General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWith 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?
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)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)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)buying lots of Honeybuns.
Solomon
(12,305 posts)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)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)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)test positive for pot but not be high. That's the fricking point. (Sheesh)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)eShirl
(18,466 posts)eShirl
(18,466 posts)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)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)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)they're still 'under the influence' have I got that right?
AlexSatan
(535 posts)He/she said that hopefully (if they use tests) they will use one that tests for ACTIVE THC
jmowreader
(50,448 posts)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)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)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)of anything.
The statistics speak for themselves
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)There will be NO change -- including in fast food line. Yuck yuck har har
hlthe2b
(101,714 posts)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)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)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)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)..... 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)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...
marmar
(76,982 posts)Much ado about nothing.
vanhalendlrband
(1 post)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)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)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)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)So you can "out drive" anybody in your city including police officers when you're stoned? Xbox360? I'll buy that for a dollar!
whistler162
(11,155 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)the weed is just legal now?
i give up.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...in people driving while buzzed.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)"Damn Bob...would you speed the fuck up...I can run faster than this"
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)unblock
(51,974 posts)as long as it remains illegal against federal law, it's "illegal".
kydo
(2,679 posts)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)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.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)WCGreen
(45,558 posts)And every time I was behind the wheel, I was extra carefully and drove about 6 miles an hour...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Until figuring out that i had forgotten to turn on the engine and take it out of park.
dem4ward
(323 posts)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.
Eyes of the World
(93 posts)If it wasn't a problem before, how will it become one now?
Answer? Because its just more bullshit.
Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)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)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)DUI.
I don't see why tis s even an issue.
lalalu
(1,663 posts)That is how I feel. Just enforce the law the same way.
adigal
(7,581 posts)Be pulled over by the millions! LOL!!
lexx21
(321 posts)will be all of the extra Domino's delivery guys.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)People have been smoking it all along; the only thing that changes is that it's now legal.
pnwest
(3,265 posts)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)Just have the person you pull over play a game of tetris..
That should tell you all you know
Pryderi
(6,772 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)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)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.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Anchorage used to have drive-through liquor stores back in the '70s.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)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)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)as I would think it would cut down on the number of people attempting to text while they drive.
Smilo
(1,944 posts)and cheetos.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)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.