2 ms·
I agree this is quite a problem, and not fair. But, what alternative do the police have? Refuse to arrest people for driving while high, because they have no te
by everdrive 8y ago
I agree this is quite a problem, and not fair. But, what alternative do the police have? Refuse to arrest people for driving while high, because they have no test for it?
I don't mean this rhetorically: it seems that we have to err in one direction or the other until we come up with a better test. What do you think?
- mercer 8y agoThe tests that exist are fine. A saliva test is decently accurate as a first pass to detect smoking in the past 48 hours or so. A blood test is more accurate, but can have 'positive' result for chronic smokers even if they've not smoked for weeks or months. The problem is rather that unlike alcohol, 1) there's no matter of degrees and the cut-off point for testing 'positive' is extremely low, plus the punishment is unusually high, especially when compared to alcohol which provably impairs driving significantly (and almost certainly more severely than weed). And 2), contrary to all other drugs, the 'evidence' of smoking is stored in your body's fat, which means you can test positive even if you've not smoked in a long time (and are almost certainly not driving-impaired).