even when difficult memory tasks are used to assess cognitive performance. . . . Tese data emphasize the importance of taking into account the drug-use histories of research participants and examining multiple measures when investigating marijuana-related effects on cognitive functioning.”14
“It has also been suggested
that heavy cannabis users recruit alternative neural networks as a compensatory mechanism during task performance.”15 In the second instance, other studies
have found that because THC remains in the blood even aſter cessation of use, the impairing effects continue. “. . . Residual neuropsychological deficits may persist in chronic cannabis users for days or
even weeks aſter last drug exposure.”16 “Another study raise{d} the . . . possibility that . . . cognitive and motor impairment, demonstrated in some individuals for many days aſter last cannabis exposure, may be related to the persistence of THC in the blood and, by implication, in the brain.”17 Another way to say it is that cognitive decrements in chronic users were observed for several weeks aſter abstinence. A most recent study stated that “residual THC in plasma weeks aſter last smoking may be associated with impairment . . . {S}uch residual impairment may limit appropriate operation of a motor vehicle.18 Tese positions beg the question of what happens in those states that have set
per se marijuana blood nanogram levels in their marijuana impaired-driving laws. To date there are seven states— Colorado (permissive inference), Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and most recently Illinois—that have set automatic per se blood concentration levels that range between 1 to 5 nanograms of THC. Oregon seems to be the only outlier by refusing to change their impaired driving law to incorporate a per se approach. Te Oregon Liquor Control Commission recommended against a per se law by stating that “litle evidence exists to compel a significant change in status quo policy or institute a per se intoxication standard for THC.” 19
www.datia.org
datia focus
53
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
