What's new

Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

Exactly, and this is my point. So if marijuana was legalized, should anyone who ever buys it have their drivers license revoked? Or how would you handle it when someone gets pulled over, tests positive for THC, and claims they haven't smoked any weed since the day before?

The flaw in this argument is the notion that the only determination of driving fitness would be the level of THC in the body. I contend that if you are pulled over, and are unable to demonstrate reasonable coordination or alertness, you could/should be taken off the road and investigated further. This is currently the initial process for handling DWI, right? Field sobriety exercises. You show reasonable control, you go on your way. You show impairment, you don't.

Or, you put the suspect in the back of the squad car and turn up Dark Side of the Moon. Watch for reaction...
 
The flaw in this argument is the notion that the only determination of driving fitness would be the level of THC in the body. I contend that if you are pulled over, and are unable to demonstrate reasonable coordination or alertness, you could/should be taken off the road and investigated further. This is currently the initial process for handling DWI, right? Field sobriety exercises. You show reasonable control, you go on your way. You show impairment, you don't.

Or, you put the suspect in the back of the squad car and turn up Dark Side of the Moon. Watch for reaction...
lol, okay, that was pretty funny.

Seriously though, failing a field sobriety test is usually not enough to convict someone of DUI without a test of the blood alcohol. It is only grounds to test the blood alcohol, which then proves the person was drunk.

There is no way to prove the person was high on weed. The level of alcohol in the blood can prove if someone is drunk. But the level of THC in the blood does not prove if the person is high, only that they have THC in their system (which could be from months ago).

Also, what impairment would you test for in a field sobriety test? It's not like alcohol where you can't walk a straight line and that kind of stuff. I guess they could check for red eyes, but a little Visine would easily and quickly mask that (or a story of allergies).

True story: a friend of a friend was driving high several years ago. He got pulled over for not having a license plate on the front bumper, only the back. It's late at night and there are a bunch of us in the car, so the cop starts asking questions about what we're doing. When he found out we were coming from a party, he asks if we've been drinking. Half of us in the car say we have, the driver of course says he hasn't. He really hadn't either, but he had been smoking like a chimney. Anyway, the cop starts to give him a field sobriety test. He tells him to count backwards and say the alphabet backwards and that kind of stuff. My friend tells the cop, "Can you just give me a breath test or something? I'm dyslexic and don't want to waste your time with these tests that I could never do." The cop had another cop there give him a breath test and he passed. We were then on our way.

I just don't see how you can have the whole system based entirely on human judgement. There are way too many variables there for it to be consistently enforced.
 
Just saw on the news that public opinion on the legalization on marijuana is at an all time high.




pun intended.
 
I just don't see how you can have the whole system based entirely on human judgement. There are way too many variables there for it to be consistently enforced.
I think they have to try something, and since blood/urine tests aren't going to do a great job of measuring impairment, field sobriety tests will have to do. Make sure they're all videotaped.

I'd rather not get run over by some twit who can't handle his ****.
 
I think they have to try something, and since blood/urine tests aren't going to do a great job of measuring impairment, field sobriety tests will have to do. Make sure they're all videotaped.

I'd rather not get run over by some twit who can't handle his ****.

Field test would be super easy to pass while high. Unless the test was tell joke, see how long driver laughs.
 
1: The study suggested 2 seperate levels. It said there is no way to put a single number on when someone becomes impaired. If you didn't see that, then you misread it.

2: You still don't seem to understand that while one person may smoke some weed and 10 minutes later show a hypothetical level of 10 ng/ml and be high as heck, the next person may not smoke any weed at all (that day) and show a hypothetical level of 10 ng/ml and be stone cold sober.
According to your study this is not possible. That's why they put the limit so high even though most people are high at 5 ng/nl. 10 ng/nl covers everyone. Your study says it's not possible to be at 10 ng/nl and not be high.
 
Following several rounds of discussion, panel members agreed that a legal limit for THC in the 7–10
ng/mL range (measured in blood serum or plasma, equivalent to about 3.5–5 ng/mL measured in
whole blood) may achieve a reasonable separation of unimpaired from impaired drivers, who pose a
higher risk of causing accidents.


The crash risk apparently begins to exceed that of sober drivers as THC concentrations in whole blood reach 5–10 ng/mL
 
They suggest a lower limit - that is, equivalent to the non-criminal lower limit for alcohol of .05% BAC - of between 7 and 10 ng/ml THC.

That doesn't mean that once you hit 10, you're as impaired as someone with a BAC of .11% (or even .08%). It means that when your serum concentration of THC is tested at 10 ng/ml, chances are you're as impaired as someone with a BAC of .05% (the range 7-10 accounts for margin of error in the test).

The study says nothing (unless I missed it) about an upper limit, equivalent to a BAC of .08%/.11%.
 
The crash risk apparently begins to exceed that of sober drivers as THC concentrations in whole blood reach 5–10 ng/mL
The two of you are arguing different points. Not uncommon for either of you.

You're talking about any impairment.

Salty is talking about the legal upper limit, equivalent to the risk of drivers deemed a serious threat (BAC of .08/.11%) which isn't reached until...the study doesn't say.
 
Back
Top