Roadside Cannabis Test?

[floralheart]

Why do we suddenly need new roadside cannabis testing? What am I missing here?

Do you smell like cannabis? Do your clothes or hair smell like cannabis? Are your eyes bloodshot or watery?

Does your car smell like freshly smoked marijuana? Is there a roach in the ashtray? Can you form a complete sentence and hold a conversation? Are you driving like a normal person?

If not, there is no reason to believe you've smoked marijuana. If there is, there is a reason to believe.

If you can't meet those criteria, what's the probable cause that would lead anyone to administer a saliva test? If you do meet the criteria, why would anyone be tested, they'd be on their way to jail.

What really gets me is this... you're telling me, that we've been fighting a drug war for 80 years. And for that time the current methods were acceptable.

Now that cannabis is becoming legal, we need more sophisticated methods to protect people?

A method good enough for a war, is not good enough for a not war?

I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[_tessarecting]

Freedom = control

 

[Bud Green]

Too many people, including lots of politicians and lots of law enforcement types,
feel that they are slowly losing their power and control over you in the cannabis department....

They feel that they need these tests so they can continue to intimidate ordinary, otherwise law-abiding citizens....

 

[stoned-trout]

new source of revinue sp?... yeehaw...your government wants your money and your ass...

 

[EsterEssence]

Not to mention i think most cannabis smokers could pass a field sobriety test...

 

[dddaver]

I am a long time user and legalization advocate. I see no problem with this.

Firstly, anyone can use a vape or eat a medible and jump in their car. I myself don't drive under the influence nor do I ever want anyone else stoned out on the highways. Not safe.

Then also one of the biggest arguements against legalizaton is, the opponents to legalization say they can't tell if a driver is ripped unless they draw their blood, then only know that person has used in the last month or whatever. Roadside saliva tests kinda shoot down that argument against legalization. They reportedly can only tell use within the last 6 hours or so.

I am a libertarian at heart but a registered independant. Still I also have live in the real world under an wickedly oppresive gov't. And I think this one is a good thing.

 

[floralheart]

Too many people, including lots of politicians and lots of law enforcement types,
feel that they are slowly losing their power and control over you in the cannabis department....

They feel that they need these tests so they can continue to intimidate ordinary, otherwise law-abiding citizens....

Not so sure. I believe legal weed brings more revenues, because you've got far more people in the pool that could break some minor rule. Rules that change without notice, year to year.

I've got a card that lets me have plants, but if I don't have them stored and transported just so so, I go to jail.

Before driving stoned was more a less going to result in a possession charge, but now it's basically a $10,000 DUI case. That's another story.

 

[LEF]

I think it mellows out people on the highways, i know i drive much slower when medicated.

 

[theJointedOne]

The problem is not sobriety tests but blood and breathalyzers.

I think with the tech now they can get you for 5nanograms or something like that. For a daily smoker we are always above those levels and would have to stop for many days to get it that low..

Lesson:be careful of driving pigs.

 

[WelderDan]

It is inevitable. You can get a DUI for prescription drugs. Just because you have a legal prescription doesn't give you a pass to drive around under the influence of painkillers or whatever.

You want legal cannabis? Well then you gotta accept responsibility for your actions, and that includes driving while stoned. You're piloting a 4000 lb vehicle, often mere feet away from vehicles traveling the opposite direction at a combined speed of 100 mph or more. Do you really want to share the road with someone that just over indulged by a few dozen bong hits?

 

[prune]

Where i am it's legal for a medical patient to have thc in their system, if they want to prosecute you they need to prove impairment. That's fair and balanced but it also makes it too hard for the nazi's to hassle you, so they need their tests and standards to hassle us expeditiously.

 

[noyd666]

the war will go on after we are gone, what else have they got to do.

 

[floralheart]

It is inevitable. You can get a DUI for prescription drugs. Just because you have a legal prescription doesn't give you a pass to drive around under the influence of painkillers or whatever.

You want legal cannabis? Well then you gotta accept responsibility for your actions, and that includes driving while stoned. You're piloting a 4000 lb vehicle, often mere feet away from vehicles traveling the opposite direction at a combined speed of 100 mph or more. Do you really want to share the road with someone that just over indulged by a few dozen bong hits?

I've been driving stoned for 20 years. I don't care if cannabis is legal or not. Been growing it before it was legal anywhere in the US.

My bigger concern is running into morons that can't drive stoned or sober, and having my blood drawn because of their incompetence.

I've been pulled over about 50 times in my life. No incident, no arrest. No doubt, stoned half the time.

Seems like it would get easier as I get older, not more complicated.

Anyone who over indulged a few dozen bong hits didn't make it out the door.

 

[floralheart]

I like the smell test, because it shows lack of impulse control. Smoke at home, wait 1.5 hours... you're good to go. If you can't drive now, it's not the weed. You just can't drive.

The one time I lit a joint in the car in the past 10/12 years, I had a dead relative sitting next to me in a box of ashes. I hit the freeway, and said fuck it.

 

[WelderDan]

I've been driving stoned for 20 years. I don't care if cannabis is legal or not. Been growing it before it was legal anywhere in the US.

My bigger concern is running into morons that can't drive stoned or sober, and having my blood drawn because of their incompetence.

I've been pulled over about 50 times in my life. No incident, no arrest. No doubt, stoned half the time.

Seems like it would get easier as I get older, not more complicated.

Anyone who over indulged a few dozen bong hits didn't make it out the door.

The thing is, people who over indulge DO make it out the door. All the time, everywhere. I know, I was one of them. I've been smoking for 40 years. I've done everything stoned. And then I blew through the stop sign by my house. One I've stopped at daily for 15 years. That wasn't my only screw up over the years, but it was a wake up.

Personal responsibility isn't just for Libertarians.

 

[HempKat]

Well one good thing about the saliva test is that it will only show recent use, unlike the urine test that can show dirty up to 1-2 months after you last used depending on what the cut off level is for establishing a positive result. Of course they're not going to mandate roadside urine tests for a lot of obvious reasons. The only other option for real time usage testing is a blood test but imagine the public outcry if police started trying to stick people with a needle to get a blood sample.

In fairness there are changes to one's vision when they're stoned that effect things like depth perception and peripheral vision, changes that could lead to an accident. So they do need some kind of real time testing.

 

[stoned-trout]

you can follow my smoke trail as I drive...yeehaw...

 

[#1cheesebuds]

Freedom = control

Could have not said it better.

My idea for fixing the problem of intoxicated driving of any kind is to really improve greatly on those self driving cars. I think it would also help those ppl who just plain suck at driving even when not intoxicated.

So imagine a whole new world with good working well built self driving cars. there'd be a whole lot less driving accidents on the roads.

It would also help ppl who cant drive because of a medical problem.

 

[Skinny Leaf]

Unbelievable.

Stoner vs. Texter.

Why is there a problem for me to drive from point A to point B without causing loss to property or life? So, I guess cops can predict the future on your present driving behavior?
I am all for more severe punishment for the cause of loss of life or property. So let's say you blow a stop sign and have a severe crash. If you are not intoxicated and fail to yield the right of way and cause a accident you are given a ticket to appear in court and your insurance pays for the damages. You go on your way. If you are intoxicated and fail to yield the right of way and cause an accident the penalties all around are more severe. Possible jail time, huge fines, loss of civil liberties, and the list goes on. So is the accident more severe because someone was intoxicated then when someone is not intoxicated? No they both caused loss of property and possible life. So then why is the same failure to follow a traffic sign penalized so much differently?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda, is not a law. Guilty or innocent there is no in between. But you could have caused an accident. This is the crap we as citizens allow governments to get away with. For those who think saliva tests are good. Thanks, I can't wait for the roadside anal probe.

 

[HempKat]

Unbelievable.

Stoner vs. Texter.

Why is there a problem for me to drive from point A to point B without causing loss to property or life? So, I guess cops can predict the future on your present driving behavior?
I am all for more severe punishment for the cause of loss of life or property. So let's say you blow a stop sign and have a severe crash. If you are not intoxicated and fail to yield the right of way and cause a accident you are given a ticket to appear in court and your insurance pays for the damages. You go on your way. If you are intoxicated and fail to yield the right of way and cause an accident the penalties all around are more severe. Possible jail time, huge fines, loss of civil liberties, and the list goes on. So is the accident more severe because someone was intoxicated then when someone is not intoxicated? No they both caused loss of property and possible life. So then why is the same failure to follow a traffic sign penalized so much differently?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda, is not a law. Guilty or innocent there is no in between. But you could have caused an accident. This is the crap we as citizens allow governments to get away with. For those who think saliva tests are good. Thanks, I can't wait for the roadside anal probe.

Well for one thing with regards to the intoxication question. The second you get behind the wheel of a car you are a danger if you are intoxicated. It's on you to realize that you're intoxicated and therefore you choose not to drive. Failure to do so in the courts eyes shows a depraved indifference to the safety of everyone else on the road.

As to the saliva test. So you would rather be taken into custody forced to give a urine sample and be found guilty of driving under the influence even though you hadn't actually smoked any weed for almost a month? See I'm in favor of saliva tests because I'm not going to be driving under the influence. Also cops aren't going to be spending all day just randomly pulling people over and giving them a saliva test, they must have a reason to pull them over first. If as you say you can get from point A to point B without incident then it's not likely you'll get pulled over and so why all the fuss about losing rights and what not? All you got to do is either not drive under the influence since nobody has a right to do so or get someone else to drive that's not under the influence.

I do agree however that someone texting while driving that causes an accident should be punished the same as someone under the influence. In each case the driver is giving up a significant part of his or her attention which endangers themselves and others. In both cases it's a willful choice they made because all they cared about was what they wanted and or they don't appreciate just how much deadly force a moving vehicle can generate even at speeds as slow as 35mph.