Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Seedersandleechers

(3,044 posts)
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:25 AM Nov 2012

With Pot Legal, Police Worry About Road Safety

It's settled. Pot, at least certain amounts of it, will soon be legal under state laws in Washington and Colorado. Now, officials in both states are trying to figure out how to keep stoned drivers off the road.

Colorado's measure doesn't make any changes to the state's driving-under-the-influence laws, leaving lawmakers and police to worry about its effect on road safety.

"We're going to have more impaired drivers," warned John Jackson, police chief in the Denver suburb of Greenwood Village.

Washington's law does change DUI provisions by setting a new blood-test limit for marijuana — a limit police are training to enforce, and which some lawyers are already gearing up to challenge.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pot-legal-police-worry-road-safety-17723983#.UKSz845rQ0s



Don't see how this can work. So if they catch you driving under the speed limit they are going to draw your blood for a lab test?

64 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
With Pot Legal, Police Worry About Road Safety (Original Post) Seedersandleechers Nov 2012 OP
I can see it now. Fast food drive through lanes will be staked out. Major Nikon Nov 2012 #1
Anyone ordering Aerows Nov 2012 #18
LOL! Look for the ones going about 2 mph thru the fast food lanes, or parked at 7-11.... Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #64
Knew this was going to be the problem. Pot stays Solomon Nov 2012 #2
exactly liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #3
I don't think that's an accurate description of it, actually eShirl Nov 2012 #5
(rolls eyes). Okay. Let me say it this way then. You can Solomon Nov 2012 #6
+1. SammyWinstonJack Nov 2012 #8
-1 eShirl Nov 2012 #11
right back at you eShirl Nov 2012 #9
There are ways to test the active THC to determine if you are high. boston bean Nov 2012 #13
oh good eShirl Nov 2012 #17
let me get this straight your claiming that if one smokes a joint and tests positive a month later azurnoir Nov 2012 #22
That's not what the poster said AlexSatan Nov 2012 #46
The Marijuana Metabolic Pathway jmowreader Nov 2012 #58
Right. Because everyone reacts to pot the exact same way. randome Nov 2012 #4
My concern gollygee Nov 2012 #14
The majority of vehicular accidents have nothing to do with being under the influence argiel1234 Nov 2012 #53
This is such bullshit. Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #7
They will stop to test all drivers pulled to the side of the road, chomping down cheetoes hlthe2b Nov 2012 #10
Total non-issue. Daemonaquila Nov 2012 #12
Agreed. Robb Nov 2012 #16
Point of information. WA State will require testing for THC ONLY eridani Nov 2012 #15
This is sily... sendero Nov 2012 #19
Speaking from observation only (not personal experience) stoned drivers demwing Nov 2012 #39
Oh, like the hardcore stoners weren't out driving before the legalization vote. marmar Nov 2012 #20
Weed is not impairing at all vanhalendlrband Nov 2012 #21
I must qualify that azurnoir Nov 2012 #24
I agree somewhat. immoderate Nov 2012 #32
A lot depends on the person LadyHawkAZ Nov 2012 #41
This 35 year toker thinks yer funny with all your bluster and bravado... cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #59
I know drunks that say the same thing! whistler162 Nov 2012 #61
people are already driving while stoned datasuspect Nov 2012 #23
I had the same thought. I doubt that legalization is going to result in a significant increase... slackmaster Nov 2012 #25
I don't see how everyone driving 20 mph could create any problems. n;t 2on2u Nov 2012 #26
LOL!...isn't that the truth. My friends drive so damn slow I have to "edge them on" BlueJazz Nov 2012 #54
I am more worried those that want to Secede in Texas driving 85 legally with a gun in the car graham4anything Nov 2012 #27
i wouldn't say it's "legal", because it's not unblock Nov 2012 #28
what and alcohol is much safer kydo Nov 2012 #29
as already pointed out in the thread PD Turk Nov 2012 #30
Derp WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #31
I haven't smoked pot for probably 30 years now... WCGreen Nov 2012 #33
Yeah, I would drive for hours stoned... jberryhill Nov 2012 #36
People drink and drive dem4ward Nov 2012 #34
Because no one drove when it was illegal, right? Eyes of the World Nov 2012 #35
Saw it on the TV. Jemma almost killed those poor children!! Dr Fate Nov 2012 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Nov 2012 #38
Easy, the same way you treat drunks or those under the influence of meds nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #40
Thank You lalalu Nov 2012 #51
Right? Pot smokers drive slllooowwwww! Granny and gramps will adigal Nov 2012 #42
I think most of the drivers that they will have to worry about lexx21 Nov 2012 #43
I doubt there will be many more impaired drivers than before. Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #44
there will not be one single additional impaired person on the road due to pnwest Nov 2012 #45
1st, the same amount of "impaired" drivers, second.. snooper2 Nov 2012 #47
I don't have the stamina to bother driving when I'm high. It's what delivery is for. n/t Pryderi Nov 2012 #48
Bullshit. Everyone who wanted to drive high already was Nevernose Nov 2012 #49
As if there are not impaired drivers littering the highway now. mick063 Nov 2012 #50
About alcohol? Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #55
Easy. Just enforce laws that already exist against reckless driving. kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #52
The reason why some people voted against the initiative in WA was because of the DUI provision Matariki Nov 2012 #56
driving stoned is for pikers... BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #57
If anything they should be grateful kentauros Nov 2012 #60
SWAT team aisle 12 - they just brought some brownies Smilo Nov 2012 #62
Oh please RedCappedBandit Nov 2012 #63

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
1. I can see it now. Fast food drive through lanes will be staked out.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:37 AM
Nov 2012

Anyone seen ordering more than 6 Dorito tacos, 4 corn dogs, or 1 order of gut grenades at White Castle will be immediately suspect.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
18. Anyone ordering
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:42 AM
Nov 2012

a Dorito taco is suspect. I loved EVERYTHING on the Taco Bell menu - I've probably eaten one of all of them, until that came along. That is yucky.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
64. LOL! Look for the ones going about 2 mph thru the fast food lanes, or parked at 7-11....
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:55 PM
Nov 2012

buying lots of Honeybuns.

Solomon

(12,305 posts)
2. Knew this was going to be the problem. Pot stays
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:44 AM
Nov 2012

in your system long after the high wears off. They will have to go back to doing field sobriety tests on everyone in addition to breathalyzers. It's going to be a mess.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
3. exactly
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:47 AM
Nov 2012

impairment is the issue, not what level is in your blood. I agree field sobriety tests may still be the best way to figure out if someone is impaired. If you cannot pass a field sobriety test you shouldn't be driving I don't care what you're on. but patients who happen to still have some in their blood but are not impaired should not be charged with DUID.

eShirl

(18,466 posts)
5. I don't think that's an accurate description of it, actually
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:11 AM
Nov 2012

It's my understanding that it is a metabolite (or product of the body's metabolization of the pot) that is the substance tested for. It's this that can be detected long after the pot is gone; it's not that the pot itself stays in your system for that long.

Solomon

(12,305 posts)
6. (rolls eyes). Okay. Let me say it this way then. You can
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:14 AM
Nov 2012

test positive for pot but not be high. That's the fricking point. (Sheesh)

eShirl

(18,466 posts)
9. right back at you
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:20 AM
Nov 2012


People have been fired for being high at work, days or weeks after smoking a joint, because the available drug test for pot showed positive.

So yeah, sheesh right back at you.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
13. There are ways to test the active THC to determine if you are high.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:20 AM
Nov 2012

they can separate it out.

So, in other words, if you have the inactive THC in your system, they can tell you weren't high and vice versa.

eShirl

(18,466 posts)
17. oh good
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:31 AM
Nov 2012

now, if we can get them to use the more accurate test for current under-the-influence-ness, that will be great

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
22. let me get this straight your claiming that if one smokes a joint and tests positive a month later
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:15 PM
Nov 2012

they're still 'under the influence' have I got that right?

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
46. That's not what the poster said
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:13 PM
Nov 2012

He/she said that hopefully (if they use tests) they will use one that tests for ACTIVE THC

jmowreader

(50,448 posts)
58. The Marijuana Metabolic Pathway
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:22 PM
Nov 2012

Let's start with the basics: there is no free THC in leaf marijuana. Pot contains THC-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH). Heating the weed decarboxylates it and releases THC freebase, which is psychoactive.

When you take THC your liver metaabolizes it quickly to 11-OH-THC, which is also psychoactive, acting mainly on the parts of your brain that regulate hunger. IOW this gives you the munchies. Your liver metabolizes 11-OH-THC back to THC-COOH...but body temp isn't high enough to decarboxylate it, which is why you don't stay high for two weeks.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
4. Right. Because everyone reacts to pot the exact same way.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:57 AM
Nov 2012

No one is going to get tested for blood levels unless they have already exhibited signs of erratic driving. At that point, erratic driving plus marijuana blood level equals impairment and a DUI.

It's the same as when you're drinking. The police aren't going to stop you unless you have already exhibited signs of erratic driving.

There WILL be more accidents. Maybe not a lot but some.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
14. My concern
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:25 AM
Nov 2012

Is that sometimes they automatically do a blood test when someone is in an accident. If you have it in your system but are not high, you might unfairly be blamed for the accident, and even negligent homicide or something, because they found THC in your system even though you were not impaired at that time and therefore the THC would be irrelevant. Also, your insurance could use it as an excuse to not cover you.

I think it should be legal, and I think the issues can be handled, but police, lawmakers, insurance companies, and whoever else might be involved need to be smart about it and well educated, and not respond based on a knee-jerk reaction to the word "marijana" or on their experiences with alcohol.

 

argiel1234

(390 posts)
53. The majority of vehicular accidents have nothing to do with being under the influence
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:45 PM
Nov 2012

of anything.
The statistics speak for themselves

hlthe2b

(101,714 posts)
10. They will stop to test all drivers pulled to the side of the road, chomping down cheetoes
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:23 AM
Nov 2012


Seriously, I'd really like to see some evidence that this is a problem. While it has been many years for me, I can honestly say I don't recall my college acquaintances and "tokers" ever getting up to drive anywhere...at least not for hours. Is this now a problem? And if, as I'd imagine, these are drivers who slow down, are they inherently unsafe and demonstrably impaired? Perhaps, but where is the evidence?
 

Daemonaquila

(1,712 posts)
12. Total non-issue.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:18 AM
Nov 2012

Every state has DUI laws based on actual impairment regardless of blood level, which cover driving under the influence of everything from alcohol (if the test is unavailable or a person is impaired despite being under the legal limit) to cocaine to cold medicine. Blood level based charges are absolutely unnecessary. For alcohol, they came into vogue because of the ease of testing, the prevalence of alcohol-related incidents, and the ease of making charges stick with an absolute limit versus making a behavior-based case each time.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
16. Agreed.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:29 AM
Nov 2012

But BAC numbers play an important role at sentencing. Public safety may not be affected, but the meting out of justice will.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
15. Point of information. WA State will require testing for THC ONLY
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:28 AM
Nov 2012

No metabolite testing at all. I expect the threshold of 5 ng is going to be challenged by medical marijuana users, though. For most people THC is pretty rapidly cleared.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
19. This is sily...
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:53 AM
Nov 2012

..... first of all pot may be legal but driving while stoned is not.

Approximately the same number of people who are driving stoned now will be driving stoned later.

And isn't it funny how rarely you read of an accident caused by a stoned, rather than drunk, driver?

This is just cops looking for more funding or back-door complaining about their most easy cash cow, busting dangerous pot smokers, is being taken away. Ignore it.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
39. Speaking from observation only (not personal experience) stoned drivers
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:50 PM
Nov 2012

drive @ about 15 MPH under the limit, and are hypersensitive to the presence of the police. A cop could be behind every building, beneath every billboard, and around every corner. That granny in a Subaru? Definitely a cop...

21. Weed is not impairing at all
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:47 PM
Nov 2012

Being stoned and driving is not an impairment. I can do everything stoned. I took my full drivers test stoned and passed with flying colors. There is absolutely no reason why Weed should be treated the same alcohol where people drive when they can't walk straight THAT's AN IMPAIRMENT! Not weed! I can out drive anybody in this city stoned including all the police officers. I challenge anybody to prove me wrong.

A lot of times people smoke so much weed that they can't even get stoned. Unlike booze where if you keep drinking you'll either get drunk, black out, or have alcohol poisoning. Xanax, which I took for 2 years, is FAR MORE impairing than weed. And the law here now is even if I smoked last night, which was the last time I smoked at around 9 pm, if I go out right now I'm going to get charged with a DUI. What a joke.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
24. I must qualify that
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:22 PM
Nov 2012

it all depends on the weed that was smoked, if it was very average run of the mill stuff maybe not so impairing BUT if it was something like BC bud or Gravity for instance it can be very impairing and I certainly wouldn't suggest driving
the differences are similar to drinking 3.2 beer and drinking Everclear

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
32. I agree somewhat.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:35 PM
Nov 2012

I drive fine when I'm stoned. Actually a bit safer, as I'm more cautious and less aggressive. My problem is I forget where I'm going.

I have friends who become totally paralyzed from pot. I envy them but wouldn't ride with them.

It's hard (impossible?) to determine who and how much people can smoke and drive safely.

--imm

LadyHawkAZ

(6,199 posts)
41. A lot depends on the person
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:58 PM
Nov 2012

I've known people like you with high tolerances that needed a LOT of weed to become impaired. At the other end of the spectrum are people like me, who have complete vision-blocking hallucinations after 3 or 4 hits. And there's a whole wide range in between.

Not everyone can smoke a joint and still drive, just sayin'. There does need to be some sort of standard.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
59. This 35 year toker thinks yer funny with all your bluster and bravado...
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:30 PM
Nov 2012

So you can "out drive" anybody in your city including police officers when you're stoned? Xbox360? I'll buy that for a dollar!

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
25. I had the same thought. I doubt that legalization is going to result in a significant increase...
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:24 PM
Nov 2012

...in people driving while buzzed.

 

BlueJazz

(25,348 posts)
54. LOL!...isn't that the truth. My friends drive so damn slow I have to "edge them on"
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:01 PM
Nov 2012

"Damn Bob...would you speed the fuck up...I can run faster than this"

unblock

(51,974 posts)
28. i wouldn't say it's "legal", because it's not
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:30 PM
Nov 2012

as long as it remains illegal against federal law, it's "illegal".

kydo

(2,679 posts)
29. what and alcohol is much safer
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:30 PM
Nov 2012

booze is the worst of all drugs.

its about money - they don't have fast tests for pot intoxican or legal limits. so they can't give out tickets, thats the gripe. besides I'm sure most pot smokers drive now, what all of a sudden when its legal will the amount of stoned drivers spike? Most stoners don't leave the house unless they have to, usually they lay on the sofa watch tv, mess around on their laptop or computer, maybe listen to tunes, play an instrument, draw, write, read and order delivery.

PD Turk

(1,289 posts)
30. as already pointed out in the thread
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:31 PM
Nov 2012

People have already been driving stoned for years. I'd suggest the first thing to do is study the statistics to find out how many accidents have marijuana influence as the sole cause of the accident to see if there is even a problem first.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
33. I haven't smoked pot for probably 30 years now...
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:37 PM
Nov 2012

And every time I was behind the wheel, I was extra carefully and drove about 6 miles an hour...

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
36. Yeah, I would drive for hours stoned...
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:44 PM
Nov 2012

Until figuring out that i had forgotten to turn on the engine and take it out of park.

 

dem4ward

(323 posts)
34. People drink and drive
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:40 PM
Nov 2012

people take prescription meds and drive, people fall asleep while driving. I think those that smoke weed have already been driving if they desire and just because it's legal isn't going to put 1,000's of stoned drivers on the damn road! Give me a break!

If someone wants to smoke weed, chances are they already are legal or not. Making it legal isn't going to make people run out and start smoking weed.

 
35. Because no one drove when it was illegal, right?
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:43 PM
Nov 2012

If it wasn't a problem before, how will it become one now?

Answer? Because its just more bullshit.

Dr Fate

(32,189 posts)
37. Saw it on the TV. Jemma almost killed those poor children!!
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:45 PM
Nov 2012

And we know this always happens in the real life too.

My guess is that most of these stoners will target school buses full of kids, or vans full of church goers.

Response to Seedersandleechers (Original post)

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
40. Easy, the same way you treat drunks or those under the influence of meds
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:51 PM
Nov 2012

DUI.

I don't see why tis s even an issue.

lexx21

(321 posts)
43. I think most of the drivers that they will have to worry about
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:01 PM
Nov 2012

will be all of the extra Domino's delivery guys.

Blue_In_AK

(46,436 posts)
44. I doubt there will be many more impaired drivers than before.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:03 PM
Nov 2012

People have been smoking it all along; the only thing that changes is that it's now legal.

pnwest

(3,265 posts)
45. there will not be one single additional impaired person on the road due to
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:07 PM
Nov 2012

the new law. everyone who's going to drive while high now that it's legal, have been doing the whole time it wasn't.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
47. 1st, the same amount of "impaired" drivers, second..
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:15 PM
Nov 2012

Just have the person you pull over play a game of tetris..

That should tell you all you know


Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
49. Bullshit. Everyone who wanted to drive high already was
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:17 PM
Nov 2012

This law isn't going to increase a damned thing; it's just going to decrease the amount of law enforcement money going to fight the Evil Hippy Stoners (and black people).

Anyone who wanted to smoke pot already was.

 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
50. As if there are not impaired drivers littering the highway now.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:23 PM
Nov 2012

Driving with a hamburger in your hand can be considered impaired.

I work for a government contractor that doesn't think twice about people working overtime for 18 hours and then putting them on a two lane highway at 60 mph for a 45 minute drive home.

Why are people are not freaking out about the influence of prescription drugs with the same intensity as pot?

What are the statistics for people driving under the influence of pot now? It must happen all the time and it must have been happening for a long time. Where is the data? If it were easy to collect, then such data would be politically bombarding us as a counter to pot legalization right now.

Alcohol is legal and drinking establishments, complete with parking lots, are open by the thousands across our land. Where is the political movement to limit alcohol consumption to one's home?

I would like to add that I finished third in my high school state regional in the track and field event, triple jump, very stoned, and exceeded my previous best by more than a foot. I could argue that it was an enhancement. Not a claim that I can drive better under the influence of weed, but a claim that I could have never done that well under the influence of alcohol. In other words, alcohol is severely more impairing than weed. The two are apples and oranges with respect to impairment and I'm afraid folks will reference alcohol as an example of impairment when arguing against weed.

When I was a young man (25 years ago), I taught myself, from books, Basic Language (computer programming language), and wrote a 10,000 line program that included three dimensional visual affects. I was stoned every step of the way. Challenging to say the least, but fun, captivating, and mentally stimulating. Note: I was trying to create an emulation of the game "Tunnles of Doom" and came very close to completing it.

Matariki

(18,775 posts)
56. The reason why some people voted against the initiative in WA was because of the DUI provision
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:14 PM
Nov 2012

People who very much want pot to be legal but believe that the DUI test they propose using can detect THC in the blood from days before the test is administered.

I've heard conflicting 'facts' from both sides.

 

BlueMan Votes

(903 posts)
57. driving stoned is for pikers...
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:16 PM
Nov 2012

try driving to the O'hare with a head full of acid.

for some reason- it's a very funny experience.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
60. If anything they should be grateful
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:34 PM
Nov 2012

as I would think it would cut down on the number of people attempting to text while they drive.

RedCappedBandit

(5,514 posts)
63. Oh please
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:49 PM
Nov 2012

First of all, most people who are going to smoke pot are already smoking pot. Let's be realistic. I doubt this will have much of an impact on the long term.

Secondly, I see no reason why they can't do a normal sobriety test to determine impairment.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»With Pot Legal, Police Wo...