I think you’re all missing the point. How can you be tested for PREVIOUS marijuana use on site? You can’t and you won’t be. Sure maybe if your eyes are bloodshot and you can’t stop laughing when the cop asks you a question, then he may very well consider you under the influence and you will be charged with DUI. I think this is more of a “if you’re caught smoking/posessing and driving, you can face a DUI type deal.” Where if you get pulled over, and your car stinks of pot, and there’s roaches in it and you look blantantly stoned, etc.; you will get a DUI not just a posession charge.
If you get pulled over, cops are not going to say “here’s your speeding ticket, and oh uh just piss in this cup and we will get back to you.” Or perhaps at it’s worst, it could mean that if somehow you are on probation and get drug tested and fail for pot, over which the same time period you got a traffic citation, you could potentially get charged with a DUI. And even that’s a bit too excess and anyone with an attorney could get out of that ridiculous of a charge.
I am as liberal as anyone here, and for legalization no doubt, but this news website is taking things a bit too far and out of context I feel. Although I did like the post above about how the best way to get to legalization is to treat it like alcohol, in which case perhaps we are all misreading the underlying goal of this law…
“They are automatically guilty even though they are no longer impaired by it,” said Tim Beck, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which wants the drug legalized, taxed and regulated for adult use as alcohol is. “It’s not based on common sense or justice.”
“Plainly, there is no rational reason to charge a person who passively inhaled marijuana smoke at a rock concert a month ago,” Cavanagh wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Elizabeth Weaver and Marilyn Kelly. "Now, if a person has ever actively or passively ingested marijuana and drives, he drives not knowing if he is breaking the law, because if any amount of 11 carboxy-THC can be detected – no matter when it was previously ingested – he is committing a crime.
It is rather disturbing that the Mich. Supreme Court ruled in favor of this asinine law. They are not basing their decisions on reality or scientific evidence.
I hope we haven’t seen the last of the court reviews concerning this particular law. Maybe it can be overturned in a fed. court? (I have no clue how state laws and the federal system work or don’t work together).
[quote]Kailash wrote:
They should still use field sobriety tests as a basis for drug testing. If you pass the field sobriety test, then you can just get charged for speeding, reckless driving, etc. But failing that test, then they’ll look further into what drug impairment there might be present.
If you do test positive for a certain level of THC in the bloodstream (as with a certain level of alcohol), then tack on the DUI and any associated penalties.[/quote]
I don’t believe any of the commonly used quick tests are designed to guage levels, only presence.
[quote]Rusty Barbell wrote:
I think you’re all missing the point. How can you be tested for PREVIOUS marijuana use on site? You can’t and you won’t be. Sure maybe if your eyes are bloodshot and you can’t stop laughing when the cop asks you a question, then he may very well consider you under the influence and you will be charged with DUI. I think this is more of a “if you’re caught smoking/posessing and driving, you can face a DUI type deal.” Where if you get pulled over, and your car stinks of pot, and there’s roaches in it and you look blantantly stoned, etc.; you will get a DUI not just a posession charge.
If you get pulled over, cops are not going to say “here’s your speeding ticket, and oh uh just piss in this cup and we will get back to you.” Or perhaps at it’s worst, it could mean that if somehow you are on probation and get drug tested and fail for pot, over which the same time period you got a traffic citation, you could potentially get charged with a DUI. And even that’s a bit too excess and anyone with an attorney could get out of that ridiculous of a charge.
I am as liberal as anyone here, and for legalization no doubt, but this news website is taking things a bit too far and out of context I feel. Although I did like the post above about how the best way to get to legalization is to treat it like alcohol, in which case perhaps we are all misreading the underlying goal of this law…[/quote]
How do you know? Are you familiar with the whole story? If it’s as you say, than those drivers are ACTUALLY high and a Driving While Intoxicated would be entirely appropriate. I don’t think that’s the case. It wouldn’t be news if it was. Most states already have a charge for driving impaired on a substance.
As an experienced police officer who has seen my share of impaired drivers, I dont have any idea how one would discover that someone had used marijuana within 30 days after a motor vehicle stop. If there are no signs of impairment, we cant go any further.
[quote]Kailash wrote:
They should still use field sobriety tests as a basis for drug testing. If you pass the field sobriety test, then you can just get charged for speeding, reckless driving, etc. But failing that test, then they’ll look further into what drug impairment there might be present.
If you do test positive for a certain level of THC in the bloodstream (as with a certain level of alcohol), then tack on the DUI and any associated penalties.[/quote]
They do this in Pennsylvania. After it is determined that a person is intoxicated, they are taken to a hospital, blood drawn and it is determined how much and of what the person was on.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
As an experienced police officer who has seen my share of impaired drivers, I dont have any idea how one would discover that someone had used marijuana within 30 days after a motor vehicle stop. If there are no signs of impairment, we cant go any further. [/quote]
The net result of overly “proactive” laws like this tend to be judicial decisions that push the status quo back in the other direction. For example, we could get a court respond to this by ruling that no particular blood alcohol level can stand alone as proof of impairment, or that refusal of a test alone can warrant revocation. Police could be forced to catch someone on video driving erratically to produce evidence of impairment.
I don’t want to make it harder. I had 2 dui’s 15 and 10 years ago, and it took that to get me to stop drinking, but it opens the door and raises the likelyhood of getting sweeping court decisions in the other extreme.
You are the one that’s missing the point. This is not treating it anything like alcohol. THC can remain in your body for up to a month but the active effects are long gone [probably by the next morning after smoking] and you are no longer physically or mentally impaired WHATSOEVER. Yet, you can be considered so under this law. [/quote]
You are assuming that the bar for intoxication would be placed so low that the test itself would be unreasonable. Do you think that the bar for alchohol ( 0.08 in texas ) is too low? Why would it be different for marijuana? And yes, it can remain in your body for a while, but at a certain level, usually just after you hit the joint, it will impair your driving abilities. I just looked at a psychology textbook ( the author seems pretty pro-drug ) which said that it has been shown to impair driving even if the stoned individual does not realize it. Anyway, unless you have a reason to think that the laws would be unreasonable for marijuana, I don’t think that you really have a point at alll.
Practically, it is going to be
" tested " one way or another. If not by a urine test at the station or hospital then a field sobriety test w/r/t that separate charge that you mentioned.
You are assuming that the bar for intoxication would be placed so low that the test itself would be unreasonable. Do you think that the bar for alchohol ( 0.08 in texas ) is too low? Why would it be different for marijuana? [/quote]
Because without Gas Chromotography, it would be very difficult to assess how much would be in a user’s system. That means their only way of discerning use would be whether it is detected AT ALL, especially at a routine traffic stop. This is nothing like alcohol use which has been proven to affect cognitive abilities at a certain level. Alcohol doesn’t stay in someone’s system in detectable levels for weeks after they drink. There is also no standard of “highness” like there is for being drunk. It is either in your system or it isn’t.
Because without Gas Chromotography, it would be very difficult to assess how much would be in a user’s system. That means their only way of discerning use would be whether it is detected AT ALL, especially at a routine traffic stop. This is nothing like alcohol use which has been proven to affect cognitive abilities at a certain level. Alcohol doesn’t stay in someone’s system in detectable levels for weeks after they drink. There is also no standard of “highness” like there is for being drunk. It is either in your system or it isn’t.[/quote]
I never said that a test would measure your highness. All of these tests are supposed to detect the amount of thc metabolites if it is more than than a certain level, you would be impaired as far as the test is concerned. Again, the question is, why assume that this level would be so minute that somebody that smoked a joint a week ago would get put in jail for a DUI?
Actually X, i’ve spoken with lab officials before and they have verified that it is tested to see whether the amount of whatever is over a certain level or not. I can call some friends tomorow that work in such places and even try to speak to a labcorp official.
I think that the term " testing for the presensce of … " is used for simplification.
I never said that a test would measure your highness. All of these tests are supposed to detect the amount of thc metabolites if it is more than than a certain level, you would be impaired as far as the test is concerned.[/quote]
For the last time, this is not the case. You seem to be a little slow on this one for some reason. THC can be detectable in chronic users for up to 30 days or more. They are not impaired days after smoking even though they could very well test positive. There has been NO LIMIT GIVEN TO DETERMINE HOW “HIGH” SOMEONE IS. Did you catch that this time?
Because no test can determine WHEN someone smoked or how much they smoked at that time. Get it? It is either in your system at detectable levels or it isn’t.
Actually X, i’ve spoken with lab officials before and they have verified that it is tested to see whether the amount of whatever is over a certain level or not. I can call some friends tomorow that work in such places and even try to speak to a labcorp official.
I think that the term " testing for the presensce of … " is used for simplification.[/quote]
I could care less who you call. Gas Chromotography detects the level of THC present. Over a certain amount gets labeled as “positive”. This is done because other substances, like sesame seeds, can cause false readings for THC as well. It does not tell you how much someone smoked or when they smoked which is why it makes no sense to label someone as DUI if they aren’t “high” now.
Get it? It doesn’t matter if someone gets read over a certain amount of THC. That doesn’t mean they are high now. It doesn’t mean they are under the influence now. All it tells you is that they smoked sometime within the last 30 days. That is all it tells you.
Who cares? Just one more consequence to doing something that is already illegal.
If you don’t want to be a ‘victim’ of this terrible new law DON’T SMOKE WEED!
Over productive laws? There COULD be a fed. ruling? Those are seperate issues, the implications of which would be discussed at that time. And the exsample of cops having to get video footage as evidence of empairment is a bit extreme. No court would uphold or make such a ruling.
And yes, it would be news even if there wasnt a real issue. Thats what the media does. They find stories that arent there and find an ‘expert’ to support thier point of view. Just look at what they are doing to the sup. industry. Do I need to mention Y2K?
Talk to the guys on the ground, the ones that actually have to enforce the law. Any cop will tell you that it would be too costly time consuming to unleash all this persicution on the poor little pot-heads.
The point is that a certain level of THC could be determined to be standard for intoxication, just like alchohol is.
If we have tests to detect very minute amounts, as you mentioned to see if drugs have been recently smoked, then why not have a less sensitive test to see if a LARGE amount was in your body?
Again, we are arguing over whether Z concentration of THC metabolites constitutes intoxication. It could be argued either way, but i will remind you that a standard has been set for alchohol. We don’t test this way YET but, it could be done theoretically. It’s not that I’m slow, it’s that you can’t see the big picture. Of course there are no tests currently , but those could be developed just like the standards have been made for alchohol.
Thanks for your thoughts and the attempt to debate this but you really just don’t or can’t get it.
[quote]lumbernac wrote:
The point is that a certain level of THC could be determined to be standard for intoxication, just like alchohol is.
[/quote]
No, it can’t because different people will eliminate the drug at slower or faster rates. Alcohol leaves the body very quickly. THC is very dependant upon metabolism and even body fat. This is what I am trying to get you to understand. Why is it you just don’t want to?
Didn’t read the OP link, but this kinda thing is typical (fromt eh comments) of the police / society in general.
I ghet it worse off my mum - had an argument about it with her yesterday - shes like ALL DRUG DEALERS ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH, and all drug takers are bad because she thinks that “doin drugs” means that your stoned all the time. im like mum you know i do smoke it a lot, but am i stoned all hte time?! of course I’m fucking not.
We had a very close family friend who was dealing and he got caught and was in court hte other week - I said to her, so what about him?! you KNOW hes not a bad person but you think all drug dealers are scum. She said “hes jus misguided”. I laughed in her face.
You can’t tar everyone with the same brush and then dip it in white spirits when it suits you. The government has her approach - everyone if theyre this, or this, is bad. Fuck the developed world where we live is all i can say.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lumbernac wrote:
The point is that a certain level of THC could be determined to be standard for intoxication, just like alchohol is.
No, it can’t because different people will eliminate the drug at slower or faster rates. Alcohol leaves the body very quickly. THC is very dependant upon metabolism and even body fat. This is what I am trying to get you to understand. Why is it you just don’t want to?[/quote]
Lumbernac, you just don’t get it. THe active effects of THC are gone after a matter of hours. And it is not like alcohol where the substance itself leaves the body quickly. There is no threshold level that could possibly be set. The difference in levels between someone that is not impaired or high in any sense of the word and someone who has just smoked can be so incremental as to be indistinguishable. This means that someone who smoked two days ago but is perfectly fine to drive can get a DWI. They are probably much better equipped to drive than the dolt who made their coffee extra strong by accident that morning and is a little too wired and distractable.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Yeah, the Republican party is extremely removed from anything resembling a traditional Republican or conservative. They’ve maintained all of the worst parts and loss all of the best. They and their decisions are truly atrocious.
[/quote]
It’s worse than that. They are ‘extremely removed’ from reality.
The War on Drugs is a money-wasting sham. The only people it’s been good for is the companies making money building, running, and supplying prisons.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:
This country is going down into a shithole.
Im so sick of this conservative crap.
Ive had enough of the “Im gonna tell your mommy” party of conservatives.
I smell a republican behind this one.
Your probably right. This is why I stopped calling myself a republican. Conservative law is SUPPOSED to deal with a problem that it claims to deal with. This is calling something, something that it is not. I used to think that only the dems did that, but in the last 4-5 years I’ve seen more and more republicans introduce laws with a hidden purpose.
Anyway, I am against this law, however, at least for those under 21 in my state, you can lose your license for possessing drugs, carrying a false ID, attempting to purchase alcohol, being publically intoxicated. I think a 17 year old can lose their driver’s license for buying cigarettes.
Don’t call it a DUI. If you want to take away someones drivers license for drug possession, thats not unacceptable to me, but call it what it is-a punishment for a proven crime.