Colorado passes MJ DUI bill

I feel sorry for the first cop to try and do a blood test for THC levels....ACLU will be all over that...

 

I've said many times, the ability to do a reliable field test for THC intoxication will overcome a major objection to cannabis legalization and will only further speed up the legalization process.


People fighting against this are fighting against their best interests, I think. It's like people want to have their cake and eat it too. It's like "Legalize it, but don't even think about trying to test me for it when I'm driving, 'cause, uhhh, that test isn't accurate (I hope) and, anyways, I drive just fine when I'm high." Lol.


No idea how reliable what they are using in CO is, though. I think I remember Stash saying the technology for measuring THC blood levels was accurate, but, FFS!, don't quote me on that.

 

The problem is with the amount of marijuana I smoke daily, whether I am actually physically high at the time of the test does not correlate to how much THC is in my blood because of the half life of the chemical. I could not smoke for a day, drive, get tested, and still be over the limit.


I just read and our social media posted an article about this the other day when it comes to tolerance. Basically marijuana takes over as the main cannaboid creator in your brain, so when you smoke like myself and others do, we are cognitively the same as if we were not smoking at all and our brain was naturally making the chemical.


So no, any test would not be reliable at all. It isn't the same as other intoxication, which is the whole point of the movement in the first place.

 

Yes, I have heard these objections before.


However, I think it's just wishful thinking (refer to my previous post) to say it could never be tested for reliably.


Admittedly, I'm not a scientist, but If I had to guess, I'd say that it could probably be done, if not now then soon, and that you are probably overestimating your understanding of the science involved.

 

Hmmm, I thought the "movement" was more about personal freedom than pots uniqueness as an intoxicant.


Of course, there is no one "whole point" and it means different things to different people.

 

Cut me and I bleed straight THC! :5eek: I guess with this kind of law, people like me are just fucked if we get pulled over and tested? :wtf?: If it's signed by the governor I think this will be challenged and will be a big deal down the road. We haven't heard the last of this whole aspect of the legalization movement. asssit:

 

I will never say science CAN'T or will not every do it, but as of right now people like me and Ras will be busted for DUI whether we smoked a day or ten minutes ago.


And yah, I am pretty sure that not only is one point of the movement that marijuana isn't that bad for you as an intoxicant, but your freedom part goes quite well with us NOT wanting to be blood tested by cops in the field, or at a station, or at a hospital (and then who pays for that?).

 

Another good point. I can drive all day long on my benzos and no one cares. But I smoked a joint and go for a ride there is an issue?

 

Fuck,.... I don't even get in the car without my pipe and some ganja! Especially for a long drive. I have to smoke in the car or else I will road rage out and kill someone! I drive in Southern Cali!

 

Well, they are impaired, aren't they?


The laws against driving while on various legal pills need to become stricter then, no? I don't think the answer is to use their laxness to justify laxness concerning driving while on cannabis.


Driving while high is a major and reasonable objection to legalization, I think. The pro-legalization movement should be helping to develop reliable field testing methods for cannabis intoxication. Instead, they always come off as fighting against it, for what seems like, at the heart, purely selfish reasons. As in the "I can drive fine while high, so I'm against those tests." kind of reasoning. Nobody here has said that exactly, but I've participated in this same debate quite a few times and that always is the feeling I get.

 

It has always seemed like an afterthought in the states where this is an issue rather than the main concern of the opposition. It is more like the last ditch effort of the opposition to regulate marijuana at some level.


Let us be honest. Driving while stoned for the majority of people who do it is not an issue. People like truck drivers and shit will still get tested, nothing will change there, and if you have an accident on marijuana, just like if you have an accident with a .07 BAC (not quit over the limit), you will take on an extra charge in most states.


Why do we need invasive tests that are not accurate to prevent something that isn't an actual issue in the first place.


It isn't an issue and the only reason people make it one is because they lost the marijuana prohibition cause.

 

, I can't resist nitpicking and pointing out that:


1. No one has said in this thread that "marijuana isn't that bad for you". You said "It isn't the same as other intoxication". That isn't the same thing, and neither statements bear on the issue of driving impairment, it seems to me.


2. The personal freedom involved in ingesting drugs in your own home is nothing at all like resenting be checked for intoxication when driving on the road and possibly endangering other people.

 

No, it is a major objection, by non-smokers obviously, where ever and whenever the legalization debate comes up.


The rest of your point is anecdotal. You have no idea really what percentage of people are impaired to what degree after smoking some particular amount. Hell, most people can probably drink and drive just fine. Some will cause accidents, though.


It's really quite amazing that pot legalization activists think they should, and are going to, get away with no regulation regarding cannabis use and driving.

 

It may be anecdotal, and there is a reason for that. Like you said I have no idea of the actual numbers of people driving stoned, whether a little or a lot. However, I can not look up those statistics because they are not there. There have been little to no statistical analysis for this because there is no reason to do it. Why? Because most people who drive high on marijuana do not get into accidents because they were high on marijuana. It is a non-issue.


In fact the only studies done on marijuana and driving (if you do a quick google search) were done with people who were not everyday stoners to start with, then got them incredibly high real fast, and put them through a COURSE and not a road test. They still were not a danger to themselves or others in most cases.


There are too many factors involved that aren't with something like alcohol. Tolerance for alcohol does not make your motor skills work normally. It doesn't work that way. Once you are drunk to that point, you are not able to operate. But pot isn't like that. Even those with a very low tolerance can use their motor and cognitive skills just fine.


And no, I've never seen the DUI issue at the forefront of any of the anti-legalization movements in the states where it goes on. That is never the sole focus. And right now I am reading nothing but marijuana articles and have been for months!

 

It is an issue.


I'll call bullshit on that one.


I never said it was the sole focus of any anti-legalization people or group. It is one point, and a common one. As such, there are articles about it, and people bring up the point in discussions in real life and on the internet, and for those reasons it has been a discussion here on several occasions.


Another very closely related point, also very common, is employers worrying about work place use and their ability to first test for it, and secondly restrict it.


Pretending that there aren't people worried about these issues who will vote against legalization simply because there aren't quick, easy ways to test for it does nothing for the "movement".

 

I am not saying they are not points used in discussions, but I've yet to see one at the fore front, other than work place testing which faces the same problems as DUI testing. People like me would get busted every time whether we were actually high at the time of the test or not.


Until you can reliably say someone is high on marijuana at this time, then no acceptable loss of freedom or invasion of privacy is justified.