Cannabis legalization is progressing, but many questions remain unanswered, such as the rules governing driving © Jörg Carstensen/picture alliane//Imagebroker/Imago (Imago)
Should there be relaxed rules when driving after cannabis legalization? The CDU/CSU and the traffic light are arguing anyway – but even science experts disagree.
Berlin – After two beers, a grown man can legally get behind the wheel. As a rule, the limit of 0.5 per mille has not yet been reached. If he abstains from alcohol and instead smoked a joint a day ago, it's his turn. That's what the current law wants. The traffic light is thinking aloud about new rules – but almost completely excludes the topic from the previous draft law. This is also because scientific findings are scarce and even the experts of the Limit Commission disagree, as Merkur research shows.
A joint has a more individual effect than a bottle of beer, and the detectability of cannabis and alcohol also differs. The hemp active ingredient THC is usually only broken down from the body after one to three days. The feeling of being high is already gone, consumers feel fit to drive. This is irrelevant for the drug test. The limit of 1.0 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood serum currently applies here. In the course of Health Minister Karl Lauterbach's legalization plans, there are discussions about a higher value. So it's about the central question of whether you are already fit to drive - although the hemp active ingredient THC can still be detected in the blood.
Disunited Cannabis Threshold Commission: "There is no scientific evidence"
Cannabis and road traffic are only dealt with sporadically in a current version of the bill. The previous regulations are to be "evaluated", it says. There is a lack of concrete information as to whether and, if so, how the current limit value should be adjusted. The paper is available to our editors. Since it is still in the process of being coordinated within the government, this may still change. According to the Ministry of Health, "expert committees" are to be involved in the decision. What do the experts say?
This is likely to refer above all to the Limit Commission (GWK): an advisory body for the Federal Government that set the previous limit value in 2002. 20 years later, the group is discussing a possible adaptation. So far, however, the ten members – mostly forensic scientists – have not been able to agree on a THC limit.
The Munich forensic pathologist Matthias Graw warns against higher limits and tells our editors: "There is no scientific evidence that this does not endanger road safety." Cannabis consumption affects ten percent of the population, road safety 100 percent. An increase in the limit would mainly benefit people who consume a lot. "In other words, those that are considered fundamentally unfit to drive."
GWK member Volker Auwärter sees it completely differently. He is head of the Forensic Toxicology laboratory in Freiburg and can imagine an adaptation to 3.5 nanograms. "From a road safety perspective, I don't think there are any comprehensible reasons why a 'zero tolerance' should apply to cannabis, while a risk limit is used for alcohol," says Auwärter. The scientific consensus is that the risk of causing an accident under the influence of cannabis is between 0.1 and 0.5 per thousand in the range of risk with "moderate alcoholization". He published his findings together with other members of the Limit Commission, including GWK boss Stefan Tönnes.
GWK member Frank Mußhoff on the legal situation
In 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that an abstract dangerous offence can be considered possible from a THC value in serum of 1 ng/ml. The aim is to increase road safety (protection of important legal interests such as life, health and property of road users). This is "only" precluded by the general freedom of action of Art. 2.1 of the Basic Law, which tends to be given less weight in relation to the common good.
Cannabis dilemma around studies: "You would have to make people dependent"
Last year, the German Traffic Court Conference concluded that the limit value is so strict "that it allows the detection of cannabis use, but does not necessarily allow a conclusion to be drawn about a road safety-relevant effect." Siegfried Brockmann, head of accident research at the insurers, therefore sees the current rules as a "ban through the back door". Cannabis consumption and vehicle ownership are de facto mutually exclusive. A slight adjustment to three nanograms is conceivable, although Brockmann finds the current limit just as justifiable from the point of view of accident protection. Because: "There is no valid study according to which we can say at what level it is dangerous to traffic."
0
Also Read
Fighting in the Ukraine war takes its toll: Numerous soldiers die near Bakhmut - Kyiv relies on counterattacks
READ
"Patriot" damaged in Ukraine - because of blogger information: secret service shows repentance video
READ
Turnaround in Ukraine war: Biden gives green light for fighter jet training
READ
Russia reports first attacks with new "Storm Shadows" from Ukraine
READ
Ukraine suffers heavy attacks from Russia – were there gaps in air defense?
READ
Fancy a voyage of discovery?
My Area
Why is it so difficult to achieve uniform scientific knowledge? GWK member Thomas Daldrup wrote in a journal: "The available data is not sufficient to define limit values on the basis of scientific findings." Or as another member says in an interview with the Münchner Merkur: "You would have to make people addicted to cannabis in order to have good comparative values." This is ethically untenable and the increase in the THC limit as a whole is a political decision, not a scientific one.
Last year there were talks between the GWK and the federal government, but since then there has been little contact. So far, the group does not seem to be involved in the current legislative process, as GWK members tell our editorial team. The GWK would have learned about the current draft law from the media. The Limit Commission is subordinate to the Ministry of Transport. The house of FDP Minister Volker Wissing said on request that the findings of the GWK would be "adequately taken into account". The decision was made "on a scientific basis". But this basis seems to be missing at the moment.
Cannabis limit: traffic light politicians call for significant adjustment
The topic is also on the agenda in the Bundestag. In the respective committees, it is mainly members of the Union who are at loggerheads with the legalization architects of the traffic light. "No driving under the influence of cannabis," CSU health politician Stephan Pilsinger told the Münchner Merkur. "Just because a substance is available with impunity does not automatically make it harmless."
Proponents of legalization such as Green Party politician Lukas Benner see it differently. He is responsible for road traffic law in the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag and, on request, brings an adjustment to 5 nanograms into play. "If you're not intoxicated, you shouldn't be punished." Traffic light colleague Kristine Lütke, drug policy spokeswoman for the FDP, cites three to four nanograms as a starting point. "This is not only justifiable, but sensible." In some cases, even higher values were once demanded by the Left. Like the CDU/CSU, the AfD categorically rejects cannabis legalization.
As long as the federal government cannot agree on a new limit, the current law will remain. Even with low THC levels, the authorities have so far been able to order a medical-psychological examination (MPU). The exam, known as the "idiot test", is more difficult than expected and costs several hundred euros on top of that. Florian, 26 and a student from Bavaria, has already made the acquaintance of the MPU. He used cannabis at a festival and drove home a day later. Already the evening before departure, he had not consumed anything more. He was stopped by the police. Drug test positive, driver's license gone. (as)
