So 64 just got signed

[OneGuy67]

Ok, yesterday I gave my pro argument for 64, now for the con... The #1 problem I have with MJ is that there doesn't exist any way to immediately prove intoxication. Look at the PBT, they can tell, without a warrant or anything, if you're too drunk to drive in a single (long) breath. The only way to tell if someone has used MJ (from an LE standpoint) is a blood test, and without consent that requires a warrant. Even then, they cannot tell the level of intoxication or even how long ago you used. I can't get behind legalization until they can prove someone is driving under the influence (which some say is potentially worse than drunk driving).

Actually, you can do roadside maneuvers for MJ intoxication and there are indicators for it. However, it does require an arrest and consent to a blood test in the minimum, and a DRE (Drug Recogntion Expert) evaluation and blood test at the maximum. Given there are so few DRE certified officers in Colorado, the easiest way would be to train officers to look for the indicia and upon a probable cause arrest, request a blood test.

[Ronin13]

Actually, you can do roadside maneuvers for MJ intoxication and there are indicators for it. However, it does require an arrest and consent to a blood test in the minimum, and a DRE (Drug Recogntion Expert) evaluation and blood test at the maximum. Given there are so few DRE certified officers in Colorado, the easiest way would be to train officers to look for the indicia and upon a probable cause arrest, request a blood test.

So there is a way to prove someone is driving under the influence and follow up with charges? But isn't it pretty tough to prove?

[OneGuy67]

So there is a way to prove someone is driving under the influence and follow up with charges? But isn't it pretty tough to prove?

Yes. The legislative argument is what is going to be the defined limits of intoxication. You can drive with alcohol in your system and be under the legal defined limit. Right now, there is no legal defined limit for THC, so the prosecution hinges on officer observations and the proof, if you will, comes from the blood results. Failure to comply with the expressed consent law causes an administrative penalty of losing your license to drive for one year as well as the criminal prosecution in court. No test doesn't mean no prosecution; just a harder time in the prosecution.

[clublights]

Yes. The legislative argument is what is going to be the defined limits of intoxication. You can drive with alcohol in your system and be under the legal defined limit. Right now, there is no legal defined limit for THC, so the prosecution hinges on officer observations and the proof, if you will, comes from the blood results. Failure to comply with the expressed consent law causes an administrative penalty of losing your license to drive for one year as well as the criminal prosecution in court. No test doesn't mean no prosecution; just a harder time in the prosecution.

Not Correct ???

I thought ?

What is this I hear about 5 micrograms ?

[OneGuy67]

Not Correct ???

I thought ?

What is this I hear about 5 micrograms ?

5 nanograms is the limit that Representative King wants to put in place as a minimum level of THC intoxication to be charged with DUI/D. It is the intoxication level that other states have enacted. However, the pro pot community does not want this level as they argue you can have this amount in your system and not be what they consider to be under the influence.

[clublights]

5 nanograms is the limit that Representative King wants to put in place as a minimum level of THC intoxication to be charged with DUI/D. It is the intoxication level that other states have enacted. However, the pro pot community does not want this level as they argue you can have this amount in your system and not be what they consider to be under the influence.

yes I meant nanograms LOL

the way I've heard it reported I thought it was already the standard... my bad

Yeah I understand that pro pot community didn't like the 5 nanograms as it can just be residual. and picking a "standard" is tough.... I personally believe that .08 is not exactly fair for all folks and all body types but it is what the law is .
We need to come up with a standard that is fair to the people and LE

I also understand that we need to come up with a roadside instant test ...

[Ronin13]

5 nanograms is the limit that Representative King wants to put in place as a minimum level of THC intoxication to be charged with DUI/D. It is the intoxication level that other states have enacted. However, the pro pot community does not want this level as they argue you can have this amount in your system and not be what they consider to be under the influence.

Again, this is why it's too slippery-slope... THC stays in the system much longer than the effects, plus it's not like alcohol where you can have a beer, wait and then drive safely an hour later. You smoke, there is no slightly high, moderately high, really high... you're high or you're not high.

[cofi]

You smoke, there is no slightly high, moderately high, really high... you're high or you're not high.

um that's not how tha reefer works bro.....my aunt can take a puff or 2 in the morning to quell her MS and not be all loopy then at night she will smoke a whole joint and goto sleep

[Irving]

You smoke, there is no slightly high, moderately high, really high... you're high or you're not high.

You can't say something like this, and not expect to completely invalidate every other thing you've said in this thread. Please expand on this comment you've made here. What is your personal experience? Can you provided data from ANYWHERE that even comes close to supporting this statement?

[Great-Kazoo]

So there is a way to prove someone is driving under the influence and follow up with charges? But isn't it pretty tough to prove?

REM. dead give away.