AB 2500, authored by California state assemblyman Jim Frazier, is a proposed amendment to California's DUI statute, Vehicle Code § 23152, et. seq. The bill proposes the addition of a new "f" count, which states, "It is unlawful for a person to drive a vehicle if his or her blood contains any detectable amount of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol of marijuana or any other drug classified in Schedule I, II, III, or IV under the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code)." What does this mean? Essentially, it would be unlawful to drive a vehicle in California with any detectable amount of THC, or any of the other enumerated substances, regardless of whether or not it is psychoactive.
With regard to marijuana, this proposed amendment becomes particularly problematic. Most drugs, like cocaine and methamphetamine, are water soluble, and stay in a person's system for a couple days. Marijuana, on the other hand, is fat soluble, and can stay in a person's system from a couple days, to up to three months, and in some cases, beyond. Weight, body fat, amount consumed and, in particular, the frequency of usage, all determine how long a person will test positive for marijuana.
The issue with this proposed amendment is that there is no rational nexus between trying to prevent impaired driving and punishing drivers who are completely sober, but may have used a substance within the past couple days, or worse, the past couple months, and test positive on a drug test. At its core, it seems as though this proposed amendment seeks to punish those who use marijuana and other substances, under the guise of preventing driving under the influence.
This is especially disconcerting when you take into account that Vehicle Code § 23152(e) provides that, "It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle." Here, the law makes sense because we are punishing drivers who drove "under the influence of any drug," not drivers who tested positive for a drug.
Although this bill has not yet been passed, it illustrates an alarming trend in perverting the purported purpose of a law, to target specific groups of people.
“I can not recommend Scott Thomas enough. Four months after my husband died a family member, who was very depressed and grieving, was in a single car accident and was arrested and charged. As we had never had any traffic violations, much less any arrests, we had no idea of how to proceed and we were overwhelmed. Scott was there for us every step of the way, his professionalism was outstanding, as was his expertise. He fought for us and got us the best possible outcome. He answered all our questions and gave us assistance when we it was needed. I would definitely work with him again, if ever needed, and strongly recommend him.”
“I was very satisfied with the result of my case. Scott Was able to answer any questions anytime a day before and after my case. I would not hesitate recommend Mr. Thomas To anyone who is uncertain of which Attourney to handle their legal problems .”
“Scott was awesome from day one. This was my first experience with having representation, and it was well worth it. He 100% has his clients best interest in mind. It didn't matter how long it took or whatever obstacles came alone, he made sure to do whatever was best for me happen. Even after everything is done and over with, he is willing to be there and help with anything else is needed. With whatever you need I would strongly recommend him.”