I'm curious. If pot were legalized, how could we regulate

[pnwmom]

driving under the influence? A breathalyzer won't work. So how would the police determine fitness to drive? Marijuana can show up in the system for quite a while, can't it?

[lazarus]

1. same way they do it now

Test for reflexes, etc. Driving Under the Influence is both alcohol and drugs.

[pnwmom]

3. Testing for reflexes is a pretty sloppy method compared to how they

can test for alcohol.

Besides, now they can get you for ANY amount of pot. If pot were legalized, would there be some measurable level in a person's system that is acceptable, and how would that be determined?

[mike_c]

13. reflex testing actually addresses the issue of impairment, however....

It's different with alcohol because there are clear legal limits for blood alcohol concentration when driving, and firm relationships between BAC and poor performance, judgment, etc. None of those empirical measures even exist for marijuana at this point.

[pnwmom]

21. Although people with other physical impairments don't get reliable results on

those tests -- and, in the case of alcohol, can opt out of taking them. (While you can't refuse blood alcohol tests without consequences.)

[TransitJohn]

14. Breathalyzers are very sloppy too.

Blood tests show actual BAC, however. Breathalyzers measure degree of refraction of light that is exhaled from the lungs, and assume that all occluded light is alcohol. Very sloppy.

[pnwmom]

22. You're right. Blood alcohol tests are the most accurate.

But how would that work for marijuana?

[MajorChode]

25. It's not sloppy at all

First of all, what you're saying is true only of older breathalyzers. Newer ones don't work that way. Next, even on older models the substances you refer to that might produce a false positive are highly unlikely to be present in the exhaled breath of a suspect. The most common errors are not using the equipment properly, but a breathalyzer is not the sole basis for a conviction anyway.

[Romulox]

77. That's ridiculous--you're arguing that we can't tell people have been smoking, because they drive ok

Even if smoking marijuana really impaired driving skills in any significant way, your argument would be nonsense, since impaired drivers routinely fail field sobriety tests.

[MattBaggins]

143. Then by that logic we have to outlaw

every single medicine known to cause drowsiness or impair reflexes.

[Mojeoux]

26. Studies Show Cronic Pot Smokers Drive Better After Smoking

Also cancer cells are unable to multiply in a marijuana users lungs.

[Motown_Johnny]

46. they follow those tests up with Breathalyzers

[Javaman]

99. I have a better test.

the salivation test.

By waving either a pretzel or a Dorito under the nose, you will see which makes them salivate.

:rofl:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

2. Most likely by smell.

[madokie]

4. Does pot impair ones driving?

It always made me hyper aware

[pnwmom]

10. I have heard that it does. Never tried it myself. n/t

[Beaverhausen]

18. My two cents? Most stoned drivers are going too slow to do any damage to anyone

There are plenty of people out there driving stoned now.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. How slow would a car have to be travelling before rolling over a pedestrian wouldn't do damage

to said pedestrian?

:eyes:

[Romulox]

79. FACT based community, remember? Any evidence that marijuana makes one more likely to hit a ped.?

Didn't think so. :hi:

[cherokeeprogressive]

105. This 30 year pot smoker goes mmmkay...

Since those involved in accidents aren't checked for the presence of marijuana in their system, there is no way to know one way or the other. That's your fact.

The mind doesn't wander while stoned... is that about right? While stoned, I've forgotten little details like turning on headlights, watching for the green light and sitting halfway through the cycle while changing the cassette tape in my stereo, putting the transmission in Park when I actually park the car, and I'll bet that millions of pot smokers have experienced the same thing while behind the wheel stoned, along with a host of other little details.

I'm a pot smoker and I can't and won't even attempt to defend driving in any other condition than stone cold sober. I dare you to defend smoking and driving by some means other than YOU think it's okay and YOUR mind doesn't wander so EVERYONE should be allowed to drive stoned.

[Greyhound]

111. And you've never done any of those things while driving straight?

Myself, I've done them all straight, still doesn't make me a bad driver. In fact it doesn't address the basic questioning of the assumption at all, does it?

[grantcart]

118. ":Doesn't make me a bad driver"

lol

The mind doesn't wander while stoned... is that about right? While stoned, I've forgotten little details like turning on headlights, watching for the green light and sitting halfway through the cycle while changing the cassette tape in my stereo

Doing them straight or stoned these are not attributes of good driving.

80% of Americans believe that they are "above average drivers".

Not me I drive too much get bored and stop paying attention to details. I never have had an accident but I don't kid myself, after 3 or 4 hours in the car my skills decrease and I am below average.

[Greyhound]

119. Well, considering that I've been driving and riding for almost 30 years,

over 10 of them professionally, never been in an accident that was my fault, haven't had a ticket (other than parking, I lived in LA after all), since I was 22 and teach checkbook bikers how to avoid becoming ugly street stains. By every measure, I'm a good driver.

You want to falsely imply otherwise, but you have no argument, now do you?

Edit; After further accounting, I've been riding for over 30 years.

[Romulox]

130. No, rational policy cannot proceed from a "you're trying to tell me?" sort of throw away argument.

You must present scientific (as opposed to anecdotal) evidence of impairment in order for your argument to carry the day. At this point, you haven't even invested the basic minimum mental energy to understand the kind of evidence that would support your claim...

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. That would be an important thing to know, huh? n/t

[Romulox]

131. It's of secondary concern if you are animated by a spirit of neo-Puritanism.

Some of the posters above wouldn't have needed much urging to join the Temperance movement. There is a massive streak of Puritanism in the American DNA to this day.

[TorchTheWitch]

42. pot effects people differently

and it depends on the pot that's used. I could not drive stoned. Depending on the pot, it has different potency. I'd smoked a lot of some that barely did anything, and had just a couple of hits of other pot that I swear by all that is sacred put me on another planet. I never again smoked it anywhere but at home and only with certain people since I never knew from one time to the next how it would effect me, or how much, or for how long. Though there were times when it was hilariously enjoyable and created some of most fond memories, I crashed hard every single time and accomplished absolutely nothing at all during the high every single time (or that hard crash afterwards). It just isn't for me.

I wish most pot smokers would understand that pot does not effect everyone the same way and not the same way each time they smoke it and not the same way depending on where it came from, what type, etc.

And I've always despised the smell.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silent3]

127. I don't know...

...but I definitely want to see a Mythbusters episode where they put this to the test.

[tularetom]

5. I think it inhibits your urge to drive

I have never ever had the slightest interest in driving after using it. I once went skydiving afterwards however.

[TorchTheWitch]

73. it inhibited my urge to move - at all

It should be called the anti-motivator.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. .

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/7/Driving-while-high-339007.html

[RKP5637]

20. +1000, n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

The same way we regulate driving under the influence of tylenol or prozac or tamiflu...

or any other drug that doesn't impair motor skills.

[Soylent Brice]

82. ^^^CORRECT ANSWER^^^

[librechik]

112. +1

[RainDog]

7. there's a saliva test that is supposed to distinguish if someone ingested pot w/i 30 minutes

the way to find them is to see who's sitting through a green light. :)

or going 20mph.

[bamacrat]

153. Ive heard of the saliva test and it should be good. But any test that would show...

this would be hidden so as not to give more reason to legalize. But also most people who smoke pot know how they handle it and know if they could drive or not. My wife cannot, weed makes her well like weed is supposed to. I on the other hand am a functioning smoker I can do anything high I can do sober. It's all about tolerance, some people get sloppy drunk after five or six beers others can drink 10 or 12 before they are drunk so...

[mike_c]

8. on the other hand, marijuana does not impair drivers nearly as bad...

...as alcohol, so there really is less to be concerned about, I think. In most cases of real impairment alcohol is usually the culprit, even when pot is involved too. Not excusing or brushing the issue off, just noting that the same level of paranoia that applies to drinkers generally should not be applied to pot smokers.

[anarch]

89. or as bad as benadryl, for that matter

not that I condone people driving while stoned. but I'm just sayin'

[Dr Morbius]

That brings up an excellent point.

I don't know about breathalyzers, but there is no test to find out if people were drinking a month ago, whereas if you smoked a doobie a month ago you'd probably be detected. A test which shows not whether marijuana was consumed, but how much active THC is in the system would be much fairer.

I'm sure our country could come up with something. If one has THC in the system, it may be detected in exhalations, perhaps.

[Dr Morbius]

9. That brings up an excellent point.

I don't know about breathalyzers, but there is no test to find out if people were drinking a month ago, whereas if you smoked a doobie a month ago you'd probably be detected. A test which shows not whether marijuana was consumed, but how much active THC is in the system would be much fairer.

I'm sure our country could come up with something. If one has THC in the system, it may be detected in exhalations, perhaps.

[hedgehog]

11. How do we do it now? Will that many more people smoke and drive if pot

were legal?

[pnwmom]

12. But now ANY amount of pot in the system would be illegal, because pot is illegal.

Presumably that wouldn't be the case if the laws were changed.

[Naturalist111]

16. My answer to this one has always been "Not everyones driving

skills are at the same level uninfluenced. Hell some people drive like their stoned or drunk when they aren't." A skills test would be the best. Maybe send the accused offender through a slalom test. :-)

[DefenseLawyer]

17. Driving under the influence of marijuana is already illegal.

and would continue to be illegal. My hope would be that where legalized, states would abandon their per se laws which currently say any trace of THC in the system while driving is a crime, even weeks after any affects could be felt. Other than that, nothing would or should change about the current enforcement of driving under the influence.

[pnwmom]

24. But that's my point. Currently, any trace of THC in the system, even weeks

after the use, could result in a charge. What data is there that would help states determine how to regulate marijuana use-- including testing for D.U.I. -- if it were legalized?

[cabluedem]

29. Use a piss test like they do with truckers now. nt

[RainDog]

30. that is not an accurate measure of recent cannabis use

urine tests indicate how much of the after-effects of thc someone is expelling as waste. thc is stored in fat cells. if a fat trucker and a skinny trucker both smoked a joint three weeks earlier, the skinny trucker may test clean while the fat trucker may not - based upon how much of the thc has been expelled v. stored in body fat.

if the fat or skinny person drank a lot of water prior to the test, the test would show less evidence of thc in the system - again, not an accurate measurement.

people can store the broken down thc waste in the body for months, so a piss test is really inaccurate.

[cabluedem]

38. It doesn't matter no one will allow stoned drivers on the road.

[RainDog]

40. huh?

if someone had to take a piss test on the roadside to indicate mj use while driving, there's no way that sort of testing would stand up in court.

[cabluedem]

45. They take you to the police station and you piss. Truckers have to do it all the time.

I don't want people driving high anymore then drunks.

[RainDog]

53. me neither. that's why I said there's a saliva test that detects recent use

it is more accurate.

if you want to be able to charge someone with driving under the influence, you'd have a better conviction rate if you had better ways of determining this.

it has nothing to do with whether or not someone should drive while stoned. I don't want people out driving stoned, drunk, on barbituates, on cell phones... and so we can have laws that work to keep people from doing those things and accurate ways of determining whether or not such an accusation is true.

[shanti]

54. hmmm

you may not want it, but people already do. if they pulled every driver over in california and tested for thc, driving ability excluded, there would be a sizeable number with it in their systems. it's not alcohol...

[RainDog]

56. I'm familiar with both

I just don't think that defending driving while stoned is a very smart idea. I know that people are able to drive while stoned - but that doesn't mean that, as a society, we should give them license to do so.

Even norml has its "10 Rules" that includes not driving under the influence.

It's just common sense that you would have ways to prevent people from driving while stoned who cannot handle driving while stoned. Some people can drink a couple and they're not too drunk to drive safely. Some can't. Same thing.

I doubt very many people would be pulled over for driving while stoned - they aren't going to be weaving on the road - more like going 25mph... so it's not a matter of whether or not someone is stoned, but whether an individual is capable of driving in any condition.

that's why it's better to have a test that indicates very recent use because the effects wear off and impairment would be less and less of an issue - when it's an issue at all.

[cabluedem]

59. Problem is that under DOT and state laws any amount of 420 and driving is illegal.

[RainDog]

62. the OP was about "when"

we're in an interesting time. I'm trying to follow some of the stories about the changes in laws in regard to cannabis because this looks like a situation in which previous law is going to change.

if we're talking about that end of it, that's something else.

I think the best thing the DEA could do now is to step back and acknowledge the medical benefits and move cannabis to a schedule V. that would make the law at least correspond to reality.

I'm sure there is going to be lots of positioning on this issue by various vested interests. While I hope CA legalizes, I don't think it's a given.

And if it does, then the Fed. and the State will... do what?

anyway, we're in an interesting time.

[shanti]

60. i'm not defending it

just stating the facts. i do agree with you about an impairment test tho...

[ohheckyeah]

128. The laws don't prevent people from driving drunk.

It just punishes them when they are caught. There are plenty of people driving stoned and marijuana use is against the law. I don't know of any way to actually prevent people from driving stoned.

[cabluedem]

57. I know that but its still a crime and it has to remain that way after legalization. Yoke, but don't

Drive if you do. That's why we need a test for a standard reading like with alcohol.

[Threedifferentones]

83. Are you reading the thread before you post?

Or just the OP? It's been said many times in this thread, piss tests do not test if you are high, they test if you have been high in the past few weeks. Piss tests do not actually detect drugs, they detect metabolites of drugs, ie what your body breaks the drug down into before you piss it out. So, if the only time I had smoked was 15 minutes before the test, chances are my piss would be clean.

Testing truckers for drugs makes sense. But, if marijuana were legalized, and you wanted to know if a given driver was driving stoned, you'd need some sort of breathalyzer test for THC, piss tests won't cut it.

[JonLP24]

71. Testing positive doesn't mean you're currently "stoned" while driving

You could be perfectly sober and fail a UA.

[Romulox]

81. Simply not true. Med Mar. is legal is 14 states, for one.

So a piss test that shows usage within the past 30 days, aside from not logically establishing what you want it to (i.e. that someone was impaired while driving) is not even incriminating as to many...

[Better Today]

19. I have a unique idea, don't worry about DUI for any reason... hang on, read first.

No matter whether drunk or high or just plain careless, all accidents where cause can be found to fall primarily on one driver, should all be handled the same. Right now they use inattentive driving or other similar things for non-DUI but grossly careless accidents caused by carelessness, inattention, pretty much everything that isn't a mechanical issue.

And my suggestion is that they should all be treated the same, with license suspension, jail and fines all being exactly the same whether your stupidity while driving was because of intoxicants or just cause you're an asshole who doesn't take your driving as seriously as one should with a 1/2 ton weapon in your control.

[RKP5637]

23. I was sort of thinking the same and you've said it!!! I agree all the way w/you. Good post/solution

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[pnwmom]

28. So you think people should be able to drive with impaired judgment and/or

reflexes just as long as they don't actually cause an accident?

[RKP5637]

32. People already do IMO... cell phones, iPods, radios, passenger distractions, poor drivers,

prescription medications, cold pills, overly aggressive drivers, caffeine pills, wacky drivers, on and on... even blood pressure medicine can make one a bit spacey sometimes... how can you ascertain all of the variables that affect ones driving... on newer cars there is talk of a sensing system that can detect erratic driving habits... maybe something like that might work...

[MattBaggins]

145. Really? I was thinking it was one of the silliest suggestions I've heard all week.

[pnwmom]

27. And what if there wasn't an accident, just someone swerving or not staying

very well inside the lane? Shouldn't the state also be able to try to prevent accidents, not just penalize AFTER they occur?

[RKP5637]

35. Please see my #32. Maybe something like that might work eventually. Of course

that is not an immediate solution for all cars, but it might be a start. At one time, I think it might have been Italy, was creating something called an A-Hole detector. The concept was, it was basically an analytical camera that could monitor traffic flow and could detect erratic drivers and ID them by their license plate. I have no idea where that technology is today... what I am thinking is there are a lot of impaired drivers on the road, not just by substance abuse. That all said, I do understand your concern.

[Better Today]

41. Exactly what I'm saying ALL laws should penalize the actions, if actions

like swerving. I don't care if a person is swerving because they are under the influence, because they are texting or talking, because they are too old to keep track of things, or because they are just too ditzy to drive...

If they are acting in a manner that one would normally relate to DUI then they should all lose their licenses till they can prove that their respect for the heavy and fatal tool they are wielding and their ability to maintain control of it has improved.

[Xithras]

52. So you are an opponent of hate crimes laws then?

If you're only penalizing actions, then there is no difference between one person shooting another for his wallet, and one person shooting another because the victim is gay/black/Jewish.

Do you really believe that?

[Better Today]

90. Yes, correct. I am opposed to changing rules based on one's intent,

either it was pre-meditated or not, and I'm thinking what you distinguish as hate crimes are premeditated. But I don't see any reason a man who killed his wife and children because they pissed him off should receive a lesser judicial slap than a man who kills his neighbors' wife and children because they are black, or jewish, or "pinko fags" in his mind.

[Greyhound]

113. Blaspheme! Now you've done it.

Welcome to the "freaks category", we're on their list for re-education now. Once they finish "fixing" the rest of the world that doesn't live in their bizarro-world of white puritans in absolute authority, they're coming for us...:scared:
:rofl:

[pnwmom]

65. I disagree. I think a person's intentions matter, too. And someone who

intentionally drinks and drives is very different from someone whose reflexes are getting a little slower due to age, but is doing their best; or to someone who reacts to an unexpected situation in the car (such as a toddler tossing his shoe into the front seat and distracting the driver).

[Better Today]

91. I disagree. The end result is the thing. If a person doesn't know how

to not over-react because of a shoe or toy landing in the front seat, to the extent that they are swerving or cause an accident, then they shouldn't be driving.

We see all kinds of intentional activities that keep people from having full reflexes, putting on makeup, changing the channel on the radio, texting, talking on the phone, turning and giving face front to someone in the back seat, ogling pedestrians....

I personally don't care if the lack of attentiveness is because of intent to drink, or intent to be a mother who never managed to get control of her kids' and hers driving requirements, or if it's granny just too out of it to be safe....

[pnwmom]

92. Intent has always been a key factor in criminal law and that is unlikely to ever change.

And it shouldn't.

Factors such as you describe have their place in CIVIL courts which determine negligence.

[Greyhound]

114. Of course it is, that's why there are degrees of murder, for example.

But it is only recently that so many people have become dim enough to believe that the thought itself is a crime.

That you also can't see where this inevitably leads, or simply don't care, is frightening.

[Better Today]

117. Actually I think there are different degrees of pretty much all crime.

I know misdemeanors have classes, I think most crimes do.

[Greyhound]

120. Yes, I use murder because the TeeVee culture can always relate to that. n/t

It's things like this that fill me with dread for the future.

[MattBaggins]

146. Flawed Logic... DUI laws penalize an action...

The action of drinking and then getting behind the wheel of a car.

[Xithras]

49. I agree. Don't worry about it. Just lock them away in a dark hole.

I see little moral difference between someone who climbs behind a wheel drunk, and someone who takes potshots at a passing schoolbus with a revolver because he thinks it's "funny". Both show a premeditated and sociopathic disinterest in other human life.

[Threedifferentones]

84. lol?

I see your point, but still think its borderline hyperbole.

Circumstance is everything. If you get shitfaced at 3 p.m. and speed through a schoolzone, okay, you're like a murderer. If your BAC is the legal limit of .08% after 2 beers, and you drive 2 miles home from a new year's eve party at the speed limit or 5 under, I think that's different. Unfortunately, the law does not, and these years they treat both people like a monster.

[alarimer]

64. I agree with you. n/t

[ecstatic]

31. Taconic Pkwy mother who killed all those people had weed in her system

They said she was a regular user. How much her habit contributed to the accident, the amount of drinking she did, or both isn't clear.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. She had a BAC of 0.19

That's pretty clear.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Every single time a person has an 'anti pot' story

It winds up being an alcohol story. Every time.

[cabluedem]

61. pot legalization will not occur until we get a handle on stoned drivers first. boozer, drugs &

Driving don't mix too well.

[Greyhound]

68. I'm sure you can provide the empirical evidence that smoking pot impairs your ability

to safely drive?

[cabluedem]

74. The NTSB has all the evidence that shows that it does. So do the CHP.

[Greyhound]

108. Well I've been searching for years and have never found one, so perhaps you can point me in

the right direction?

There are thousands of docs and all that I've scanned are assuming and equating marijuana intoxication (scientifically inaccurate terminology) with every other drug, i.e. alcohol, methamphetamine, heroin, etc., but nothing establishing a factual basis for that assumption. In fact, the NTSB states that it is specifically the unlawful status of marijuana that includes it in the report.

[Warren Stupidity]

148. its the booze not the pot.

There is no evidence to support a claim that pot is related to significant numbers of auto fatalities.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

157. yeah, let all those people rot in jail

while you figure it out. :eyes:

[cabluedem]

47. We need to apply the same standards to 420 as to boozer. You toke, you lose!!

[Greyhound]

70. Again, what evidence do you have to support your position that pot impairs an otherwise

capable driver's ability to safely drive?

[cabluedem]

75. Read above. Pot legalization won't occur until we have standards for being stoned just like alcohol

[EOTE]

100. You've still provided nothing that suggests that stoned drivers are more dangerous than

the general population. In fact, the only evidence that has been presented so far in this thread shows that stoned drivers are not only safer drivers than drunk or sleep impaired drivers, but safer than straight up sober drivers as well. So until you want to provide some actual data rather than simply shouting "NTSB and CHP!", then you truly don't have a leg to stand on.

[Greyhound]

109. But that can't happen because in order to measure relative impairment,

some measurable impairment has to exist.

The lying liars that keep these assumptions and myths alive have no evidence, and it isn't for a lack of trying.

You are being lied to, look for yourself.

[cabluedem]

95. NTSB, DOT and CHP studies. You drive high and you lose your licence.

[Greyhound]

116. Not arguing the legality. Looking for actual evidence to support

the assertion that pot impairs your ability to responsibly drive.

[Cleita]

33. Probably there would be an expansion of the same rules for

medical marijuana and if you smoke it you can smell it on people just like tobacco.

[Johonny]

37. wouldn't they see the towel stuffed in the door crack?

[Bonobo]

39. Make a test for cannabis detection. It would be easy.

Especially with the skunkweed I like best.

[cabluedem]

48. You build the mousetrap they will be beating your door down to buy it.

[bemildred]

43. "Driving impaired" means you are doing something empirically wrong in your driving.

It ought to be observable. I'm not defending driving stoned, or not, I'm just saying you have to use words in a meaningful way or you are just making noise. It seems clear to me that the issue ought to be your driving, not when was the last time you ingested cannabis.

[cabluedem]

50. We still would need a detectable level to insure people are not.stoned.

[bemildred]

58. No, what we need is a detectable level of "impaired driving".

Then we are cool and can impose legal sanctions, fines, jail time, etc.

[cabluedem]

66. won't work. the drunks will claim they are being judged on BAC while. pot isn't tested.

[bemildred]

87. So? We have lots of laws that don't work. nt

[cabluedem]

93. you misunderstand. people who drink won't allow stoned driving either. there must be a standard test

[bemildred]

102. I'm talking about competent or incompetent driving.

Saying someone is "stoned" doesn't mean anything unless you can show they are impaired in some way, and being impaired IS the issue.

[cabluedem]

125. sorry but the law states that if a driver has. 08 BAC no matter how well they drive.

[Romulox]

80. You don't get it--they look JUST LIKE YOU AND I. How can we tell?????

Nude conspiracies!

[cabluedem]

94. a new testing device like a breathalizer for pot.

[Romulox]

144. It doesn't exist. Until you invent one, your precious bodily fluids are at risk! nt

[shanti]

55. you got it

just like alcohol

[pipi_k]

44. Easy test...

Take suspect to a 7-11 store, give him $20 and watch what he buys.

If it's all junk food munchies stuff, he's probably under the influence.


:7

[AngryAmish]

86. or was driving 14 mph

[Motown_Johnny]

51. there is technology that scans the blood vessels in your eye

PassPoint™ Drug Abuse Screening System

http://www.tbtracking.com/PassPoint.pdf



there are other companies, just posting the one for now

[TorchTheWitch]

63. DUI has never been for just alcohol

Drugs, both illegal and pharmaceutical, are part of that. Officers are trained to recognize someone who is impaired, and they know what various drug symptoms look like. Blood test would determine the level of THC in a certain quantity to indicate the level of possible impairment. Just because pot's illegal hardly means that they didn't already know all this stuff... there's no difference in how this would be handled just because it's made legal (as far as DUI is concerned).

[WillyT]

69. Check For Twinkie Wrappers...

:smoke:

[canetoad]

72. It's easy

Saliva test.

http://cmm.com.au/product_info.php?products_id=2

[Romulox]

76. You observe the driving behavior; if its erratic, you give a field sobriety test.

The illogic of the OP is this: if you can't tell someone is impaired with the standard tests that test for impairment, why do you care? It's ultimately more of a "they walk among us!" appeal to prejudice if you can't answer that simple question! :hi:

[varelse]

78. Best reply on this thread (nt)

[bemildred]

88. Exactly. If you can't tell the difference, who cares?

Are we supposed to believe in imaginary undetectable differences, or is it really an argument that immoral behavior must be punished somehow?

[cabluedem]

96. lots of drunks think they drive OK while drunk too.

[bemildred]

101. The question isn't what a drunk thinks. The question is what a trained cop thinks. nt

[EOTE]

103. Yes, and if those drunks drive fine, they don't need to worry about being pulled over.

Right? The reason a cop pulls a drunk driver over is because the driver has been exhibiting signs of intoxication. Of a drunk drivers TRULY can drive just as well drunk, then that driver doesn't need to worry about getting pulled over.

[cabluedem]

122. ever heard of sobriety checkpoints? they catch stoners all the time too.

[EOTE]

129. And if cannabis were legalized, they could stop "catching"

those people who had smoked within the past month. Once again, if their driving ability isn't impaired, why exactly would they be punished for it?

[Gold Metal Flake]

98. +1

[Ganja Ninja]

97. Video

If you can't tell someone's impaired, if it isn't obvious then they must not be all that impaired. How do you tell if someone's impaired on a prescription med? You're not allowed to give them blood test or urine tests on the side of the road. Some things we're just going to have to live with. We live with drunks on the roads every day. Tests don't keep them from getting behind the wheel.

[Forkboy]

104. Put up big signs for mac and cheese and arrest any one that pulls over.

My rap sheet would unfurl like a damn scroll.

[slackmaster]

106. Saliva test

I have a friend who works for the San Francisco Fire Department. The screening test they use for pre-employment checks saliva for cannabinoids.

If you haven't smoked in eight hours, you're likely to test clean. They don't care if you smoke on your own time, they just want to make sure you aren't stoned RIGHT NOW when you show up for your interview.

[Taverner]

107. I know I am in the minority on this, but its high time we lowered the penalties for DUIs

Honestly - they do no good.

[Greyhound]

110. You and me both, but then we look at the way things are as they exist.

Is driving drunk a bad and dangerous thing? Of course. But, isn't it more dangerous to take everyone's rights, authorize the seizure of private property, literally shred the fourth amendment in a hopeless attempt to stop a law abiding person from taking action that might potentially cause harm?

That people "feel" safer for surrendering their rights is not a new phenomenon, Ben Franklin wrote a catchy little phrase about it.
:hiding:

[Taverner]

123. EXACTLY

I think the penalty should be:

- Forced to get a taxi and have car towed
- $5000 fine
- Off your record in 5 years.

And for California, this is a 2 point violation, not 3 (like it is now)

[Romulox]

132. I've as much sympathy for drunkards as they have for stoners; follow the law.

:hi:

[Taverner]

134. And lemme guess, everyone should just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps," right?

And if someone is addicted to a drug, it must be 100% their fault, right?

[Romulox]

140. You're a TERRIBLE guesser. nt

[anigbrowl]

154. Why do you say so?

'Honestly - they do no good' isn't really an argument. Do you just feel they're unfair, or do you feel that they've had little or no influence on accident patterns, or what? sure, a lot of people drive over the limit and nothing bad happens; plus drunken people on foot could also be the cause of fatal accidents as sober drivers swerved and crashed to avoid the drunk pedestrian, but a high enough %age of accidents are caused by drivers who are drunk that I am fine with maintaining heavy penalties.

Stoned drivers are definitely less of a road hazard than drunken ones, and I'd be willing to guess that they're under-represented in accident statistics compared to drivers affected by alcohol, or even sober drivers. but I am OK with the principle of 'do not operate a motor vehicle while chemically impaired, no matter how mild the impairment'.

[me b zola]

115. The same way that police can assess dui of prescription drugs..

If a person fails the field sobriety test and feels that the person is under the influence, then a blood test can be done. The blood test for cannabis actually shows the active drug in your blood, meaning the stuff that makes you high, whereas a urine test for cannabis only measures inactive metabolites, meaning stuff that is not getting you high. Here is more info from NORML:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6991

[cabluedem]

126. we need to change the law so that FST 's are mandatory not optional.

That way everyone gets tested for inhibited driving.

[Taverner]

136. FUCK THAT!

Why don't we do drug testing for eveyone the minute you step out the door...never can be too careful, ya know.

[cabluedem]

137. Why are you so scared? If you dont drive and use pot, whats the harm in FST's?

IMO, there is NO way pot will get legalized until this question is answered.

It's that simple.

Toke and stay home, or dont and drive. Its still a choice you make.

[Taverner]

139. So you don't mind random unconstitutional stoppings?

[anigbrowl]

155. That doesn't follow

One would still need some cause to stop the motor vehicle, such as erratic driving behavior or suchlike. you're equating the mandatory use of an FST following a legal stop with abolition of the rules governing when a stop can be made.

[JonLP24]

142. Cheiz!!

People couldn't drive for 1-4 weeks(depending on use) for prior use. Just because someone can fail a UA doesn't mean they are driving while high.

[Romulox]

141. You are obsessively inchorent. nt

[Taverner]

147. You're obsessively closed minded nt

[Romulox]

149. So, are you joining the poster's demand for a "breathalyzer" test for marijuana use

to be developed before legalization is considered, or are you just lashing out blindly? I have no idea what your issues are, but I suspect they stem from a basic misreading of my post to you on this thread. :hi:

[Taverner]

150. Not at all - in fact I think FSTs are completely unconstitutional

[Romulox]

151. And you're not embarassed that your "disagreement" with me has nothing to do with the substance of

my post, but rather due to hurt feelings about your misread of a previous post? 'Cause I tried to point it out tactfully. :shrug:

[Taverner]

135. "Basic Speed Law"

My dad was a cop, and this was kind of a catch all: Do not drive faster than is safe to do so. So if it is unsafe to drive 40 mph while intoxicated, then you broke that law.

[cabluedem]

138. Thats a catchall that is a good question. Thats what FST's are all about.

[Greyhound]

121. Still waiting for that evidence that is so easy to find that everybody "knows" it. n/t

[haele]

124. Same as any medication - blood or urine tests if they can't pass a field sobriety test -

I'm hearing all the arguments and ultimately, it comes down to safe, un-impaired driving - as determined objectively by those observing your driving, not the person who thinks they're driving just fine, the "I'm a better driver when I'm relaxed" type who thinks that one beer or toke would be just the relaxant they need before they head home for the night after a stressful work day.

Yeah, driving while emotionally instable (say, angry or frustrated) or on cold medication can be just as bad as driving blotto drunk, but still - stop and take a few deep breaths to clear your head before you get behind the wheel of a 2-ton piece of machinery, or behind the handlebars - or reins - of any mode of transportation where you can hurt or kill yourself or another person. Or make arrangements for someone else to transport you. Stop for a rejuvenating break if you get tired.

I know that when I'm upset, I shouldn't be driving. I don't drive at all when taking cold or pain medication. Why would I even think I could drive if I were stoned?

Haele

[Greyhound]

133. Still waiting for that evidence that is so easy to find...

Perhaps it isn't easy to find because it doesn't exist.

13 successive American governments of both parties have been slinging this lie and desperately spending your money to find some reason that this plant should be prohibited, and yet they have failed.

[AnArmyVeteran]

152. It shouldn't be regulated. Anyone should be allowed to grow as much as they want...

Where are all those conservatives who 'say' they want government out of their lives? Conservatives are always against legalization of marijuana. They think it is a gateway drug to everything else, regardless of contrary evidence. Milk consumption leads to cocaine addiction according to their 'logic'.

[anigbrowl]

156. read past the headline. This thread is about driving, not possession or growing.

I'm totally in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I don't think you should toke and drive.