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

[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

[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 ?