IDAHO LAW HITS LEGAL POTHOLE

In S.F. Advocates Say Ruling Good For States' Rights

Bay Area pot advocates hailed a San Francisco appellate court ruling that
allows Idaho residents to legally drive under the influence of marijuana as
long as they are not driving erratically and can pass a field sobriety test.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco ruled
yesterday that an Idaho man's impaired driving conviction could not stand
because while Idaho law makes it illegal to drive under the influence of
alcohol and narcotics, it doesn't classify marijuana as a narcotic.

The ruling overturned the conviction of 21-year-old Matthew Patzer, who was
pulled over by police in September 1998 because of a broken tailgate light
but wasn't driving erratically and passed a field sobriety test. The ruling
also overturned an illegal weapons conviction against Patzer, who had a
cache of homemade grenades and weapons in his truck when he was pulled over.

Although the ruling involves a technicality in Idaho law and has no effect
on California drivers, marijuana advocates hailed the decision because it
recognized a state's drug laws over stronger federal laws that do classify
marijuana as an illegal substance.

"It's a good ruling for state's rights elements," said Jeff Jones, the
executive director of the Oakland Cannabis Club. "I'd like to see the
ability for states to implement local laws over the existing federal laws."

Dale Gieringer, the coordinator of California's chapter of NORML, the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, also supported the
ruling because of the impairment standard that it held up.

"It makes a lot of sense to show that somebody must be impaired and studies
have shown that marijuana users aren't as dangerous on the roads as those
who drink," Gieringer said.

Gieringer said that law enforcement officers throughout the country should
rely solely on field sobriety tests to determine someone's impairment in
cases involving all drugs and alcohol and not automatically arrest somebody
because they admitted to using marijuana.

"When somebody's really stoned, they have a hard time balancing on one
foot, " Gieringer said. "It depends on the person, it depends on the pot.
You can't measure it in joints. That's why the field sobriety test is what
should be used to determine it."

According to Gieringer, a National Highway Transportation Administration
study conducted in the Netherlands showed that drivers who smoked marijuana
drove more cautiously than those who consumed equal amounts of alcohol, who
tended to speed up and overcompensate for their diminished capacity.

"There is obviously a level of impairment but it's not as high as alcohol,"
said Gieringer.

NORML's Web site also cites a study conducted in Australia that showed
drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to have an
accident than those who were drug-free. The research, done by a
pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide and an Australian
transportation organization, said the difference was not great enough to be
statistically significant but could be explained by anecdotal evidence that
marijuana smokers were more cautious and drove more slowly because of
altered time perception.

It is unclear what action will be taken in Idaho as a result of the San
Francisco ruling.

Idaho Senate Judiciary Chairman Denton Darrington said he had assumed
marijuana was a narcotic under state law, and that the statute might need
to be reviewed. But he questioned whether yesterday's decision would hold
up on appeal.

Patzer's attorney, Fredilyn Sison of the office of the Federal Defenders of
Eastern Washington and Idaho, applauded the decision.