In front of a packed courtroom, the Supreme Court judges consider whether the limits that say how much cannabis you can have in your blood while driving are too strict. In the center stands a woman in her 40s, who has been convicted in the Court of Appeal for driving under the influence of drugs. But the woman believes she was sober when she drove. Because it takes a long time to break down THC in the blood, she believes she was not under the influence. She says that she used cannabis more than eight hours before she got behind the wheel. – It should have been a joint, says Terje Ekrem with a twinkle in his eye about the cigarette he lights during the break. Wearing a suit with cannabis plants, he flew to Oslo yesterday. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news The case has received a lot of attention, judging by the audience bench. – This case has involved many people, says defense attorney Frode Sulland, and points to the packed courtroom. – Many have experienced themselves being judged, even if they have not been affected by effervescence while driving. – We are here to show face Both researchers, activists, and people who themselves feel judged without having been influenced, have turned up in the venerable Supreme Court hall. A group of news members have traveled from Tromsø and Stavanger to attend the session. In common, they have a commitment to drug policy, and the use of cannabis medically or recreationally. Trygve Skogvik and Bjørn Dahl demonstrate the cannabis medicine Dahl uses over a coffee during the break. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news – We are here to show face. That there are not just five judges and a few lawyers. But to show that this engages people, says Terje Haga over a coffee at the Stortorvet guesthouse, around the corner from Norway’s highest court. He has traveled from Randaberg to listen. The gang is satisfied with the efforts of defender Frode Sulland. – This is primarily about being allowed to drive when you are not under the influence. Easily. We should have the right to that, just like people who drink alcohol, says Kristin Jakhelln. The gang also includes the activist Bjørn Dahl, deputy leader of the drug organization Normal Bergen. He started getting involved when he lost his license in 2014 due to a lack of sobriety. Dahl says he has now got the note back, partly because he has changed his cannabis medicine to one that contains less THC. – With the limit values that are in place today and the practice of the police, there are quite a few people who have been deprived of their certificates on what we believe to be completely unfair grounds. They have not driven the rush when they have had residual values in their blood, he says to news. This is the medicine Bjørn Dahl gets from a Norwegian pharmacy. The fish soup is not included. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news – Not possible to determine with a blood test The woman who is accused in the case has, according to the district court verdict, explained that she uses cannabis medically, and that she had taken cannabis medicine more than eight hours before she got behind the wheel. Lilliana Bachs at OUS and Arne Helland at St. Olavs are experts in the matter. They have assessed whether the limits for THC in the blood risk catching even those who are not under the influence of drugs when they drive. Helland says there is a difference between people who use cannabis sporadically, and those who use cannabis regularly. How regularly you use cannabis also has a lot to say, according to the superior. This is how the current penalty level is 0.004 micromoles of THC per liter of blood (should correspond to 0.2 per thousand): Fine 0.010 micromoles of THC per liter of blood (should correspond to between 0.5 and 1.2 per thousand): Fine, suspended prison term, disqualified from driving for at least one year. 0.030 micromoles of THC per liter of blood (must correspond to over 1.2 per thousand): Unconditional imprisonment, fine, disqualified from driving for at least one year. Source: Regulation on the influence of drugs other than alcohol A person who, for example, uses cannabis several times a day, may have large so-called residual concentrations. These can be measured in the blood several days after the regular user last used cannabis, while they may have been broken down a few hours after the occasional user used cannabis. The connection between how much THC you have in your blood and how drugged you are is therefore difficult to say, according to Helland. Someone who has used cannabis an hour before driving was probably under the influence of drugs when he drove. While someone who has high THC concentrations in their blood, but used cannabis many days ago, probably wasn’t. – For cannabis, it is the case that how long after consumption one can measure concentrations will depend on the pattern of use in the time before sampling. Therefore, it is not possible to determine cannabis intake based on a blood test alone, says Helland in court. In addition to the stream on the Supreme Court’s website, there were many people who filmed the case in its entirety. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news Believes woman was clinically sober Defends Sulland’s claim that the limits set for how much THC you have in your blood when driving are invalid. Precisely because people who have not driven while under the influence of drugs can be convicted for this. – You hit people who still have THC in their blood without being affected because there are residual concentrations. That is the central point here. This scheme has been attacked because innocent people are affected, says Sulland. – If the “alcohol limit” for THC is set, can’t those who drive while actually under the influence also avoid punishment? – This scheme affects differently because some will still be affected. But this is precisely the problem – that you target different groups that have completely different usage patterns and thus different degrees of influence. Frode Sulland defends the woman who believes she cannot be convicted of having cannabis in her blood, because she was not under the influence of it when she drove. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news – The question is whether the legislature should revise the scheme so that it is clear when the last intake was. The blood test will not be able to say anything about when the drug intake was. Thus, you do not know whether what is detected is an old intake or a new intake, says Sulland to news. Prosecutor Esben Kyhring believes, however, that the current borders are valid. In court, he says that, when the limits were set, a conscious choice was made to “over-include”, and allowed the risk of punishing even those who are not necessarily under the influence of drugs behind the wheel. The limit, set in 2012, was not supposed to allow for individual considerations, such as a person’s tolerance for THC. – It was decided that there will be zero tolerance for driving under the influence of drugs. There must be very low limits, and the prerequisite must be that the limit must be the same for everyone, says Kyhring in court. First State Attorney Esben Kyhring is the prosecutor in the case. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news Nor does he believe that the Supreme Court has the right to assess the limits for THC, but that this is up to the administration to assess. – Isn’t it wrong if people who have done nothing criminal are nevertheless punished for it? – They have been driving under the influence of drugs as defined by the legislature. Where it has been decided that you should have a rule that does not allow it to be decisive whether you have been specifically influenced, but instead links the criminality to a general limit that is the same for everyone, says Kyhring to news.
ttn-69
– Many have experienced being judged – news Norway – Overview of news from various parts of the country
