Legal weed supporters, opponents clash

SHASTA LAKE — Proposition 64 would allow adults to possess small amounts of marijuana, grow and harvest up to six plants in their home and establish a regulatory framework for the recreational cannabis industry.

It would levy taxes on commercial grows and sales, with the money dedicated to reducing drug use among youth, public safety and treatment programs.

But it also likely would lead to an increase in impaired drivers, said Scott Johnson, director of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen’s District 1, the bargaining unit for CHP officers in the Sacramento Valley, at an event Friday morning organized by Jamie Kerr, director of 530 Collective, who also opposes the measure.

Supporters of Proposition 64, however, say that there’s no scientific evidence that links legalization to an increase in the number of impaired drivers on the roads. The ballot measure directs money to improve anti-DUI efforts and establishes block grants that departments can apply for, said Jason Kinney, spokesman for the Yes on 64 campaign.

But how much money it would raise is undetermined. The Legislative Analyst’s Office pegged potential revenue at up to $1 billion, though that depends on how many adults would toke up recreationally.

Johnson points to states where it has been legalized, such as Colorado and Washington, saying impaired driving has increased. He also points to an AAA study, which reported that in Washington, the share of all fatal crashes that involved a driver who “recently used marijuana” had doubled since legalization from 8 percent to 17 percent.

However, he said he did not know whether those included all drivers or those at fault.

But it was 40 cases statewide that pushed those numbers up, Kinney said. While any DUIs are too many, he said, the actual number of cases don’t support fears of skyrocketing DUIs.

Yet if more stoned drivers do end up on the roads after legalization, Johnson said he’s concerned officers won’t have a legal limit similar to alcohol’s breath test, known as a per se limit.

But those limits don’t work because marijuana’s active ingredient can linger in the system much longer and AAA actually recommends against them, Kinney said.

“The way THC works, you’re going to arrest people who aren’t impaired and let some go who are (with per se limits),” he said.

A Washington State Highway Patrol lieutenant has said that officers rely on signs and training to spot drunken drivers because the test is more of a catch-all.

But testing over the limit strengthens a criminal case and can help convince a prosecutor to move forward, said Johnson, who is a drug recognition expert officer for the CHP.

Proposition 64 does include about $3 million annually to develop anti-DUI standards and techniques, Kinney said. Once about $15 million of revenue has been allocated to that and a few other priorities, 20 percent of its revenue is given to police as block grants they can apply for, he said. That design is based on talks with law enforcement experts, who didn’t ask for a per se limit in the ballot measure, he said.

Kerr said that grant money would only go toward equipment and onetime costs. Kinney, however, said that departments are only encouraged to focus on equipment.

“They can hire with the grant if they need more boots on the ground to enforce the law. That’s certainly within the criteria,” he said.