Driving while stoned

[desert dude]

This issue is a big one for legalization. I think it can be solved, but you can expect the anti-legalization propaganda machine to beat this issue to death.

Personally, while I agree that driving drunk on alcohol is MUCH worse than driving stoned, I think stoned drivers ought to be arrested on DUI charges just like their boozing buddies.

http://news.yahoo.com/stoned-driving-epidemic-puts-wrinkle-pot-debate-140128819.html

 

[TruenoAE86coupe]

But based on current testing methods you would be found just as guilty as the stoned person if you are tested.

 

[420God]

~~~> http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

~~~> http://marijuanaevaluations.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/study-marijuana-doesnt-affect-driving-performance/

Lots of studies that say it doesn't impair driving enough and for those it does they are aware of this and over compensate.

 

[desert dude]

But based on current testing methods you would be found just as guilty as the stoned person if you are tested.

I know, and that is the big problem: How does law enforcement test for current intoxication?

If cannabis is ever to be legalized, the general public has to buy into the idea and vote for it. If the general public believes that carnage on the highways is the likely outcome of cannabis legalization, they will vote against it.

 

[berkman858]

I think that if we all want marijuana legalized, at least I know I do, we have to be prepared to deal with certain restrictions and guidelines when driving, just like when drinking. I think that drinking and driving is usually worse than smoking and driving but I know there have been times when I should not have driven because I was too high. I don't know exactly what technology will be used or invented to do real-time time impairment testing, but I think a field sobriety test could suffice until said technology is ready. I know field sobriety tests are not 100% fool proof and have to be backed up by either a blood or breathalyzer test, but at least they could tell if someone was so stoned they couldn't concentrate or stop laughing, etc. Just my two cents, but I am ready to deal with these things if it is legalized.

 

[TruenoAE86coupe]

Well we (Colorado) and Washington are putting that to the test this election year!!!
Can't wait to see the propaganda on this one!

 

[desert dude]

I think that if we all want marijuana legalized, at least I know I do, we have to be prepared to deal with certain restrictions and guidelines when driving, just like when drinking. I think that drinking and driving is usually worse than smoking and driving but I know there have been times when I should not have driven because I was too high. I don't know exactly what technology will be used or invented to do real-time time impairment testing, but I think a field sobriety test could suffice until said technology is ready. I know field sobriety tests are not 100% fool proof and have to be backed up by either a blood or breathalyzer test, but at least they could tell if someone was so stoned they couldn't concentrate or stop laughing, etc. Just my two cents, but I am ready to deal with these things if it is legalized.

I agree with you on this, 100%.

Driving under the influence of cannabis should not be tolerated any more than driving under the influence of alcohol. According to the Yahoo article I posted, a mouth swab test for current intoxication is close to being effective.

 

[TruenoAE86coupe]

Dr. Marilyn Huestis of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a government research lab, says that soon there will be a saliva test to detect recent marijuana use.

"Recent marijuana use" hardly sounds close to being effective to me. How long ago is "Recent use" and what is acceptable? And you obviously smoke, but are so against smoking and driving, so how long do you wait? Is it different if you are smoking with (or before) a meal (like so many drinkers claim)?
I still feel that me at the most stoned i could possibly be am still a much more capable driver than a person who is at the .08 legal limit.

 

[420God]

I've been pulled over at my highest and the cop didn't even question me about it.

Make a law and that will change for every driver they think they can ticket.

 

[desert dude]

"Recent marijuana use" hardly sounds close to being effective to me. How long ago is "Recent use" and what is acceptable? And you obviously smoke, but are so against smoking and driving, so how long do you wait? Is it different if you are smoking with (or before) a meal (like so many drinkers claim)?
I still feel that me at the most stoned i could possibly be am still a much more capable driver than a person who is at the .08 legal limit.

Actually, I don't use, buy, sell or grow cannabis at all. My interest in the matter is to end the drug war.

Just as Berkman said above, there will have to be some restrictions on driving under the influence. This is a PR issue with the general public. Legalization will never happen without the buy-in of the general public.

 

[desert dude]

I've been pulled over at my highest and the cop didn't even question me about it.

Make a law and that will change for every driver they think they can ticket.

There is already a law. You can be arrested and convicted for DUI for driving stoned.

 

[420God]

There is already a law. You can be arrested and convicted for DUI for driving stoned.

It's not so easy right now, they have to prove you were impaired.

Saying anybody that has THC in there system is fucked up is different.

 

[desert dude]

It's not so easy right now, they have to prove you were impaired.

Saying anybody that has THC in there system is fucked up is different.

I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. The cops have to have probable cause to charge you with DUI. You are under no obligation to take a "field sobriety test", for example, if there is no indication of impairment. If the cop does have probable cause (smells alcohol on your breath, slurred speech, etc), then you MUST submit to a blood alcohol test (breath test, or blood test, your choice) and you must be charged before you are tested.

I think all the same rules apply with cannabis. So, if you offer no probable cause then you will not be charged and you cannot be forced to allow a blood test.

If you want cannabis to be legalized, then you better get used to the idea of DUI laws applying to pot smokers.

 

[berkman858]

If you want cannabis to be legalized, then you better get used to the idea of DUI laws applying to pot smokers.

I agree. It may be hard to get used to at first but there has to be an agreement between marijuana smokers and society that we will use responsibly. If not, we will suffer the consequences, just like if we were caught driving under the influence of alcohol or prescription drugs (nasty shit, and worse than alcohol a lot of the time, personal experience here).

At the same time we should have rights as marijuana users, just like alcohol and prescription drug users, to use our medicine responsibly and this should fall on the individual user. There are people out there who will use irresponsibly and if there isn't a counter action to that then we will all be looked at as a great risk to the rest of the people on the road.

 

[mindphuk]

I know, and that is the big problem: How does law enforcement test for current intoxication?

If cannabis is ever to be legalized, the general public has to buy into the idea and vote for it. If the general public believes that carnage on the highways is the likely outcome of cannabis legalization, they will vote against it.

I agree that this is an issue for some but I believe that it is more of a red-herring by the anti-pot crowd. Driving while intoxicated by prescription meds is also illegal and not easy to test for, but that doesn't make people want to ban xanax or hydrocodone and those medication are taken for recreational reasons as well. This is the problem the anti-legalization activists have to overcome, their inherent and blatant double standards. Their only recourse is their fall back position that it is already illegal and appeal to popularity, a position in which they are steadily losing ground.

 

[desert dude]

I agree that this is an issue for some but I believe that it is more of a red-herring by the anti-pot crowd. Driving while intoxicated by prescription meds is also illegal and not easy to test for, but that doesn't make people want to ban xanax or hydrocodone and those medication are taken for recreational reasons as well. This is the problem the anti-legalization activists have to overcome, their inherent and blatant double standards. Their only recourse is their fall back position that it is already illegal and appeal to popularity, a position in which they are steadily losing ground.

True.

The legalization effort needs to emphasize that it is currently illegal to drive under the influence of cannabis and that is not going to change. We can't let the anti-freedom thugs get away with the claim that there will be Armageddon on the roads if cannabis is legalized.

We cannot win the PR war by claiming that cannabis does not impair judgment, reflexes, etc. First of all, it is not true, and second it makes this an us against them fight. We need ordinary citizens who have no interest in cannabis willing to join us in voting to legalize because it is the smart, humane thing to do.

 

[Ilovebush]

Hey, I am all for punishment if caught driving impaired on anything. The truth is I know many people who take so many meds which make them vegetables and yet they drive. How is it that pot is public enemy #1 yet the pharmaceuticals are not pursued? How can someone with 'a mental condition' hopped up on tranquilizers still retain a license yet someone who smokes pot is automatically a liability? This system is so flawed by ignorance/corruption that it seems nobody wants address the real problem.

 

[Equinox911]

My local POLICE department has three officers that have been trained to test people for being under the influence of drugs and if you fail their drug test they can legally have blood drawn from you for confirmation and charge you similar to DUI!

 

[Jack Harer]

I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. The cops have to have probable cause to charge you with DUI. You are under no obligation to take a "field sobriety test", for example, if there is no indication of impairment. If the cop does have probable cause (smells alcohol on your breath, slurred speech, etc), then you MUST submit to a blood alcohol test (breath test, or blood test, your choice) and you must be charged before you are tested.

I think all the same rules apply with cannabis. So, if you offer no probable cause then you will not be charged and you cannot be forced to allow a blood test.

If you want cannabis to be legalized, then you better get used to the idea of DUI laws applying to pot smokers.

Under the implied consent rule in effect in almost every state, you are most certainly required to submit to field sobriety testing or face automatic suspension of your licence for refusal. And in many instances, even though refusal does not mean admitting guilt, the courts take it as a "No Contest", and find you guilty of driving impaired if the cop says he suspects it.

The problem with current testing methods is that they do not actually determine THC levels. Testing for MJ use involves detecting the metabolytes of THC, and not the THC itself. If the scientific community could set a standard for how long the metabolic process takes, and put a timeline on each phase, we could determine recent use (within a couple hours) from use that occurred a week ago.

 

[desert dude]

Under the implied consent rule in effect in almost every state, you are most certainly required to submit to field sobriety testing or face automatic suspension of your licence for refusal. And in many instances, even though refusal does not mean admitting guilt, the courts take it as a "No Contest", and find you guilty of driving impaired if the cop says he suspects it.

The problem with current testing methods is that they do not actually determine THC levels. Testing for MJ use involves detecting the metabolytes of THC, and not the THC itself. If the scientific community could set a standard for how long the metabolic process takes, and put a timeline on each phase, we could determine recent use (within a couple hours) from use that occurred a week ago.

I am pretty sure you are wrong about the mandatory nature of the field sobriety test:

"
Motorists suspected of DUI / DWI are routinely asked by police officers to perform one or more field sobriety exercises. These voluntary "tests" (yes, voluntary) were developed by police agencies to assist law enforcement officers in making roadside determinations as to whether a motorist is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Through the performance of these tests or evaluations, the officer subjectively determines how the motorist reacts to and performs the requested tasks.

Almost EVERY knowledgeable DUI / DWI attorney will say to you, "NO. Don't attempt ANY 'field tests'---EVER." That is because many studies have concluded that the SFSTs are "designed to fail".

http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/field-sobriety-evaluations-or-tests.htm

I agree with you about the metabolite point, but I am not sure if a metabolite test could ever be reliable in determining current intoxication.