Articles Posted in Drunk Driving

Recreational use of marijuana is now legal in two states, including Washington State, and Oregon is among the ever-increasing number of states that permit marijuana use for medical purposes.

As legal acceptance of the drug grows it was, perhaps, inevitable that, in the words of USA Today, “it’s looking like dope is playing a larger role as a cause of fatal traffic accidents.” Put another way: advocates of legalization have long argued that marijuana is no worse for you than alcohol. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that premise then it clearly follows that driving while high should be treated with the same degree of seriousness as driving while drunk.

The evidence is not merely anecdotal. According to USA Today, a recent study by Columbia University found that “of nearly 24,000 driving fatalities… marijuana contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010, tripled from a decade earlier.” The newspaper reports that a recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study estimated that “4% of drivers were high during the day and more than 6% at night.” The majority of high drivers were under age 25 – an age group that already has proportionately high levels of both drunk driving and distracted driving, both here in Oregon and elsewhere around the country.

Two former Portland-area prosecutors made headlines in The Oregonian this week with their advocacy of marijuana legalization. According to the newspaper Norm Frink and Mark McDonnell both believe that legalization is inevitable and, as a result, are trying to focus public attention on getting the details right.

“This is just a political fact in Oregon, even if some people don’t want to admit it,” the newspaper quoted Frink saying. “As a result,” the paper went on to note, “Frink and McDonnell, who headed the district attorney’s drug unit before retiring, on Tuesday announced that they wanted legislators to refer a marijuana legalization measure to voters in November.” The key to their idea is combining a voter referendum with legislative action. Oregonians would be asked to approve marijuana for personal use, but would charge the legislature with working out the details before the new law went into effect. “The two want to put off allowing legal possession of marijuana until after the legislature figures out how to set up a regulatory system,” The Oregonian reports.

The experience of Washington and Colorado would appear to validate this idea. When the two states became the first to make the possession and use of marijuana legal for personal recreational use the result was an immediate legal conundrum. At the most basic level, legalization puts state law in conflict with the federal government, but there are a number of equally serious – and in some ways more immediate – issues. Take drunk driving, for example. It ought to be relatively easy to agree that impaired driving brought on by pot use is just as dangerous as driving while drunk. Any state legalizing marijuana, however, will need to figure out ways to measure and assess the drug as part of a drunk driving arrest: what level of marijuana impairment crosses a safety line? What is the best and most efficiently to measure it? How should the use of marijuana and alcohol together be treated (presumably the two in combination could cross an impairment threshold at a point when neither, by itself, does so)?

It’s a cliché: safety is everyone’s responsibility. It is also, however, true, and that fact was reinforced last week by Washington State’s Supreme Court. According to an Associated Press dispatch, republished by The Oregonian, the court held that “cities, counties and utility companies can be liable when faulty road design leads to injuries in car crashes – even when the driver is drunk.”

According to the news agency the case focused on a crash near Anacortes. “Two people who had been drinking were injured when their car ran off the road and struck a utility pole that was reportedly closer to the roadway than guidelines dictated.” In overturning a lower court ruling the state Supreme Court held that “government entities owe a duty to ensure roads are reasonably safe for public travel, no matter whether the driver is at fault,” according to the AP.

Obviously this is not, and ought not to be taken as, an excuse of or license for drunk driving. Indeed, in legal terms it is important to remember that DUI is a crime regardless of whether one gets involved in an accident or not. In this instance, however, the court was addressing a bigger issue: whether a driver’s physical condition at the time of a particular accident can be used as an excuse by government or a utility company to escape responsibility for its own negligence. The court held that government and public utilities both have a broader responsibility to provide a safe environment for all users of public roadways. The bad behavior of individual drivers does not absolve the city or county from their responsibility to provide a roadway that is safe for everyone – regardless of the irresponsible behavior of some individual drivers.