No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
*shrug*
If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.
No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
reasonable skills based testing is the only way. levels of cannabis in someone's system are no marker for sobriety.
No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
*shrug*
If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.
Youre already at risk when you get in the car. Simply driving while high hurts no one. Sobriety alone does not make driving safer. Your chances of being in a wreck with a sober person are much higher than being in a wreck with someone who is actually "drugged/intoxicated" at the time. There are already laws against causing bodily injury during a wreck, no matter what the reason was. Whether theyre high, drunk, playing with their stereo, or messing with their cell phone...its all the same cause and result. Someone wasnt paying attention, and messed up. If we're going to do this, we should make ALL possible distractions illegal. No noise above a certain level, no open food containers in the vehicle, no talking on the cell phone, backseats must be separated from front seats by 3" noiseproof glass, no vehicles will run for longer than 2 hours at a time bc people lose focus.....lol....
There is no need for this law other than criminalizing a greater number of the general population. Unless they plan on blood testing everyone they come in contact with, its pretty much impossible to enforce also. Are they going to claim that by having a license and driving I agreed to having my blood forcibly removed while being assaulted and battered?? Because thats what theyre going to do when I refuse...
Stats of "drugged driving" are skewed by mj's half life. The actual # of people who were stoned when they wrecked is way lower. The actual # of people who wrecked directly because of mj is even lower.
Everyone's body is different, whos to say what sensible is? Who sets that number, and what goes into deciding that threshold? Its obviously lower than when you actually make a driving violation, so where is it set?
Also, they need to test for psilocybin, lsd, peyote, and ecstasy as well. And id bet there is a bigger problem with meth and driving, especially with professional drivers, than mj and driving...
No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
Drive defensively. Don't speed more the 5 mph over, use your turn signal, don't use the cell while driving no matter whose calling, pull over first, and always, always look out for the other guy. And, let the local LEOs know your a medical user and maybe, if you drive defensively, they will leave you alone.
The last accident I had was partly my fault, but also the placement of the light. I was T-boned by two cars, all cars drove away, and I was issued a ticket that went away with no other offenses in a year due to the placement of the light and to avoid a trial. But, I missed a yellow watching an asshole driver cutting in and out in morning rush hour traffic. The officer never even brought up mmj and I damn sure didn't have alcohol on my breath, and I hadn't smoked anything yet that morning and was wanting to get home so I could. And, I was pissed the asshole cut me off. :twocents: more
No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverbear
I have been told to always say to an officer if stopped that I have not smoked any medicine in over 8 hours...if you tell them it was only a couple of hours before then you are dead meat....food for thought.
Better yet, don't tell him that you smoke at all!!! Why would you volunteer that information? Cops don't really consider it medicine and you're just setting yourself up to be hassled more.
If they do find out you're a patient (because you had some weed on you and had to present your card as defense) then tell them you only smoke occasionally when your arthritis flares up and it's been a couple days! Or something along those lines.
It's amazing that people still think cops are your friends. There's cops out there who'll be chomping at the bit to drag you downtown for this...
No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
*shrug*
If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.
Figures...
Typical troll response.
The fact of the matter is that you can be totally sober and still have >5ng/mL of THC metabolites in your blood...
And who is coming up with this arbitrary limit of 5ng/mL... scientists or politicians?
Let's see what you think when you're driving the morning after getting high and you get a frickin' DUI!
The point of this thread is that a reliable test can't be devised and sensible limits can't be set without occasionally penalizing responsible herb smokers...
No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
How is this testing to be done? I can't imagine cops taking blood samples on the side of the road. Is there some sort of breathalyzer for THC? The article talks about the limits, but doesn't mention the testing mechanism.
No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
Quote:
Originally Posted by lampost
Better yet, don't tell him that you smoke at all!!! Why would you volunteer that information? Cops don't really consider it medicine and you're just setting yourself up to be hassled more.
If they do find out you're a patient (because you had some weed on you and had to present your card as defense) then tell them you only smoke occasionally when your arthritis flares up and it's been a couple days! Or something along those lines.It's amazing that people still think cops are your friends. There's cops out there who'll be chomping at the bit to drag you downtown for this...
I kinda meant the same thing just did not say it a nice as you did...if they find it in your car always deny using it less then 8 hours..
better yet just don't drive and use medicine
No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
Yeah, how do they test for this? And what is enough cause to make them have reasons to test you? People are swerving in and out of lanes 25/8 anywhere in Metro all day long. Can I just get pulled over and One Time says, "I think you're on some dope there Sonny, give me some BLOOD?"
Blood? My fucking blood? And if not it's DUI and a suspended DL?
Really? My Blood? I have to let them jab me, whenever they may feel the need?
I hope I'm missing something here :mad:
No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI
Off the NORML site... You Are Going Directly To Jail - NORML
There's a new front in the "War on Drugs" and its name is DUID.
DUID, short for "driving under the influence of drugs," is the latest buzzword among politicians and police -- however, in this case, words can be deceiving.
Though billed by its sponsors as a necessary tool to crack down on "drugged driving" offenses,1 in reality, DUID laws -- in particular "zero tolerance" per se laws -- have little to do with promoting public safety or identifying motorists who drive while impaired. Rather, the enactment and enforcement of "zero tolerance" DUID legislation improperly defines many sober drivers as "intoxicated" solely because they were found to have consumed a controlled substance -- particularly marijuana -- at some previous, unspecified point in time.
DUID Defined
There are various types of DUID laws, some more pernicious than others. Today, every state has DUID legislation on the books. These laws fall into three distinct categories:
Effect-Based DUID Laws
Most state DUID laws are "effect based" laws. This legislation forbids drivers to operate a motor vehicle if they are either "under the influence" of a controlled substance, or if they have been rendered "incapable of driving safely" because of their use of an illicit drug. In order for a defendant to be convicted under this statute, a prosecutor must prove that the driver's observed impairment and/or incapacity was directly associated with the ingestion of an illicit substance. To do so, prosecutors typically rely on evidence gathered by law enforcement officers at the scene of an accident (i.e., a driver's failure to pass a field sobriety test, evidence that the motorist was driving at an excessive speed, etc.), testimony from a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), and/or a positive result from a blood or saliva test indicating recent consumption of a controlled substance. For the most part, this is a multidisciplinary standard that focuses on the totality of circumstances -- most importantly, whether the driver is observably impaired -- and accordingly punishes motorists who drive while impaired from having recently used illicit drugs.
Per Se DUID Laws
Per se laws prohibit drivers from operating a motor vehicle if they have greater than a set level of a drug or drug metabolite present in their system. Most Americans are already familiar with the most common driving-related per se laws: those governing drunk driving which define a driver as legally impaired per se if their blood alcohol level tests above .08%. Similar per se laws with strictly defined cut-off levels (a designated level of an active drug constituent or metabolite above which a sample is considered to be "positive" for a specific drug) are uncommon for DUID legislation.2 This is because, according to the US Department of Transportation: "Forensic toxicologists generally have failed to agree on specific [per se levels] that could be designated as evidence of impairment. The lack of consensus about per se levels of drugs where impairment could be deemed makes it difficult to identify, prosecute or convict drugged drivers in most states."3
"Zero Tolerance" Per Se Laws
Politicians and police have a simple, if unscientific, response to researchers' failure to define per se standards for DUID offenses: to enact "zero tolerance" per se laws. In their strictest form, these laws forbid drivers from operating a motor vehicle if they have any detectable level of an illicit drug or drug metabolite present in their bodily fluids.
This approach is not based on science but on convenience. In essence, "zero tolerance" per se laws define a new, driving-related offense that is, in the words of one of its chief proponents, "divorced from impairment." Under this standard, any driver who tests positive for any trace amount of an illicit drug or drug metabolite (i.e., compounds produced from chemical changes of a drug in the body, but not necessarily psychoactive themselves), is guilty per se of the crime of "drugged driving," even if the defendant was sober. In the case of marijuana, these laws are particularly troublesome. THC, marijuana's main psychoactive constituent, may be detected at low levels in the blood of heavy cannabis users for 1-2 days after past use.4 Marijuana's primary metabolite THC-COOH, the most common indicator of marijuana use in workplace drug tests, is detectable in urine for days and sometimes weeks after past use5-- long after any psychoactive effects have ceased. Consequently, under "zero tolerance" per se laws, a person who smoked a joint on Monday could conceivably be arrested the following Friday and charged with "drugged driving," even though he or she is no longer impaired or intoxicated.
To date, ten states have enacted "zero tolerance" per se laws: Arizona,6 Georgia,7 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,8 Michigan,9 Minnesota,10 Rhode Island, Utah,12 and Wisconsin.13 Among these, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, and Utah forbid drivers from operating a motor vehicle with any detectable level of a controlled substance or its metabolites in one's bodily fluids.