Quote Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
Here's a point I'm not quite clear on:

Am I correct in believing that if I am stopped on suspicion of drunk driving and score below .05 (the DWAI threshold) I am not liable for a DUI charge? Am I also correct in believing that no matter what level of THC is detected, I still am liable for a DUID charge? This was why I was arguing in that other thread for a per se THC level.... we need a reasonable limit so that when we test under it, we drive away, just like booze! As things stand, I see no reason at all to submit to a drug test if there is no chance it will exculpate me. We only lose by taking the test. At least the drunks have a chance to win if they take it.

The more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with refusing a blood test under any circumstances. I don't drink and drive so I would submit to the breathalyzer if asked.
No. You could theoretically still be charged with driving with ability impaired if you blew under the .05 mark. They would have to prove that your ability to drive was impaired "to the slightest degree" by the consumption of alcohol, notwithstanding your low BAC. As a practical matter, I don't see it happening. Even Frank Azar could beat that one. The BAC presumptions in the law have really become bright lines that both sides rely on; under .05 your'e ok, over .05 your'e screwed ,over .08 your'e really screwed. As to your DUID question, regardless of the blood test results, since the law contains no such presumptions regarding a certain concentration of THC/THC metabolites equaling a certain level of impairment, the state would still have to prove that your ability to drive was impaired to either the slightest, or a substantial , degree to find you guilty of DWAID or DUID respectively. The law you were arguing in favor of would effectively relieve them of that burden by having a presumption for THC in your blood.