|
Xandu posted:So it basically means you can't drive for a bit while after getting high. Is that really that terrible? Secondly, if after 24-48 hours the THC in chronic smokers' blood was 3.2 ng/ml, then I'd wager that after 10 hours they were probably over 5ng/ml. Maybe with more studies we'd find that even heavier smokers have over 5ng/ml after 24-48 hours. What if you couldn't drive for 10 hours after you had a beer?
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:First of all yes, because as has been pointed out before even Marinol says on the bottle you can drive safely while taking it. This presumes that blood tests will be as common as breathalyzers, yes? I severely doubt that that will be the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:First of all yes, because as has been pointed out before even Marinol says on the bottle you can drive safely while taking it. I would be fine with that because I am responsible and don't get drunk unless I'm not driving until I come to the next day. If you're going to use any substance that alters your ability to drive or function, you should loving plan your day accordingly. Do your shopping, go to work, hit the gym, then toke up. If you're taking bong rips when you have poo poo to do later, you're being irresponsible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:I would be fine with that because I am responsible and don't get drunk unless I'm not driving until I come to the next day. If you're going to use any substance that alters your ability to drive or function, you should loving plan your day accordingly. Do your shopping, go to work, hit the gym, then toke up. If you're taking bong rips when you have poo poo to do later, you're being irresponsible. The 5ng/ml limit is unscientific bullshit. Proof of this is that under Colorado law you can argue that you were not under the influence even if you test over the limit. You can't argue that if you blow over .08, they'd laugh you out of court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Am I the only person who thinks that what we really need is some kind of ability test that determines whether you are actually capable of driving? It seems like whether it's weed or booze the limits are a really crude and sometimes ineffective way of determining whether someone actually has the ability to drive. Surely we could figure out some way of doing this, maybe some kind of little video game you have to play to actually see what level your perceptivness or reflexes were like. Hell, we could use it to figure out which old people should be allowed to drive too, which would be a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Also what is the blood limit for nicotine? I need to know that because IMO driving after smoking a cigar is dangerous for a non-tobacco smoker like myself.computer parts posted:This presumes that blood tests will be as common as breathalyzers, yes? I severely doubt that that will be the case. For now they will ask you to take a roadside sobriety test, and I will reject that and request to be taken in for a blood test, because that's the only chance I have to beat a cop who wants me to get a DUI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Am I the only person who thinks that what we really need is some kind of ability test that determines whether you are actually capable of driving? It seems like whether it's weed or booze the limits are a really crude and sometimes ineffective way of determining whether someone actually has the ability to drive. Surely we could figure out some way of doing this, maybe some kind of little video game you have to play to actually see what level your perceptivness or reflexes were like. Hell, we could use it to figure out which old people should be allowed to drive too, which would be a bonus. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been sitting in a DMV watching as an employee holds the hand of an elderly person who clearly can't pass the eye test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Are you really this dense? Well since the legal limit for driving is 5 and not 3.2, and THC in the blood drops off like this:  I don't think I'm the dense one here. Washington State has taken a pretty firm stance you shouldn't drive while impaired or distracted by any number of things, up to and including cell phones (IIRC there are situations where a police officer can pull you over for smoking while driving as well, but you keep right on tilting at windmills). I am sorry that what is currently a violation of the law (driving while high) becoming a less severe more consistent violation (DUI) offends you so. I genuinely hope you are just playacting offended for the internet though and don't genuinely believe that driving around stoned is a good idea. Edit: Also you should read the actual text of how I-502 works before you start spouting off poo poo about how it works. They must test the level of THC in your blood within 2 hours if you consent to the test, this is right there in the law. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I am sorry that what is currently a violation of the law (driving while high) becoming a less severe more consistent violation (DUI) offends you so. I genuinely hope you are just playacting offended for the internet though and don't genuinely believe that driving around stoned is a good idea. Have you ever used marijuana before? Just wondering, because you seem to be quite deadset on keeping the current THC DUI limits intact, instead of pushing for studies to see what an average THC blood level of someone too impaired to drive safely would be. That chart you posted would seem to suggest that a blood THC level of 30-50 ng/ml would be a more appropriate DUI level. You could smoke a little bit, then be good to drive after a couple hours. If you set the limit at 5, the blood test would be unable to discern the difference between someone who had smoked 3 hours ago and 8 hours ago. Inhaled marijuana stops showing observable pharmacological effects after around 4 hours, so getting a DUI 4 hours after that would be total bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Well since the legal limit for driving is 5 and not 3.2, and THC in the blood drops off like this: Secondly, it has been shown with other studies that higher levels of THC in the blood do not correlate with unsafe driving in regular smokers. They have to test you within 2 hours of consent, ok how does that change anything? If I smoked 10 hours before giving consent and still am over the 5ng/ml limit, I will get a DUI. I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread thinks that THC is still affecting me after 10 hours. quote:Washington State has taken a pretty firm stance you shouldn't drive while impaired or distracted by any number of things, up to and including cell phones (IIRC there are situations where a police officer can pull you over for smoking while driving as well, but you keep right on tilting at windmills). I am sorry that what is currently a violation of the law (driving while high) becoming a less severe more consistent violation (DUI) offends you so. I genuinely hope you are just playacting offended for the internet though and don't genuinely believe that driving around stoned is a good idea. I'm not asking for permission to drive while high, though I am allowed to drive high on nicotine no questions asked, I am pointing out that if I smoke weed regularly (like after work every day) then I am at risk for getting a DUI the next morning. Wow amazing your state has laws about careless driving, how unique!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:26
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:That graph isn't good enough. First of all it obviously isn't from a heavy smoker because it's nearly zero at the end of 8 hours, whereas a heavy smokers have been tested at 3.2 24-48 hours later.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
kylejack posted:3.2 active THC, or metabolites? http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#blood posted:Blood Tests A few paragraphs down and it blows the whole blood testing idea for THC out of the water: quote:Although high blood THC is a fairly good indicator of being under the influence, it is not infallible. Chronic users who develop tolerance to THC may in some cases drive safely with very high blood levels of THC. In one study, a subject with severe attention deficit disorder could not pass a driving test while straight, but performed well with a blood level of 71 ng/ml [Strohbeck-Kühner]. No similar phenomenon is known for alcohol. NathanScottPhillips fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
One guy who should be on another medication already being able to drive better does not mean everyone who smokes weed won't have impacts on their driving ability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:One guy who should be on another medication already being able to drive better does not mean everyone who smokes weed won't have impacts on their driving ability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:One guy who should be on another medication already being able to drive better does not mean everyone who smokes weed won't have impacts on their driving ability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:The point is that it behaves completely different than alcohol so we shouldn't set limits in the same way. Well the limits aren't being proposed to be set in the same way in the first place. TACD posted:No, but in general the point is that weed is not alcohol, and setting a legal limit is not as easy as finding a ng/ml level equivalent to the same amount of alcohol intoxication and calling it done. It turns out that another hazard of having a drug policy that consists of sticking collective heads in the sand and chanting "DRUGS AM BAD" is that when it comes to quantifying how and when those drugs are actually bad in definable ways, nobody loving knows because almost nobody has been allowed to research it. Alcohol blood levels don't necessarily correlate to intoxication either (due to how people develop tolerance over time).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Yeah I'm severely ADHD and I have medication that I take (it's called desoxyn, also known as "methamphetamine hcl") on a daily basis. But let's say that THC happens to help me almost as much as my medication does and is significantly cheaper and healthier, so I choose to reduce my medication dose and supplement with cannabis. Do I deserve a DUI? Keep in mind that afaik even if you have a medical license for weed you can still get a DUI under the laws in colorado. Now, anecdote time: When a friend and I got pulled over by a trooper in rural CO, he took my friend (driver) out and did the roadside sobriety test. He explained every step of it to my friend, pointing out what would constitute a failure. He then explained to us that, realistically, any cop can find someone "impaired" in colorado and cite/arrest them. And regarding comparisons to alcohol: alcohol does not build tolerance uniformly across all of your body's systems. While you may have developed a physical tolerance to the gross motor effects of booze, you will still be significantly impaired in one or more other areas (reaction time, ability to multitask, etc) which is why "oh I drive fine, I'm used to alcohol" is not a valid argument. This is best evidenced if you have ever been at a house party or kegger where a heavy drinker who does not appear to be very impaired slices a finger open or something and doesn't even notice that they are bleeding all over the loving place. They are fine doing things that they are used to but if you throw a curveball at them (like, say, a cyclist pulling out into the road on a dark night) they will completely miss it. wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:Yeah I'm severely ADHD and I have medication that I take (it's called desoxyn, also known as "methamphetamine hcl") on a daily basis. But let's say that THC happens to help me almost as much as my medication does and is significantly cheaper and healthier, so I choose to reduce my medication dose and supplement with cannabis. Do I deserve a DUI? Keep in mind that afaik even if you have a medical license for weed you can still get a DUI under the laws in colorado. Yes you deserve a DUI because you did a DUI. Hope you decided that getting a DUI really was cheaper then taking your prescribed medication in that case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Well the limits aren't being proposed to be set in the same way in the first place. quote:Alcohol blood levels don't necessarily correlate to intoxication either (due to how people develop tolerance over time). Install Gentoo posted:Yes you deserve a DUI because you did a DUI. Hope you decided that getting a DUI really was cheaper then taking your prescribed medication in that case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Yes they are, they are both measuring certain substances in your blood and proclaiming a limit. Measuring substances in your blood is a great way to find a level where beyond that point you're definitely affected. The legal limits tend to be well below that level though and some people at that will be totally wrecked and others will be fine. They're not the same. We don't need new science to catch "idiots driving like idiots and getting into crashes". NathanScottPhillips posted:Is there a blood content limit for prescribed medication? How can you say he is not "Driving Under the Influence" of that medication? Can I get a DUI if I'm Driving Under the Influence of the music on my radio making me accelerate faster? No, at least in most states. He is being explicitly allowed to drive under the influence of that particular medication, which is not carte blanche to swap it out for whatever other drug he chooses. I don't know man, how about you go nearly crash your car into someone else and then ask the cop if the music made you under the influence? Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Measuring substances in your blood is a great way to find a level where beyond that point you're definitely affected. The legal limits tend to be well below that level though and some people at that will be totally wrecked and others will be fine. They're not the same. "The legal limits tend to be well below that level though--" except for the 5ng/ml test as evidence by the fact that Colorado says you can argue against it in court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:A few paragraphs down and it blows the whole blood testing idea for THC out of the water: Is this a joke or something? I thought studies were supposed to avoid being facetious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:"The legal limits tend to be well below that level though--" except for the 5ng/ml test as evidence by the fact that Colorado says you can argue against it in court. So you're saying Colorado set the blood limit ABOVE the "everyone with this is definitely impaired" threshold now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:So you're saying Colorado set the blood limit ABOVE the "everyone with this is definitely impaired" threshold now? NathanScottPhillips posted:Colorado's weed-DUI law is actually very progressive in this regard and recognizes that marijuana is far different than alcohol:
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Is this a joke or something? I thought studies were supposed to avoid being facetious. Yeah that does seem out of character for a non-biased scientific paper. But it's coming from NORML and their bias is pretty obvious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Read better: No broheim, you need to read me better. I said that limits for drugs tend to get set well below the point where everyone on it is intoxicated. Then you go and say "oh yeah well Colorado sets weed limits at 5 ng/ml and it's not the level where everyone is intoxicated on it". Do you not see where that doesn't rebut me at all, or are you over 5ng/ml sir?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:No broheim, you need to read me better. I said that limits for drugs tend to get set well below the point where everyone on it is intoxicated. Then you go and say "oh yeah well Colorado sets weed limits at 5 ng/ml and it's not the level where everyone is intoxicated on it". (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:First of all yes, because as has been pointed out before even Marinol says on the bottle you can drive safely while taking it. No one ever even gave this a proper response other than some lunatic who said he was ok with getting a DUI 10 hours after drinking a beer. It does seem like it would be possible for a chronic smoker to be above the 5ng/ml limit several hours or more after they stopped smoking, does anyone really think they would still be impaired at that point? Personally I'm not really worried about this so much as long as the blood test is the only means they have to test for THC, but if they developed a field test for it I could see this becoming a major issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
I think everyone is forgetting that part of a roadside test is also having someone walk in a straight line, demonstrate motor skills, and not seem hosed up. You can say "No way bro, I can drive after a blunt just fine" all you want, but if you can't walk in a straight line and follow a police officer's instructions, you shouldn't be driving. It doesn't involve chemical percentages in blood (which people can clearly object to), it determines how messed up someone is, regardless of how great a driver they are after five bong rips.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:I think everyone is forgetting that part of a roadside test is also having someone walk in a straight line, demonstrate motor skills, and not seem hosed up. You can say "No way bro, I can drive after a blunt just fine" all you want, but if you can't walk in a straight line and follow a police officer's instructions, you shouldn't be driving. It doesn't involve chemical percentages in blood (which people can clearly object to), it determines how messed up someone is, regardless of how great a driver they are after five bong rips. This is a long rear end video but somewhere in it a lawyer explains about Amendment 64 and DUIs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nc9HK6RYtE
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
size1one posted:How does legalization change this? "I smell pot" is still the same as "I smell liquor on your breath". It can still be used as a pretense to get you out of the car, pat you down, and search your vehicle. Whether or not the search is legal doesn't really matter. The cop will claim ignorance and will never face any repercussions unless the incident goes horribly wrong and someone dies. Maybe not even then. A little late to respond but, unless I'm mistaken, suspicion of driving impaired is not reasonable probable cause to search a vehicle. I'm almost certain you have to be under arrest to have your car searched in that circumstance. Googling around seems to confirm this but it is rather vague and may depend on the state. At any rate, it would still help keep cops out of your house and away from your person if they can't find something better than a phantom weed smell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:I think everyone is forgetting that part of a roadside test is also having someone walk in a straight line, demonstrate motor skills, and not seem hosed up. You can say "No way bro, I can drive after a blunt just fine" all you want, but if you can't walk in a straight line and follow a police officer's instructions, you shouldn't be driving. It doesn't involve chemical percentages in blood (which people can clearly object to), it determines how messed up someone is, regardless of how great a driver they are after five bong rips. Plus, (at least in some states) you can indeed get in trouble for driving under the influence of prescription drugs which would compromise your driving ability (such as by causing drowsiness).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:A little late to respond but, unless I'm mistaken, suspicion of driving impaired is not reasonable probable cause to search a vehicle. Yes basically this. The smell of weed was probable cause to search when having any weed on you was a crime. Now that it is not, it might be probable cause to give you a blood DUI test, but it means that they shouldn't be holding people while they bring out the dogs over that. Inspector Hound posted:I think everyone is forgetting that part of a roadside test is also having someone walk in a straight line, demonstrate motor skills, and not seem hosed up. You can say "No way bro, I can drive after a blunt just fine" all you want, but if you can't walk in a straight line and follow a police officer's instructions, you shouldn't be driving. It doesn't involve chemical percentages in blood (which people can clearly object to), it determines how messed up someone is, regardless of how great a driver they are after five bong rips. The breathalyzer/blood test is a way to deal with the fact that the field sobriety test is subjective and thus open to abuse. It provides an objective standard of what is and isn't chemical impairment for the most common (now the two most common) recreational drugs that impair driving. The problem with objective tests for the idiots who are bent on insisting that people should be driving while blazed is that you need to draw a line somewhere. Just like .08% is considered a decent line for alcohol, because most people will be impaired drivers at that point, the people who wrote & endorsed the law decided on 5ng, which looks pretty reasonable from the studies they used. Yes there are heavy users who retain active THC (which is again what the are testing for) and would be fine to drive on 5. There are also heavy drinkers that would be fine on .08 (and plenty of people are fine on .04 which is the limit for commercial drivers), but for most people its the impairment point, so it is what they use. You can also fight a DUI in court in Washington. You take (and fail) the field sobriety test (you might not if you really are OK to drive, not every cop is out to get you), and you refuse the breathlyzer. The law is kind of lovely at this point because you license is suspended until your trial is resolved, but in court you can use things like a medical issue to explain why you didn't take the breathalyzer, and the state has to prove your driving was impaired. In other less life endangering idiot news: the state liquor board has found a pretty big problem in 502's language. Basically the special exception that allows bars to serve alcohol in public wasn't written into the ban on marijuana use in public. They are taking public comments on this, so if you want weed bars in WA, you may want to file one. WSLCB posted:Board Opens Rulemaking to Address Consumption of Marijuana at Liquor Licensed Locations
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
I understand that a lot of sober people can't say the alphabet backwards, and some people drive fine with 5ng in their blood. But that means the only way to convict is to get people stoned and put them on a closed course? I basically feel like there needs to be a line, and if you can drive over that safely, ok, just don't get pulled over or you'll face the same time as a drunk driver, maybe with provisions that enable a driver to prove they can drive stoned.
Inspector Hound fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:I understand that a lot of sober people can't say the alphabet backwards, and some people drive fine with 5ng in their blood. But that means the only way to convict is to get people stoned and put them on a closed course? I basically feel like there needs to be a line, and if you can drive over that safely, ok, just don't get pulled over or you'll face the same time as a drunk driver, maybe with provisions that enable a driver to prove they can drive stoned. If you don't want to get a DUI, pick one of don't smoke weed, don't drive, don't be black. Works for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:I like this. I understand that a lot of sober people can't say the alphabet backwards, and some people drive fine with 5ng in their blood. But that means the only way to convict is to get people stoned and put them on a closed course? Hah, if only. The thing is that (especially in Washington) a lot of traffic violations have the odds stacked solidly in favor of the state. In WA, a sworn statement of the officer in question can take the place of the officer showing up, which means no cross, for example. The State still has the burden of proof that you were driving impaired, but its going to come down to a police officer's notes against your word, and who seems more reliable to a Judge and Jury? Now you genuinely might get off, or get a severely reduced penalty, if you are driving while impaired because of a medical condition or prescription medication (i.e. Marinol), or if you can prove some sort of misconduct (very hard but not impossible). Jeffrey posted:If you don't want to get a DUI, pick one of don't smoke weed, don't drive, don't be black. Works for me. Actually DUI arrests are surprisingly not overrepresented in the black community the way that other crimes are. Pages 7 and 8. It doesn't mean the DWB stop isn't still an issue, but go figure. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Yeah the whole "don't worry, you can fight it in court" thing is good in theory but I can't imagine a situation where it doesn't come down to the officer's word vs yours, and we all know how that turns out. Unless you've got a dash camera capturing your driving and that's still pretty flimsy when matched up to a sworn Officer of the Law (TM).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Hah, if only. The thing is that (especially in Washington) a lot of traffic violations have the odds stacked solidly in favor of the state. In WA, a sworn statement of the officer in question can take the place of the officer showing up, which means no cross, for example. The State still has the burden of proof that you were driving impaired, but its going to come down to a police officer's notes against your word, and who seems more reliable to a Judge and Jury? And this is what the whole thing comes down to. Basically you are guilty until proven innocent when it comes to traffic violations. And we all know that cops are never wrong or lie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:A little late to respond but, unless I'm mistaken, suspicion of driving impaired is not reasonable probable cause to search a vehicle. I'm almost certain you have to be under arrest to have your car searched in that circumstance. Googling around seems to confirm this but it is rather vague and may depend on the state. At any rate, it would still help keep cops out of your house and away from your person if they can't find something better than a phantom weed smell. It an illegal search when cops lie about smelling weed too but that doesn't stop them. It's still near zero risk to fish for arrests this way when weed is legal. Even if there is more chance that people will get charges dropped, not all will. I don't see any reason the practice will stop. Don't forget, it's still illegal to carry more than an ounce in WA (not sure about CO).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Yes you deserve a DUI because you did a DUI. Hope you decided that getting a DUI really was cheaper then taking your prescribed medication in that case. Is this a legalistic argument or are you really that much of a dick?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 00:54
|
|
