 01:05:38,240
Speaker 1: going from state to state to repeal those laws, and

1069
01:05:38,240 --> 01:05:41,080
Speaker 1: that push has largely been successful. I'm not sure if

1070
01:05:41,120 --> 01:05:45,480
Speaker 1: there are there maybe one or two states that maintain

1071
01:05:45,520 --> 01:05:48,600
Speaker 1: those penalties, with the overwhelming majority of states did not,

1072
01:05:49,400 --> 01:05:53,360
Speaker 1: although in that case the law was linking the punishment

1073
01:05:53,400 --> 01:05:56,600
Speaker 1: for marijuana with driving. This had nothing to do with

1074
01:05:56,720 --> 01:06:00,320
Speaker 1: driving safety. It had to do with way is. The

1075
01:06:00,400 --> 01:06:06,240
Speaker 1: government was seeking to coerce behavior. Okay, there's an understanding

1076
01:06:06,360 --> 01:06:08,680
Speaker 1: that we live in a society that in most places

1077
01:06:08,680 --> 01:06:11,720
Speaker 1: in this country, one requires a motor vehicle and a

1078
01:06:11,760 --> 01:06:14,440
Speaker 1: license to get from place to place, to get to

1079
01:06:14,480 --> 01:06:17,040
Speaker 1: their job, to get to school, wherever it may be.

1080
01:06:17,200 --> 01:06:22,080
Speaker 1: So punishing a person for engaging certain behaviors by restricting

1081
01:06:22,360 --> 01:06:27,560
Speaker 1: or pulling that license, that is a very significant penalty.

1082
01:06:27,840 --> 01:06:31,240
Speaker 1: So the idea here was the coerce people to change

1083
01:06:31,320 --> 01:06:36,960
Speaker 1: behavior that they wouldn't otherwise change. The government realized that

1084
01:06:37,160 --> 01:06:40,560
Speaker 1: simply criminalizing marijuana wasn't enough to get people to change

1085
01:06:40,560 --> 01:06:44,280
Speaker 1: their behavior. To threaten to punish people with incarceration or

1086
01:06:44,400 --> 01:06:47,320
Speaker 1: arrest wasn't necessarily enough. But this idea of taking away

1087
01:06:47,360 --> 01:06:50,600
Speaker 1: their license for long periods of time, perhaps that would

1088
01:06:50,680 --> 01:06:53,640
Speaker 1: be enough to get these people to change their behavior.

1089
01:06:53,800 --> 01:06:56,160
Speaker 1: That was the thinking behind that law. And I'll tell

1090
01:06:56,160 --> 01:06:59,480
Speaker 1: you this, Ethan, it was the thinking behind the initial

1091
01:06:59,560 --> 01:07:03,440
Speaker 1: person say laws that were passed for cannabis and driving.

1092
01:07:03,640 --> 01:07:06,240
Speaker 1: And I can say that with certainty because I was

1093
01:07:06,360 --> 01:07:11,520
Speaker 1: at the conferences, the government sponsored conferences where du Pont

1094
01:07:11,840 --> 01:07:16,880
Speaker 1: and others were there articulating from the podium that these

1095
01:07:17,000 --> 01:07:21,280
Speaker 1: laws weren't about traffic safety, they weren't about impairment, they

1096
01:07:21,280 --> 01:07:25,160
Speaker 1: were about compelling people to stop using marijuana. You should

1097
01:07:25,160 --> 01:07:27,880
Speaker 1: explain who du Pont is, not the chemical company, but

1098
01:07:28,040 --> 01:07:31,360
Speaker 1: Bob DuPont, Robert DuPont, who was what might have been

1099
01:07:31,360 --> 01:07:33,680
Speaker 1: described as the drugs are that they didn't really call

1100
01:07:33,720 --> 01:07:36,200
Speaker 1: it back to under the gerald Ford administration in the

1101
01:07:36,200 --> 01:07:41,040
Speaker 1: mid seventies, and initially a supporter of cannabis decriminalization, who

1102
01:07:41,080 --> 01:07:45,000
Speaker 1: then took a radical turn in the other direction, claiming

1103
01:07:45,280 --> 01:07:47,600
Speaker 1: with some basis I guess that he was concerned about

1104
01:07:47,600 --> 01:07:51,000
Speaker 1: increasing analysts and marijuana use, but then became a proponent

1105
01:07:51,080 --> 01:07:55,400
Speaker 1: of essentially drug testing all of American society. Yeah, he was.

1106
01:07:56,400 --> 01:08:00,000
Speaker 1: I won't go any further in describing him. Well, Paul,

1107
01:08:00,440 --> 01:08:03,800
Speaker 1: I'll tell you this has been a fascinating conversation. And

1108
01:08:03,880 --> 01:08:05,200
Speaker 1: the last thing I want to ask you is it

1109
01:08:05,240 --> 01:08:08,200
Speaker 1: sounds like an addition to testifying before state legislatures and

1110
01:08:08,240 --> 01:08:10,640
Speaker 1: other committees. You've also had a fair bit of experience

1111
01:08:10,680 --> 01:08:14,760
Speaker 1: testifying as an expert witness in cases involving marijuana and driving,

1112
01:08:14,880 --> 01:08:19,120
Speaker 1: and any major takeaways or highlights of those experiences. Yes,

1113
01:08:19,360 --> 01:08:25,560
Speaker 1: don't believe representatives of law enforcement when they publicly say

1114
01:08:25,600 --> 01:08:30,679
Speaker 1: they lack the skills and the tools to identify people

1115
01:08:31,040 --> 01:08:34,639
Speaker 1: driving under the influence of cannabis. I know that every

1116
01:08:34,680 --> 01:08:37,519
Speaker 1: time this discussion comes up in the state, you're going

1117
01:08:37,560 --> 01:08:40,160
Speaker 1: to hear from law enforcement and cops who are going

1118
01:08:40,200 --> 01:08:43,040
Speaker 1: to say that they're gonna put out that narrative. But

1119
01:08:43,200 --> 01:08:47,040
Speaker 1: let me tell you this. Those same police officers, when

1120
01:08:47,040 --> 01:08:49,479
Speaker 1: they're in a court of law, and I've been in

1121
01:08:49,560 --> 01:08:53,640
Speaker 1: courts of law with them in dozens of cases involving

1122
01:08:53,720 --> 01:08:58,479
Speaker 1: alleged drug driving behavior, when they take the stand and

1123
01:08:58,600 --> 01:09:03,479
Speaker 1: they are asked, officers such and such, what led you

1124
01:09:03,800 --> 01:09:08,480
Speaker 1: to believe that the defendant was under the influence of marijuana?

1125
01:09:08,960 --> 01:09:12,360
Speaker 1: You know what? They don't say, Ethan, They don't say,

1126
01:09:12,400 --> 01:09:14,880
Speaker 1: you know, I gotta be honest with you, we don't

1127
01:09:14,920 --> 01:09:17,800
Speaker 1: really have a good tool to determine if someone's under

1128
01:09:17,800 --> 01:09:20,800
Speaker 1: the infant of marijuana. No, they take the stand and

1129
01:09:20,840 --> 01:09:23,479
Speaker 1: they say, well, let me tell you all the ways

1130
01:09:23,800 --> 01:09:26,440
Speaker 1: that I know this defendants under the influence of marijuana.

1131
01:09:26,640 --> 01:09:29,920
Speaker 1: They go into their years of training, they go into

1132
01:09:30,000 --> 01:09:32,960
Speaker 1: their skills, they say, we've done a field sobriety tests,

1133
01:09:32,960 --> 01:09:37,280
Speaker 1: we have a toxicology reasult. All of my training led

1134
01:09:37,320 --> 01:09:40,360
Speaker 1: me to be able to identify. I could smell marijuana.

1135
01:09:40,439 --> 01:09:43,799
Speaker 1: I saw the redness in their eyes, they had slurred speech.

1136
01:09:44,120 --> 01:09:47,360
Speaker 1: I've gone through the ride training that NITZA provide. They

1137
01:09:47,360 --> 01:09:50,880
Speaker 1: will go on and on about their qualifications and their

1138
01:09:50,920 --> 01:09:54,600
Speaker 1: expertise in determining whether someone's under the infants of marijuana.

1139
01:09:54,800 --> 01:09:59,320
Speaker 1: So the fact is police, by their own admission, already

1140
01:09:59,400 --> 01:10:04,280
Speaker 1: have adequate and sufficient tools to make these determinations. That

1141
01:10:04,320 --> 01:10:09,600
Speaker 1: should not be an impediment to changing the legal status

1142
01:10:09,640 --> 01:10:14,639
Speaker 1: for the responsible possession and use of Canadas. Uh So

1143
01:10:14,800 --> 01:10:19,560
Speaker 1: your takeaway now, your basic harm reduction advisory with marijuana,

1144
01:10:19,640 --> 01:10:22,320
Speaker 1: Do I take it to be if you smoke marijuana,

1145
01:10:22,600 --> 01:10:26,880
Speaker 1: don't drive in the first hour, don't mix with other drugs?

1146
01:10:26,920 --> 01:10:29,599
Speaker 1: What else? Absolutely? And I want to be very clear

1147
01:10:29,640 --> 01:10:33,840
Speaker 1: on this. It Adorable's position is to represent the responsible

1148
01:10:33,920 --> 01:10:38,000
Speaker 1: cannabis use and the responsible cannabis consumer. And you can

1149
01:10:38,080 --> 01:10:41,519
Speaker 1: go right to our website and find a resolution that

1150
01:10:41,600 --> 01:10:44,640
Speaker 1: was enacted now several decades ago by Normal's Board of

1151
01:10:44,720 --> 01:10:48,680
Speaker 1: Directors about our policy with regard to drug driving and

1152
01:10:48,720 --> 01:10:51,240
Speaker 1: it says right there in black and white, do not

1153
01:10:51,520 --> 01:10:55,160
Speaker 1: operate a motor vehicle or heavy macher ary if one

1154
01:10:55,280 --> 01:10:59,240
Speaker 1: is under the influence of marijuana. So again, our position

1155
01:10:59,320 --> 01:11:04,000
Speaker 1: is very lear on this. We know that the window

1156
01:11:04,200 --> 01:11:08,880
Speaker 1: of impairment is generally most acute during that first hour,

1157
01:11:09,000 --> 01:11:12,559
Speaker 1: but can extend to about three to four hours. So look,

1158
01:11:12,880 --> 01:11:16,920
Speaker 1: don't drive during that period of time. Don't consume alcohol

1159
01:11:17,160 --> 01:11:21,800
Speaker 1: with cannabis and even consider driving. Be aware of your tolerance,

1160
01:11:22,040 --> 01:11:25,719
Speaker 1: be an educated consumer to understand that the greater the potency,

1161
01:11:25,760 --> 01:11:28,960
Speaker 1: the greater dose, the more acute effect it can have.

1162
01:11:29,439 --> 01:11:33,680
Speaker 1: Understand that even individuals who are habitual users of cannabis

1163
01:11:33,720 --> 01:11:38,920
Speaker 1: still experience a synergistic adverse effect when they use cannabis

1164
01:11:39,000 --> 01:11:43,599
Speaker 1: with alcohol. Understand that the length of time and type

1165
01:11:43,600 --> 01:11:47,480
Speaker 1: of impairment and duration of impairment and time of onset

1166
01:11:47,640 --> 01:11:50,200
Speaker 1: is going to be very different if one inhales cannabis

1167
01:11:50,360 --> 01:11:53,280
Speaker 1: versus if they take it orally. Again, there's a lot

1168
01:11:53,400 --> 01:11:56,559
Speaker 1: to understand and unpack here, but a lot of this

1169
01:11:56,880 --> 01:12:01,479
Speaker 1: is really just basic social responsibility. All of us drive

1170
01:12:01,560 --> 01:12:04,719
Speaker 1: on the same roads. All of us want safe roads,

1171
01:12:05,000 --> 01:12:08,439
Speaker 1: none of us want impaired drivers on the road, and

1172
01:12:08,640 --> 01:12:13,880
Speaker 1: our goal in changing marijuana policy is did not inadvertently

1173
01:12:14,200 --> 01:12:17,920
Speaker 1: impact traffic safety. That's not what we're about doing. We

1174
01:12:18,000 --> 01:12:20,759
Speaker 1: want to change the marri WAA laws and strengthen traffic

1175
01:12:20,840 --> 01:12:23,840
Speaker 1: safe and for the people who are gonna smoke marijuana

1176
01:12:23,880 --> 01:12:27,240
Speaker 1: and drive. Nonetheless, are there tips? When I think about

1177
01:12:27,280 --> 01:12:29,040
Speaker 1: I would say, hey, you know, you gotta make that

1178
01:12:29,160 --> 01:12:32,480
Speaker 1: extra effort to look in the rear view inside view mirror.

1179
01:12:32,600 --> 01:12:35,120
Speaker 1: You have to check your speed because you may be

1180
01:12:35,280 --> 01:12:38,960
Speaker 1: driving at a dangerously slow speed. If something happens in

1181
01:12:39,040 --> 01:12:42,200
Speaker 1: front of you, be aware that you're somewhat altered, and

1182
01:12:42,240 --> 01:12:45,320
Speaker 1: therefore pull over or stop. You know, the little kind

1183
01:12:45,320 --> 01:12:48,719
Speaker 1: of tips for people who are high and know they're high,

1184
01:12:49,080 --> 01:12:52,320
Speaker 1: still want to drive, basically feel safe, have a high

1185
01:12:52,439 --> 01:12:56,120
Speaker 1: level of tolerance, but are not anything else you would

1186
01:12:56,120 --> 01:12:58,960
Speaker 1: add to that. Again, be aware of what the data shows.

1187
01:12:59,320 --> 01:13:01,960
Speaker 1: Be aware that you're more likely to weave if one

1188
01:13:02,040 --> 01:13:04,960
Speaker 1: is in that condition. For instance, be aware that your

1189
01:13:04,960 --> 01:13:10,200
Speaker 1: reaction time might be compromised, so make sure you're not tailgating. Obviously, Again,

1190
01:13:10,360 --> 01:13:13,680
Speaker 1: be aware of the evidence and try to act accordingly.

1191
01:13:13,920 --> 01:13:17,200
Speaker 1: One final thing I might say too, is this idea

1192
01:13:17,280 --> 01:13:20,600
Speaker 1: about having a targeted messaging a targeted p S A

1193
01:13:20,760 --> 01:13:24,559
Speaker 1: campaign making people aware of these facts and really being

1194
01:13:24,640 --> 01:13:28,760
Speaker 1: particular who we target, because we know through data that

1195
01:13:28,760 --> 01:13:31,960
Speaker 1: the people most likely to not take this advice, that

1196
01:13:32,280 --> 01:13:36,040
Speaker 1: are most likely to drive behind the wheel are younger drivers,

1197
01:13:36,160 --> 01:13:39,200
Speaker 1: drivers who are less experienced with their use of cannabis,

1198
01:13:39,360 --> 01:13:43,519
Speaker 1: and also less experienced drivers. So these are the people

1199
01:13:43,560 --> 01:13:47,160
Speaker 1: that potentially are at the greatest risk, and those are

1200
01:13:47,200 --> 01:13:49,600
Speaker 1: the folks that I think our efforts really need to

1201
01:13:49,640 --> 01:13:53,880
Speaker 1: be targeted toward. And also one way we might be

1202
01:13:53,960 --> 01:13:59,080
Speaker 1: able to reduce that behavior is by not criminalizing use

1203
01:13:59,120 --> 01:14:03,040
Speaker 1: of cannabis in certain places, because I would dare say

1204
01:14:03,160 --> 01:14:07,160
Speaker 1: the reason many young people smoke cannabis behind the wheel

1205
01:14:07,240 --> 01:14:10,680
Speaker 1: and many older people don't is because young people are

1206
01:14:10,800 --> 01:14:14,880
Speaker 1: looking for a place to clandestinely use cannabis and they

1207
01:14:14,920 --> 01:14:17,320
Speaker 1: think they can get in their car and drive out

1208
01:14:17,320 --> 01:14:21,000
Speaker 1: on a rural road and that way they won't get caught. Well,

1209
01:14:21,080 --> 01:14:24,200
Speaker 1: they may not be caught by their parents, but again

1210
01:14:24,400 --> 01:14:28,679
Speaker 1: they're engaging in activity that creates a greater societal risk

1211
01:14:28,800 --> 01:14:31,720
Speaker 1: for all of us. Paul, on that note, I want

1212
01:14:31,720 --> 01:14:34,479
Speaker 1: to thank you ever so much for sharing your wisdom

1213
01:14:34,520 --> 01:14:37,559
Speaker 1: with me and the listeners to Psychoactive, so thank you

1214
01:14:37,600 --> 01:14:40,599
Speaker 1: and I hope to see you soon. The feelings mutual, Ethan,

1215
01:14:40,680 --> 01:14:45,360
Speaker 1: thank you for having me and it's been fun. If

1216
01:14:45,360 --> 01:14:49,360
Speaker 1: you're enjoying Psychoactive, please tell your friends about it, or

1217
01:14:49,439 --> 01:14:51,640
Speaker 1: you can write us a review at Apple podcast or

1218
01:14:51,680 --> 01:14:54,519
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. We love to hear from

1219
01:14:54,520 --> 01:14:57,439
Speaker 1: our listeners. If you'd like to share your own stories

1220
01:14:57,520 --> 01:15:00,559
Speaker 1: comes to ideas, then leave us a message at one

1221
01:15:00,880 --> 01:15:06,360
Speaker 1: eight three three seven seven nine six that's eight three

1222
01:15:06,439 --> 01:15:10,960
Speaker 1: three psycho zero, or you can email us at Psychoactive

1223
01:15:11,000 --> 01:15:14,160
Speaker 1: at protozoa dot com or find me on Twitter at

1224
01:15:14,160 --> 01:15:17,519
Speaker 1: Ethan natal Man. You can also find contact information in

1225
01:15:17,600 --> 01:15:21,080
Speaker 1: our show notes. Psychoactive is a production of I Heart

1226
01:15:21,200 --> 01:15:26,000
Speaker 1: Radio and Protozoa Pictures. It's hosted by me Ethan Naedelman's

1227
01:15:26,000 --> 01:15:29,920
Speaker 1: produced by Noham Osband and Josh Stain. The executive producers

1228
01:15:30,080 --> 01:15:34,120
Speaker 1: are Dylan Golden, Ari Handel, Elizabeth Geesus and Darren Aronofsky

1229
01:15:34,240 --> 01:15:37,360
Speaker 1: from Protozoa Pictures, Alex Williams and Matt Frederick from my

1230
01:15:37,439 --> 01:15:41,360
Speaker 1: Heart Radio and me Ethan Nadelman. Our music is by

1231
01:15:41,400 --> 01:15:45,040
Speaker 1: Ari Blucien and a special thanks to ab Brio, s

1232
01:15:45,120 --> 01:15:59,600
Speaker 1: F Bianca Grimshaw, and Robert bb Next week I'll be

1233
01:15:59,680 --> 01:16:03,840
Speaker 1: talked with the founder of Normal, the marijuana consumer organization.

1234
01:16:04,200 --> 01:16:07,080
Speaker 1: He's Keith Strap and will be focusing on the first

1235
01:16:07,080 --> 01:16:11,519
Speaker 1: generation of marijuana reform. Back in the nineteen seventies, I

1236
01:16:11,600 --> 01:16:15,240
Speaker 1: had been smoking for five or six years, and I

1237
01:16:15,280 --> 01:16:18,639
Speaker 1: couldn't understand why it was considered a crime and why

1238
01:16:18,680 --> 01:16:21,760
Speaker 1: so many people were having their lives wrecked. To me,

1239
01:16:21,920 --> 01:16:24,920
Speaker 1: it was just a milder version and a safer version

1240
01:16:24,960 --> 01:16:28,559
Speaker 1: of using alcohol. And so I thought, let's start a

1241
01:16:28,640 --> 01:16:32,480
Speaker 1: lobby to legalize marijuana. And in the October of nineteen

1242
01:16:32,560 --> 01:16:36,479
Speaker 1: seventy we farmed Normal, and because of my work with

1243
01:16:36,720 --> 01:16:40,360
Speaker 1: Ralph Nader, we farmed it as a consumer lobby, and

1244
01:16:40,400 --> 01:16:43,719
Speaker 1: the consumer in this case, of course, it's the marijuana smoker.

1245
01:16:44,360 --> 01:16:46,760
Speaker 1: Subscribe to Cycleactive now see it, don't miss it.