Slashdot Mirror
With Pot Legal, Scientists Study Detection of Impaired Drivers
Hugh Pickens writes "A recent assessment by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, based on random roadside checks, found that 16.3% of all drivers nationwide at night were on various legal and illegal impairing drugs, half them high on marijuana. Now AP reports that with marijuana soon legal under state laws in Washington and Colorado, setting a standard comparable to blood-alcohol limits has sparked intense disagreement. Unlike portable breath tests for alcohol, there's no easily available way to determine whether someone is impaired from recent pot use. If scientists can't tell someone how much marijuana it will take for him or her to test over the threshold, how is the average pot user supposed to know? 'We've had decades of studies and experience with alcohol,' says Washington State Patrol spokesman Dan Coon. 'Marijuana is new, so it's going to take some time to figure out how the courts and prosecutors are going to handle it.' Driving within three hours of smoking pot is associated with a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes. However, THC can remain in blood and saliva for highly variable times after the last use of the drug. Although the marijuana 'high' only lasts three to five hours, studies of heavy users in a locked hospital ward showed THC can be detected in the blood up to a week after they are abstinent, and the outer limit of detection time in saliva tests is not known. 'A lot of effort has gone into the study of drugged driving and marijuana, because that is the most prevalent drug, but we are not nearly to the point where we are with alcohol,' says Jeffrey P. Michael, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's impaired-driving director. 'We don't know what level of marijuana impairs a driver.'"
Just ask the driver what snack they'd like from the police car.
You just do the same thing that cops do when the driver refuses the breath test... a Field Sobriety Test.
Make it zero tolerance. If someone is pulled over they are not going to get the test administered unless they are suspected of impaired driving.
I know this is going to be a really odd way to detect impared drivers as far as people think but it is quite imperical and correct. You simply have the person do a coordination test with a video game type device. Impared drivers will show up whatever the reason. This can also be determined by blink rate and by detection of eye movements. It can be done very rapidly and has been in use by some municipal bus systems for some time with quite spectacular reductions in accidents. In fact this could be built into cars and we could have the car simply park if the driver is impared. (WOW! No arrest needed!) How about this wild idea. Skipping the police and stopping filling our jails and stopping all the fines etc while achieving the goal of public safety. It detects all types of imparement and doesn't bother wasting time on any other issue. Sleepy is detected too.
This is going to get to be a moot point shortly as the cars will have things like advanced adaptive cruise control that essentially drives the car. How about Google's self driving car etc. I think we are going to ban driving of cars by humans very shortly as they simply are the most dangerous part of the car driving system. You know the NUT behind the wheel is the most dangerous part of the car.
Here is my personal anecdote.
I've been driving high nearly every day for almost 20 years, commuting at least 100 miles a day for 17 of those. I have never been in an accident & my last ticket (41 in a 30) was over 8 years ago.
I don't drink & drive at all, that shit is dangerous.
"Marijuana is new"
Yup, sure it is. Invented last week, right?
What level of marijuana impairs a driver?!? Weed gets you high. There is only one level of high, and that is high. You can smoke 100 joints an hour and still be at the level of high. You drink 100 beers an hour and you will be at the level of dead. There is NO comparison.
The blood alcohol level is a red herring. It correlates with impairment, but a number of other factors also affect it. The test should be for reactions and situational awareness. If you fail for any reason, then you should be prevented from driving. If you fail and also have been taking drugs that are known to cause this kind of impairment, then you might get some extra penalty.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I've watched this become more and more of an issue here in southern california; it is a common occurance in fact;
for someone to be charged with an "MUI" after the fact, probably based on the cops suspicions that the person would test positive.
Some people shouldn't drive while too high and others don't seem to have a problem; just my observations.
But will that have any effect on the predisposition for an officer to want to find something wrong with someone?
I think not.
-- seeya next year
According to NORML, what basically happens when someone is driving while on marijuana is that while they're somewhat impaired, they also drive more cautiously and leave more space around them. The net effect is that while they're annoying, they aren't all that dangerous.
By contrast, when someone is driving drunk, they tend to be both impaired and reckless. The net effect is that thousands of people each year are killed by drunk drivers.
I am officially gone from
I honestly would be more concerned with the assumption that most insurance companies would likely deny you any claim if you were found to be high. Without a threshold for testing, I could easily see this heading to the SCOTUS over which law, federal or state, the insurance COs need to follow when making claim determinations.
But, most likely, smoke pot and drive and the effect is you have no insurance.
Because that's the entirety of the drug's effects? Are you expecting some kind of weed crash or highngover?
I drive high all the time, never had a problem. I am infinitely safer than somebody texting or speeding or following too close.
Why can't they legalize drunk driving, and just punish actual traffic violations? This Lew Rockwell guy states the case much more eloquently: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html
The first-ever “National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers”, conducted by NHTSA, found that 16.3 percent of nighttime drivers were drug-positive, with marijuana (THC) at (8.6 percent) being the most commonly detected drug.
and
In fall 2010, six cities in California (Anaheim, Bakersfield, Eureka, Fresno, San Rafael, and Torrance) conducted nighttime weekend “voluntary” roadside surveys primarily to gather data on marijuana use among nighttime drivers. The results were that 8.4 percent of the drivers providing oral fluid were positive for marijuana and 7.6 percent of the breath tested drivers tested positive for some amount of alcohol.
These are two different surveys, but the second one shows a slightly different picture than "half them high on marijuana". 8.4% in this study showed some presence of marijuana in their saliva. From the summary, I gather that all that really means is that 8.4% had smoked pot some time in the last couple weeks. 7.6% had had some amount of alcohol still detectable in their breath, although that includes people with a trace amount, well under the legal limit. So, I'm not going to adjust my general expectations of other drivers to think that one in every 6 drivers at night is drunk and/or high.
www.clarke.ca
This. If you can't test for the drug, test for reactions. That's cheap, easy and relatively portable. If a person fails the test, then take a blood sample.
This. Right now if someone hits and kills a pedestrian, it's called an "accident" and they go free if they're sober - but they go to jail for many years if they had a drink. It doesn't matter that incompetent driving caused the death - the only time a driver is punished appropriately is when they had a drink.
A test for competency would also get a lot of older drivers who cannot drive safely any more off the road.
We have no roadside test to determine whether someone is impaired due to marijuana. The only tests currently available are blood tests and because police are not professional phlebotomists, they can't test your blood at the scene. Whether you are impaired and should be further tested requires judgement on the part of the police which can be very inaccurate. Additionally, we don't have an accepted standard on any test for indication of impairment. It doesn't matter how much marijuana consumed causes impairment, it matters what standard is used on a legally accepted test. Different jurisdictions are using different standards. As the article correctly states since marijuana residue can stay in body fluids far longer than the impairment, the mere presence of residue in body fluids does not indicate impairment. It just indicates past consumption.
If that doesn't work, try Doritos.
They've been handing out DUIs for people under the influence of pot for years. How did this become an issue just because it's now legal? Does that mean that the old DUIs for pot are invalid since they had what is now a questionable metric as to the level of impairment?
In some places (parts of Australia for example) the law simply says you aren't allowed to drive and have any trace of THC in your hair/saliva/blood. This works because the drug is already outlawed. However, it's not fair to say that the drug is legal, but you aren't allowed to use it within a week (or whatever) of driving.
However, as with alcohol, the problem isn't the numbers, it's the impairment. With alcohol now, the law doesn't even care about impairment. If your blood alcohol level (as measured by a machine testing the amount of alcohol in your breath[1]) is higher than X, that's illegal.
The solution is to obviously remove the numbers from the equation, and come up with a objective test for impairment. Walk along the line one foot placed just in front of the other, for example[2]. This would also apply to people who haven't got enough sleep recently.
Another option would be to simply outlaw driving dangerously or in a fashion that could cause harm to others. Then, for all the drunks and stoners, and people who just haven't slept properly in the last three days, if they can drive safely without swerving, or crashing, they can get home fine. But, if they swerve, then pull 'em over and book 'em. Perhaps.
A difficult situation. I just hope the solution doesn't reduce people's freedoms any more.
Footnotes:
1. Want to get busted without drinking more than a tiny amount of booze? Just before you breath into the machine, swill some whiskey around in your mouth. Just a tablespoon should be enough.
2. This isn't objective, because many people can't actually do this because their balance is poor, but they can still drive a care perfectly well.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Doesn't impair your driving, unless a bag of cheetos scurries across the road. These people need to determine whether or not being high affects you negatively. I mean, there are lots of drugs that make you drive better, maybe weed is one of them.
"Although the marijuana 'high' only lasts three to five hours..."
3-5 hours? Where the hell are you getting your drugs and may I please have the gentleman's number?
The summary (and I am going to bet the article as well) makes a faulty assumption. It assumes that there is a way to measure some substance related to marijuana that correlates to level of impairment in the same way that blood alcohol level correlates to impairment with regards to alcohol consumption. There is at this time no evidence that such a substance exists.. Of course as an anonymous coward points out elsewhere in this thread there is a second faulty assumption in this article. That assumption is that someone who has THC in their system but is no longer high is no longer impaired (although it is possible that some of the tests I have seen on impairment from marijuana actually addressed this and I just did not look close enough).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Oh dear, that's almost as dangerous as dialing a phone.
Given how the police have broad surveillance powers to correlate cell phone logs against the mandatory GPS units installed in our cars in order to determine if we were dialing while driving, it is not unreasonable that we demand they have similar powers over knowing when pot smokers inhale their illicitly legal drug.
Instead of worrying about tolerances and equivalent BAC levels, just come up with a field sobriety test that can detect if someone is too impaired to drive. The problem with a pot BAC is that people react differently to THC. One person might throw up and become stoned from a few good hits while another may feel little to noting at all from the same dose.
I have a friend who has two jobs, goes to school for his bachelors degree, has a wife and a new-born son. When I asked him how he copes he replied: "Copious amount of marijuana, bro." He smokes when he wakes up, smokes on his drive in to work, smokes during lunch, smokes on his way to night classes or his second job and a few hits at night before bed. Granted his case is unique, if I smoked as much as he does I would make a damn fine door stop. Then again I don't have his tolerance.
The cops have to be smart and throw the concept of BAC and breathalyzers out the window. They have to learn to spot the drivers who are legitimately too high to drive vs the veteran smoker who becomes superman juggling multiple jobs, school and a family while high.
because that is the most prevalent drug, but we are not nearly to the point where we are with alcohol,' says Jeffrey P. Michael, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's impaired-driving director. 'We don't know what level of marijuana impairs a driver.'"
.015 than others can at .005 (I could use myself and my SO as an example of that).
.005 - I don't drive after drinking any alcohol, legal or not; but we need to move beyond this convenient legal fiction that BAC defines level of impairment.
Sorry guys, but we don't know what level of alcohol actually makes people too impaired to safely drive, either. Yes, we have a hell of a lot better idea than with THC, but put bluntly, some people can function better at
That doesn't mean you'll catch me on the road at 0.015, or even at
Perhaps the need to deal with pot will finally promote exactly that change, and we'll finally see a real test of impairment rather than the BS in use today.
Those who can make it into the car and out of the parking lot are good enough to drive, it's my personal belief. I'm also more paranoid about keeping distance, speed and over 9000 more cautious while driving high, tested with other drivers - same results.
You lay off THE METH !! And maybe that will HELP !! you to make Slashdot posts that are CALMER !!
"Looks like a black guy is driving. Let's test him for THC and arrest him if he tests above 0."
Palm trees and 8
The use of Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) (easily measured & objective) as a stand-in for impairment began about 40-50 years ago to replace the "under the influence" or "while impaired" standards, which were subjective. People arrested under the "visibly impaired" kind of thing could and did go to court and argue that whatever field sobriety test the officer applied were subject to local problems (uneven road, weather, etc) or outright bias ("Son, you giving me attitude? I think you're impaired").
So they went to the AMA and asked "what BAC is impaired".. A committee at the AMA scratched their heads and said "I dunno, nobody's ever done a real study", and they picked a nice round number like 0.10 or 0.15.
The police and DA's loved it. Now, field sobriety tests provide a probable cause to stop someone, and the law in many states says that you, by having a license, have implied consent to a BAC test. They run the numbers, you go over the limit, and you're prima facie drunk, whether or not you are impaired. Note well, you can refuse the test, and get your license suspended, but then, they'd have to get the conviction on the basis of your actual performance, not the BAC: this is, I understand, quite difficult.
MADD forced the limits down, aided in part by the revenue enhancement possibilities, especially with roadside checkpoints (which can also catch all those illegal aliens).
Over the past 30-40 years, there has been some research on BAC vs performance, and it's a pretty wide range. There are alcoholics who function perfectly normally at a BAC of 0.15, where some people would have a tough time finding the keyhole to start the car.
The upshot is that maybe this will lead to some *real research*. I could easily see a suitable reaction/driving test apparatus which measures performance.
Then, of course, we'll have to deal with the problem that there are people who, stone cold sober, have terrible reactions and performance.
What "threshold"? If pot really has such an impairment effect, then why not just use the standard sobriety test. Who cares about blood levels, etc. until it is determined that a driver is impaired in a real-world test. If they fail the test or caused an accident, then go on to determine the THC levels for evidence to back up the sobriety test.
I have met some very stoned people that you would be hard-pressed to figure out they were even high, much less so stoned that their dexterity/reflexes obviously suffered. It doesn't even seem to make much difference whether they smoked one joint or 5, being stoned is so much different than being drunk that you can't even compare the two states.
So number 1... which is all I really need, is how did they determine half the people pulled over were smoking cannabis? They say in the article they can't.
2 - the numbers are probably skewed in the way of cannabis because the US cannot lose any wars. And the war on drugs, is a war. So this is just a continuation of the scare tactics we've seen all too much.
3 - I know pharmacists. They say at least 50% of the population is on lortabs, percocets, etc... Stuff with hydrocodon and oxycodone. It could be easy to say, that chances are if you're reading this, you have a prescription.
Bottom line, the study is flawed and just a continuation of scare tactics IMVHO.
and drive too. I have done so for over a decade. I've had no accidents. People need to know their own limits and the gov't should stay the fuck out.
What makes you think the period of the "high" is the entirety of the drug's effects? I bet we'll find that the period of noticeable impairment is somewhat longer than the period of the high. Not a whole lot longer though. But would it surprise you if it turns out that one needs to hold off from driving for a couple hours after the high passes?
You take a few puffs and you're high, maybe you take only one, but you're high just the same.
Through years of dealing with marijuana users (and having been one myself), I've not seen it to be
about the amount, but rather the quality. I've been amongst those to smoke for hours consecutively, and never get
as high as i was up until the first contact set in.
I have no links, anyone chime in here, these are my own
personal experiences.
I believe measuring this will be difficult, aside from looking for how red/closed/open the
individuals eyes are, yet different strains produce different affects...
Why would you assume that all impairment fades with the high?
You need to make a proper study. I see the ad in a newspaper: "A scientific team looks for people willing to get high for money." :-)
Ezekiel 23:20
Every time I've been in a discussion on pot here on slashdot, this is what I have asked for - a standard and reproducible test for when someone has consumed too much. Strangely enough, it causes the pro-pot people to call me a fascist and the anti-drug people to call me a druggie.
I'm glad to know that there is so much room for a middle ground in slashdot political discussion...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I've always thought that laws regulating drunk driving based on blood alcohol content were missing the point. It's not driving with alcohol in your blood that causes problems, it's driving while your coordination, reaction time and judgement are impaired. Yes, the former causes the latter, but there's no universal amount - I know some people who can drive just fine after a beer or two, while I don't trust myself after just one.
What police should look at is more general sobriety tests. The stuff they used to do, like "recite the alphabet backwards" or "follow my finger with your eyes". Ideally they should be testing for exactly what should be criminalized - that is, coordination, reaction time and judgement. Not only does this work for all existing drugs, but it should work for basically any drug they ever invent.
There are tons of other legal prescription medication that people take that will fuck them up more then pot when it comes to being able to drive a car. Are we stopping people for that?
What "threshold"? If pot really has such an impairment effect, then why not just use the standard sobriety test.
There is no impartial field (standard) sobriety test. It is up to the officer administering the test to both administer the test and interpret the results. It is very easy to skew or mangle this, on purpose or otherwise. When you have something that independently produces a number, you have an impartial result.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'm not the original A/C, but I had to chime in. No it is not the entirety of it's effects. For those who smoke it all the time it's hard to distinguish day to day because there isn't enough time out of the influence to objectively judge the effects. However, for someone who does not smoke all the time it is easy to see the effects that can last days after use. These effects include reduced mental focus, tiredness, lack of motivation, slower reaction time, etc. All of the same effects experienced under the initial influence of the drug are there, just to a lesser degree. Alcohol has similar impact though it doesn't last quite as long. This drug was illegal for a very good reason and I think legalizing it for recreational use is highly irresponsible and we will see an overall negative impact to society over time.
Maybe not to the extremes of refer madness, but certainly not benign either. There are very real issues associated with legalization. I'm far more in favor of decriminalization where we keep in place safeguards that we have now such as pre-employment drug screening, zero tolerance DUI, etc. This way we minimize public impact without filling up our jails with people who's only crime is that they are too stupid to figure out that they need help.
Just play some Bob Marley and offer them a tray of cookie, the lightly stoned person will refrain, the heavily stoned person will start singing and eating.
thank you sir!
I don't understand why we waste our time trying to figure out what might make someone drive a car poorly such as drinking, texting, eating, putting on make up, smoking pot, shooting up, etc. and instead just raise the stakes for those who commit traffic violations. If someone is swerving between lanes and unable to control the car, who cares what impairment they have, just get them off the road. If your simply unable to drive a car even when sober, you are more dangerous than a professorial race car driver that has had a couple of beers or a puff on a joint.
I don't understand how a sober driver can get in several wrecks and have speeding tickets and still be able to drive as long as they have a few "points" left, yet a DUI is an automatic loss of license in many states even if you were popped at a checkpoint and didn't even display any erratic driving.
They must have stats on pot consumption/traffic accidents. Ask them.
Taking a blood sample is an invasive procedure and needs to be carried out by competent medical personnel. Its a very large escalation from asking someone walk down the white line and stand on one leg.
All rites reversed 2010
The effect varies, depending on whether it is smoked or eaten. I've heard the *high* and impairment effects last longer when its eaten. Jokingly, I'd say to test if a person is DUI, wave a bag or Doritos in front of their face and determine if the subject has cravings.
Ban cars and make people drive motorscycles instead, that will soon sort out the stoners, texters and drunks.
As someone who for a long time had to take serious pain medication, (50mg morphin shots), I knew that it was perfectly legal for me to take the drugs but it was also simply not done to drive or even to walk alone. Hallucinations, a general "wheee!" feeling just made it not safe.
Life is about choices and they ain't always fair. You want to smoke? You stand outside in the rain. You loose an eye, you loose your driver license. On pain med that can only be given by a doctor, you don't go in traffic alone.
Those who can't do this are simple the over entitled and you know the biggest problem with that? They feel entitled to EVERYTHING. They drive to fast, while stoned and drunk with to little sleep while texting but don't you DARE hold them accountable for accidents.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Driving within three hours of smoking pot is associated with a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes.
with:
'We don't know what level of marijuana impairs a driver.'"
One of those two statements HAS to be a lie.
Personally, I have NEVER heard of a story where Marijuana "impairment" alone has been implicated as the causal factor in any traffic fatality.
And that "one week" figure is also completely bogus. Even a drugstore urine test can detect Marijuana use for around 30 days.
There have been no reputable studies that show that driving while high on pot is significantly more dangerous than driving while "sober". Any study of accidents where Marijuana use was also detected would be hard-pressed to find that the pot "impairment" was the cause. But watch the fake statistics start to pile in, by "scientists" looking for their next "Grant-Welfare" money, as the NIH helps the Federal Government "make the case against pot".
Mark my words.
If you're in Europe, you can tune this out. Even in most American cities public transit is abysmal. In Boston for example, the subways shut down at midnight. For reference, the bars close at 1AM. That's in a major city. Most Americans don't live in the cities. And most suburban and rural areas don't even have taxi services available. In most of the US, rhetoric aside, driving isn't a privilege: Driving is a necessity.
Oddly, American towns and cities did had good public transit a hundred years ago. Back then, even most small towns had trolley services. Then a conspiracy destroyed public transit. It's OK though; after making millions destroying public infrastructure and lobbying against light rail, GM had to pay a $5000 fine. For more details, watch "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" It covers the basic story pretty well. The real life bad guys were a shade more cartoonish than Christopher Lloyd though.
And then there is the question of enforcement. Would the testing be done in the same, "at the whim of the guy with the badge" approach we have now? We don't inspect or enforce pretty much any public health issues in the US. Food safety, Drug safety, traffic safety, etc.: All public safety in the US is set up to assign blame after stuff hits the fan. It didn't used to be like this either.
How do you objectively test for "situational awareness"? I don't know of ANY way to do it, that isn't completely at the whim of the person conducting the test. Most cops should not be taken at their word. Right now, there are huge scandals in Massachusetts over these exact two things. One over a police lab making up evidence, falsifying data and generally doing bad things; for more than a decade. And second a failure to oversee a compounding center, and just generally assigning blame later after many people contracted fungal meningitis from contaminated shots. And the only reason it was exposed was that one doctor took on themselves to track down the cause of an odd outbreak.
The test should be for reactions and situational awareness. If you fail for any reason, then you should be prevented from driving. If you fail and also have been taking drugs that are known to cause this kind of impairment, then you might get some extra penalty.
It's a common brush-off answer. But it ignores reality completely. If you can't balance on one leg and touch your nose, while reciting the alphabet backwards... you fail. If you refuse to walk a straight line backwards in icy, sub-zero conditions... you fail. It doesn't matter that you have artificial hips, knees, or limbs.
Very good point. I too am in favor of decriminalization but not legalization. Most people that don't smoke pot today that actually want to smoke it don't because of employment concerns. It's difficult nowadays to find a job that pays a decent wage that doesn't drug test. I know many people that I work with that talk about pot and how they'd like to smoke it but can't take a chance on losing their job. Note they didn't even mention the law.
Would all you who claim that driving stoned is not dangerous like to
fly on an airliner which was being controlled by pilots who were stoned ?
I very much doubt it.
Driving on a public road is serious business and the lives of other people
are at stake. There are enough terrible drivers out there already, and
adding stoned drivers to this mix cannot possibly be anything but a bad idea.
Responsible ADULTS know that driving doesn't mix well with any kind of
"high". Altered consciousness means that the person whose consciousness
is altered is by definition NOT capable of performing an accurate self-evaluation.
If you are stoned and you cause a road accident which involves me, I will do my level
best to see to it that you are left penniless and homeless when I sue you. There will be no
mercy, and I will ruin your life to the best of my attorneys' abilities, which are considerable.
All these needless accidents/deaths/laws will become obsolete if/when the driverless car becomes the norm. Until that day comes, be careful out there people.
Those states removed the laws that made the substance illegal. The did not pass a law making the substance legal. It's important to remember that the government cannot grant liberties, only take them away.
That's society. Accidents are accepted and intentionally putting others at risk isn't. Part of the problem is the frustration with drivers who drink and drive routinely even though they've been caught multiple times. Headlines in the paper about families wiped out in auto accidents by multiple convicted DUI offenders help to feed the anger. I remember back in the seventies DUI's were pretty much a minor thing and then MADD got started (Mother's Against Drunk Driving), with lots of national advertising and all that changed. Now it's better if you have a beer to not drive at all. I quit drinking back in 88 but if I did still drink I'd do it at home now.
Very good point. I too am in favor of decriminalization but not legalization. Most people that don't smoke pot today that actually want to smoke it don't because of employment concerns. It's difficult nowadays to find a job that pays a decent wage that doesn't drug test. I know many people that I work with that talk about pot and how they'd like to smoke it but can't take a chance on losing their job. Note they didn't even mention the law.
Will it still be permissible to sack someone who tests positive for marijuana even where it's legal?
Just curious.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
They already have a test... its the Field sobriety test, and it's a hell of a lot more accurate than a blood test. If you gave my mom 1 beer, and put her on the road, I'd be terrified. If you gave my uncle a 6 pack, he could likely drive just fine. But he'd fail the blood test while my mother would not. The field sobriety test on the other hand would show who really shouldn't be driving. Irrelevant of the drugs you're taking, your reaction time, focus, and balance are the only true way to measure if you should be driving or not. Because that's what matters right? If you can DRIVE? Or are we trying to do something else here?
With the ever-increasing possibility of being arrested for something you didn't do, or something you didn't even know was illegal, or even something fabricated, this seems highly dubious. The more that stuff like the NDAA starts appearing, and with the slew of selectively enforceable laws increasing further, you can bet that people are going to be very paranoid, guilty or not.
The thinner the constitution gets, the less safe I feel using it as a shield against the government.
If they're driving so badly that you pull them over because you think they're drunk or high, they just shouldn't be driving. Even if they're completely sober.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How about they just tell people to deal with their problems like normal human beings instead of unhealthy escapism with drugs?
We don't know what level of marijuana impairs a driver.
That's because it doesn't.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
This. Right now if someone hits and kills a pedestrian, it's called an "accident" and they go free if they're sober - but they go to jail for many years if they had a drink. It doesn't matter that incompetent driving caused the death - the only time a driver is punished appropriately is when they had a drink.
A test for competency would also get a lot of older drivers who cannot drive safely any more off the road.
Two words: "Vehicular Homicide". Doesn't even matter whether the victim(s) are walking, in another car, bicycle, pogo sticks, whatever.
Regardless of sobriety, if you kill people while in control of a motor vehicle, expect to be considered for charges. The degree will vary. If you deliberately gunned the engine and ran over kids at the school crossing, that's premeditated murder and they'll throw the book at you. If you couldn't hit the brakes fast enough when you saw the ball roll into traffic, not so much. But you won't get a free pass. In fact, just driving a car in known unsafe condition can add to the charges.
Conversely, I could argue that "appropriate" punishment for a DUI manslaughter is not what I have seen handed out, but that would be personal bias.
Yes. They can fire you if you smoke cigarettes.
rewriting history since 2109
You can't sack them in Canada even if they do test positive, since you can't prove they got high on the job.
As a nerdy peace officer i can offer a perspective on this.
Far to often i see colleagues make a traffic stop, and go almost instantly to EBT (evidential breath testing). They rely on the EBT almost exclusively and bring little additional elements into their charge. Its fast, lazy, and doesnt catch anything other than alcohol.
For me, on an intoxication offense related stop I try to do the following on camera (if applicable):
Announce reason for stop and its relation to suspicion of impairment. ("Reason for contacting you is you appear to have difficulty maintaining a marked lane, and your traveling at an excessive speed.")
Announce that i detect the presence of alcohol or other intoxicant in the vehicle.
Request the driver submit to SFST (standard field sobriety test)
Conclude the SFST with an HGN assessment (Horizontal gaze nystagmus)
After all of this, if they reasonably appear to be impaired and therefore unsafely operating a vehicle while intoxicated, i call for an EBT unit. This is simply an additional layer of evidence to be added to the complaint. If EBT is not available, fails, or indicates a "legal level" i will still make an arrest as they reasonably meet the definition of an impaired driver. If i didnt believe them to be intoxicated i would have never bothered calling for the EBT in the first place, its not a device to keep someone from "almost not gettting arrested."
This is how an intoxication arrest should work every time, whether its alcohol or the latest magic fairy dust, bath salt, inscent, potpurri, or spice from the bong shop near campus. Law enforcement needs to be in a mentality of establishing the elements of an offense, not arbitrarily deciding "he needs to go to jail" like happens far to often.
LOL he should chill out and smoke some pot.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Regardless of the circumstances, we have a personal responsibility to not put others in danger with our actions. Vehicles are multi-thousand pound missiles, heavy machinery easily capable of severely injuring and killing other people; if you're too tired to operate one safely, there's really no excuse for doing so.
Driving is entirely a convenience, and certainly not a right or a requirement. A responsible adult can (and should) plan around the reality of not being able to drive; 'working 20 hours' isn't an excuse, it's a situation that you're dealt with and need to handle, and driving while being tired enough to be impaired is a personal choice.
LegendMUD
Sweet mother of Celestia! Just think of all the data! That would probably be the most participated in study of all time.
Which is why I said that only take it if the person fails a reaction test. Blood samples are the only accurate method of determining drug use, it wouldn't be fair to convict someone without taking a sample first.
Not sure how it works in America but around here if a breathalyzer shows high blood alcohol levels you are taken in for a blood test.
mistaking red Christmas ornaments for stop lights?
"A recent assessment by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, based on random roadside checks, found that 16.3% of all drivers nationwide at night were on various legal and illegal impairing drugs, half them high on marijuana." - I'm going to call BS on this one right out of the gate. How is a cop going to test if you're high on pot? They don't have any equipment with them that can measure it. Someone high on pot can look very much like someone that is just tired...red eyes, slower reaction times, etc.
"Driving within three hours of smoking pot is associated with a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes." - Bullshit again. The Feds are pulling these stats out of their collective asses. The truth is that pot has a very different effect than alcohol does. Driving under the influence of alcohol is far, far more dangerous than pot. Look, these idiots are still classifying pot as a Schedule 1 drug. It's in the same category as cocaine, heroin and LSD. None of the Schedule 1 drugs have any beneficial use and yet marijuana clearly does for migraine headaches, glaucoma, and nausea from radiation treatment for cancer patients.
I'm not suggesting that people should be driving around stoned. But let's have an intelligent discussion about it before throwing around these outlandish claims.
The summary doesn't say it (and the linked article doesn't expound), but according to http://www.dwicourts.org/drugged_driving this "night" of which they speak is a weekend night. So, Friday or Saturday. Living in NYC and riding a motorcycle (which I refuse to do nowadays on Friday and Saturday nights), I'd expect that number to be much higher, but perhaps the rest of the nation averages it out. Or perhaps many people who plan to drive with a BAC over 0.08 know where these checkpoints may lie. I did, and actively avoided them due to traffic concerns, when I did ride (sober) on those nights.
There is no science here. Please don't pretend otherwise.
In most of the U.S., you can pretty much fire someone for just about anything (short of gender, race, or religion).
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
It's a moot point. As we were told time and time again every time legalization of pot came up, "pot users don't ever drive high." So, obviously the authorities are just imagining that these people have marijuana in their bloodstreams. Because surely a pot user would not lie to us.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
"Washington State Patrol spokesman Dan Coon. 'Marijuana is new, so it's going to take some time to figure out..."
Yes, marijuana is a new drug. It's only been around a few thousand years. It will take Washington State some time to figure that out.
The problem with decriminalization as opposed to legalization, is that the supply chain is still unregulated. The upper chain are still criminals and can still adulter the product in dangerous ways. The product is still sold along side of harder drugs which is the mechanism for the gateway drug argument. And drug dealers exist outside of the law so there is no reason for them to not sell to children.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
seeing that if I show up to work and test positive for alcohol, I'd be sacked immediately, my guess would be yes.
If someone is driving badly, it doesn't matter if it's because they're high, drunk, on their cellphone, distracted by their kid, had a bad day at work, or any other of a million different reasons. They should be held accountable and punished. It's called personal responsibility.
There are loads of impaired drivers high on Cannibas driving around ALL THE TIME. It's been going on since the 1960's. This isn't some new tidal wave of high drivers who will flood the freeways.
You want to see impaired driving? Sit at a stop light, waiting to go and look out into the intersection and watch the people stopped to turn left. What are they doing? They are enraptured in their smart phone, attempting in vain to look up once in a while to see when they can go. I look to my left, the person driving the car is doing something on their phone. The light changes and all these people, it seems like its the majority anymore, are FUCKING AROUND ON THEIR PHONE!!!!!!!!!!
Don't bitch about high drivers when there is an epidemic of "high" drivers already on the road(yes I know it's illegal in CA and a few other states...)
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
well, you shouldn't work for 20 hours straight if you don't have a lift home. you should take at least a nap before driving.
thing is.. technically in most of the western world driving impaired is illegal - no matter what the reason! so you have done plenty wrong by getting behind the wheel tired after 20 hours of working straight.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Enter the lawyers. They can't use the "test for reactions" test because they're either subjective, or you'd need a prohibitive amount of equipment (and time testing) to make it purely objective. Otherwise the lawyers argue that the person wasn't impaired _enough_. There's also the flip side of that coin that being subjective also means that if the officer doesn't like the look of you, then your reactions weren't good enough. Plus the folks that will dispute every ticket (regardless of how egregious the infraction) they get under the mantra of "make them prove it! You have a right!" blah, blah blah.
They call it a 'field sobriety test'
Bill Hicks called it 'auditioning for your own freedom'
Driving in the right lane, 55 with a big smile waving the peace sign to everyone and being friendly.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
quit projecting wally.
> 'We've had decades of studies and experience with alcohol,' says Washington State Patrol spokesman Dan Coon.
That doesn't mean the law actually reflects that experience. Many (all?) states have a limit of 0.08 due to lobbying efforts by MADD, not by actual empirical studies (MADD has slowly morphed into a general prohibition organization... the founder Candy Lightner left the group in disgust because of it). NHTSA's own studies have lots of waffle-words regarding the overall effects of lowering the limit from 0.1 to 0.08.
I suspect THC levels will decided by political lobbying groups (with a myriad of agendas) as well and the end result is any amount of THC while driving will be made illegal.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/s15p1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Lightner
My dad's story: "Back in't day, we'd just spent an evening immersed in the recently released Tommy, by The Who, and had been smoking hard. I was on my way home on my motorbike. The lights of the motorway where flashing past my vision and the sense of speed was tremendous, when i saw police lights behind me, so i pulled over. The police officer: Sir, are you aware you've been going 20mph?" badumbumtish. lol.
You mean we're going to have to actually punish people for criminal actions (driving recklessly and endangering others) and not for an arbitrary measure of at what point we think they *could* be a danger to others?
Oh, the horror!
The high drivers are the ones going the speed limit.
Colorado State Police have announced that they plan to start aggressively enforcing minimum speed limits...
Stupid summary is stupid. Just because a state made it legal does not change the fact that there are federal laws that trump it.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
While I'm inclined to agree with you, I also believe there are lots of situations where people get an unexpected double shift. Especially in the medical field I would think. For myself, the only times I was in a situation where I was driving when I was too tired, it was by my own poor judgement and nothing else. Honestly, that kind of thing should be punishable just as DUI. Fortunately I never caused an accident, but there was at least once it could have been REALLY bad. (I woke up when my tires went off the OTHER side of the road, still doing 50+ MPH, on a busy state highway. How I didn't have a head-on collision is beyond me.)
But how do you deal with it if the boss asks you to work a second shift in the ER because someone else couldn't make it? I don't know. I don't work in the medical industry so all I can do is speculate.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
This one's easy. No amount is safe for driving. I think it should be the same for alcohol as well. If you drink or smoke, you shouldn't drive. Simple as that. Then there are no worries about blood levels etc. If you have any in your system, you are in trouble. Just to frame this, I should add that I drink occasionally and used to smoke pot (haven't done it since my Daughter was born; if it was legal though...) So it's not like I'm a prude.
The problem (which is rapidly being solved) is that we would need to have an AI on the level of KITT to be safe
I propose that for the first ~5 years the various car OEMs set things so that when the car takes over it
1 sets off a standard beacon that can be read by any nearby LEO cars with the message "VIN XXXXXXX in Auto Drive Mode GPS set to %location%"
2 slow blink the HAZARD lights
3 can respond to a LEO "request" to pull over or go into a "FOLLOW ME" type mode
of course this should always have some sort of semi standard over ride so that the driver can take back control
(hold this part of the steering wheel in your left hand that part in your right hand then tap Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A HORN to unlock from auto drive)
my problem with BAC type testing is what if there is a reason the person has a given level (and is in fact NOT Impaired)??
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Except for the studies that they did years ago in the Netherlands...
Oh come on now, 16.3%? So says police officers who have quotas to meet.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Rather than try to formulate some arbitrary yet scientifically measurable number specifically for just one more possible cause of impairment, which may result in different actual effects in different people, why not just directly test cognitive and motor skills like they used to for alcohol before the breathalyzers were widely available?
Seems that testing someone's awareness and motor function directly would address the immediate concern--and handle *any* possible cause: alcohol, THC, prescription meds, OTC meds, and outright drowsiness (your own melatonin) all with one test.
and her two year old son spent six months in the hospital with a brain injury. This is why I'm opposed to legalization. I don't care if people smoke their brains out at home, but like alcohol, they can't be trusted not to drive. I think there's enough impaired drivers on the road already. Until there's a quick test for impairment, and good long sentences to throw offenders in jail, it's use should remain illegal.
I'm a licensed firearms dealer in California, and an issue that has been coming up more frequently in the last few years is question 11e on the BATFE's Form 4473:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
California says marijuana is legal for medical purposes, and they have something called a medical marijuana card that authorizes certain individuals to use it legally. However, the federal government says marijuana use is illegal. Period. So I get at least one person a month who tries to pull out their medical marijuana card to claim that they are a lawful user, and I have to automatically stop the sale because while they may not be violating state law, they're violating federal law, and I'm accountable to both. I get audited, inspected and investigated by both the state DOJ and federal BATFE. Either one can pull my license, fine and jail me for non-compliance.
The best part is that in their marijuana high, they very slowly try to argue the point with me, asking me if I think it's right that a person on marijuana is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. They don't get violent, like the straw purchasers and felons do. They just sort of ramble on in an unfocused sort of way until they forget what they were talking about. And then I ask them if they think they should have a weapon in their current state. After a long pause, they usually answer "no" and amble out the door.
impair driving skills. like emotions, anger, fatigue, etc., and there is no way to test for that. I would rather ride with a pot head than a person who just had a fight with his or her SO. Or someone who just got unfairly fired. I think there are way too many people driving who are angry, hurt, stressed, showing off, and they make the worst drivers. But my two cents is that US drivers should be thoroughly tested every five years, and that includes a road test.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
I'd argue there's no good way for them to tell if the driver is impaired on alcohol either. The limits we've set are entirely arbitrary. Many people at the limit or over are completely functional.
Impaired drivers are easy enough to spot.
A drunk driver will run a stop sign
The stoned driver waits for it to turn green.
Drug posession and use were decriminalized in Mexico (where I live) in 2009. *All* drugs. However, growing and selling them is not legal, and is criminal. What does this mean?
If I am found carrying or smoking a pot cigarrette (or injecting a heroine dose, or whatever), I am not a criminal — I might be a candidate for psychiatric help at some institutions, yes (most probably if I'm a reincident), but not going to jail.
If I have 60 pot plants at home, i am not only doing something illegal, but a criminal offense.
If I have over the allowed dose for personal use, I am (probably?) trying to sell it, and it is a crime.
Not that our situation is ideal. Far from it. I believe full legalization is the only way out. But at least, it shifts the penalization to the real wrongdoers in our current situation.
You have to choose between having a licence and smoking weed. You be driving high or drunk.
How about we simply test for impairment? It shouldn't matter why you're impaired, only whether you're impaired, right? So use the same roadside tests we currently use to determine whether a driver's impaired or not. Not the breathalyzer, the ones that test the driver's reactions and coordination. If the driver's impaired, he won't be able to pass the tests, If he can pass the tests, he's not impaired (or at least not impaired beyond what we otherwise allow on the roads). If he turns out to be impaired, you can sort out exactly why he's impaired after you've gotten him off the road. I'd think that tests for impairment should be a lot easier to come up with, assuming we even need to come up with them (I'd think that the roadside tests we used for decades before portable breathalyzers came along should do OK, otherwise why did we ever consider them valid?).
Note to police: the threat to the public is not driving while under the influence of alcohol or marijuana or the like. The threat is driving while sufficiently impaired to pose a danger to others. For myself I don't care if the other guy's reaction times were hosed because he was stoned, because he was drunk, because he was on prescription pain meds or because he was just too tired, the damage to others when he causes an accident because his reaction times are hosed is the same in all 4 cases.
If anything you drive more careful.
And I doubt it not alcohol folks.
You do not get snot slinging crawling drunk.
No you still go to work in every single occupation there is all over the world.
From people building ICBMS to the Chevy engine plant.
Get over it.
You can drive to get a big mac.
Why dont you spend your time working on something that really is bad like texting you can not drive and not look at the road yet.
But it is coming.
Marijuana is not like cocane or other drugs. There is a reason it is called "weed" -- it can be grown virtually anywhere. This makes the length of how far the stuff has to travel far shorter.
With decriminalization, plus the fact that there are a lot of pot breeds available, it wouldn't be hard to find someone who is offering their stuff directly from their grow room with no middlemen, and nothing being added into what they sell.
To a lesser extent, this is true with meth, but marijuana does not need the solvents and chemicals to make a usable product. All it takes is a small hydroponic room or just some space in the dirt.
There already are standardized reaction tests, I have taken one. There's a flash or a beep after which you have to press a button. The amount of time that takes for you is measured.
What if you're tired? If you've taken no drugs, but worked twenty hours in a row? You WILL fail an impairment test. But you've done nothing wrong.
Driving when you are not capable is wrong AND illegal in EVERY state in the union.
But then, the state SHOULD be providing affordable and comprehensive public transit.
Transportation isn't a right. It isn't required to live. It isn't required for happiness. It simply isn't required by any means.
In short, go fuck yourself for expecting the world to provide for you. Its not my problem that you picked a shitty job that you have to drive to, especially in America where we have ... laws to deal with shitty jobs.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Regardless of sobriety, if you kill people while in control of a motor vehicle, expect to be considered for charges.
That is certainly not the case if the person who dies was riding a bicycle. Cyclists are killed daily in the USA, with very very few cases being prosecuted at all.
If your going to drive stoned you should have to get a license showing you can drive effectively under the influence.
Sorry, but its too soon to jump from illegal to drive stoned whenever you feel like it. Most (non problem) drinkers know that their drug of choice fucks them up. And its time to call a cab after a session at the bar. Society can live with that.
The biggest problem I can see with pot is ability to distort the thinking processes of users to justify their behavior under any circumstances. Stupid stoners I can tolerate. Stupid stoners that think they are the most clever and perceptive person in the world are dangerous.
Remember this: The people around you are laughing at you, not with you.
Have gnu, will travel.
I'm looking forward to the day when you can stumble out to your car drunk and/or high, and just let it drive you home.
Instead of testing what drugs are in their system, how about testing things that actually relate to driving ability?
The classic "walk a straight line" test may not be all that useful. If you have a limp, you can't do it; but you can drive quite well.
The ultimate answer might be something like a gameboy in the car. "Your honor, he failed to reach level 2. Unimpaired drivers get all the way to 5, the last level".
As an added bonus, this would get impaired drivers off the road regardless of what caused the impairment. Maybe, just maybe, we could finally eliminate the judicial bias that allows little old ladies to run motorcycles off the road and still keep their licenses? I won't hold my breath on that one.
Where I work it is by all means forbidden to work more than 10 hours a day -- the rule is that you are not capable to drive after having worked for that long. So the company has to pay for the transport costs. There is no law against overworking and they can't fire you for that but you'll have a serious talk with the manager if you do. And I work as a software engineer, not a mine worker.
well, this is _exactly_ why commercial vehicles are being installed with drive logs which are used in enforcing truck driver sleep limits.
the med guy should take a nap if he's worked 20 hours before driving. though I would also argue that I wouldn't like to be examined by someone who's worked 16 hours straight. places that make people work such overtime shifts should offer sleeping facilities(and pay for that time too).
so it's one of those things which employer is responsible and which is not.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
THC (and its metabolites, which are what is actually being tested for in a urine test) are fat soluble. The outer limit for detection time depends HEAVILY on frequency of use, as well as amount of body fat and metabolic rate.
Somebody who smokes several joints a day every day might be detectable for a month or more after stopping, whereas someone who smokes only occasionally and moderately can test clean in a couple days.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
"but we are not nearly to the point where we are with alcohol,' says Jeffrey P. Michael, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's impaired-driving director. "
Nor should you ever be. Unless you are going to start arrest people who just woke up at 5 am and are impaired it is much the same thing.
You are impaired after driving a big rig for 10 hours especially after a team coast to coast run. Sleeping in a cab.
You fuckers really are nuts.
http://cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html
http://weedpress.wordpress.com/science/in-the-news/australian-driving-study-says-cannabis-is-safe/
http://www.ccguide.org/driving.php
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Just treat it like coffee and say any level is OK.
And not also the number of years behind the wheel? In which case, raising the driving age only changes the average age of maximum impairment, not the crash statistics. And finally, if we accept that 18 year olds are too brash to drive, shouldn't we also accept that they are too brash to be sent out to battle?
A few years ago I was driving back from the dentist after getting a root canal, and realized it was good that I was unlikely to get hit with a drug test. Novocaine's close enough to cocaine that it would trigger that one, codeine's an opiate, the Sudafed I'd taken as a decongestant is a mild amphetamine, ibuprofen causes false positives for marijuana tests (maybe not for this saliva test, but it does for the standard urine test.) The drug that would have actually affected my driving (nitrous oxide) doesn't get tested for, and it'd had plenty of time to wear off before I left.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I've talked to many friends who smoke and we all agree that if anything we drive better when high. When I'm driving and completly sober I have a million things on my mind driving is really just an after thought. I want to get where I'm going fast and I know I'm much more agressive when driving sober. When I'm high I'm actually focusing on the road, I don't care how long it takes for me to get somewhere, and I'm not agressive at all. But don't take my word for it there have been plenty of studies showing that people who have smoked marijuana are actually better, safer drivers.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9375729.htm
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-19/news/30533159_1_medical-marijuana-beer-sales-traffic-fatalities
Thanks for the link! I didn't realize this till now - the summary claims "Driving within three hours of smoking pot is associated with a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes", but that claim isn't stated in any of the links provided.... so it's just a number that our dear friend "hugh pickens" made up.
When headlines are written with unsubstantiated claims and misinterpreted research, this sets us back - this tactic is what fuelled the effort to make cannabis illegal in the first place.
Who in the hell gets in a fatal crash when 15mph feels too damn fast?
Just have a series of performance tests. If they can't do them then they are impaired, regardless of the substance.
Even if someone is just too tired, we don't want them on the road.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Regardless of sobriety, if you kill people while in control of a motor vehicle, expect to be considered for charges.
That is certainly not the case if the person who dies was riding a bicycle. Cyclists are killed daily in the USA, with very very few cases being prosecuted at all.
Before you say "certainly", I think I'd like some hard stats. Granted, a lot of local cyclists do things like run stop signs (illegal in this state), turn across traffic with minimal (if any) advance warning and (most damning of all) have the temerity to actually ride on public roadways, but I'm pretty sure we do occasionally prosecute drivers for excessive herd-thinning.
This drug was illegal for a very good reason...
And that reason is what?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
'We don't know what level of marijuana impairs a driver"
==
"When can we levy fines?"
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
The DEA has the power to place anything they want to into Schedule 1, based on nothing more than the whim of unelected bureaucrats. They did it years ago with MDMA (ecstasy), and more recently with GHB,, various synthetic cannabinoids, and several compounds being sold as "bath salts".
Such emergency scheduling powers are SUPPOSED to be subject to congressional review (based on impartial scientific findings), but history shows that such decisions are simply rubberstamped by congress without any actual review taking place.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I would like to sign up, where do I sign up?
Can I get Item #9?
Just look for the safest drivers on the road, going 10mph BELOW the posted speed limits and signaling 1/4 mile BEFORE the turn. yep. they're smoking pot. /CF
Driving is a requirement if you want to work and not a convenience. When I was interviewing for jobs in Toronto (which has a decent amount of transit/taxi coverage) *every* job listed 'valid license and functional vehicle' as a requirement. You don't have a car you don't work in IT in Ontario. Simple as that. And 20 hour days are expected as we're exempt from overtime and hours of work laws, just like first responders. You don't want to work the OT you don't get to keep your job. It's a known that our courts have repeatedly allowed drunks to get behind the wheel again because anything else meant the defendant's family will end up on the dole. I don't know where the fuck you live that you think the law ever beats corporate interest but it isn't here.
Has anyone ever thought of why weed can turn out to be a gateway drug? Perhaps it's because once a kid smokes some weed they realize the Federal Government is lying to them about it, so they figure they must be lying about cocaine and heroin as well. The Feds and the pharmaceutical industry have done nobody any favors with their lame war against a harmless natural plant by classifying it the same as heroin or morphine when it reality it is less dangerous than alcohol.
I have been toking up daily for the better part of 3 decades. I am in perfect health and have no accidents or tickets, even though I'll toke up while driving if I feel like it. If anything smoking weed makes me a more careful and attentive driver and I've 30 years of a perfect driving record to prove it, of course with the current Federal Govt laws no way I'm going to publicly cop to this...
"found that 16.3% of all drivers nationwide at night were on various legal and illegal impairing drugs, half them high on marijuana."
Uhh, really? OK, so 8.15% of nighttime drivers are high. How many drives on an average night? Using U.S. status, if one in 30 people average one drive per night, that would be 10 million. If so, that would mean there would be 800,000 high drives every night. Over the course of a year, that's 292,000,000 stoned nighttime drives. And we only have 34,000 annual traffic fatalities from all causes day and night. So if 25% of all traffic fatalities are caused by a person who is driving high at night, that would be about one in 35,000 drives. If you get high and drive every night for the rest of your life, you can just get past a 50/50 chance of causing one fatality (if you have 50 years of driving left in you). That sounds significantly less dangerous than, say, changing the radio station -- so let's outlaw that first (or also).
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Summary says:
> 'We don't know what level of marijuana impairs a driver.'
How about "any amount that causes the loser to drive in such a manner as to get pulled over and then follow it up by failing a sobriety test"?
Too obvious?
While we're at it, if the moron is so addicted to SMS that he tries to text while driving and gets pulled over for reckless driving, and then he continues trying to text during the sobriety test and fails it as a result, that should count as impairment too. Take away his driver's license, impound the vehicle, and require him to attend six months of counseling for his addiction and test clean if he ever wants to get a driver's license again.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I remember being in the US Air Force back before they started random drug testing. I was at Keesler AFB for school on my electronics specialty and as I was walking back from class one day I noticed a bunch of Security Police cars out behind the barracks. I walked back there to check what was going on and they were digging up all the marijuana plants that were growing from seeds that had been tossed out the windows.
Signing a secession petition is a complete cop-out.
You are right that the best reasons to exit the USA have nothing to do with the individual candidates and everything to do with the nature of Federal abuse of power.
There are 2 courses which might be effective:
1. You begin to actively work/campaign for the education of the people and the election of representatives who will advance your view of the correct limits of Federal power. Keep in mind that many candidates will be imperfect but still worthwhile; we did not get to where we are in 1 step, and we will not return from it in 1 step either. Baby steps must be acceptable, especially early on. This is the work of generations, as it took generations to get to where we are. You will need to be patient and diligent - and both qualities are rare in humans. In time, the USA will begin to resemble the ideas we suppose to claim, but the path will be long, difficult, and messy, as people unlearn their domestication and become, once again, wild and free.
2. Carve out a piece of property - preferably on a national border or ocean. Define a government for yourself and those with you, and defend it with such skills and weapons as you have. This will be the all-consuming work of a lifetime, quite possibly in a shack in the woods in Montana.
A petition to Obama to "Let My People Go" is the act of a crybaby, because it puts the work of implementing either option to other people who have no interest in seeing it through. Note that every state - yes, even Texas - which has sufficient signers has seen their Governor come forward and denounce the notion. The real task of secession and new independence is immense, and no person in power who you might Petition wishes to pursue it. They have far too much investment in the way things are.
Therefore, you will do it yourself or you will not see it.
-------
As a point of deeper personal editorial, if you agree with the above and see sense in it, you had no reason to vote for anyone but Romney for president. He was far from perfect, but he had a legitimate shot and would begin walking back some of the worst excesses. Ron Paul has some nice ideas, for example, but one does not go directly from starvation to feast; indeed, attempting to do so would bring the worst strawmen of the opposition to life. Romney was not the man to take us back to the way things should be, but he could have been the man to start. Barack Obama is certainly headed for more federal power, not less. This is plain. Those who cannot hold their nose, in politics, are doomed to suffocate.
The DEA arrested cancer patients in Oakland for being present at a dispensary during a raid. They were eventually released, but honestly someone who is trying to get through their final days does not deserved to be harassed by the federal government.
Why are you for decriminalization, but not legalization? Terms of employment have nothing to do with it. It is legal to drink, but most places will fire you if you come to work drunk.
Trolling? WTF?
The fscking guy gives a testimonial about why he thinks a Zero Tolerance about driving intoxicated should be practiced, and got modded as a TROLL?
C'MON! There's no more common sense around here?
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
So nearly 8% of all Americans that drive at night are high on marijuana? Sorry, that's a bit much.
Here's what I assume is the cited 2007 report.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%2520Injury%2520Control%2FArticles%2FAssociated%2520Files%2F811249.pdf
First off, these measurements are *only* taken on Friday and Saturday nights (and also a short period earlier on Friday).
I'm also not finding this 16.3% statistic with half attributed to marijuana. By blood, 9.3% contained illegal drugs and I don't see the breakdown for pot. By oral fluid,6.1% are identified as marijuana if you only include nighttime drivers.
Where's this info in the summary coming from?
It also wouldn't be fair to take a sample that can show a positive result when at the time of driving there was no impairment.
Do you also think we should prohibit alcohol sales? Alcohol's negative effects on society are extremely plain to see. Society would be better off as a whole if people were allowed to use marijuana as an alternative to alcohol.
Besides, what authority does anyone have to tell another what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and minds? If someone wants to get high with friends in the privacy of their own home, what justification do you have to stop them? And yes, this same argument applies to all drugs. Think critically about it. The freedom and right to use drugs is intertwined in the freedom and right to manipulate your own mind and exert control over your mental processes.
And in what way are weed smokers inherently in need of help? Micheal Phelps and Carl Sagan were just pot smoking losers in your eyes? The 20-30% of college students who smoke marijuana on a regular basis are pitiful druggies who will never amount to anything without an intervention? As an openly pot smoking software engineer, I have met a great many people who are intelligent, successful, and reputable and happen to enjoy smoking weed.
It's not for everyone - I've seen people who get panic attacks from it and others who seriously can't think at all on it despite regular use - but many people can use marijuana responsibly and without problems. There is no reason they should be prevented from doing so. And as such, there should be a regulated, legal market for acquiring marijuana. Otherwise you are unjustifiably preventing people from an action they have every right to partake in, funneling billions of dollars to organized crime, fueling the distrust between a large portion of the population and the police, reducing respect for the rule of law, and putting distribution of the substance in the hands of people who don't follow health regulations or check IDs.
Uh no. Vehicular manslaughter is mostly certainly a jailable offense. You don't get to walk free for killing someone.
Enforce the existing laws. It doesn't matter why you ran that red light, or were weaving in and out of your lane, or hit that other car, etc. All that matters is actions and what has been done. What might happen is irrelevant.
If u had to be a passenger in a car would u choose a driver who drank 6 beers or one that just smoked a bowl? This is a no brainer.
It's difficult nowadays to find a job that pays a decent wage that doesn't drug test. I know many people that I work with that talk about pot and how they'd like to smoke it but can't take a chance on losing their job.
So the solution is to keep it illegal? How would that help anything!?
Right now, if someone hits and kills a pedestrian, they'll likely be convicted of manslaughter if "incompetent driving" was the cause. If not, yeah, they'll be free to go. What a travesty that someone not proven guilty of causing a death isn't punished.
Pedestrians are as ignorant and stupid as drivers. Bicyclists (who are pedestrians, at least here) skip stop signs - sometimes even when the cross traffic isn't required to stop. Sometimes in groups so they can't even be avoided.
Walkers think the laws of physics don't apply to crosswalks. They'll step right in front of moving vehicles without even looking. Or they think they automatically have the right of way, when in fact they only have the right of way when they make themselves seen and their intention to cross clear. (Anyone with a brain interprets this as "I know I've been seen because the cars are stopping for me" and let's the cops worry about the ones that don't stop.)
After all look at Obama's love of the "Arab Spring"
Do you note a contradiction there mate?
"I drive sober all the time, never had a problem. I am infinitely safer than somebody texting or speeding or following too close." - Adolph Hitler
California recently admitted that stoned drivers are now killing more people than drunk drivers.
Huffpo link
NORML is a just another left-leaning activist group that has never allowed facts to interfere with its propaganda. Sorry, but all of America's famous documents were not written on hemp paper, all of the best clothes were not made of hemp, weed does not make you smarter, etc. (I've lost track of all the claims I've heard from the pot activists over the years who were trying to convince non-users to support pot) There are typical pot users, who just want to get high and are honest about it... and then there are pot activists who will make any claim to try to rally support to their cause and who, by virtue of being pot-heads, do not know just how stupid they look to normal people. NORML is in this latter category; they're far less tolerable than the average user could ever be.
2 - the numbers are probably skewed in the way of cannabis because the US cannot lose any wars. And the war on drugs, is a war. So this is just a continuation of the scare tactics we've seen all too much.
OK, how about the "war on poverty" ... if all you left-leaning slashdotters are critical of, and want to end, the "war on drugs" which you are convinced is just not winnable then, for the sake of consistency, do you also support ending Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty"? We have spent TRILLIONS of dollars on it and EVERY statistic is actually WORSE; it's clearly not "winnable", has fostered many negative social pathologies, been the excuse for huge interventions into the lives of the citizenry, etc. My suspicion is that you want to social spending and taxation of the poverty war to rise even higher to provide for all the pot heads who would need assistance to live if pot is every full-legalized; Some people can certainly keep a job while using pot on the weekends, but too many people who get onto drugs end up with all the normal expenses of life, plus their drug costs, and many either become unemployable (or only employable at jobs that pay less, and would be beneath them if they were sober). These people will almost certainly turn to food stamps, subsidized telephones, government health care, etc. If denied support, they will turn to crime and then there will be a left-wing push for more social spending (because they will say it's cheaper than incarceration). Those of us who are not dumb enough to smoke pot have memories... we've seen this play before and the repetitiveness is tiresome.
Once had the misfortune to sit shotgun with a STONED driver !! He drove up highway exit ramps TWICE in 10 minutes !! He otherwise seemed capable, unlike a drunk who would drive up an exit ramp !! Either drug is deadly in its results !! Lucky for him I don't drink, don't smoke !! What do I do ??
First, check yourself into rehab. Then, when you're sober, go read up some of these results - https://www.google.com/search?q=Punctuation+101.
Why do they worry about this now?
THC is one of the oldest drugs known to mankind. It may even predate alcohol since it is much easier to produce. Also people have been taking this stuff despite the prohibition that's been going on for the last hundred years or so.
So how is this a new problem? I think there is much more lazyness involved or this is another scare tactic. The "but we can't easily detect DUI" argument has been used against the abolishment of the prohibition since forever.
If the person you just stopped is not showing any outward signs of any kind of intoxication then he propably is fine to drive. If he shows signs of intoxication then you'd take him in anyhow. In that case there is enough time for him to pee on a stick or something.
20 minutes into the future
We have a test for competency. It's called the driving test.
My personal opinion, however is that there should be mandatory re-testing at regular intervals. Specifically, I think that new drivers should have a free re-test at 2 years, then every 10 years afterwards until their 60th birthday. Past that, it should be every 5 years with a cursory eye exam ("Read that numberplate with whatever corrective lens you require for driving at a minimum distance of 20.5m" is the current UK law), and over 75 every 2 years with significantly reduced fees. Pensioners here get free public transport travel anyway.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I've smoked cannabis heavily for 40 years, but I voted against the legalization measure in California last time around because of the onerous tax that was attached.
Stoned but not stupid.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
With the State Militias deployed offshore, and the modern capabilities of our Federal military, I predict the war will be decided quickly. Except for the indefinite deployment of autonomous drones mopping up, and for continuous 24/7 "security" once the overt dissent has been neutralized.
You could decriminalize murder... but that doesn't make it legal.
Actually, that would make it legal, but would not change the fact that indeed, it is a crime. Much like our financial system.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I bet you that over 66% of the people driving are on some kind of prescribed drug. Which is even worst. People are so retarded. This is nothing more than propaganda. New story. Old news.
The ignorance abounds.
Yes, it does.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
We have protection from those sorts of crimes. Oh, wait...
"That's it, I'm going."
Those roadside strength/agility tests don't necessarily correlate with driving impairment.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
A reasonable competence requirement would clear the roads of nearly all traffic and reverse global warming, not to mention all the other ecological destruction that would be reduced.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
What if you're tired? If you've taken no drugs, but worked twenty hours in a row? You WILL fail an impairment test. But you've done nothing wrong.
In my state, California, that's called reckless driving, and it is illegal.
But then, the state SHOULD be providing affordable and comprehensive public transit. Infrastructure is the government's #1 job, not that they seem to take it very seriously.
Putting people on trains would prevent a lot of the problem, but transportation in the U.S.A. is a profit center instead of a public service, so the laws protect us from the service rather than provide it. There's a medical cannabis analogy here, but I'l spare us this time.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I don't think we need another social drug. Alcohol causes enough damage but is at least much easier to regulate than marijuana. Marijuana abuse is more difficult to detect and control making things like checking people for operating a motor vehicle under the influence much more problematical. I don't think it's bad enough to warrant stuffing jails with people over it but it's too hard to control to allow unrestricted usage.
Only kidding :)
Since you don't know the impairment level and until you discover it, make it illegal for anyone to drive a car within a week of pot use (basically while it's detectable). Have them ride the bus or their bicycle, as they do it in the Netherlands.
Less traffic accidents, better air quality, healthier population.
Why not vote it legal and then choose to continue to buy it illicitly to avoid the tax... so that it's not a crime when you're caught smoking it??
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
Heyy .. just fancy that .. some folks wining about Governments putting flouride and other crap in the water - .. but hey, its a free country ... !
strange how the same folks also are up for drugging themselves though
What the current detection limit is, I don't know. I work on the basis that the piss-test that we're routinely subjected to at work will detect cannabis months after use. Which is a real bummer if I'm offered a toke during my weeks of leave between jobs, because I have to refuse.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The penalties are far more severe and enforcement is more consistent. I break statutes without remorse, but I never fuck with the Taxman.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I lived in AZ for a while and they have a tough law that any metabolite found in your blood will get you busted. It's an automate forfiture of your license, for one (and same if you refused to be tested). The officer can decide to take you in for blood testing or not based on their 'professional' judgement of the situation.
So what happens if I'm living in WA or CO and decide to light up a joint then, a month later (and not using for a month), I go to see family in AZ and get pulled over for going 5 over the speed limit and get an asshole law enforcement officer in this scenario who decides he doesn't like me and wants to bring me in to be blood tested? Well, THC metabolite can remain in your system for months. So, how would this work I wonder.
You have a little courage and say, "fine, but i need an inpatient room to nap in." Problem solved.