Back in 2017, we reported on the new state law that permits innocent owners to request a hearing to prevent their vehicles from being confiscated if they lend their vehicle to someone who is ultimately arrested for DWI. However, this law recently came under attack when an innocent owner’s vehicle was seized and impounded for 18 months while her daughter’s DWI criminal trial concluded.

Earlier this month, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling that aims to further protect innocent vehicle owners from its existing confiscation law. In Olson v. One 1999 Lexus (Minn. Sup. Ct., 3/13/2019) the Court held that police cannot confiscate vehicles from innocent owners anymore without providing them a timely hearing to prove their innocent-owner status.

Background

Olson began on 7 October 2015 when Shakopee Police confiscated a white 1999 Lexus RX300 SUV because its driver—Megan Olson—was stopped for suspicion of DWI. This was her third such incident. However, the vehicle belonged to Olson’s mother, Helen, who had no recourse to address the seizure of her car until her daughter’s criminal trial was complete.

Despite the fact that current law did, in fact, contain an “innocent owner” clause, another section of the law emphasizes that this defense cannot be exercised if the at-fault driver was a family member with three prior DWI convictions which was the case here.

The Olsons moved to have the law struck down as violative of due process and argued that the law seized property from owners who were not accused of any criminal activity without providing them the opportunity to challenge the actual taking until the criminal trial had ended. In this case, Megan Olson’s trial ended 13 February 2017—18 months after the initial seizing.

Court decisions and rationale

While the district court agreed with the petitioners that the law was, indeed, unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the law was constitutional, albeit not in this particular case. The State Supreme Court adopted the Appellate Court’s reasoning in that due process “requires that an individual receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government takes her property” and that “it is possible that the criminal proceedings underlying a [DWI] forfeiture case could be resolved with sufficient speed to satisfy due process.”

The Court had to strike a balance between the cost of holding a prompt hearing after every single vehicle seizure (after all, there were 3,596 vehicles were confiscated in Minnesota in 2017 alone) and avoiding situations like the Olsons’ in which the petitioner was unjustly without her vehicle for 18 months. Thus, the Court determined that said hearings should be limited to special circumstances such as in the Olsons’ case to lessen the burden on both innocent owners and the court system.

Even though the existing statute does contain a process by which a prosecutor can utilize discretion in releasing a vehicle, the Court argued that vague standards and informal processes do not further due process; they only set the stage for abuse. Thus, the majority ultimately held that innocent owners—especially those who would sustain an undue hardship—should be given a prompt hearing with respect to vehicle confiscation.

In this case, the Court released Helen Olson’s Lexus that had been held in an impound lot for three years without any charges and determined that she shouldn’t have to attend a hearing to prove she was, in fact, an innocent owner in this matter.

Being arrested in Minnesota—well, anywhere actually—is not only stressful but can also be scary. Here are some tips about what to do—and what not to do—if you do get stopped and/or arrested in Minnesota for driving while intoxicated.

First and foremost, pursuant to the Minnesota Implied Consent law (Minn. Stat. 169A.51), you have the right—albeit a limited one—to consult with a DWI lawyer prior to submitting any tests. To exercise this right, ask the officer if you can call an attorney.

What to do if you are stopped for DWI

Despite your brain likely wanting you to talk ad nauseum if stopped by police for drunk driving, you should ignore these urges and avoid giving any inculpatory statements. Always insist upon your right to speak to an attorney before answering any questions or making any statements, signing any documents, submitting to any field sobriety or blood alcohol concentration (BAC) testing, consenting to any search, and providing any type of physical evidence.

It is all right to provide the officer basic information about yourself such as name, address, date of birth, driver’s license number, and insurance information for his/her reports, but never discuss any facts concerning your alleged DWI that can be used against you in court later. Additionally, instead of saying something along the lines of “I don’t recall,” it is far better to inform the officer that you will not make any statements without your criminal lawyer present. It is also critical to remember that many officers are equipped with video recording devices, so everything you say or do may be captured on camera and can be used in court against you.

Additionally, make sure that you:

• Use your turn signal when pulling over
• Remain calm
• Be courteous, cooperative, and polite at all times
• Think before you speak or act
• Have your driver’s license, registration, and poof of current and valid insurance readily available
• Obey the officer’s commands provided they are reasonable, such as frisking you for weapons and other contraband and the like.

Finally, do tell the police if you have a weapon in the vehicle and if you have a valid concealed carry permit. Let the officer know where your firearm is located, keep you hands in plain view, and don’t make any sudden movements. You don’t want to spook an armed officer. Just let him/her give you instructions.

What not to do

If stopped and/or arrested by police for DWI, never:

• Provide false information
• Fidget or make sudden movements especially with your hands
• Physically resist or run from the police
• Talk too much (e.g. trying to talk yourself out of a ticket or arrest) especially if you are intoxicated
• Touch the officers in any way
• Think that it’s too soon to speak to an attorney

What to do if you are arrested for DWI in Minnesota

If you are subsequently arrested, be polite and cooperate with officers at the station/jail. Things will go much easier if you do. Additionally, if you haven’t already, do invoke your Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and ask to consult with an attorney.

Of course, however, the best recommendation is to simply not drink and drive, but if you do—and are caught—retaining the services of an experienced and knowledgeable DWI attorney is the next best thing.

Late last year, we reported on a Minnesota man who was facing his 28^th DWI and discussed the need for and effectiveness of harsher DWI legislation. Discussion involved mandatory revocation of one’s driver’s license after five DWI convictions.

More recently, however, some states have increased criminal sanctions for habitual DWI offenders—including life prison sentences—and this begs the question of whether some penalties are too harsh.

Texas faces numerous habitual DWI offenders

In Texas, a judge sentenced a habitual drunk driver to life in prison for his ninth conviction. The defendant—a 54-year-old man—struck another vehicle while weaving through several lanes of traffic and injured the driver. At the time of the accident, the intoxicated motorist had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .32—four times Texas’ legal limit.

The judge justified his sentence by asserting that the defendant deliberately refused to change his life and continued to drive drunk. By taking him off the streets permanently, the defendant will not have the opportunity to injure—or subsequently kill—someone else. He will be eligible for parole in five years depending on his behavior in prison.

As would be expected, there was outrage that the sentence was too harsh, and many suggested that the court should have considered the defendant’s struggle with alcoholism. Whereas alcoholism is increasingly seen as a medical issue, the judge argued that the defendant should have been more proactive in attempting to seek help. According to the district attorney on the case, by the ninth conviction, a reasonable person would have found some way to not get behind the wheel while drunk.

Also in Texas, a 63-year-old man was given a life sentence for his 12^th DWI conviction when he crashed into a stop sign near a local elementary school while driving with a BAC of .27 and on parole for a previous 20-year sentence. Another 62-year-old man with 11 prior DWIs was also sentenced to life in prison after driving with a BAC over four times the legal limit and having removed his electronic ankle monitor while out on bail.

In Texas, repeat DWI offenders comprise nearly five percent of all state prison inmates, with 22 percent of repeat offenders receiving sentences longer than ten years. Hundreds more face more than 40 years or even life sentences.

DWI fatality in Louisiana

Down south, a woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to a fatal drunk driving accident that killed a Mississippi father of seven. In this case, it was the 28-year-old defendant’s third DWI in a mere nine months.

The defendant rear-ended the victim’s truck back in March 2017 on Louisiana’s Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, causing an aluminum guardrail to smash through the truck’s rear window, impaling the 37-year-old victim. A passenger in the truck was also injured; however, the defendant was not.

At the time of the accident, the defendant’s BAC was .216—nearly three times higher than the state’s legal limit. The defendant pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and related charges, and she was sentenced to 20 years.

The debate rages on

While alcoholism is, indeed, a serious addiction, many lawmakers assert that lengthy periods of incarceration may not be the best allocation of resources for these types of offenders. Those with this orientation argue that rehabilitation is the best course of action—and most effective use of scarce resources—in such cases.

On the other hand, others assert that there comes a time when these dangerous people must be removed from society, especially those whose driver’s licenses have been suspended or revoked, yet they still get behind the wheel. Whereas rehabilitation may be helpful and warranted for a second or third DWI conviction, when defendants are getting their 10^th or 20^th, a different discussion is, indeed, warranted.

We previously reported on the difficulties of securing convictions for motorists arrested for DWI regarding substances not currently on the state law’s intoxicating substances list. To address this, in March 2018, Minnesota senators examined how current state DWI law addresses sniffing inhalants—better known as “huffing.”

The debate stemmed from the Minnesota Supreme Court’s reversal of a woman’s 2017 conviction for a DWI after she had been found slumped in her vehicle on multiple occasions after having inhaled difluoroethane (DFE). DFE is most commonly contained inside of propellant cans and is used to clean electronics equipment. DFE is marketed under the name Dust-Off.

Additionally, other states have experienced traffic accidents and tragic fatalities caused by drivers who were under the influence of DFE or other huffing chemical compounds. Because their laws failed to account for dangerous chemicals that are not considered to be Controlled Substances or other known street drugs, the at-fault drivers couldn’t be charged under current law.

Background

In the aforementioned case, the female defendant appealed her conviction on the grounds that DFE is not currently considered to be a hazardous substance under Minnesota’s impaired driving statute (Minn. Stat. 169A). The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a driver who is intoxicated by DFE “is not criminally liable under the plain language of the current DWI statutes.”

However, the state argued that even though the statute does not specifically refer to the chemical substance, the fact that DFE shares general characteristics of other included hazardous substances and, therefore, should be included. The state further argued that it isn’t feasible to be always up-to-date with new and emerging dangerously intoxicating substances.

Regardless of the state’s argument and a dissenting opinion, the court overturned the defendant’s conviction.

State law

Under original state law, someone is guilty of DWI if caught driving, operating, or being in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or a known intoxicating or controlled substance. Additionally, a person with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over the legal limit or who has any metabolites of a Schedule I or II controlled substance is also considered to be under the influence.

Because DFE is not illegal, it is, in fact, considered to be an intoxicating substance, and this oversight—or legal loophole—led to recent lawmakers’ discussions.

The rationale was that simply because a particular substance is not alcohol or a known “street drug” does not mean that it can’t still cause someone to become impaired and, subsequently, too intoxicated to drive safely. Even though some substances cannot be specifically tested, law enforcement officers who reasonably believe that a motorist is driving while under the influence should be able to charge said person with DWI.

losing the legal loophole

Some lawmakers such as Senator Greg Clausen (DFL-Apple Valley) saw a loophole in current state law in which DFE is not considered to be hazardous substance. Simply, the loophole excluded certain dangerous and intoxicating chemicals found in ordinary household substances—including DFE.

In response, Clausen proposed Senate File 2479 to affect OSHA standards with result to hazardous substances under the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. The Senate File also seeks to promote uniformity among all DWI offenses by requiring that prosecutors prove a suspect was, in fact, under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. This Senate File has received considerable support from the State Patrol DWI Task Force, Minnesota County Attorneys Association, Minnesotans for Safe Driving, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), other law enforcement groups, and additional senators.

As a result, the Senate File was overwhelmingly supported in both congressional houses and Governor Mark Dayton signed it into law in May of 2018. As of 1 August 2018, the bill officially went into law.

While some vehicle repairs should be done as soon as possible—such as replacing burned out lights—other, non-essential ones that don’t create a safety hazard can wait. Whereas most people view a cracked windshield as a non-essential repair that must be fixed immediately—especially due to the potentially high cost—a recent Minnesota case addressed the question of whether police can stop you for a cracked windshield.

At the present time, Minnesota law (Statute 169.71) says that a motorist may not operate a vehicle with a cracked or discolored windshield “to the extent that it limits or obstructs proper vision.” But how does one ascertain whether the crack does, in fact, limit or obstruct the driver’s vision?

Poehler v. Minnesota

Quite recently, a Minnesota District Court heard the case of Poehler v. State of Minnesota. In this case, the appellant was stopped by a police officer for having a cracked windshield, and the subsequent traffic stop uncovered that Poehler was also under the influence of alcohol and not wearing his seatbelt. Consequently, a breath test administered at the scene revealed Poehler’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .174—double the legal limit to be considered intoxicated—and he was charged with DWI.

At trial, the defense pushed to have the charges dropped and the case dismissed because the traffic stop was predicated on the fact that Poehler was initially stopped for having a cracked windshield. Further, the police report never stated as to whether the crack obscured Poehler’s vision. Thus, the defense urged that the cracked windshield in and of itself did not justify the traffic stop. On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the only way to know whether the crack impeded Poehler’s vision was to conduct the traffic stop.

On appeal

Poehler appealed, and the Appellate Court sided with the defendant. In his ruling, Judge Kevin Ross wrote that the only justification for a traffic stop based on a cracked windshield was whether the crack’s characteristics “limits or obstructs the driver’s vision” as stated in existing law. Judge Ross addressed the prosecution’s arguments by stating that it was a slippery slope argument that required additional evidence or the officer actually witnessing a traffic violation to justify a traffic stop.

In praising the Appellate Court’s ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stressed that low-level offenses such as having a cracked windshield pave the way for other arbitrary traffic stops without adequate probable cause that lead to net-widening and increasing the number of people who have contact with law enforcement and the criminal justice system as a whole.

A snafu

However, the court held that the traffic stop was valid because Poehler wasn’t wearing a seat belt. Judge Ross added that even if Poehler was, in fact, wearing a seat belt, the traffic stop and subsequent discovery that Poehler was driving while intoxicated would still be valid because of US Supreme Court cases in which the Court held that searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact can still be reasonable. Thus, even if the police officer was mistaken in thinking that the crack impeded Poehler’s view, the subsequent good-faith traffic stop revealed enough evidence for the charges to stand.

The dangers of cracked windshields

Of course, this does not mean that you shouldn’t fix your cracked windshields. Even small imperfections or those tiny annoying spider cracks can quickly spread, especially during the winter when outside cold temperatures interact with the vehicle’s heated interior, thus affecting the structural integrity of the glass. Further, should you be involved in an accident, a cracked windshield also compromises the vehicle’s integrity as a whole, especially if the car is involved in a rollover accident.

Repairing minor windshield imperfections are far less costly, quick, and easy—as opposed to having to replace your entire windshield and risk being stopped by police.

The holidays should be a time of family, friends, and merriment; however, far too frequently, drinking and driving can put a serious damper on holiday celebrations. Driving while intoxicated (DWI) continues to be a very real problem across the US.

Here’s how you can protect yourself this holiday season.

Be cognizant of your actions

1. Don’t drink and drive. It is that simple. To stay safe while on the road, if you have been drinking or using drugs, then don’t get behind the wheel. Even if you’ve only had a few drinks and feel fine, it is best to not drive. Not only might you underestimate the impact of any alcohol you may have consumed, but DWI patrols are oftentimes out in force during the holidays, and if you are stopped—even with a BAC of less than the legal limit of .08—you could still be charged with DWI.

2. If you are celebrating with others, choose a designated sober driver before the festivities are underway. A designated driver is responsible for staying sober for the entire day and during any events in order to ensure that everyone gets home safely.

3. Take advantage of public transportation and rideshare programs. If you don’t have a designated driver, there are many options of which to take advantage: taxi, bus, Uber or Lyft, party buses, and others.

4. If you see someone who is intoxicated trying to get into his/her vehicle to drive home, try to get his/her car keys and offer alternatives for him/her to get home safely.

Get the keys

Getting an intoxicated person’s car keys can be difficult, but if s/he ends up being responsible for a traffic accident or fatality, the situation is much worse, and if you were aware of his/her intoxicated state, you could end up living with a lifetime of guilt.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) offers tips for preventing an intoxicated person from driving by collecting his/her keys:
• Use a calm approach. Suggest to him/her that s/he has had too much to drink and, perhaps, it would be better for him/her to get a ride home instead of driving him/herself.
• Make light of or joke about the situation to minimize friction. Avoid embarrassment at all costs.
• Make it sound as though you are doing him/her a favor.
• While s/he is preoccupied, find the keys and take them. In many cases, the intoxicated person will simply think s/he lost the keys and find another way home.
• If you are close to the person—good friend, spouse, family member, significant other, etc.—inform him/her that you will not be riding if s/he insists on driving.
• If you don’t know the person, talk to his/her friends and ask them to try to persuade their friend to give up his/her keys.

How you can keep yourself safe on the road

Above are tips you can take to ensure you don’t drive drunk, but how do you keep yourself safe from drunk drivers?

1. When on the road, drive as if everyone around you is intoxicated. Keeping your distance from the vehicle in front of you, staying alert for oncoming traffic, and being prepared for evasive maneuvers, if necessary, are all steps you can take to keep yourself safe while driving during the holiday season.

2. Avoid highways, if possible.

3. Avoid driving very late at night as this is when many drunk drivers are on the road.

4. Report any driver you believe is driving while under the influence. By being proactive and reporting a motorist who you suspect of driving drunk, you may save a life.

5. Utilize extra caution at intersections. Many alcohol-related accidents occur at intersections. Therefore, don’t simply assume that someone else will stop at a red light.

6. Under no circumstances, let your friend or family member drive drunk. Regardless of how angry s/he might get at you at the moment, s/he will invariably thank you in the morning.

Whether you drive drunk or sober is up to you; however, while you can’t make someone else not drink, you can minimize his/her effect on the road. The holidays should be celebratory, not tragic.

Happy Holidays and stay safe!

With an increasing number of states legalizing marijuana medicinally, recreationally, or both, questions arise as to how—if at all—this legalization will impact DWI law. Given that more states are legalizing marijuana begs the question of how law enforcement officers are supposed to detect drivers who are under the influence. Additionally, questions are raised as to what it means to be over the limit in this context.

Effects of legalization in Washington and Colorado

A 2016 CATO Institute Policy Analysis examined the impact of state marijuana legalizations on several factors. With respect to road safety and DWIs specifically, this report evaluated opposing prior literature that suggested: first, that marijuana impairs driving ability and, thus increases accident incidence; and second, that marijuana legalization improves traffic safety because marijuana is a substitute for alcohol and may even improve the driving of persons who use marijuana to alleviate chronic pain.

Many governments—at federal, state, and local levels—warned that legalization marijuana would increase traffic accidents significantly. However, the data vary. According to the AAA Foundation, when Washington state legalized recreational marijuana, the number of fatal automobile accidents increased. Among the key findings included that between 2010 and 2014, 303 drivers (10% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents) had detectable levels of THC in their blood at the time of the accident with or without alcohol and/or other drugs. Additionally, after recreational marijuana was legalized, the proportion of DWI drivers who tested positive for THC increased significantly nine months after the new law went into effect.

However, data from Colorado demonstrate that highway fatalities were at historic lows following legalization. Further, marijuana legalization in Oregon and Alaska also showed no discernible increase—and even slight decreases—in traffic fatalities.

Marijuana legalization and changing laws

Most of the states which have legalized marijuana have not changed their DWI laws. Generally, these laws are of two types: per se and impairment. Per se DWI laws require the prosecutor to prove the driver had a BAC of .08 or greater at the time s/he was stopped. Impairment need not be proven as the presence of the substance in question in his/her system is usually enough to secure a conviction. However, most of these laws apply only to alcohol consumption as marijuana is not measured in BAC. Thus, a motorist who is driving while under the influence of marijuana cannot typically be convicted of a per se DWI.

On the other hand, impairment DWI charges do, in fact, apply to marijuana use in that these laws focus on the effect of the drugs on the driver, not on the actual amount of the drug in the driver’s system. Further, impairment DWI laws do not limit whether the drug in question was illegal or legal. Thus, even if a motorist has legally ingested marijuana, if s/he is impaired and drives, s/he can be convicted of DWI.

Determining impairment

Proving whether impairment exists and its degree is the difficult part. Complicating matters is that each state has its own degree of impairment requirements. Currently, Minnesota’s laws are zero-tolerance with respect to Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances (including marijuana.) Thus, if you are driving while impaired—from any substance—you could be charged with a DWI.

According to one  San Diego criminal defense attorney, determining what it means to be “too high to drive” given that people are of different sizes and have different tolerance levels can be difficult. She asks where does one start setting this amount? What is the marijuana equivalent of .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC)? She stresses that until science “catches up,” police must rely on traditional roadside sobriety tests to determine intoxication.

Regardless of the fact that marijuana is legal in many states, it is still illegal to drive while under the influence.

You can check out our earlier article on potential marijuana legalization in Minnesota here.

Depending on the job, being convicted of a DWI—or even having been arrested—may hinder your ability to get a job. Many employers ask about job applicants’ criminal record, and many run background checks to help them find the perfect candidate. While hiring decisions are, ultimately, at the employer’s discretion, there are some protections for job applicants who have had a DWI or other conviction.

Sensitive jobs

A simple DWI arrest generally won’t affect your job search because most states permit employers to ask only about convictions. However, some states permit employers to ask applicants about certain arrests.

Some employers may be more concerned about DWI arrests and convictions than others. Positions requiring driving—particularly a company vehicle such as delivery, bus, and truck drivers—could be problematic. In California, for example, employers require applicants to disclose any DWI- or drug-related arrests if they are applying for certain jobs with access to medications. Similarly, if you are looking to work with children, seeking a government job, or applying for a job that involves handling sensitive and confidential information, a DWI conviction may prove problematic.

Other potential problems

In addition to having a criminal record, getting a DWI can also raise concerns in other areas related to employment. For example, if you get your driver’s license revoked or suspended, you may be left without reliable transportation in order to get to work. This may be particularly troublesome if you live in an area without adequate public transportation or don’t have anyone to rely on for a ride.

The law may protect you

There are two federal laws that provide somewhat limited protection to job applications who may have criminal records: Title VII and The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Title VII—Criminal record-based discrimination

Part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII protects job applicants and existing employees from employment discrimination which include hiring and screening practices. Because arrest and incarceration rates are significantly higher for certain minorities in the US, if an employer has a policy that categorically excludes any applicant with a criminal record, s/he may be guilty of racial discrimination.

To address this, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides guidance for employers to weed out risky applicants without discriminating against them. Among the factors for consideration include the nature and seriousness of the offense, the time since the offense or sentence, and the nature of the job being applied for. The EEOC also urges employers to afford candidates the ability to explain the circumstances of their case.

Fair Credit Reporting Act

The FCRA handles accuracy concerns because some background checks may include errors. Such errors can include:

• Recording the same offense multiple times
• Failing to report exonerations
• Incomplete information
• Records that have been expunged
• Misclassification of offenses
• Records belonging to someone else with the same name

The FCRA requires that employers who request criminal background checks on job applicants get the applicant’s written consent prior to the check, inform the applicant that information contained in the report may exclude him/her from consideration, and notify the applicant of their decision to not consider the applicant based on information contained in the report.

In Minnesota

Minnesota recently joined the ranks of a handful of other states by enacting “ban the box” legislation, This law prohibits employers from asking, considering, or requiring applicants to disclose any criminal history until they are chosen for an interview or offered a conditional employment offer without an interview. Employers may, however, notify candidates that certain criminal offenses will automatically disqualify them from certain jobs.

The bottom line is to be truthful. As mentioned, while you don’t have to volunteer any information, likewise, you shouldn’t lie either. If asked, be honest. After all, a background check will likely provide the employer with the necessary information. Being honest and up front is indicative of good character, as is admitting you had a lapse of judgment, are remorseful, and have learned your lesson.

A good DWI lawyer can help

If you have been charged and/or convicted of a DWI, consulting with a knowledgeable and experienced DWI lawyer can go a long way toward protecting not only your freedom and financial situations, but also future job prospects. Your lawyer will seek to secure you a not guilty plea, negotiate penalties, and even work to get your record expunged, if applicable.

What is marijuana? Quite simply, it is a combination of the flower buds, stems, and leaves of the Cannabis sativa plant. It contains delta 9-tetrahydracannabinol (THC) which is the drug’s intoxication chemical as well as at least 500 different chemicals—many of them carcinogenic. Marijuana also contains cannabidiol (CBD) that serves to counteract THC effects. These compounds can affect your body and mind in several ways.

Prevalence of marijuana use in the US

While marijuana—also known as pot, weed, grass, and other slang terms—can be smoked, vaporized, eaten, brewed, and “ingested” topically, the majority of people smoke it. According to a 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), as many as 17.4 million Americans admitted to using marijuana within the past month. A 2016 Gallup Poll found that one out of eight people smoke marijuana while 43 percent of adults have admitted trying it. Today, this number is presumed even higher as many states and Washington, D.C. have legalized marijuana in some fashion, whether medicinally, recreationally, or both.

Over the years, the average THC content has increased from less than one percent in 1972 to nearly four percent in 1990 to as much as 13 percent in 2010. These amounts continue to rise. Today, some marijuana contains 30 percent or more THC. Increased potency complicates determining accurate long- and short-term effects of the drug.

Marijuana ingestion

When marijuana is smoked, THC is absorbed through the lungs and into the bloodstream. Marijuana can be smoked in cigarette form (a joint) or through bongs, glass pipes, bubblers, blunts, and other paraphernalia. More recently, vaporization—or vaping—has emerged as a smokeless delivery system. Because the marijuana is heated at a lower temperature, studies suggest that this method is healthier than regular smoking because the user inhales fewer toxic compounds and carbon monoxide. Either way, smoking marijuana is the quickest way to achieve the desired result—a euphoric high. Generally, your high will peak in about 30 minutes and then taper off between one and four hours.

Marijuana can also be ingested orally. The effects are slower because the THC must first pass through the digestive system to reach the bloodstream. Thus, effects may take up to two hours; however, they will generally last longer—as many as eight hours—than smoking. Cannabis can also be added into baked goods, candies, and even brewed in a tea.

Marijuana and your body

Despite being a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana does have some medical benefits such relieving chronic pain, reducing the effects of glaucoma, alleviating nausea, and inducing appetite. However, marijuana can also cause damage to your body.

Contrary to popular belief among those who regularly use marijuana, marijuana smoke can, in fact, cause many of the same respiratory problems from which tobacco smokers suffer such as cough, increased phlegm production, more frequent illnesses like bronchitis and pneumonia, and greater instance of lung infections

However, according to a 2013 study by UCLA professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine Dr. Donald Tashkin, heavy marijuana users do not seem to be at a higher risk for developing lung cancer. While this is good news, another study in 2017 did find that regular marijuana users were 26 percent more likely to suffer a stroke—and ten percent more likely to develop heart problems, including increasing heart rate from as little as 20 percent up to 100 percent—than non-smokers. Because marijuana is still illegal under federal law, long-term studies on other aspects—such as edibles—are lacking.

Marijuana also affects both gross and fine motor skills which makes driving or otherwise operating any heavy machinery risky while under the influence.

The effects of marijuana on the brain

Marijuana targets the same brain pleasure centers as cocaine, alcohol, and heroin. Depending on consumption, quality, and quantity, marijuana can produce a feeling of euphoria—a “high”—by stimulating brain cells to release dopamine.

Marijuana can also alter your mood, make you feel more relaxed, stimulate your senses, affect time, and increase appetite. Marijuana can also cause anxiety, short-term memory loss, sedation, elation, relaxation, pain-relief, paranoia, hallucinations, concentration issues, decreased interest, and a host of physical effects such as loss of coordination and tachycardia.

Additionally, when coming down from the high, you may feel quite tired or depressed and, in some cases, may suffer from anxiety, insomnia, irritability, and agitation.

Emerging evidence suggests that marijuana may also affect your memory, learning, and attention for as many as 24 hours after use. There is no evidence suggesting sustained harm in these area with long-term use.

People offer numerous reasons for making the decision to drink and drive. Perhaps they don’t think they are intoxicated. Or maybe they believe the laws don’t apply to them. Others justify driving drunk based on the short distance they are going. Aligned with these dangerous beliefs, there is a slew of drunk driving myths that many people continue to believe. Let’s debunk them.

Myths

There are many myths surrounding drinking and driving. Here are the most common.

It’s illegal to drink and drive

Actually, it is perfectly legal to have a beer or a glass of wine—or even a shot—and drive as long as you are not legally intoxicated. Most people are not affected enough by one drink over dinner, for example, to render them intoxicated under the law.

Drinking coffee, eating, and/or taking a cold shower will sober me up

In reality, the only way to sober up after drinking is by letting your body naturally metabolize the alcohol. This usually occurs at the rate of two hours per drink. Coffee doesn’t alleviate alcohol effects. All coffee will do is make a drunk person wide-eyed, awake, and nervous—and still in no condition to drive.

As for eating, first of all, you should never drink on an empty stomach; however, eating while drinking is not a sure-fire defense against impairment.

Finally, with respect to a cold shower, while this may momentarily wake you up, it does nothing to speed up your body’s ability to metabolize alcohol.

I shouldn’t submit to a breathalyzer if stopped

Most states—including Minnesota—have an Implied Consent law in which everyone with a driver’s license implicitly agrees to submit to a breath test if suspected of drunk driving. Failure to do so can result in additional charges or penalties.

However, only with respect to blood and urine tests, in Minnesota, refusal is not a crime unless law enforcement gets a search warrant, and therefore you won’t be subject to additional charges for refusing. The rationale behind this is that—without a warrant based on probable cause—a blood or urine test is intrusive and amounts to an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

If I hyperventilate before my breath test, I will blow a lower blood alcohol concentration (BAC)

This is just wrong. It is impossible to affect breathalyzer results by simply breathing differently. The same holds true if you have an ignition interlock device (IID) in your vehicle. While certain ingested substances can, in fact, affect a breathalyzer result, simply changing your breathing cannot.

For more information on breathalyzer tests and Minnesota law, check out our earlier article.

I’m only driving a few blocks

Given that most car accidents occur between two and five miles away from home, is this something you want to risk?

After I sleep, I will be fine to drive

As previously mentioned, it takes two hours to fully metabolize one alcoholic beverage. If you drink five drinks in a short time and sleep for, say, five hours, you will still be under the influence and will likely blow above the legal limit. You would need at least ten hours of sleep for the alcohol from five drinks to wear off.

If I just drink beer and not hard liquor, I will be okay to drive

Beer is still alcohol. In fact, one 12-ounce beer has the same alcohol content as a five-ounce glass of fine or a half-ounce shot of 80-proof whiskey.

I’m not that drunk, I can still drive

Even if you may have driven drunk 100 times in the past without an accident or arrest, it doesn’t take much alcohol to impair your ability to drive safely. Alcohol affects vision, coordination, reaction time, judgment, attention span, and multi-tasking ability—all critical aspects of driving. Do you really want to keep tempting fate?

I won’t get caught

Because of the increase in anti-DWI efforts by law enforcement, governments, and civilian groups, drunk driving penalties have gotten more severe and the use of DWI checkpoints has risen. It’s better to be safe than sorry and don’t risk it.

It’s best to take a plea bargain for a DWI

Contrary to popular belief, many DWI charges have been fought—and beaten—in court due to poor police work and questionable evidence. In some cases, the charges are dismissed outright. While fighting a DWI charge can be difficult, retaining the services of a skilled and experienced defense attorney is your best bet to fight these charges.