In doing research for this publication, we are constantly amazed at the veiled propaganda being shilled by otherwise respectable pubs.
Some are reliably against, and others are reliably pro. Some can't seem to make up their minds (or are they, like us, they're just posting content as fast as they can, and acting "agnostic" when it comes to point of view)?
The Sacramento Bee got into our bonnet today, for an article published months earlier. The delay doesn't change our headline, though - or theirs: "Recreational marijuana is legal in California, but stoned driving is still hard to detect".
You wouldn't know it by the headline, but this article is about a 22-year old man from Hayward, CA, who was so drunk that he crashed his car into a California Highway Patrol vehicle.
An officer inside the vehicle, with a wife and three children at home, died in the crash. It was Christmas eve.
The driver had a blood-alcohol level of .11, which is above the legal limit of .08, and also claims to have gotten high at a Christmas party.
Though the driver was so measurably drunk that he crashed his car and killed police officer and a father of three children, the Sacramento Bee uses this tragedy as an excuse to write about how there are no reliable blood tests for driving stoned.
We think the Bee can do better.
One might think the CHP might have lobbied for this approach. Nah.
The article quotes the Governors Highway Safety Association, an organization one would not normally associate with any defense of cannabis, is quoted as saying that laws based on THC limits... "imply a relation between drug concentrations and impairment. The scientific consensus is that the evidence to establish these relations does not exist."
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and transportation associations have reached a similar conclusion about laws based on THC limits."
Image source: Motion Array