- The Weed Blog https://www.theweedblog.com

Urge Your Colorado Legislator To Vote No On HB 1114 (THC/DUI)



HB 1114 passed unanimously out of the House Judiciary Committee on 2/26/13, and passed the House Appropriations Committee on 4/1/13.

*** Your calls and emails are needed NOW! The next step will be two votes of the full Colorado House of Representatives, called Second Reading and Third Reading. These votes will probably take place this week, so send your emails NOW.***

HB1114 would declare that the presence of 5 nanogram/milliliters or more of THC in the bloodstream of a driver would create a “permissible inference” that the person is guilty of DUI. Under this proposed law, the mere presence of 5 nanograms/mL of THC is enough to prove guilt, regardless of any evidence that the person was not actually impaired.

HB1114 will require a “forced blood draw”, forcing anyone suspected of driving under the influence of THC to submit to a blood draw forced by the state. Currently, alcohol levels can be tested through urine, breath or blood. But under the THC/DUI bill, the nanogram count can only come from a forced blood draw.


Sample letter to House Representatives

Dear Representatives:

Please vote no on HB1114 and do more research on the bill to set a nanogram limit on cannabis. There is NO evidence showing a link between THC blood concentration and impairment. Other drugs that impair people, like oxycontin, do not have nanogram limits. This bill is unfair to medical marijuana patients, who will almost always be above 5 ng due to constant use, yet suffer no impairment in driving skills.

Medical cannabis patients in Colorado are SICK of being treated like second class citizens! If you want to give them forced blood draws, you will have to show some evidence that there is actually a problem. Please at least include an exemption for medical marijuana patients in this bill.

<Your Name Here>

reppaul@aol.com, christine.scanlan.house@state.co.us,
mferrandino@yahoo.com, terrance.carroll.house@state.co.us,
mike.may.house@state.co.us, david.balmer.house@state.co.us,
gardner@plains.net, repmiddleton@gmail.com, judy.solano.house@state.co.us,
repcurry@gmail.com, bob.gardner.house@state.co.us,
rep.kent.lambert@comcast.net, cheri.gerou@gmail.com,
jack.pommer.house@state.co.us, spencer.swalm.house@state.co.us,
mcfadyen2002@hotmail.com, nancy.todd.house@state.co.us,
ken.summers.house@state.co.us, cherylin.peniston.house@state.co.us,
sue.schafer.house@state.co.us, murrayhouse45@gmail.com,
michael.merrifield.house@state.co.us, debbie@debbiebenefield.org,
glenn.vaad.house@state.co.us, repjoeljudd@joeljudd.com,
john.kefalas.house@state.co.us, claire.levy.house@state.co.us,
rep.nikkel@gmail.com, repkagan@gmail.com, steve.king.house@state.co.us,
max@maxtyler.us, ellen.roberts.house@state.co.us, kpriola@gmail.com,
kjerryfrangas@earthlink.net, brian@briandelgrosso.com,
cindy.acree.house@state.co.us, john.soper.house@state.co.us,
joe.rice.house@state.co.us, laurabradford55@gmail.com,
repdennisapuan@gmail.com, dianne.primavera.house@state.co.us,
andy.kerr.house@state.co.us, amy.stephens.house@state.co.us,
randy.baumgardner.house@state.co.us, cohd58@yahoo.com,
wes.mckinley.house@state.co.us, sal.pace.house@state.co.us,
edvigil1@gmail.com, marshalooper@gmail.com, su.ryden.house@state.co.us,
jerry@repsonnenberg.com, randyfischer@frii.com, joe@joemiklosi.com,
james.kerr.house@state.co.us, jim.riesberg.house@state.co.us,
tom.massey.house@state.co.us, beth.mccann.house@state.co.us,
loiscourt@msn.com, mark.waller.house@state.co.us,
larry.liston.house@state.co.us, info@cannabistherapyinstitute.com,
edward.casso.house@state.co.us, replabuda@yahoo.com,
sara.gagliardi.house@state.co.us, dl.hullinghorst.house@state.co.us

Click here to find phone numbers and more information on Colorado’s House of Representatives:

No more public comment will be taken when the House debates the bill, but you can listen to the floor debate online.
Check here for the House Calendar to see when HB-1114 is scheduled to be debated on Second Reading:
You listen online to the House debate when it is scheduled:

***You can email the Representatives during the floor debate on any issues they are discussing. Even though there is no opportunity for public comment, most of the Reps. do monitor their email while the floor debate is going on, so your emails during the debate will have an impact.***


About Author

Johnny Green


  1. someone needs to ask where the 5ng/ml (5 parts per billion) THC limit
    came from. was there an independent study that showed this was the threshold of motor skill impairment? or did the bill’s authors: Mark Waller and Steve King, pull that number out of their hat?
    in the past THC detection limits were set at 50ng/ml (50 parts per billion), so why is this limit now 10 times stricter than in the past?
    Maybe Waller/King should explain their rationale or be voted out of office next term.

  2. hell, i’d expect the cop to provide a sample of his own blood to provide a “baseline”. since we know cops don’t smoke mj, then any non-zero thc results with HIS blood should invalidate any non-zero thc numbers in YOUR blood.
    Any machine capable of measuring down to parts per billion needs to be calibrated periodically. if you are being tested, make sure the machine has a “CAL DUE”
    tag affixed to the unit, and that the CAL DATE has not expired. Since it’s expensive to send out units for calibration, it’s likely that many PD’s will neglect to cal their units on a regular basis.
    Important! if the unit being used is out of calibration, then ANY results taken with that is NOT valid!
    If the machine does not have a cal sticker, or if the date on the sticker has been tampered with, then they CANNOT legally use the results… Know your rights!

  3. 5 parts per billion is a vanishingly low limit.

    the question to ask is where did they come up with this limit?
    was it from human field trials which SCIENTIFICALLY measured the threshold of impairment due to THC, or did someone pull this number out of a hat?

    Whoever came up with this limit should need to show where this came from and how it was derived.

    This limit clearly has nothing to do with intoxication and everything to do with another form of prohibition.

  4. 5 parts per BILLION? are they serious?
    seems like there’ll be many false positives with that
    ridiculous limit. a good lawyer should be able to get
    a conviction on that tossed out as being too hard to get
    an accurate reading due to limitations of the measuring

Leave A Reply