Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And only works to detect people who've smoked it, not eaten it. THC isn't eliminated through the lungs like alcohol.
You see, I don't understand one thing.
If you want to discover if someone is impaired, why not test to see if they're impaired?
A Breathalyser assumes 2100:1 ratio of breath to blood (so there's 2100 times more alcohol per liter of blood than per liter of breath). However clinically the range has been determined as between 1700:1 and 3100:1 between breaths, so someone blowing 0.08% on a meter (0.1mg/l) isn't conclusive scientifically that the BAC is 0.08mg, the one test there is that can conclusively demonstrate it is not permitted to be performed without medical supervision (a blood test).
However someone may not be significantly impaired at 0.08% BAC, someone else may be seriously impaired at 0.08% BAC. So why not test for impairment? It's not hard, you need to test for typical driving skills, reaction time, speed estimation, prediction of other road traffic actions, staying in lane. All that's pretty easy to test. It's even getting easier as technology can provide a cast iron entirely objective test, fail a series of tests, or a category of tests and you might be a puritan, vegan, mineral water only drinking pastor, and you are impaired. Further the tech can lock the data so that it's only able to be transferred to the police systems, and then the police or public prosecutor (not the arresting officer) can make a call whether or not to pursue the case, there can be an automatic audit chain of the data. Thus less risk of corruption of police officers getting bribed with various offers from people suspected of being DUI, sure they could take the bribe, but they can't eliminate the charge.
So instead of having a relatively simple objective series of tests presented on a cellphone, tablet or laptop, we have tests for secondary indicators that may or may not indicate impairment and are limited to the substances that cause impairment. You're never going to catch someone who is sleep deprived enough to cause a degree of impairment with a blood, urine or mouth swab, but they're just as impaired and dangerous as someone with a BAC of 0.08%. You're never going to catch the diabetic (who know's it or not) who is marginally hypoglycemic and impaired, you'll never catch the person with allergies who's doped up on diphenhydramine (which also has sedative properties, and is also used occasionally as a recreational drug [whodathunkit!]), there are millions of ways people can be impaired and running tests for a few known substances or metabolites only can detect those who are impaired for those substances or the precursors to the metabolites.
Further it sends the wrong message, we all know that driving while tired is a road hazard, it's why there are limits on commercial drivers, it's as high a risk as driving while drunk. However everyone does it, because at worst if they're stopped, there's really little the police can do other than subject them to a battery of tests that will come back negative and could be used to discredit any claims of impairment.
Impaired is impaired so why not test for impairment, ignore the cause because it's of little importance in whether or not someone is impaired.
You are correct..impaired is impaired.. But after that lacking any clear understanding
The roadside administration tests for marijuana breath tests are only the first step... To try to catch the problem.. The uptick is slow.. But telemetry testing you allude to is certainly down the road. Dashcams and bodycams put the jury in the officers seat... So that is already having an effect upon convictions...most people plead to dui duid because they are guilty... The ones who fight it have money ..rarely in my experience is someone innocent of dui duid... They may be subject to bad policework ..rarely are they innocent... In my memory I think i can count on one hand where I thought a duid dui was innocent...for whatever reason.. Medical..etc..
Technology is moving fairly quickly and non invasive testing is on the horizon that will test for a myriad of drugs and tests other aspects of impairment as well.. There is already a vehicle code to address impaired driving other than adulterants in California
There is a new crop of duid lawyers making a healthy living on marijuana users
Every toker that jnjures kills maims or creates chaos on our roads only puts roadblocks to marijuana free for all...
I'm sure if someone you know or loved was injured or killed by a high driver the incident might color your world... Mine is a rainbow
The conversation isn't about alcohol testing but if your thought process is that .08 isn't drunk for the population at large then I guess you are out of touch with the national standard... I've always been comfortable with .08 and think it should be lower...alcoholics.. Physical differences aside...08 is drunk. Sure..I guess you can find literature in opposition... The vetted law and science disagrees... Certainly my experience has been.. .08 is drunk.. And .05 ngm is stoned driving.
Individual officers never make the choice to prosecute.. The D.a.does... There are a percentage of cases through the entire process and at each step that never see a courtroom
You continue to be snarkey with your personalized labels.. It is purposeful on your part. I suggest what moderators always say..there is no need to respond to my threads if they bother you or if you feel the need to make personalized and unprovoked jabs. I continue to object to your incorrect characterizations and I have asked you politely to stop.. I have not conversed with you in any such manner. I can understand and accept others in here for their drug issues and need to be there"right" in their drug use... I don't extend that to you.
Thanks
Last edited by notmeofficer; 05-14-2016 at 05:36 PM..
Incorrect. I don't drink. I usually run Z consists east, oil south and Z consists back west. I get my pick of what to drive.
I have it great and don't need dope or anything else to feel good.
Kudos to you. Sounds like you got about 25-30 years in. You're a green light special kinda guy. You got it made in the RR world.
Understand, not everyone is as awesome as you. Everyone is different. Simply respect that.
You know I agree with you on most conservative issues. God knows, I've repped you countless times over the years. Just do this for me if you would.... lighten up on the inevitable. It's not hurting anyone.
Kudos to you. Sounds like you got about 25-30 years in. You're a green light special kinda guy. You got it made in the RR world.
Understand, not everyone is as awesome as you. Everyone is different. Simply respect that.
You know I agree with you on most conservative issues. God knows, I've repped you countless times over the years. Just do this for me if you would.... lighten up on the inevitable. It's not hurting anyone.
BNSF is a rough go to get in. They are VERY selective. I was UP, CSX and short line. You did well.
This is an issue that will go on for a while. Just realize that being stoned at work is not the same as enjoying MJ in off time. I know you don't agree, but there has to be a way to test for very recent use. Swabs can do that, but most federally regulated positions still use urinalysis or hair follicle.
There is a difference. You know this as well as I. The only reason the government doesn't is because their pockets are deep with big pharma and other powerful lobbyists.
Yeah, people should leave opium growers and coca
Leaf growers alone.
You really have no idea what you're talking about at all. Besides the fact that cannabis is an extension of society, poppy and coca growers have been at it in their parts of the world for just as long.
You do know that unlike cannabis, poppys and coca need to be refined and chemically altered to achieve heroin and cocaine, right? Though, in fairness, chewing coca leaves has a very long history in South America, it's just like a cup of coffee and helps with altitude sickness as I can verify from my time in Bolivia.
Try ingesting opium poppy latex unrefined. All you'll get is a stomach ache and the runs.
All three of these plants, coca, poppys and cannabis area ALL relatively benign in their natural states. The big difference is cannabis has never caused any deaths. All natural, unadulterated cannabis is far safer than many substances that are not only already legal, but prescribed by doctors.
Old timers like you are standing on the wrong side of history. It's ok though, as this thread indicates, and more and more national polls show, the reefer madness propaganda is slowly going the way of the dodo. Common sense and pragmatism will prevail.
You are correct..impaired is impaired.. But after that lacking any clear understanding
Well I understand the biochem, do you? You're a cop, what are your scientific credentials?
THC is not eliminated through the lungs, so how can a breathalyzer detect edibles?
Alcohol breath content is highly variant within a subject and between subjects.
Impairment by any intoxicant is a function of the persons metabolism, and their propensity to be affected by it, as well as their body weight, general fitness, and a whole host of other factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
The roadside administration tests for marijuana breath tests are only the first step... To try to catch the problem.. The uptick is slow..
Breath tests are worthless if people are eating it. Beat the Pot breath test, eat a brownie. Great test.
The most accurate saliva test will test concentrations of under 25ng/dl, which is 5 times above the limit many jurisdictions are using.
There are "intoxicants" that do not cause impairment to a level that increases risk, nicotine is one such intoxicant, or are you telling me that there's a test you can run to test for intoxication by nicotine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
But telemetry testing you allude to is certainly down the road. Dashcams and bodycams put the jury in the officers seat... So that is already having an effect upon convictions...most people plead to dui duid because they are guilty... The ones who fight it have money ..rarely in my experience is someone innocent of dui duid... They may be subject to bad policework ..rarely are they innocent... In my memory I think i can count on one hand where I thought a duid dui was innocent...for whatever reason.. Medical..etc..
Medical is no excuse for driving impaired unless an acute medical condition developed during self transport to hospital, or unless the person driving is traveling from an area without an ambulance service with a life threatening injury (that said depending on the injury they may be unable to drive).
I'm not talking about dashcams or body cams that can be rewound and erased, I'm talking specifically about the administration of a test using some form of software to test the specific criteria necessary to not be a danger on the road due to medical, recreational or inherent impairment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
Technology is moving fairly quickly and non invasive testing is on the horizon that will test for a myriad of drugs and tests other aspects of impairment as well.. There is already a vehicle code to address impaired driving other than adulterants in California
On the horizon, 120+ years of the car, and finally someone decides to create a law that actually deals with the issue we're really concerned about, being impaired behind the wheel, because it does not matter if someone is impaired by alcohol, heroin, or low blood sugar, they are a risk and should not be driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
There is a new crop of duid lawyers making a healthy living on marijuana users
Yes because the current law is stupid, I've provided data from the NHTSA that states the risks of moderate intoxication by marijuana does not significantly increase the risk of someone driving. The UK house of Lords received the same information, much of the information indicates that impairment causes no additional risk. So of course lawyers are making a healthy living, like traffic lawyers in Jersey make a healthy living from speeding tickets. It doesn't make Jersey any safer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
Every toker that jnjures kills maims or creates chaos on our roads only puts roadblocks to marijuana free for all...
Please provide hard data that demonstrates the numbers of injuries and fatalities by people who are intoxicated on marijuana. Let me explain what I mean by that, I don't mean people who have THC in their blood, or THC-COOH in their urine, but people who are proved to be impaired by marijuana. I also don't want arrests of people who are arrested for having THC in blood or urine if they have not been involved in an accident. Specifically, accidents that are proven to be caused by the presence of THC in the blood of the at fault driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
I'm sure if someone you know or loved was injured or killed by a high driver the incident might color your world... Mine is a rainbow
Dude, one of my best friends burned to death when some woman with a cell phone pulled into a gas station, hit him ruptured his motorcycle gas tank, and the gasoline ignited, and there was nothing I could do, other than watch him scream and writhe on the ground. I think she was irresponsible, but I don't want to ban cell phones, and I don't want to ban BMW's either (which is what she was driving).
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
The conversation isn't about alcohol testing but if your thought process is that .08 isn't drunk for the population at large then I guess you are out of touch with the national standard... I've always been comfortable with .08 and think it should be lower...alcoholics.. Physical differences aside...08 is drunk.
Population at large isn't important, if it were then should we prosecute people who own red cars for reckless driving, because statistically they're more likely than people who drive blue cars?
A crime is only a crime if the criteria are met. The law is that driving while intoxicated means that someone is driving with 0.08% or more BAC, however some people (who are not part of the population at large) may not be sufficiently intoxicated to cause increased risk. If risk is not increased, then either remove the illusion of intoxication, or remove the arbitrary BAC and move to impairment testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
Sure..I guess you can find literature in opposition... The vetted law and science disagrees... Certainly my experience has been.. .08 is drunk.. And .05 ngm is stoned driving.
Actually the science does not disagree, the science says, that BAC is related to medical intoxication, but there is such a wide range of impairment that 0.08% for one person may produce a higher level of intoxication and a significantly higher risk for person A than person B, indeed person B's level of actual intoxication may not be enough to meet the legal standard of increased risk.
Consider, how many hospitals would take a BAC and then from that determine whether the patient was drunk, solely on the BAC? None, if someone came in displaying the symptoms of drunkeness coincident with other symptoms, and the BAC was found to be above legal limit, they would still confirm that the drunkeness syptoms were not caused by some other factor than alcohol (for instance stroke, tumor, other neurological symptom). That's how science does not agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
Individual officers never make the choice to prosecute.. The D.a.does... There are a percentage of cases through the entire process and at each step that never see a courtroom
Individual officers make the decision to arrest. If you stop some 19 yo cheerleader who's a bit wobbly and she offers you some services in the back seat to avoid being arrested, if you accept then no arrest, no charge, no prosecution. It happens... It even happens where the cop suggests that there may be ways to avoid being arrested, we've all seen the video's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
You continue to be snarkey with your personalized labels.. It is purposeful on your part. I suggest what moderators always say..there is no need to respond to my threads if they bother you or if you feel the need to make personalized and unprovoked jabs. I continue to object to your incorrect characterizations and I have asked you politely to stop.. I have not conversed with you in any such manner. I can understand and accept others in here for their drug issues and need to be there"right" in their drug use... I don't extend that to you.
Thanks
I really don't know what you're talking about, this isn't your thread. As I said snark is not against the ToS and if you think I'm being snarky then perhaps you might like to reconsider how you present your information. You can ask me to do something until you're blue in the face (it'll match the uniform) and I'm under no obligation to stop. I'm sorry if you feel offended by the tone you read in my posts, however that's really not my problem is it?
Well I understand the biochem, do you? You're a cop, what are your scientific credentials?
THC is not eliminated through the lungs, so how can a breathalyzer detect edibles?
Alcohol breath content is highly variant within a subject and between subjects.
Impairment by any intoxicant is a function of the persons metabolism, and their propensity to be affected by it, as well as their body weight, general fitness, and a whole host of other factors.
Breath tests are worthless if people are eating it. Beat the Pot breath test, eat a brownie. Great test.
The most accurate saliva test will test concentrations of under 25ng/dl, which is 5 times above the limit many jurisdictions are using.
There are "intoxicants" that do not cause impairment to a level that increases risk, nicotine is one such intoxicant, or are you telling me that there's a test you can run to test for intoxication by nicotine?
Medical is no excuse for driving impaired unless an acute medical condition developed during self transport to hospital, or unless the person driving is traveling from an area without an ambulance service with a life threatening injury (that said depending on the injury they may be unable to drive).
I'm not talking about dashcams or body cams that can be rewound and erased, I'm talking specifically about the administration of a test using some form of software to test the specific criteria necessary to not be a danger on the road due to medical, recreational or inherent impairment.
On the horizon, 120+ years of the car, and finally someone decides to create a law that actually deals with the issue we're really concerned about, being impaired behind the wheel, because it does not matter if someone is impaired by alcohol, heroin, or low blood sugar, they are a risk and should not be driving.
Yes because the current law is stupid, I've provided data from the NHTSA that states the risks of moderate intoxication by marijuana does not significantly increase the risk of someone driving. The UK house of Lords received the same information, much of the information indicates that impairment causes no additional risk. So of course lawyers are making a healthy living, like traffic lawyers in Jersey make a healthy living from speeding tickets. It doesn't make Jersey any safer.
Please provide hard data that demonstrates the numbers of injuries and fatalities by people who are intoxicated on marijuana. Let me explain what I mean by that, I don't mean people who have THC in their blood, or THC-COOH in their urine, but people who are proved to be impaired by marijuana. I also don't want arrests of people who are arrested for having THC in blood or urine if they have not been involved in an accident. Specifically, accidents that are proven to be caused by the presence of THC in the blood of the at fault driver.
Dude, one of my best friends burned to death when some woman with a cell phone pulled into a gas station, hit him ruptured his motorcycle gas tank, and the gasoline ignited, and there was nothing I could do, other than watch him scream and writhe on the ground. I think she was irresponsible, but I don't want to ban cell phones, and I don't want to ban BMW's either (which is what she was driving).
Population at large isn't important, if it were then should we prosecute people who own red cars for reckless driving, because statistically they're more likely than people who drive blue cars?
A crime is only a crime if the criteria are met. The law is that driving while intoxicated means that someone is driving with 0.08% or more BAC, however some people (who are not part of the population at large) may not be sufficiently intoxicated to cause increased risk. If risk is not increased, then either remove the illusion of intoxication, or remove the arbitrary BAC and move to impairment testing.
Actually the science does not disagree, the science says, that BAC is related to medical intoxication, but there is such a wide range of impairment that 0.08% for one person may produce a higher level of intoxication and a significantly higher risk for person A than person B, indeed person B's level of actual intoxication may not be enough to meet the legal standard of increased risk.
Consider, how many hospitals would take a BAC and then from that determine whether the patient was drunk, solely on the BAC? None, if someone came in displaying the symptoms of drunkeness coincident with other symptoms, and the BAC was found to be above legal limit, they would still confirm that the drunkeness syptoms were not caused by some other factor than alcohol (for instance stroke, tumor, other neurological symptom). That's how science does not agree with you.
Individual officers make the decision to arrest. If you stop some 19 yo cheerleader who's a bit wobbly and she offers you some services in the back seat to avoid being arrested, if you accept then no arrest, no charge, no prosecution. It happens... It even happens where the cop suggests that there may be ways to avoid being arrested, we've all seen the video's.
I really don't know what you're talking about, this isn't your thread. As I said snark is not against the ToS and if you think I'm being snarky then perhaps you might like to reconsider how you present your information. You can ask me to do something until you're blue in the face (it'll match the uniform) and I'm under no obligation to stop. I'm sorry if you feel offended by the tone you read in my posts, however that's really not my problem is it?
Unfortunately for all your wasted ones and zeros and cut and paste the the law disagrees with you as does research... I'm sure you'll disagree with this research
If you actually read the report you will get out of it that alcohol and mj are not comparable... And that much more research is needed
I say unfortunately for you because with all the self qualifications and boasting you choose to share not one of them will be subject to voir dire.. As do I doubt you be called as an expert witness in any duid case...but I digress and this isn't important to the subject at hand... That being professional... Productive...and pot.
I think if you wanted to be successful with your point of you you would show time work studies related to different professions and pot use... I'll await those..this should be interesting
And..yep..you are only to happy to be snarkey which only reduces your otherwise substantive information.. But hey.. Have a good time bud... There are plenty if internet warriors ...
Perhaps you are more attached to normls point of view http://norml.org/library/item/mariju...tific-evidence
I did note they like to cite 18-18 year old literature.
What's your personal skin in the game.. Are you a drug user.. Marijuana user... Is getting high a pursuit you seek ? If you use drugs you lose brain cells to its pursuit..some perhaps cannot afford to exhaust their supply.. Don't you think?
There are several different levels of pot users
The weekend afficiandos
The daily abusers
The stoner or pot head population
If you do use and choose to share where might you fit in the discussion?
Actually I think what you are revealing is a substantive arguement for not pushing for legalization until better and more accurate testing has been vetted for all forms of marijuana intoxication.. Was this your intent.. To bolster the prohibition stance?
Last edited by notmeofficer; 05-14-2016 at 11:20 PM..
Unfortunately for all your wasted ones and zeros and cut and paste the the law disagrees with you as does research... I'm sure you'll disagree with this research
If you actually read the report you will get out of it that alcohol and mj are not comparable... And that much more research is needed
And..yep..you are only to happy to be snarkey which only reduces your otherwise substantive information.. But hey.. Have a good time bud... There are plenty if internet warriors ...
What's your personal skin in the game.. Are you a drug user.. Marijuana user... Is getting high a pursuit you seek ?
You do know that pot lasts 30 days in your system. So if someone tests positive for it could mean they smoked it a month ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
