5 ms·

Everything about enforcing driving stoned has changed. The stuff stays in your system too long to have a convenient test like alcohol does. So now you effective

by MadManE 11y ago

Everything about enforcing driving stoned has changed. The stuff stays in your system too long to have a convenient test like alcohol does. So now you effectively have no way to prove whether or not someone was breaking that law.

aidenn0 11y ago
I know it stays in fatty-tissue for a long time, but surely the fractional blood-content of THC is way higher 20 minutes after toking up than the next day?
- MadManE 11y ago
  So what's the test for that? Are you ok with giving police the authority to draw blood on a whim? Basically, we either accept an invasive test, or we can't enforce the law. Which is 100% different than what it was before.
  - aidenn0 11y ago
    I don't know about Colorado, but in many jurisdictions, the appearance of being impaired, plus a negative breath-test is sufficient cause for a blood draw already.
    - sageikosa 11y ago
      So what does the appearance of being stoned really look like?
  - cdr 11y ago
    Police already have the authority to draw blood for alcohol-impaired driving. If you refuse, your driver's license is automatically suspended and the refusal can be used against you in court.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      It's a bad law, and not every state is the same on this particular issue.
    - peppaz 11y ago
      They need a warrant to draw blood and really can only get one if you injured someone or destroyed their car. http://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/can-the-police-take-my-blood-against-my-will http://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/can-the-police-take-my-bl...
      - cdr 11y ago
        That link does not contradict what I wrote. In many (most?) states you must voluntarily submit to a blood test or face the above consequences.
  - alistairSH 11y ago
    How is it different than before? Pre-legalization, the police had no way to discern if a driver was high. Post-legalization the police still have no way to discern if a driver is high. The only difference is pre-legalization, they could arrest you for having some bud in your pocket. Now that can't do that.
aggie 11y ago
Detecting intoxication is a problem, but how is that different from before legalization? If someone was smoking illegally before, you still wouldn't be able to determine if they were driving stoned. Unless you're saying any amount of weed in their system should result in a DUI, even if it could have been from a week ago.
- keypusher 11y ago
  The illegality of the stubstance gave police an excuse to search the car, or to intimidate the driver into implicitly consenting to a search of the car, during which they inevitably find something the stoner or one of their friends forgot which leads to an arrest. I've seen it play out on COPS dozens of times. I wonder why they don't go back to doing a sobriety test for detecting intoxication though. It worked ok before breathalyzers, if you can pass the test than presumably you are ok to drive.
  - aggie 11y ago
    One study found a field sobriety test to correctly classify impaired driving state due to THC 65-75% of the time [1]. The chance of a false positive seems too high to me given the harsh penalty of a DUI. Field sobriety tests have been shown to be ~91-94% reliable for alcohol impairment [2]. 1 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073804007674 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073804... 2 - http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/48/3/608.short http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/48/3/608.short
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>The stuff stays in your system too long The evidence of the stuff stays in your system much longer than the impairment. There is also the issue of "tolerance" and or how the amount of substance present in urine or blood relates to the supposed impairment. >So now you effectively have no way to prove whether or not someone was breaking that law. But you can still perform an objective test to determine if someone is currently impaired. They need to design and validate a motor skills and reaction time test. I'm not sure why anyone cares more about why someone is impaired than they do about whether someone is impaired.
- MadManE 11y ago
  Sure, I'm all for a test that can determine your actual capabilities on the fly. What is that? I agree that the "why" isn't that important (or at all), but what is the alternative?
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    >What is that? It could hypothetically be as simple as a video game driving test. It could be some other abstract measurement of reaction time. I don't understand the question. A driving skills / reaction time test, is an alternative.
    - MadManE 11y ago
      Sorry, it should be: What is the practical alternative?
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Mind explaining why you think my proposal is impractical?
- yompers888 11y ago
  >I'm not sure why anyone cares more about why someone is impaired than they do about whether someone is impaired. It's easy to target people who are engaging in unnecessary actions at the expense of driving capability. Drinking, using drugs, and texting fall under this category. People are much less accepting of punishments for things seemingly outside of personal control. Imagine the embarrassment for law makers when some mothers' advocacy group attacks them for banning all new mothers from driving (except those rare exceptions who function well on <4 hours of sleep.) Or the backlash for hardworking people getting arrested regularly because their multiple jobs keep them from getting an amount of sleep that makes driving permissible.
davidw 11y ago
How did you prove they were driving while stoned before if they could credibly claim to have been stoned a week beforehand?
- MadManE 11y ago
  They weren't proving that they were stoned while driving. Before, being stoned at all was illegal. Different charge, different enforcement.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - TillE 11y ago
    > Before, being stoned at all was illegal. Nope! The only relevant crime is possession, and "in your bloodstream" doesn't count.
unprepare 11y ago
Whereas before it was legalized they could...?
betenoire 11y ago
It was explained to me like this in the state I grew up in... The law is to prevent dangerous driving. It doesn't matter if you have a sip of beer or a 6 pack, if it impairs you, that's against the law. HOWEVER, once your BAC reaches 0.08, that is proof enough of being impaired. Lower than 0.08, then they must show that you are impaired. And if you fail the sobriety field tests, you are impaired. My point is, if you can't tell if someone is impaired, even after field tests, then maybe they aren't impaired. Regardless of what you suspect they may or may not have eaten. If they are impaired, the field tests will show and you can arrest them. I see no point in making this easier for law enforcement. I don't think we need more specific laws, that just opens up new questions and loopholes.
- edwhitesell 11y ago
  We were always told (as far back as being 15 year-olds in Driver's Ed.) if you get pulled over and the Officer suspects you are impaired, always decline the field sobriety tests and ask for a Breathalyzer at the station. This does 2 things: 1) It provides a definitive test which would later stand in court (if needed). 2) Gives you more time to "sober up" if you actually have been drinking. At the time, I remember thinking it was good information. In hindsight, it's rather funny to think it came from the High School teachers who were teaching Driver's Ed.
  - zachrose 11y ago
    I believe most (all?) states now have implied consent laws, under the rationale that driving is a privilege not a right. So declining a field sobriety test may in fact lead to the same penalties as failing one. (Maybe worth a shot though?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
    - edwhitesell 11y ago
      Interesting. I have not followed those types of laws in the 20 years (and 4 new states) since Driver's Ed. Going back to the Michigan laws, Implied Consent does apply there today. However, the implied consent of chemical testing only appears to apply if you've been arrested. You can, however, still be fined for declining the field sobriety test while not under arrest.

by MadManE 11y ago

aidenn0 11y ago

I know it stays in fatty-tissue for a long time, but surely the fractional blood-content of THC is way higher 20 minutes after toking up than the next day?

MadManE 11y ago
So what's the test for that? Are you ok with giving police the authority to draw blood on a whim? Basically, we either accept an invasive test, or we can't enforce the law. Which is 100% different than what it was before.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  I don't know about Colorado, but in many jurisdictions, the appearance of being impaired, plus a negative breath-test is sufficient cause for a blood draw already.
  - sageikosa 11y ago
    So what does the appearance of being stoned really look like?
- cdr 11y ago
  Police already have the authority to draw blood for alcohol-impaired driving. If you refuse, your driver's license is automatically suspended and the refusal can be used against you in court.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    It's a bad law, and not every state is the same on this particular issue.
  - peppaz 11y ago
    They need a warrant to draw blood and really can only get one if you injured someone or destroyed their car. http://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/can-the-police-take-my-blood-against-my-will http://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/can-the-police-take-my-bl...
    - cdr 11y ago
      That link does not contradict what I wrote. In many (most?) states you must voluntarily submit to a blood test or face the above consequences.
- alistairSH 11y ago
  How is it different than before? Pre-legalization, the police had no way to discern if a driver was high. Post-legalization the police still have no way to discern if a driver is high. The only difference is pre-legalization, they could arrest you for having some bud in your pocket. Now that can't do that.

aggie 11y ago

Detecting intoxication is a problem, but how is that different from before legalization? If someone was smoking illegally before, you still wouldn't be able to determine if they were driving stoned. Unless you're saying any amount of weed in their system should result in a DUI, even if it could have been from a week ago.

keypusher 11y ago
The illegality of the stubstance gave police an excuse to search the car, or to intimidate the driver into implicitly consenting to a search of the car, during which they inevitably find something the stoner or one of their friends forgot which leads to an arrest. I've seen it play out on COPS dozens of times. I wonder why they don't go back to doing a sobriety test for detecting intoxication though. It worked ok before breathalyzers, if you can pass the test than presumably you are ok to drive.
- aggie 11y ago
  One study found a field sobriety test to correctly classify impaired driving state due to THC 65-75% of the time [1]. The chance of a false positive seems too high to me given the harsh penalty of a DUI. Field sobriety tests have been shown to be ~91-94% reliable for alcohol impairment [2]. 1 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073804007674 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073804... 2 - http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/48/3/608.short http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/48/3/608.short

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

>The stuff stays in your system too long The evidence of the stuff stays in your system much longer than the impairment. There is also the issue of "tolerance" and or how the amount of substance present in urine or blood relates to the supposed impairment. >So now you effectively have no way to prove whether or not someone was breaking that law. But you can still perform an objective test to determine if someone is currently impaired. They need to design and validate a motor skills and reaction time test. I'm not sure why anyone cares more about why someone is impaired than they do about whether someone is impaired.

MadManE 11y ago
Sure, I'm all for a test that can determine your actual capabilities on the fly. What is that? I agree that the "why" isn't that important (or at all), but what is the alternative?
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >What is that? It could hypothetically be as simple as a video game driving test. It could be some other abstract measurement of reaction time. I don't understand the question. A driving skills / reaction time test, is an alternative.
  - MadManE 11y ago
    Sorry, it should be: What is the practical alternative?
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      Mind explaining why you think my proposal is impractical?
yompers888 11y ago
>I'm not sure why anyone cares more about why someone is impaired than they do about whether someone is impaired. It's easy to target people who are engaging in unnecessary actions at the expense of driving capability. Drinking, using drugs, and texting fall under this category. People are much less accepting of punishments for things seemingly outside of personal control. Imagine the embarrassment for law makers when some mothers' advocacy group attacks them for banning all new mothers from driving (except those rare exceptions who function well on <4 hours of sleep.) Or the backlash for hardworking people getting arrested regularly because their multiple jobs keep them from getting an amount of sleep that makes driving permissible.

davidw 11y ago

How did you prove they were driving while stoned before if they could credibly claim to have been stoned a week beforehand?

MadManE 11y ago
They weren't proving that they were stoned while driving. Before, being stoned at all was illegal. Different charge, different enforcement.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- TillE 11y ago
  > Before, being stoned at all was illegal. Nope! The only relevant crime is possession, and "in your bloodstream" doesn't count.

unprepare 11y ago

Whereas before it was legalized they could...?

betenoire 11y ago

It was explained to me like this in the state I grew up in... The law is to prevent dangerous driving. It doesn't matter if you have a sip of beer or a 6 pack, if it impairs you, that's against the law. HOWEVER, once your BAC reaches 0.08, that is proof enough of being impaired. Lower than 0.08, then they must show that you are impaired. And if you fail the sobriety field tests, you are impaired. My point is, if you can't tell if someone is impaired, even after field tests, then maybe they aren't impaired. Regardless of what you suspect they may or may not have eaten. If they are impaired, the field tests will show and you can arrest them. I see no point in making this easier for law enforcement. I don't think we need more specific laws, that just opens up new questions and loopholes.

edwhitesell 11y ago
We were always told (as far back as being 15 year-olds in Driver's Ed.) if you get pulled over and the Officer suspects you are impaired, always decline the field sobriety tests and ask for a Breathalyzer at the station. This does 2 things: 1) It provides a definitive test which would later stand in court (if needed). 2) Gives you more time to "sober up" if you actually have been drinking. At the time, I remember thinking it was good information. In hindsight, it's rather funny to think it came from the High School teachers who were teaching Driver's Ed.
- zachrose 11y ago
  I believe most (all?) states now have implied consent laws, under the rationale that driving is a privilege not a right. So declining a field sobriety test may in fact lead to the same penalties as failing one. (Maybe worth a shot though?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
  - edwhitesell 11y ago
    Interesting. I have not followed those types of laws in the 20 years (and 4 new states) since Driver's Ed. Going back to the Michigan laws, Implied Consent does apply there today. However, the implied consent of chemical testing only appears to apply if you've been arrested. You can, however, still be fined for declining the field sobriety test while not under arrest.