New Jersey’s Proposed Cannabis Impairment Law Sparks Legal Debate
In a significant legal development, New Jersey is considering a bill that has stirred considerable debate among legal professionals and cannabis users alike. Joshua Bauchner, Chair of the Cannabis, Hemp, and Psychedelics practice group, and Chris Zona, partner in the litigation and white-collar criminal defense practice group at Mandelbaum Barrett PC, discuss their concerns over the proposed legislation.
The bill in question mandates that drivers in New Jersey automatically consent to a blood test if suspected of operating a vehicle under the influence of cannabis. With a threshold set at 3 nanograms of delta 9 THC per milliliter of blood, the law aims to equate cannabis impairment with alcohol. However, this comparison is fraught with complications. Unlike alcohol, where a .08 blood alcohol concentration is widely recognized as the limit for impairment, THC levels do not offer a clear indication of impairment. THC can remain in the bloodstream for weeks after consumption, potentially penalizing individuals long after the effects have worn off.
This approach raises significant concerns for Bauchner and Zona, especially in light of New Jersey’s recent legalization of recreational and medicinal cannabis. They argue that the legislation attempts to criminalize behavior that the state has only recently legalized, ostensibly for the benefits of tax revenue among other reasons. The duo emphasizes that, unlike alcohol, there is no standardized measure to guide cannabis users on how much they can consume without impairing their driving abilities. This lack of clarity, they argue, unfairly disadvantages the public by not providing clear guidelines on permissible consumption levels.
Moreover, Bauchner highlights the scientific consensus indicating the inability of blood tests to accurately measure cannabis impairment. Studies from reputable sources like the Journal of the American Medical Association, National Institutes of Health, and Johns Hopkins have consistently shown that THC levels in the blood are not reliable indicators of impairment. This discrepancy between legal standards and scientific evidence forms the crux of their argument against the proposed bill.
In response to these concerns, Bauchner is engaging in various initiatives to educate the public and legislators alike. They are reaching out to publications, working with the New Jersey State Bar Association, and seeking dialogue with legislators to propose alternatives that ensure road safety without infringing on citizens’ rights. The goal is to develop a fair and scientifically sound approach to cannabis impairment on the roads, one that respects the nuances distinguishing cannabis from alcohol.
The absence of standardized, scientifically validated roadside sobriety tests for cannabis complicates enforcement efforts. Although some companies are developing technologies to address this gap, law enforcement and judicial systems have yet to adopt these tools widely. Bauchner and Zona advocate for a balanced solution that protects public safety and individual rights, underscoring the importance of education in navigating the evolving landscape of cannabis legislation.