Eastern Washington MJ DUIs On the Rise… Maybe

In the somewhat small Eastern Washington town of Spokane Valley, there is a rise in marijuana-related DUIs. Spokane Valley Police Chief VanLeuven “told the City Council that his department issued 17 marijuana-related DUIs in 2012, but in the first half of 2014 there have already been 37 such citations. The youngest of those drivers was 14 and had six passengers in the car.”

I’m not coming out in support or defense of DUI’s of any kind. Getting behind the wheel is like driving a weapon, and anyone in the driver’s seat ought to be alert and clear-headed. But I think it is worth noting that I have spent some time in Spokane Valley, and it is a very conservative place. In fact, most of Washington state, outside of the Greater Seattle area, is pretty conservative. Also, they are careful to state that these DUI’s are “marijuana-related.” That says nothing about whether there was also other drugs or alcohol in their blood.

This police department would also like for the city to approve their wish and grant them the power to issue citations to minors who are high in public. And what, pray tell, will be their field test for the possibly stoned? Is this going to be something along the lines of Arizona’s controversial “you look kinda Mexican, you’re arrested” law?

It is perfectly reasonable that an uptick in pot-related DUIs is happening post-legalization. The same would invariably be true for alcohol, had it just been legalized. Greater access to cannabis and greater global acceptance is naturally going to lead to an increase in infractions. That’s just human nature. Combine less fear of punishment with greater access and voila, more DUIs.

Let’s look at the hard numbers. VanLeuven mentioned that there were 37 pot DUIs in the “first half” of 2014. Considering this article was published in October, that actually factors out to 37 DUIs in 10 months (unless the Spokane Valley PD operates on a 20-month year). Prior to legalization in 2012, the area averaged 1.4 marijuana DUIs a month. Post-legalization in 2014 (no data for 2013 was given, which makes me think that it didn’t fit the narrative of the police department, so it was conveniently left out), the area is averaging 3.7 pot DUIs.

Sensationalists like to say things like “the pot DUI rate more than doubled” to drum up support of their agenda. True, the rate has doubled, but it amounts to roughly 1.5 more single DUIs issued. I can eat one hot dog and you can eat two, it’s not a large increase. Yet, if I say that you ate 100% more hotdogs than I did, it sounds like a huge number. PR people know this trick, but it’s not fooling anyone.

It seems that the largest complaint of VanLeuven is that his time is being wasted dealing with stoners. He commented that processing a pot DUI takes much longer than alcohol and that his department is getting too many nonsense pot calls.

“The number of bizarre yet time-consuming calls from stoned residents is also up,” VanLeuven said, mentioning an example of a deputy who responded to a 911 call and was met at the door by a man who said someone had broken into his house and switched out his shampoo.“He then told us he’d smoked a lot of weed and probably just needed to go lie down for a bit,” VanLeuven said, drawing some chuckles from the audience and council members, before he added that “these calls take up resources from other more important issues.”

I fully agree that trying to crack down on pot wastes a lot of time and resources that the PD ought to be giving to real problems. Yet, VanLeuven follows up that sentiment by saying he wants to be able to cite minors who look stoned. How is that not a collosal waste of time and resources? I mean, sure someone is robbing a bank down the street, but we can’t just expect the cops to stop writing tickets for anyone with Cheeto-dust on their fingers and go get the bank robber. That would just be ludicrous.

The fact remains that the officers themselves are choosing to dedicate this much time to marijuana, and, considering the deeply conservative history of this region, it’s hard not to see it as a shady attack on legal weed. By their own admission, they think dealing with stoners is a waste of their time. Why not reflect that message in your policies?

Also, though I have no data readily at my fingertips to verify this, VanLeuven says nothing of how damaging these pot DUIs have been. With alcohol DUIs, there is almost always an accident, a wreck, a hit pedestrian, etc. These stoned drivers could very well have been driving 3 MPH in a parking lot and still gotten a DUI. And what are the alcohol DUI numbers in this region over the same time frame? Have they remained static or have they moved? I would wager that increased pot DUI’s means less people are drinking and driving too. In an apples to apples comparison, I would choose to have stoners on the road over drunks any day of the week.