D.U.I.D????

[senorx12562]

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.

[quetzal]

If you are suspected of driving under the influence of drugs, you must submit to a blood test or face the same civil penalty. If you refuse a test, prosecutors will use this in court as part of their DUI case for your guilt. My own personal belief is that no test that comes back positive for any amount of THC will be exculpatory. I would refuse the test and trust my lawyer to win in court. Also, I have other compelling reasons: a DUI conviction would have professional consequences and since I seldom drive, I wouldn't be seriously inconvenienced by the loss of my license.

This is what I was thinking also. The new THC while driving guidelines will at least make it CLEAR at what level you can be charged with DUID. That level may be low, though not according to NORML :wtf:, but at least its understood. Now if they pull you over and suspect MJ, your only hope is to do or say whatever you have to to avoid the blood test, because any test is a bad test.

[HighPopalorum]

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.

Exactly. This is what we need for pot as well: bright lines that both sides rely on. Below X you're ok, above X you're screwed, above Y you're really screwed. What those limits should be and the method of testing I leave entirely up to others.

[TheReleafCenter]

How do I know what my nanogram level is before I drive? I understand that more than two drinks an hour and I'll be intoxicated and can make a judgment based on that.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

BBC Stoned Driving Experiment

:jointsmile:

[HighPopalorum]

How do I know what my nanogram level is before I drive? I understand that more than two drinks an hour and I'll be intoxicated and can make a judgment based on that.

Well, if you want to know your nanogram level, the only method I know of is a blood test. (Anyone feel free to correct me, I have no idea if their are other methods.) To avoid the inconvenience and expense of constant blood tests, I think you should choose a rule of thumb, similar to your "two drinks an hour" rule. Your rule and mine will likely be different: I can get pretty lit after two drinks. Like with booze, choosing to drive high is going to be a judgement call we each make slightly differently.

[quetzal]

How do I know what my nanogram level is before I drive? I understand that more than two drinks an hour and I'll be intoxicated and can make a judgment based on that.

That is the key question for patients, though lawmakers and police won't take the time to answer it for us. Its in our best interest to push for this issue to be studied and resolved as is possible. A good place to start is the CA NORML study which these 5 nanogram limits are based on:

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf

I think they're suggest 3-4 hours is the impairment window (for 5 ng) considering a medium to strong dose.

But since THC levels related to impairment vary so much from person to person and strain to strain, its going to be a struggle for patients to have their concerns heard and answered with the new DUID rules. How can you justly enforce a law based on criteria which citizens have no way of measuring!?

[senorx12562]

Exactly. This is what we need for pot as well: bright lines that both sides rely on. Below X you're ok, above X you're screwed, above Y you're really screwed. What those limits should be and the method of testing I leave entirely up to others.

If the scientific basis is accurate, meaning that if THC content at level x really does mean you're ripped and shouldn't be driving, and not "well, you might be ripped, or you might just be a pothead who smokes an oz a week but hasn't smoked in 8 hours, but since we can't tell the difference we'll charge you and shift the burden of proving you weren't impaired to you" I guess I would be ok with concentration level x being the trigger for a rebuttable presumption that a driver is impaired. If it really is the latter though, not so much,as Borat would say.

[GratefulMeds]

Hi All, well it's happened! Saturday afternoon a friend of mines little brother who is a long time connoisseur (and a mmj card holder) was pulled over after leaving his favorite dispensary in a speed trap on I-25 at 58th ave in Denver!! :apachecopter:

There was a familiar "medication" smell coming from his car and he was asked if he had partaken in said medication and stated yes! he had smoked "earlier" that day! :stoned: police did not believe him and asked him to open his mouth, they said his tongue looked funny or something and believed he had smoked more recently?

He was basically told "blood test" or loose your license!! tested positive for medication and was givin a D.U.I.D!!:asskick:

And YES! it's as serious and as costly as a D.U.I!!

Never ever give up any body fluids respectively decline the test invoke your right to be silent and call your lawyer, A good lawyer that has beat many driving while stoned cases is James (Skip) Wollrab and actually has told me it is one of the easier cases to beat as long as you do not give up body fluids and keep your mouth shut. just some advice for anybody in the same situation. and you should never admit to smoking for any less then 3 hours.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[leadmagnet]

and you should never admit to smoking for any less then 3 hours.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Three hours hell, you don't admit to EVER having ingested cannabis to the cops. Good fucking grief.

flexyourrights.com