Weed DIU's, It's all about the $$$$$

[brokenscout]

http://hemp.org/news/content/colorado-marijuana-dui-bill-wins-unanimous-approval-house

[jerrymrc]

"We have a problem," claimed Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Aurora), despite the fact that there has been no rash of stoned-driving accidents. "The problem is, we have people who are deciding to smoke marijuana and get behind the wheel."


"We have a problem," claimed Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Aurora), despite the fact that there has been no rash of Assault weapon shootings. "The problem is, we have people who are deciding to put a magazine in a gun and fire bullets."

Fixed it for her. [Bang] She seems to have a "problem" with everything.

[motohooligan]

Surprised? Legalized weed has always been about money.

[HBARleatherneck]

Fixed it for her. [Bang] She seems to have a "problem" with everything.
except stealing for herself.

[Flatline]

Granted THC is actually a difficult drug to quantify for any forensic timeline or impairment, but that doesn't mean these people shouldn't be prosecuted. Pot slows your reaction time and that can be dangerous when driving. If these people are impaired they should be prosecuted, just like someone who is intoxicated by alcohol or prescription drugs. You want to use in a safe manner, I'm all for your freedom. You want to pot and possibly endanger the public, different story.

*Warning - mini rant* While pot is safer than many drugs in many ways, it still is a pharmaceutically active substance. There are situations where having used marijuna could result in fatality where it wouldn't have otherwise. Also, smoking marijuna still builds up crap in your lungs, despite what many of our local asthmatics/marijuana smokers seem to believe.

Side note, I just had a lecture from one of the county's forensic pathologists. He said that so many people show up with thc in their blood that they don't attribute it to a cause of death, but that didn't mean that it didn't possibly attribute to it.

[Great-Kazoo]

Surprised? Legalized weed has always been about money.

And back room deals with the Atty General. Pass gun laws, we look the other way on weed.

[cfortune]

I'm all for it. If I can get a DWI for having two beers and driving they should get similar treatment.

[Irving]

While the arbitrary level they pickef infuriates me, I realized that you could be several times over that limit and no one would even think to test you.

[Irving]

I'm all for it. If I can get a DWI for having two beers and driving they should get similar treatment.
It's not even a close comparison though. .05 nanograms is far less than what will fail you on a drug test, and you can fail a drug test as mich as a month after using weed. How do you feel 30 days after having two drinks?

[jerrymrc]

I will say that it will all be subjective. If you can prove that at a certain level your reaction times are fine and all the other crap then it will get tossed.

Just saying. [Flower]

[clublights]

I will say that it will all be subjective. If you can prove that at a certain level your reaction times are fine and all the other crap then it will get tossed.

Just saying. [Flower]

Then why can't I do that with alcohol ?

[Great-Kazoo]

Then why can't I do that with alcohol ?

Because [most] drunks are Sloppy. Depends how much of a professional drinker you are.
Dopers just kind of maintaining, you know dude, just maintaining.

[hammer03]

Think we can get the pot vote on board in ousting Fields?

[jerrymrc]

Then why can't I do that with alcohol ?

Two different mechanisms in play.

[clublights]

Because [most] drunks are Sloppy. Depends how much of a professional drinker you are.
Dopers just kind of maintaining, you know dude, just maintaining.
But Jerry said it will be subjective.....

so why can't i go prove that at a .08 I function just fine .....


Now from what I hear the 5 nano grams is way low.. ok maybe it is I dunno .. but there needs to be a way for the police to fairly handle the issue. fair to them. .. the public.. and the offender. I dunno what that is exactly but it needs to happen...... and folks drive stoned and get in accidents far more often then one would think.

[Irving]

Now from what I hear the 5 nano grams is way low.. ok maybe it is I dunno .. but there needs to be a way for the police to fairly handle the issue. fair to them. .. the public.. and the offender. I dunno what that is exactly but it needs to happen...... and folks drive stoned and get in accidents far more often then one would think.

Let's put some perspective into this conversation. You will fail a drug test at 50 nanograms of marijuana in your urine. They want to give you a DUI at 5 nanograms of marijuana. People go clean for weeks to get below 50 nanograms.

[clublights]

Like I said .... 5 nanograms is way low..

[BPTactical]

^^^Yup, a DOT initial screen will show hot at 50 nanos with a confirmation test cutoff level at 15.
Quite the cash cow they have created, tax at sale, fines at the consumption end. No wonder they don't care about MagPul etc leaving. Between Gay Pride week and the 64A cash cow they will pad the coffers quite nicely.


I despise this state.

[Ronin13]

Couldn't we just level... Come up with a form of roadside sobriety test that could be universally recognized, regardless of state's legal stance on the substance, that gauges one's abilities for reaction time and responses that would show they are too inhibited to operate a vehicle safely?

[sniper7]

Rhonda fields....a condom away from a good decision.

[Ronin13]

Rhonda fields....a BJ away from a good decision.

FTFY. [Beer]

[sabot_round]

Rhonda fields....a condom away from a good decision.


A condom away!! I wouldn't fuck her with your dick!!!

[Waywardson174]

It's not even a close comparison though. .05 nanograms is far less than what will fail you on a drug test, and you can fail a drug test as mich as a month after using weed. How do you feel 30 days after having two drinks?
Blood tests delineate active from passive thc levels in blood. Passive levels are often 15-20 times higher than active levels. The active level is what's used under the law for DUI.

[DingleBerns]

Couldn't we just level... Come up with a form of roadside sobriety test that could be universally recognized, regardless of state's legal stance on the substance, that gauges one's abilities for reaction time and responses that would show they are too inhibited to operate a vehicle safely?

It already exists. I use the same sobriety test whether your high or drunk and it has to be done a certain way. So at that point nanograms do not matter if you do not perform the sobriety tests as a sober person would. If you fail the tests most likely your going to get a DUI no matter what number your at because that shows that based upon all of the circumstances (amount of intake of alcohol or Marijuana, food consumed, body weight, etc.) the Alcohol/Marijuana impaired you enough while driving a motor vehicle.

[275RLTW]

For those of you who think impaired driving is OK, regardless of the substance: Would you let your stoned and impaired friend shoot your guns in the presence of your family in that condition? No? Then keep them out of a car near my family.

[Irving]

Blood tests delineate active from passive thc levels in blood. Passive levels are often 15-20 times higher than active levels. The active level is what's used under the law for DUI.

Is there any info out there of those differences in a urine test, just to lend perspective?

[Dingo]

When I used to smoke weed, I could tell my reaction times were slowed. The fallacy that stoned drivers are safer because they drive slower is BS. They may drive slower and a bit straighter than a drunk, but reaction times are definitely adversely affected. It's a pretty easy solution - don't drive when you're fucked up on ANYTHING. Not that hard.

[Mountain Man]

You do realize they have to fail a roadside sobriety test before they are tested for drugs unless they refuse the roadside tests? Plenty of drunk or stoned people have passed roadsides and gone on their merry way because they passed the physical portion.

[Lurch]

You do realize they have to fail a roadside sobriety test before they are tested for drugs unless they refuse the roadside tests? Plenty of drunk or stoned people have passed roadsides and gone on their merry way because they passed the physical portion.

Yes but can stoners pass the Funyun test. Throw a bag of those onto the hood of the car and watch how fast they move.

[Ronin13]

Yes but can stoners pass the Funyun test. Throw a bag of those onto the hood of the car and watch how fast they move.
[ROFL1] I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

[Dingo]

You do realize they have to fail a roadside sobriety test before they are tested for drugs unless they refuse the roadside tests? Plenty of drunk or stoned people have passed roadsides and gone on their merry way because they passed the physical portion.

I'm not totally clear on how that works... if somebody reeks of beer/weed/whatever, and is all bleary-eyed, but passes the roadside test with flying colors - does that mean he gets off and isn't considered impaired?

[bigshane]

I'm not totally clear on how that works... if somebody reeks of beer/weed/whatever, and is all bleary-eyed, but passes the roadside test with flying colors - does that mean he gets off and isn't considered impaired?
If he passes to the LEO's satisfaction, yes. Hardly ever the case though. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagnus test is a tough but to crack.

[DingleBerns]

I'm not totally clear on how that works... if somebody reeks of beer/weed/whatever, and is all bleary-eyed, but passes the roadside test with flying colors - does that mean he gets off and isn't considered impaired?

There are a lot of variables that are taken into consideration before we make our decision to arrest or let go. I've done tests on someone that was .16-.2 (can't remember) and they passed with flying colors. Good thing about that was it was a controlled environment for training. Alcohol affects everyone differently so the ones that count are the people who are obviously impaired and a danger to society. You can be like the lady at .16 and be fine or you can be a .05 and can't stand up...

[centrarchidae]

Maybe. And then someone, we could possibly call them NHTSA or some wacky acronym, could piss a bunch of Federal money up against a wall trying to figure out how these tests would work, and what the results might mean, and how screwed up someone's performance on them should be to mean that they're not capable of driving.

They could then publish a guide that would create a standard. We could even call them "standardized." And since they'd be for the use of police in the field to make preliminary assessments of sobriety, we could also call them "field sobriety tests."

Naaahhh...that's crazy talk.

ETA: DingleBerns got there first.


Couldn't we just level... Come up with a form of roadside sobriety test that could be universally recognized, regardless of state's legal stance on the substance, that gauges one's abilities for reaction time and responses that would show they are too inhibited to operate a vehicle safely?

[Ronin13]

There are a lot of variables that are taken into consideration before we make our decision to arrest or let go. I've done tests on someone that was .16-.2 (can't remember) and they passed with flying colors. Good thing about that was it was a controlled environment for training. Alcohol affects everyone differently so the ones that count are the people who are obviously impaired and a danger to society. You can be like the lady at .16 and be fine or you can be a .05 and can't stand up...
You just poked a bunch of holes in our system right there... I know people (my GF for instance) who are lightweights, two beers and they're hosed. Then there are the popularly called "functioning alcoholics" who go all day at .2 BAC and can get into a backhoe and dig you a perfect hole for your doomsday bunker. Funny how that works, alcohol affects everyone differently, same as weed... But we need somewhere to draw a line. I don't know where that line should be, I'm not a doctor, or a lawyer, or even a politician (thank God!).

[clublights]

The reason for a limit that is tested for is to remove the subjective opinion of the police officer. I get that.

The road sides while they MAY be a good way to get a picture of sober or not are kinda .. well dumb... I don't often tip my head back and try to touch my nose while driving. nor do I try to heel toe walk ( hell I never do that and even stumble when sober cuz it's an unnatural way to walk) Say my ABC's backwards?? come on.

However if you got me to a .08 and tested me in a driving simulator I'd be just fine.

BUT there needs to be a testable limit to be fair across the board. I'm an extreme example I get that. and something like this you have to go "lowest common denominator", so the girl that has 2 beers and is wasted sets the limit for the "professional drinker". Fair? no.. the way it is? YUP.

With weed the problems are these as I see it.

It's (currently) hard to chemical test with out seeing stuff left over from last month. That needs to be figured out. also the levels of it need to be figured out a lot better. I don't know how this can or will be done but I know it NEEDS to be done.
Personally the few times I've tried weed I'm a one hit wonder. one and done. and while high on that one hit the idea of driving a car is absurd to me . BUT I know cats that smoke all day all night and could probably out drive Mario Andretti. So just like the reverse of above you have to test for ME the lowest common denominator.

The other problem is that the "Weed Community" as a whole thinks smoking and driving is OK. This mindset needs to be fixed.

FYI I do NOT condone drinking and driving even for those at a "pro level" of drinking. It's bad and don't do it and do your best to keep others from doing it.

[Ronin13]

Clublights- I agree 100%, that's kind of the point I was making... the system isn't perfect, but it's the way it is, because, well, we have to have something tangible to gauge levels of intoxication and people more experienced than you and I came up with this stuff. However, so that it doesn't appear I'm coming from a position of complete ignorance, I did smoke weed in my youth, and I'll tell you, nothing is worse than smoking up, watching 4 hours of Cops (it was a marathon or something) then someone brought up the idea that I, the only licensed driver in the house, drive everyone to a party... Thank you NO! Are you insane!?

[clublights]

LOL exactly ! I don't see how anyone could drive while high ...

but they do and I understand that they are probably just fine.

My other thing is I see fuckers driving down the road smoking a joint OFTEN. like once a week ( maybe less... depends on how much I'm driving that week,.. some times I'll put 1000 miles a week on .. others 5 miles LOL ) but I've only seen someone actually drink while driving maybe 4 or 5 times total in my life.

Perhaps the drinkers are just better at hiding it ... but the difference between a joint and a cig is pretty easy to see .... and if they are hitting the bowl it's obviously not tobacco LOL. I saw some kids hitting a 4 foot bong while driving in rush hour traffic one time...

oh and FYI my post wasn't directed at you as much as it was just me spewing my opinion [Beer]

[275RLTW]

What part of "do not drive under the influence" is not getting through? No influence= Zero. There is the limit. If you want to drink/smoke/play with farm animals/whatever...don't drive afterwards. Again, we don't go shooting after drinking so don't drive after smoking. It's that easy and doesn't require some bullshit testing methods or study. It's called responsibility and accountability. Just don't fucking do it.

[clublights]

What part of "do not drive under the influence" is not getting through? No influence= Zero. There is the limit. If you want to drink/smoke/play with farm animals/whatever...don't drive afterwards. Again, we don't go shooting after drinking so don't drive after smoking. It's that easy and doesn't require some bullshit testing methods or study. It's called responsibility and accountability. Just don't fucking do it.

So going to a restaurant and having A glass of wine or going to the game and having A beer is a no go for driving period in your opinion ?

[275RLTW]

So going to a restaurant and having A glass of wine or going to the game and having A beer is a no go for driving period in your opinion ?
Under the influence is under the influence.

[clublights]

Ok fair....


BUT


you can get a .02 from cough meds. mouthwash.... so on and so on .


I dunno.. I guess I just disagree with your hardline approach

[Irving]

What part of "do not drive under the influence" is not getting through? No influence= Zero. There is the limit. If you want to drink/smoke/play with farm animals/whatever...don't drive afterwards. Again, we don't go shooting after drinking so don't drive after smoking. It's that easy and doesn't require some bullshit testing methods or study. It's called responsibility and accountability. Just don't fucking do it.
So what is the time limit? A week after a joint is driving after smoking.

[275RLTW]

Ok fair....


BUT


you can get a .02 from cough meds. mouthwash.... so on and so on .


I dunno.. I guess I just disagree with your hardline approach
Lose a family member to a stoner then see what your opinion is.

So what is the time limit? A week after a joint is driving after smoking.
"under the influence" pretty simple & doesn't require too much common sense.

[DingleBerns]

The road sides while they MAY be a good way to get a picture of sober or not are kinda .. well dumb... I don't often tip my head back and try to touch my nose while driving. nor do I try to heel toe walk ( hell I never do that and even stumble when sober cuz it's an unnatural way to walk) Say my ABC's backwards?? come on.

Apparently you don't know what the standard field sobriety tests are, you have heel-to-toe right and that's it. The rest is from Reno911 or something, ha! And why are they dumb? BTW what you said is a very common and good quote to note in the reports " I couldn't do that sober."

[clublights]

BUT the problem is .08 IS under the influence.. .07 is NOT. ( well .05 to be truly clear legally)

SO what I've been talking about in this thread is setting that definition for weed.

from what others have said on this so far is that 5 nanograms is the testing equivalent to a .01 from mouthwash.


I'm sorry for your loss.

[clublights]

Apparently you don't know what the standard field sobriety tests are, you have heel-to-toe right and that's it. The rest is from Reno911 or something, ha! And why are they dumb? BTW what you said is a very common and good quote to note in the reports " I couldn't do that sober."


So I guess all those times I've seen police dash cam video.. and episodes of COPS ( and similar) doing those EXACT tests were actually reno 911... Ok ........

[DingleBerns]

BUT the problem is .08 IS under the influence.. .07 is NOT. ( well .05 to be truly clear legally)


You are under the influence when you are above a .00. You are assumed to be impaired between .05 and .07


So I guess all those times I've seen police dash cam video.. and episodes of COPS ( and similar) doing those EXACT tests were actually reno 911... Ok ........

Regional and local preferences for other performance tests still exist, even though some of the tests have not been validated. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration SFST's are used in all 50 states.

[Great-Kazoo]

Ok fair....


BUT


you can get a .02 from cough meds. mouthwash.... so on and so on .


I dunno.. I guess I just disagree with your hardline approach

You can also be under the influence for prescription drugs. ANYTHING that says May Cause Drowsiness if taken and pulled over can get you arrested. Cough meds that contain alcohol and you are weaving, etc again DWAI or DUI, depending on your tolerance for alcohol. I've known alky's that would drink furniture polish for a buzz. Those folks while not "exhibiting" the usual symptons of UI or AI will sure as hell blow hot when tested.

[Dalendenver]

It's called "tolerance". Drink for years and you will build up a tolerance to alcohol, takes a lot more to get you "drunk". I once had a girl in treatment that blew a .40. She should have been unconscious but she was driving and actually quite well. She just happened to make a left turn when she shouldn't have and in front of a cop. Same thing happens with weed as I understand it.

[stubbicatt]

I am far from an expert on this subject, but if my reading on the subject is correct, there are many cannabinoids in pot, 2 of them are active: THC, and another whose moniker escapes me. Of the active cannabinoids, THC has a fairly predictable metabolism rate. It decays as your body metabolises it, and it is readily susceptible to quantitative analysis.

If a piss test looks for ANY cannabinoids, such as employment etc., then some of you are right, it can take a very long time for the body to rid itself of ALL cannabinoids, but as I understand it, THC and the other psychoactive constituent of cannabis do metabolize in a predictable fashion.

This is not wacky science either. Last summer when the legislature wrangled with this issue, they had two conflicting studies indicating at what point impairment occurs in the human being. They were unable to reach a conclusion last summer, and so tabled the issue until now. As I understand it, they now have a presumptive blood THC reading for impairment.

A presumption is rebuttable, and I am certain that as jurisprudence progresses, there will be attacks on the presumption on an ad hoc basis, as there are for DWAI and DUI cases even now. These attacks on alcohol impairment generally fail.

In the end, it is the obligation of the responsible user of intoxicants to conduct themselves in such a way that they do not harm others. Just as .08 is a presumption for DUI, I am glad that the legislature arrived at a presumption for DUID.

[Irving]

If that is the case, then this sounds like a pretty simple issue that will, like many things, be combatted with excess of incorrect info and public opinion.