About Philip Drum, Pharm, D., FCSHP:

Philip Drum received his doctorate in Pharmacy from the University of California – San Francisco. He is a licensed pharmacist for 31 years who has had a wide range of experiences – from community pharmacy practice, a residency in Hospital Pharmacy, practice as a hospital-based Oncology pharmacist, Pharmacy Administration work as a Clinical Coordinator and later a Regional Manager and leader of regional pharmacy training and patient safety programs. He has been active in Pharmacy Associations and has spoken state-wide and nationally on various pharmaceutical topics. As a result of a family tragedy, he has been active in research on driving and marijuana and educating the public over the dangers of marijuana in society.

WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY:

Cartelville, USA: Americans flee as Cartels take over small town California    CLICK HERE TO VIEW  

Note: The video documentary is not viewable for unknown reasons? The article is scary information.

The threat of cartels can be felt and seen in one part of America more than ever before: Southern California. Small towns in the area have been overrun by gang activity, causing residents to flee. The Daily Caller's investigative team went in the trenches to find out how dangerous the cartels are and why Southern California seems to be a new target. Reporting and Host Jorge Ventura Story and Lead Production Sagnik Basu Drone and Photography Erik Herrera Executive Producer Neil Patel, Richard McGinniss, Sean Moody

The CA State Legislature have had this report since January 2021 (it was as a result of SB 94 and Prop 64) .... the task force worked on these recommendations from 2017 - 2020

It has only been 25 years since medical marijuana people started driving on our roadways and there are probably at least 3 people dying per day from a marijuana-impaired driver in California ....

(Note: Someone at the CHP CHANGED the word "shall" (meaning MUST do something) to "should" .... AND someone removed the timelines for when the recommendations shall be accomplished) 

• 1) that ALL of these recommendations become "SHALL",
• 2) laws be written, and
• 3) there be a 2 years time frame for ALL to be implemented.
   

• 1. The state should track all driving under the influence (DUI) and driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) toxicology outcomes from all laboratories, including the number of samples submitted, the number of samples tested, and all sample results.
• 2. The state should track all DUI and DUID arrest outcomes, including case filing charges, diversion outcomes, plea agreements, trial outcomes, and the final case disposition.
• 3. The state should track all DUI and DUID involved crashes.
• 4. The state should analyze all collected DUI and DUID data for the purposes of developing better methods to screen for and prevent DUI
  and DUID. The data used in the analysis should be published in an annual statewide report and guide the future direction of DUI policy
  decisions.

• 1. The state should provide responsible sales and consumption practices training to all cannabis retailers, cannabis consumption lounges, event organizers, license holders, and home delivery services, similar to responsible alcohol beverage service/sales training.
• 2. The state should provide guidelines for advertisers displaying cannabis related products which includes the legal consumption age for
  cannabis, and information related to the risks of impaired driving.
• 3. The state should require cannabis retailers, cannabis consumption lounges, cannabis event organizers, cannabis license holders, and
  cannabis delivery services to provide educational information to consumers, which could include pamphlets, posters, digital messaging,
  and/or other appropriate mediums related to the responsible use of cannabis and other drugs. Messaging should include:

a. Warnings regarding the dangers of impaired driving, the risks of underage cannabis use, and possible risks associated with
polysubstance use.
b. Cannabis consumption sites should provide information regarding locally available alternate transportation to all consumers.
 

• 4. The state should provide age appropriate education for youth and adults on the effects of the use of cannabis, and impact of impaired
  driving.
• 5. The state should expand training opportunities related to impaired driving for the legal and judiciary system, including:
  
  a. Within two years of being appointed and annually thereafter, all Criminal Justice Officers (judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors) should receive training which covers addiction, drug abuse, behavior modification, factors contributing to impairment,
  and bias in arrest/prosecution.
   
• 6. The state should provide training to persons working in the medical and pharmacy fields regarding the dangers of impaired driving by alcohol, cannabis, prescription drugs, and impairing over the counter (OTC) drugs.
• 7. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) should require traffic schools to add information related to the dangers of cannabis
  and drug impairment to their curriculum and include a victim impact panel component with their courses
   

• 1. The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) should require Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) training (16 hours) be taught in all law enforcement academies in California.
• 2. All law enforcement personnel assigned to traffic enforcement responsibilities should receive Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training within one year of being assigned, and bi-annual continuing education related to impaired driving.
• 3. The CHP and the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) should make all efforts to increase the number of Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) trained officers statewide by four percent over the next five years. (NOTE: This recommendation was CHANGED from the Committee's recommendation of increasing "4% PER YEAR" over the next five years)
• 4. An officer certified as a DRE should receive incentive pay during the time the officer remains certified.
• 5. Law enforcement should use the best available roadside presumptive screening device and confirmatory tests in the most expedient manner for possible drug and alcohol impaired driving investigations.
• 6. Law enforcement should encourage the use of mobile video/audio recording devices and body worn cameras to record/capture
  impaired driving incidents and investigations, whenever practical.
• 7. Oral fluid and breath analytical devices are being developed. These devices should be studied by law enforcement, crime laboratories,
  and academics to gauge their ability to assist officers with detecting impaired drivers. Additionally, further studies should be conducted to
  determine if oral fluid is a suitable medium for collection of a chemical test sample pursuant to CVC Section 23612.

• 1. The state should provide additional funding to state and local government crime laboratories conducting forensic toxicology to purchase more efficient and sensitive testing equipment and to provide funding for personnel to conduct forensic toxicology testing. 
• 2. The state should establish well defined evidence collection procedures for DUID, similar to the procedures found in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 17, relating to alcohol.
• 3. Crime laboratories conducting forensic toxicology testing should test blood samples for alcohol and all Tier I compounds, in at least one
  recommended matrix, at the prescribed threshold concentrations, for both screening and confirmation testing.
• 4. If blood is going to be collected as part of a DUI or DUID investigation, it should be collected as soon as possible after the arrest, and should include an extended drug panel, with confirmatory and quantitative high-performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry or gas chromatography–mass spectrometry used to confirm positive results.
• 5. Crime laboratories conducting forensic toxicology testing should continue to evaluate National Safety Council recommendations
  related to forensic toxicology testing and when new standards are recommended, laboratories should strive to implement those
  recommendations.
• 6. Drugs affect people differently depending on the type of drug consumed, a person’s tolerance, the method of ingestion, and other
  factors. As such, a per se limit for drugs, other than ethanol, should not be enacted at this time. However, the state should continue to
  advance research in this area in the event science finds it can establish drug per se limits
   

• 1. The state should continue to fund impaired driving research projects for the purposes of learning new information related to how best to detect and test DUI and DUID drivers.
• 2. New DUI and DUID research studies should consider key issues including the time elapsed since the substance use: the method of
  administration; dosage; and most importantly, how test results relate to impaired driving including the best methods to identify impaired
  drivers.
• 3. Behavioral, physiological, and chemical testing research should address issues of validity and reliability, performance under various
  environmental conditions, and follow best practices for test development as established by relevant academic and/or professional entities.

• 1. The state should require coroners and medical examiners to perform drug and alcohol testing for all fatally injured drivers, passengers, and pedestrians involved in traffic crashes. The results should continue to be reported to the CHP.
• 2. Law enforcement agencies with traffic enforcement responsibilities should develop and implement law enforcement phlebotomy
  programs for the purposes of securing timely blood samples and preserving evidence of impairment.
• 3. Codify the use of oral fluid drug screening devices making them analogs to preliminary alcohol screening devices used for roadside
  screening, refer to CVC Section 23612(h) and 23612(i) for additional information.
• 4. The state should establish an ongoing Impaired Driving Working Group, headed by the California OTS, which should include the CHP,
  California Department of Justice (DOJ), California DMV, and others as determined by the California OTS, for the purposes of improving
  processes, identifying areas of need, and highlighting funding priorities for the California OTS and the CHP’s respective grant programs.