Driving while stoned

Originally Posted by desert dude

There is already a law. You can be arrested and convicted for DUI for driving stoned.

It's not so easy right now, they have to prove you were impaired.

Saying anybody that has THC in there system is fucked up is different.

Originally Posted by 420God

It's not so easy right now, they have to prove you were impaired.

Saying anybody that has THC in there system is fucked up is different.

I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. The cops have to have probable cause to charge you with DUI. You are under no obligation to take a "field sobriety test", for example, if there is no indication of impairment. If the cop does have probable cause (smells alcohol on your breath, slurred speech, etc), then you MUST submit to a blood alcohol test (breath test, or blood test, your choice) and you must be charged before you are tested.

I think all the same rules apply with cannabis. So, if you offer no probable cause then you will not be charged and you cannot be forced to allow a blood test.

If you want cannabis to be legalized, then you better get used to the idea of DUI laws applying to pot smokers.

Originally Posted by desert dude

If you want cannabis to be legalized, then you better get used to the idea of DUI laws applying to pot smokers.

I agree. It may be hard to get used to at first but there has to be an agreement between marijuana smokers and society that we will use responsibly. If not, we will suffer the consequences, just like if we were caught driving under the influence of alcohol or prescription drugs (nasty shit, and worse than alcohol a lot of the time, personal experience here).

At the same time we should have rights as marijuana users, just like alcohol and prescription drug users, to use our medicine responsibly and this should fall on the individual user. There are people out there who will use irresponsibly and if there isn't a counter action to that then we will all be looked at as a great risk to the rest of the people on the road.

Originally Posted by desert dude

I know, and that is the big problem: How does law enforcement test for current intoxication?

If cannabis is ever to be legalized, the general public has to buy into the idea and vote for it. If the general public believes that carnage on the highways is the likely outcome of cannabis legalization, they will vote against it.

I agree that this is an issue for some but I believe that it is more of a red-herring by the anti-pot crowd. Driving while intoxicated by prescription meds is also illegal and not easy to test for, but that doesn't make people want to ban xanax or hydrocodone and those medication are taken for recreational reasons as well. This is the problem the anti-legalization activists have to overcome, their inherent and blatant double standards. Their only recourse is their fall back position that it is already illegal and appeal to popularity, a position in which they are steadily losing ground.

Originally Posted by mindphuk

I agree that this is an issue for some but I believe that it is more of a red-herring by the anti-pot crowd. Driving while intoxicated by prescription meds is also illegal and not easy to test for, but that doesn't make people want to ban xanax or hydrocodone and those medication are taken for recreational reasons as well. This is the problem the anti-legalization activists have to overcome, their inherent and blatant double standards. Their only recourse is their fall back position that it is already illegal and appeal to popularity, a position in which they are steadily losing ground.

True.

The legalization effort needs to emphasize that it is currently illegal to drive under the influence of cannabis and that is not going to change. We can't let the anti-freedom thugs get away with the claim that there will be Armageddon on the roads if cannabis is legalized.

We cannot win the PR war by claiming that cannabis does not impair judgment, reflexes, etc. First of all, it is not true, and second it makes this an us against them fight. We need ordinary citizens who have no interest in cannabis willing to join us in voting to legalize because it is the smart, humane thing to do.

Hey, I am all for punishment if caught driving impaired on anything. The truth is I know many people who take so many meds which make them vegetables and yet they drive. How is it that pot is public enemy #1 yet the pharmaceuticals are not pursued? How can someone with 'a mental condition' hopped up on tranquilizers still retain a license yet someone who smokes pot is automatically a liability? This system is so flawed by ignorance/corruption that it seems nobody wants address the real problem.

My local POLICE department has three officers that have been trained to test people for being under the influence of drugs and if you fail their drug test they can legally have blood drawn from you for confirmation and charge you similar to DUI!

Originally Posted by desert dude

I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. The cops have to have probable cause to charge you with DUI. You are under no obligation to take a "field sobriety test", for example, if there is no indication of impairment. If the cop does have probable cause (smells alcohol on your breath, slurred speech, etc), then you MUST submit to a blood alcohol test (breath test, or blood test, your choice) and you must be charged before you are tested.

I think all the same rules apply with cannabis. So, if you offer no probable cause then you will not be charged and you cannot be forced to allow a blood test.

If you want cannabis to be legalized, then you better get used to the idea of DUI laws applying to pot smokers.

Under the implied consent rule in effect in almost every state, you are most certainly required to submit to field sobriety testing or face automatic suspension of your licence for refusal. And in many instances, even though refusal does not mean admitting guilt, the courts take it as a "No Contest", and find you guilty of driving impaired if the cop says he suspects it.

The problem with current testing methods is that they do not actually determine THC levels. Testing for MJ use involves detecting the metabolytes of THC, and not the THC itself. If the scientific community could set a standard for how long the metabolic process takes, and put a timeline on each phase, we could determine recent use (within a couple hours) from use that occurred a week ago.