If the Nevada Legislature wants to clean up the laws on driving under the influence of marijuana, they can eliminate the loophole that an attorney for Jessica Williams is trying to slip through.
In the meantime, though, the Nevada Supreme Court need not bend over backward trying to interpret the difference between marijuana and the metabolites in the bloodstream that prove marijuana use.
Williams, now 23 years old, was the driver who lost control of her car on Interstate 15 outside Las Vegas in 2000 and plowed into a group of teenagers who were picking up trash along the roadside. Six of the teenagers were killed.
Williams has said she fell asleep at the wheel. But prosecutors won a conviction of driving under the influence of marijuana because of the level of carboxylic acid in her bloodstream indicating marijuana use. Testimony had indicated she had been up all night and smoking pot.
Did she crash into a crew of kids at 75 mph because she was tired or because she was high? To the outside observer, it doesn't seem to make much difference. Certainly to the families of the 14-, 15- and 16-year-olds she killed, the distinction is small.
The difference is in the potential prison time for Williams, who was sentenced to serve 18 to 48 years.
Any employer with experience in drug testing knows the presence of marijuana metabolites in the blood or urine is proof of marijuana use. The argument that the specific metabolites aren't listed as controlled substances doesn't hold water. How far down the atomic chain do we expect the law to go?
As far as being under the influence, the law sets a standard for marijuana just as it does for alcohol. The law wouldn't excuse a drunk who runs off the road and says, sorry, he simply passed out.
Common sense should prevail in the courts. Here's a prime opportunity to see that it does.
