While I was otherwise occupied on April 29, the State Senate Public Safety Committee refused to pass Sen. Correa’s “zero-tolerance” drug DUI bill, SB 289, about which Vern had written previously and I had sponsored a resolution with the Democratic Party of Orange County (a process about which I decided not to write here, as I’ve been provocative enough in other ways.) Correa’s bill would have criminalized driving with any amount of illegal drugs in one’s bloodstream, regardless of whether one was actually impaired — which was especially a problem in the case of marijuana, in which the blood metabolites can far outlast — like, by a month — any impairment.
I don’t recall exactly why I created this graphic to begin with, but — can it illustrate driving while impaired? Sure! Why not? (We don’t know what that smoke coming out of the stack is.)
Well, while I was out, the verdict from the committee came in. The committee firmly rejected Correa’s “zero-tolerance” approach, although rather than sending Correa away empty-handed Committee Chair Lori Hancock did say that he could try to amend and resubmit it.
I’ll quote a length a news report from “CA NORML,” our state’s branch of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, below, but I have a question first.
Correa’s “friends” let him go ahead with this bill, including blocking (on what I’ll call questionable grounds) the resolution I tried to offer. They won — though in part because I had to be absent from the Central Committee meeting where I could have brought the resolution directly to the floor. I was depicted as Correa’s “enemy” during this process — for trying to keep him from offering a truly bad (and even embarrassing) bill in its then-current form.
My question is this: who was helping Correa and who was hurting him? (I’ll put aside the question of who was helping the Democratic Party overall, which got saddled with support of this resolution in a sort of “contact high,” which is of course what we members of the Central Committee are actually there to do.) Yes, Correa gets some benefit, I suppose, for doing the bidding of the private prison industry (who want more “paying customers”) and the prison guards’ union (who want more jobs.) But surely there are ways to do it — such as simply exempting marijuana from the bill because the technology doesn’t allow it to work properly — that don’t end up with his looking like — like — well, let’s cut to that report on the committee deliberations and see.
Sen. Correa introduced the bill by saying he had received a call from former Sen. Vasconcellos, a medical cannabis user, who complained, “You’re trying to make me a criminal.” Sen. Correa disingenuously denied any such intent while failing utterly to address the truth of Sen. Vasconcellos’ remarks. Instead, he said the bill was intended to address the dangers of drugged driving. He went on to claim falsely, “You can’t drink and drive,” overlooking the fact that in fact it is entirely legal to drink alcohol and drive in California so long as one stays under the limit.
The Correa bill was co-sponsored by the CNOA, the Police Chiefs and State Sheriffs, with
strong support from other law enforcement groups from Riverside, Los Angeles, Alameda and Orange County. An Alameda Co. Sheriffs Deputy whose son had been killed in an accident testified that the culprit had been acquitted by a jury, even though he had used marijuana. He complained that some jurors seemed disinclined to convict drivers for marijuana DUIs. (However, he also testified that the evidence showed the driver had smoked six hours before the accident, which is longer than the impairment time reported in scientific studies of marijuana – a fact not mentioned at the hearings.)Marijuana advocates turned out in force to oppose the bill, which generated over 2,000 opposing emails on NORML’s website. NORML National Legal Committee attorney Okorie Okorocha and DUI attorney Michael J. Kennedy testified to the scientific fallacy of the bill, noting that it would implicate countless innocent drivers with harmless amounts of substances in their blood.
I don’t think that Correa’s friends did him any favors here by not giving him straight feedback on his bill. I think what they did was to allow him to — and our party by extension — to look stupid and wrongheaded. (Note: the party is neither of these; I don’t recall a single person I spoke to agreeing with the bill on substance, as opposed to simply wanting to defer to the wishes of one of our elected officials.)
The relationship between “electeds” and the Democratic Party of Orange County is a fairly big topic of discussion nowadays. Should the party be their instrument? Or should it be an instrument of the “grassroots,” even if it means sometimes going against our electeds? (I’m of the latter camp, but I’ll grant the former camp one thing: it’s a lot easier to know what the electeds want than to know what the grassroots want, because anyone can claim to speak for the grassroots. On the other hand, that’s it’s somewhat difficult to determine what the grassroots want does not mean that it’s impossible — or that it’s anything less than seriously worthwhile.)
I don’t think that we Democrats helped our party by not standing strong against this proposed legislation. More to the point, I think that we can best raise money from the grassroots — small contributions from many people — when we stand for something. In many instances, we’ve been doing a great job of that this year — the Anaheim Districting resolution being the most notable example. But the story of SB 289 should be a reminder than when we just give in to any foolish notion that groups that aren’t even reliable parts of the Democratic Party coalition convince one elected Democrat to endorse, we not only aren’t helping the party, but we’re not even helping the person proposing the legislation.
I’m not likely to support Lou Correa in many primary contests (though it’s not impossible by any means — I do appreciate his support, for example, of the DISCLOSE Act), but in trying to stop him from pushing this legislation, I think that I was helping him by telling the truth. I think that his friends, who supported him uncritically even to the possible detriment of our party, let him down — and I’m sad to see it. Maybe, if we’d been forthright with Correa, we could have talked him out of it.
Greg, a couple of points to clarify. First, the committee chair didnt allow the bill to be debated so it wasnt not passed. It didnt even get a hearing. Second the bill makes criminal any traceable amounts of drugs in the system of a certain schedule which would include xanax or opiates. But if you have a LEGAL prescription for those drugs, you are not culpable in a dui. This is the main point of contention. because if you are impaired by Rx drugs and get into an accident with injuries, you are acquitted if you have a legal prescription. As you know you can only get a recommendation for cannabis. No legal rx is possible.
Correas “friends and Correa himself know this. He wanst lead by the nose into a trap. He went along willingly and even took point in that effort because he absolutely opposed to cannabis being used in any form. He is a drug war enthusiast.He is a promoter of mass incarceration and prison for profit. he believes in that shit.
Again you speculate that Lou Correa did this in blind faith to the proponents of this bill, in good faith that is was a right and moral thing to do to address the scourge of drugged drivers on our roads. But the fact is, you cannot demonstrate that this scourge is the result of cannabis impairment. In fact, you can only demonstrate that this scourge is the result of Prescription drugs impairment. The net effect of this bill, by allowing those drivers who are impaired by LEGAL prescription medication, should they have a current legal prescription allows the continued and even worsening of drugged drivers by allowing them to be determined not guilty f the have a LEGAL Prescription for which you cannot obtain for cannabis makes this a direct attack on cannabis and throws gas on the fire of drugged drivers impaired by opiates or benzo-diazipams. You claim that Lou Correa is basically stupid. I assure you he is not. He is a cold blooded calculated misfit of epic proportions who wishes to do nothing but cause mayhem resulting in the increased imprisonment of cannabis users because of his fucked up view on cannabis. He is willing to allow drugged drivers of Rx impairment off the hook in order to get more pot heads in jail for his handlers in the prison industry.
Lou Correa is a repeat offender of bad legislation and actions that favor the corporate elites and tramples on the the individual and vulnerable of our society for the benefit of his corporate and LEO masters. He has gained multiple enemies as this is the final straw. he will be brutally attacked beginning now by Democrats. Not Republicans. Democrats who are sick and tired of his bullshit circus act of doing shit like this and trying to make good on it by doing shit like the disclose act which we could have easily gotten without his help. Dont be fooled or lulled into a fog by this disclose act BS.
Thanks for the comment Paul. (Note: I have not paid Paul any consideration in order to make me look for moderate re Sen. Correa; it just turned out that way.) While I agree with much of your comment, I have to disagree with some of what you say — and to not endorse other parts because I don’t have the basis for a firm opinion.
To start at the bottom: Correa, as Committee Chair, *could* have killed the DISCLOSE Act had he chose to do so — and he didn’t. So we did need his help. My muted complaint is that I prefer an advocate about whose support in such a situation would be an obvious given rather than something to worry about — but at least he did come through.
I think we differ over what the main problem was with SB 289 was. I acknowledge the problem with MMJ prescriptions not being legal under federal law, and therefore not falling into the exclusion you mention, but I think that that’s secondary. For me, the main problem was arresting people for driving under impairment when science tells us that they’re not actually impaired. If both the psychological impairment and blood test evidence of marijuana both lasted exactly two hours, there wouldn’t be much of a problem with the prescription part of the bill: so far as this law us concerned, they would only find out that you had used marijuana (medical or otherwise) if you tested positive for it — and if you tested positive for it under the scenario I offer, then you really *shouldn’t* have been driving, even if you had a scrip, because you *were* impaired.
I don’t know why you think I’m saying that Correa is (to paraphrase you) an idiot who was duped by the interests he supported, as opposed to a true believer in Prohibition. I don’t really have any way of knowing; for this piece of writing, it doesn’t much matter. My concern here is not that Correa was wrong about the science or the policy, though I think he was wrong about both. It’s that he was wrong about the POLITICS. That’s where his friends let him down. It should have been obvious to most active Democrats that Correa was going to make himself look like an idiot here. I did not and still do not understand why we somehow failed to tell him, firmly and bluntly, “don’t do this, Lou.” He needed to hear it.
Greg you havent been arou0nd for long ok so Im gonna let you have a pass on this one. Lou Correa is Notorious for doing shit like this when it flies in the face of all tings Democratic, and progressive values.This isnt the first time hes dont someth9ng like this.
he does things like htis a few times a year and he always placates the eopple with softball safe measures such as the disclosure act non sense. Thats how he keeps getting shots at issues like SB 289.
He is far from stupid. He did not get duped or get misinformed or under informed. he was fully aware of the implications of SB 289. he states right in the press conference that a bunch of people are going to be opposed to this. He did it on purpose because there are so many of the Greg Diamonds out there that think he got misinformed yada yada yada.
Stick around due you’ll realize this guy is a POS and hes only a Dem because of the district he represents which would never elect a Republican. Why do you think he so often draws the ire of Democrats to the applause of Republicans. Do some research please before you give this monster a pass.
Paul, let’s stick to the issue. (And I arrived here a month after Correa won his Senate seat.) The issue is not whether Lou Correa is awful — or, for that matter, offal. It’s not whether he throws sops to liberals so he can often toe a conservative (by the party’s standards) line, although I don’t know if anyone really disputes that. It’s whether he thought, wrongly, that SB 289 was “good politics” — and, as a subsidiary matter, whether Party Democrats should have done more to set him straight on that.
He pretty much has to have thought that it was good politics, or he wouldn’t have done it. Maybe he was just currying favor with donors, maybe he was acting out of true belief; I don’t know and I can’t prove that either is true. He was, I think, wrong about that. This was terrible politics — not just for the Democratic Party (which is why we should have responded to it openly rather than waiting for it to fizzle out on its own) but but for him. Are his donors — sheriffs, prison guards, private prison vendors — happy with how this has turned out? They look a bit like saps as well. Are they pleased with how Correa fought this fight “on their behalf”?
As to whether the DISCLOSE Act is nonsense, I’ll just make two observations:
(1) While I favored doing both, I think that stopping SB 289 (the DUI bill) was more important than passing SB 52 (the DISCLOSE Act), largely because I expect that ways to evade the latter will be found.
(2) From what I can tell, mine was a minority opinion within the county party, across most of the political spectrum.
I’m not interested in publicly slagging Correa for his politics in general; I slag him in specific instances when think I need to make a point about a particular issue position. Beyond that, it just becomes self-indulgent.
what press conference and lack of or made up history of Lou Correa are you referring to. You are still a newbie when it comes to Lou Correa. First of all rewatch the presser he had about this bill. He clearly states and thus he knows he was gonna catch hell for this bill. he wasnt under any impression about how bad or god this bill was politically. This is not the first time hes tried taking a hatchet to our rights under state law regarding medic l marijuana. hes an asshole and always has been an asshole. Hes a republican and always has been and always been in a Democratic district.
The main reason we didnt don anything about it at the DPOC level was because you couldnt sit down and get to work on it you had to go on and on and on and on and on and on again about the minutae over language etc. I swear its like you love to hear yourself talk man. Just let things get done and keep your 98 cents to yourself about minutae as we move to censure this blowhard man.
Correa is NOT in any manner a “republican” – since GHWB republicans do not pledge to not raise taxes and then vote to do otherwise.
First paragraph: so you take what Correa says about the consequences of his introducing the bill at face value? How precious.
Second paragraph: you were not at the E-Board meeting where I proposed the actual resolution, Paul, so you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. Beyond that, “we” (if by that you mean the DPOC) are not going to censure Correa over this (or probably over anything, deserved or not) — and if you don’t get that you’re not helping.
Good, now State Senator Correa can turn his attention to the dangerous side effects of FDA approved psychiatric drugs.
http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers
“1) There are no medical or scientific tests that can prove mental disorders are medical conditions. Psychiatric diagnosis is based solely on opinion. Unlike medical disease, where tests can verify the existence of a medical condition (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc) psychiatric diagnosis are based solely on checklists of behaviors, not any medical tests…”
http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-disorders/
“There is overwhelming evidence that psychiatric drugs cause violence: 22 International drug regulatory warnings cite violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis and even homicidal ideation as side effects. School shootings and/or school-related acts of violence committed by individuals under the influence of such drugs have resulted in 162 wounded and 72 killed.”
http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/
Correct twice a day, our LaRouchie broken clock!
Actually Vern, there does seem to be mounting evidence that supports the claim that these classes of drugs can cause very real problems in some who take them.
I was agreeing with our LaRouchie friend – saying that twice a day he’s right, and this is one of those times.
Sorry my liberal buddies are ganging up on you on the other story, but you’re a big tough guy and you can take it!
Some folks just ain’t got no manners!
I thought you agreed but wasn’t sure, it can be a huge issue.
if we had more elected officials like lou, both democrat and republican, more would get done and the people would be better served. lou votes his principles and serves his community
I’m going to lock you and Paul Lucas in a room and talk to whichever of you comes out alive.
(Note to Paul: willie is fictional; you’re safe.)
Hey I’m a Conservative and I don’t applaud this fool. You people act like Democrats are for liberty, but California bans everything! Lol You can’t even buy an out of state car because of all the rules. Democrats and some Republicans are hell bent on eliminating liberty don’t act like this is just because he’s from the Hills, we had Democrats trying to ban cigarettes last election. Or at least tax them into obsoleteness
I bought my current car from Arizona. What are you talking about?