Breath Test For Pot Being Developed At WSU

An anonymous reader writes with this news from Tacoma, WA's News Tribune: A team at Washington State University is working to develop a breath test that could quickly determine whether a driver is under the influence of marijuana. Law enforcement officers already use preliminary breath tests in the field to estimate drivers' blood alcohol content. But no similar portable tool exists to test for marijuana impairment ... Stoned drivers have become an increasing concern since Washington voters legalized recreational use of marijuana ... A quarter of blood samples taken from drivers in 2013, the first full year the initiative was in effect, came back positive for pot. ... officers and prosecutors rely on blood tests to determine how much active THC is present in a driver's blood. Those test results aren't immediately available to patrol officers who suspect someone is driving high." Also reported: "Under Washington's legal marijuana law, those who get caught driving with a blood content of at least 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter are subject to an automatic driver's license suspension of 90 days or more."

Comments

Antiquated technology

[Stargoat]

As great as any new technology is, I hope this is antiquated by law changes before the technical application machines become practical.

Re:Antiquated technology

[mwvdlee]

I'd like to see marijuana legalized as much as most people and know that small doses don't negatively affect driving ability. Some go as far to say it may even improve driving ability. But surely everybody will agree that marijuana at large enough doses does impede driving ability. It's these larger doses that should not be allowed while driving.

It's the same with alcohol. Just because you're allowed to be shit-faced drunk, doesn't mean you should be allowed to be shit-faced drunk while driving a car.

Re:Antiquated technology

[Threni]

There needs to be an "is this person currently capable of driving properly" test. I don't feel any better knowing a loved one died at the hands of someone who's old, or losing their sight etc rather than being under the influence of drink or drugs.

is it really bad in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

After it became legal in CO I've been playing around with it a bit and I think there is a huge difference between driving high and having used small amounts. I think if someone takes a few hits to relax about traffic they are going to be safer than a "sober" but frustrated person who tailgates and jackrabbits around. I don't think this is as cut and dry as alcohol.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very scientific. I'm sure most drunk drivers would say the same.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[blue trane]

Think about musicians though. It's certainly possible to execute very precise muscle movements with precision and control while stoned. Why shouldn't you be able to drive?

How many Domino's Pizza delivery drivers drive while stoned? You get good at it.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[blue trane]

From http://www.ukcia.org/research/...:

Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had.

Alcohol makes you more aggressively confident, pot makes you more careful of your driving.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[amiga3D]

I've seen them do the same thing drunk as a skunk. So what? It's not the same thing at all. You can shut your eyes and play too. Try that behind the wheel.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[BronsCon]

As a migraine sufferer who uses marijuana therapeutically, I beg to differ. Marijuana helps me concentrate, at the very least, when I don't have a migraine, and make concentration a thing that is even remotely possible when I do have one. Of course, it's possible (and very easy, if you're just starting out and haven't worked out your dosage) to smoke yourself stupid; and only a retard would operate heavy machinery in that state. Actually... without pot, my migraines make me dumber than pot ever did when I was using it recreationally; and I smoked myself stupid more times than I can count back then.

I avoid driving with a migraine (impossible if one comes on while driving) and I've never driven stoned. Both scenarios are equally scary in my head, but (and I know this is anecdotal and likely meaningless to you, but here it goes anyway) I feel like I'd drive better stoned than under the influence of an untreated migraine. If I were in a scenario where my options were drive with a migraine or drive stoned, well, my answer would be "pass me the bong, motherfucker".

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marijuana slows reaction time and I think makes people less able to concentrate. So it definitely interferes with driving.

So does age. How many states have a law that says persons over X age must stop driving without taking individual circumstance into account? I can't imagine the uproar that would result if a bill were proposed that said anyone found driving over age X would immediately be arrested for driving under the influence of advanced age.

For that matter, how many states even require senior citizens to regularly prove that they have adequate reaction time and ability to concentrate? A few, very few, states do but not many.

Of all the things that can render a person unfit to drive, why are only two being singled out as needing to be measured by other than the functional ability of the drivers?

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[Kjella]

I actually saw a test once with a race driver getting hammered between doing rounds on a track with cones and various obstacles, his best lap came after 7 double vodka-orange juice when he was all but wasted. It's not muscle control that's the biggest drawback with drunk driving, it's that your reaction time and reasoning ability goes to hell. Put a bunch of people in a car simulator, half with placebo and half with pot and I'm sure they'll drive fine in ordinary situations. The interesting bit is what happens in potential accident scenarios.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[nedlohs]

Because everyone knows alcohol doesn't damage your brain...

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words: Reaction time.

A stoned musician can beat a drum with ease, but they don't have to worry about multi-ton vehicles moving at them, lights unexpectedly changing, or circumstances that require reactions in the milliseconds, not seconds.

No, a person is not a better driver when stoned. Nor are they when drunk. They just THINK they are, but in reality, since their reaction times are in the shitter, a collision is just waiting to happen.

Of course, I want to know how long this test in the TFA shows pot present. A piss test can show a toke-fest from a month ago, when someone is long since sober. Well, unless they do the "cleansing" treatment which works (and no, it won't be divulged how one does bypass the UA tests on a public forum.)

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[mjwx]

Think about musicians though. It's certainly possible to execute very precise muscle movements with precision and control while stoned. Why shouldn't you be able to drive?

That's a very good point.

How many of them drop a note or fat finger a string when stoned. Far more often than when they are sober.

The difference, and if you knew how to drive or play an instrument you'd understand, is that playing an instrument is mainly about muscle memory and rote memorisation of songs. Driving is about good perception and quick decision making. So a substance that lowers your reaction time and makes you more prone to distraction is the last thing you need whilst driving.

I can drive (both on the street and the track) and play the Guitar... but never at the same time (only have one pair of hands).

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[cold fjord]

A stoned musician can beat a drum with ease, but they don't have to worry about multi-ton vehicles moving at them, lights unexpectedly changing, or circumstances that require reactions in the milliseconds, not seconds.

Good point. I don't think that even a Grateful Dead or Pink Floyd concert has required the band to take evasive action due to deer jumping onto the stage.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

The determining factor in drunk driving ,thc, and cell phone use should be impaired driving

Video the vehicle, pull them over, and charge them with stiff fines for impaired driving. I don't understand why we need tests to measure anything about it.

We're in the 21st century and we have extremely cheap vid cams. It's a no brainer that when you show somebody doing something stupid while driving that a jury of their peers would be happy to slap them for it.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[Tenebrousedge]

Your link is misleading. Yes, marijuana does not do good things to developing brains — there are much better studies which demonstrate this. There is no similar evidence which suggests that either moderate use or use beginning in adulthood has the same effect.

Here is the actual study in question. Do note that their average test subject started at age 16 and smokes five joints per day. From the article,

The association presents compelling evidence for white matter reacting differently to cannabis exposure commencing during adolescence compared with adulthood...

One joint does not a pothead make. You've pretty much already missed the boat for pot-related brain damage, but your knee-jerk antagonism against cannabis users is equally as dumb. Even if everything you imagine to be true about cannabis use was in fact the truth,

I think that THC use and Texting while driving should have the exact same penalties as someone who has .08 BAC.

This does not follow. There is no objective evidence suggesting that marijuana is equally impairing, and suggesting that any amount of use or exposure to THC is equivalent to being dangerously impaired is simple prejudice.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[Beerdood]

Because alcohol gives you boosted levels of confidence (Of course I can still drive, I'm fine!!). Marijuana certainly does not (if it increases anything, it's paranoia).

IMO, both of these substances will reduce your reaction time and potentially impair driving. But alcohol is far more dangerous because it impairs your driving *and* increases confidence. Marijuana reduces your confidence. The drunk driver is going 20 over the limit, the stoned driver is going 10 under. So it's not necessarily an equal comparison, and perhaps driving under the influence of alcohol should warrant a more severe penalty.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[cold fjord]

Alcohol makes you more aggressively confident, pot makes you more careful of your driving.

Not as such.

Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis

Acute cannabis consumption nearly doubles the risk of a collision resulting in serious injury or death

Effects on Driving:

... Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[catmistake]

See the fallacy being presented! They are putting the cart before the horse. Before a government implements policy to go after stone drivers to prevent accidental death, it needs to be shown that stoners cause accidents! You can't just assume that. There is tons of data for alcohol related accidents. But there is hardly any for cannabis induced accidents... because there are so few, if any, documented cases of a person who is intoxicated ONLY with pot causing an accident. This is fear-mongering, pure and simple, and they're using their fear-mongering to set up controls that are inappropriate. You don't have to be afraid of the unknown... just admit to yourself that you don't know, and suspend judgement until you do.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[catmistake]

Have data that cannabis intoxication causes accidents before you make laws attempting to prevent these accidents. Don't assume. The facts are in stark opposition to the actions of these authorities. For every 10K alcohol related accidents, you may see one cannabis related accident. Seriously, its not even on par with texting, but likely on par with crashing because someone had their high beams in your face. Don't be afraid of the unknown, and don't make up things that make you afraid and pretend they are real. The scourge of cannabis induced car accidents is fiction. That being said, intoxicated driving is intoxicated driving, should still be illegal. But to spend God-knows-what on some technology for law enforcement to use when it certainly is not clear its necessary is really stupid. They're not going to prevent a single accident (because stoned drivers so so so rarely get into accidents), and they will have blown a bunch of money for nothing. What happened to hold your head back and touch your nose... walk a straight line? If you beat the sobriety test, you beat it! If that's not good enough, then wtf was it doing there to begin with? Police don't need a breathalizer to do their job... they just need to stfu and do their damn job: stop crime! Stop making up bullshit and costing taxpayers for no reason.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[amorsen]

Videoing does not help. Almost everyone can drive just fine when drunk; a car has four wheels and generally stays pointed in the same direction if you do not mess with it.

The problem is what happens when something unusual occurs. That is when being drunk gets you and people around you killed. If you are just videoing someone, you are unlikely to catch them in such a situation, and even if you do, it is too late.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[mwvdlee]

I've never seen a stoned musician slam a 2 ton metal guitar at 50mph into a crowd.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[stealth_finger]

Haha. I'm a daily smoker and I've never had an accident and avoided more than my fair share in more than 15 years. I know it's only anecdotal but I reckon you'd have just as good a result banning driving under the influence of too much caffeine. I mean, it makes you jittery and unable to concentrate properly, right? Bad news for driving.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[drinkypoo]

If you've ever been stoned, you'll understand why driving a car while stoned should be forbidden.

Every accident which has been my fault has happened while I was stone sober, and driving like an asshole. That doesn't happen if I'm stoned. Your first citation gives no indication that drugs were involved, while your second citation says that the suspect had five drugs in his system, and one of them was Xanax, which by any measurement is a stronger impediment to driving than marijuana — and the other driver was also intoxicated, and they don't tell us what they were on. Perhaps it was alcohol. Your citations are shit, which is not surprising because your argument is shit.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[hairyfeet]

I'll tell y'all the same thing an old HS friend that was a countie mountie said when it came to pot..."Give me a pothead behind the wheel over a drunk any day of the week, the pothead will get paranoid and drive slower whereas the drunk always overestimates his ability and drives too fast. Never had to clean up a 3 car pileup from a pothead, been too many times i had to tell somebody their kid got drunk and wasted himself along with the poor soul they hit".

Working at the shop I've got to talk to many an LEO about this and they all say the same thing, the potheads are less aggressive, drive slower, are frankly just not a threat like the drunks are.

Re: is it really bad in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it. There's no way to reason with fearful idiots. They use words like 'multi ton vehicle' or imagery of bicyclists and such to try to get you imagining the worst things that can happen while suspendint critical thought.

They KNOW that driving after smoking pot is every bit as bad as driving while massively drunk and no evidence to the contrary will convince them ever. It's the way the neoprohibitionists masquerading as safety groups got the blood alcohol limit lowered to .08 when it is a simple provable fact that accidents involving injury or death almost always involve a level of .12 to .15 or even higher.

Yes, people with lower levels get into accidents but so do people who never drink. It's the spectacular multi car wrong way driving that these groups trot out in their quest for more restrictions even though more restrictions don't help because they don't address the problem. They just make some people feel good while ruining the lives of others.

So a test for marijuana that actually measures levels of current activity vs a month ago COULD be a good thing, but the very first thing that needs to be shown is that there is an actual problem at a certain level.

The only rational attitide here is to want proof and evidenxe before making a decision and the hell with either side's personal experience stories. .Meanwhile, expect the selfish moralizers to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks if you don't adhere to their prohibitionist mentality.

it is worth noting that the first DUI laws were passed based on consensus from the medical community about actual levels of dangerous impairment. They were around .12, which is the magic number to this day above which almost all serious DUI accidents occur. That number has not changed. Science is kind of like that. The laws however have changed. You see, some people were driving after having a beer and not getting convicted. That is unacceptable to the moralisers of the world, so they threw science out on its ear and they keep pushing for a lower and lower restrictions, hiding behind the banner of motherhood for political reasons in many cases, even though there is absolutely zero evidence in favor of it.

That is the sort of thing that people have to be on guard for here. With any substance, there is some level beyond which impairment put somebody in a position where they cannot perform the task of driving to minimum recognized standards. That is the level which needs to be prohibited. Anything else is just imposing your own fear or your own moral beliefs on someone else.

There is of course an even a better method of solving this problem. That is the test for the actual problem instead of a proxy. There are devices and tests that can measure reaction times. They are used in industries that actually care about safety instead of the perception of it. What we really need is the ability for a driver to prove using one of these tests but he or she is not impaired. Then whatever substance at whatever level is irrelevant. Of course, actual scientifictest like that would drive the prohibitionists absolutely bananas even though it would be superior because it would also catch things like people who are too tired to drive safely. Of course, the prohibition is the don't actually care about that because for most of them the goal is to demonize whatever it is they don't like and whoever opposes them.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[The Real Dr John]

This is true and well known to the police, and scientists as well. Alcohol inhibits glutamate (excitatory neural) receptors in the brain, so the more you drink the more your brain's activities are depressed. So the more drunk you get, the more impaired your mental functions become, and the less motor control you have. Pot has virtually no effect on glutamate receptors in the brain. It acts on endocanabinoid receptors which are in a whole different class. They are involved in other functions, including hunger sensations, pain sensations, and memory. There is some speculation that this system may be involved in clearing old memories, perhaps to make room for new ones. So ironically, pot would probably be better than alcohol for people in bars drinking and trying to forget bad memories.But pot does not impair driving abilities, and tends to make drivers more cautious. Testing for pot in drivers should not result in a fine, or license suspension, it should result in a "have a nice day" response from the officer as he hands you your license back.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[AmiMoJo]

How you are making an unfounded leap. Maybe the reason there are so few instances of people smoking pot and then crashing is due to things like the lack of a simple and reliable test for pot use, or the fact that there are far more people using alcohol and than using pot.

Fortunately people have already done careful studies on the effect of pot on a person's ability to drive safely, so we don't really need to speculate at all.

Re:is it really bad in the first place?

[boristdog]

I have only once had to drive while high, to get a dog to the emergency vet.

No matter how hard I TRIED to go faster (I was taking the dog to the emergency vet after all), my body would not let the car go over about 50-55 on the highway and not over 35-40 on the smaller roads. About 10 miles under the speed limit in both cases. It's like my brain and body knew how fast it could handle things.and refused to go any faster.

Whereas the one time I drove while even slightly alcohol impaired (after a dinner and two apparently strong drinks) I immediately ran into a parking lot bollard and dented my truck. I stopped right there and went back inside the restaurant to have a dessert and sober up a bit.

So I can believe what you say.

Evidence?

[TechyImmigrant]

Where are the properly controlled studies showing that a given level of blood THC is causally related to an increase in driving accidents?

Or will they go the route of cell phones and accidents and only look at the THC blood levels of drivers in accidents so it's impossible to show causation?

 

Re:Evidence?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Where are the properly controlled studies showing that a given level of blood THC is causally related to an increase in driving accidents?

They exist but they don't validate the legislators' pre-conceived science-free notions, so they need to be ignored.

If this breath test can generate revenue and court cases, then the uselessness of a one-time blow for THC isn't relevant. (prediction: somebody will propose compulsory roadside fat-tissue biopsy in the next five years).

And we're not even considering the substitution effect of decreased fatalities with THC vs. ethanol intoxicated drivers, with preferential bias existing for THC. It would be great if nobody got high and drove, but it would be great if people rode around on winged unicorns too, because they don't even need airbags (sparkles work just as well). Dealing with reality can be so darn annoying at times.

Re:Evidence?

[damn_registrars]

It isn't acceptable to be under the influence of any other psychoactive compounds while driving, what is special about pot? Why should pot users be given special privilege?

I've never known a stoned person to be in a hurry, so where would be the great injustice in asking them to call a friend or a cab to get to wherever they want to go?

Re:Evidence?

[cold fjord]

Would it surprise you to learn that not all the data out there supports the position of the primary advocacy group for the legalization of marijuana?

Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis

Acute cannabis consumption nearly doubles the risk of a collision resulting in serious injury or death; this increase was most evident for studies of high quality, case-control studies, and studies of fatal collisions

Effects on Driving:

The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own.

Marijuana Might Make You a Worse Driver Than Alcohol Does

Re: Evidence?

[cold fjord]

The study you reference appears to be from 2002. More current research is finding something else, and you've apparently already seen it:

Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis
Acute cannabis consumption nearly doubles the risk of a collision resulting in serious injury or death; this increase was most evident for studies of high quality, case-control studies, and studies of fatal collisions

As you point out, getting high and crashing cars are not the same thing. But getting high makes you more likely to crash the car due to the multiple impairments it creates.

Re:Evidence?

[armanox]

In many states you can be charged with DUI for being under a lot of different meds. Just because it is prescribed does not make it legal to drive while taking.

How am I driving, man?

[fustakrakich]

I think we're parked, man!

Re:The future for marijuana consumers

[cold fjord]

I think they can be combined in this instance.

Re:I've been watching that new tv show called cops

[TapeCutter]

Slower yes, but still a danger to themselves and others. Here in Oz the booze busses make you blow in the bag for booze, and lick the lollypop for drugs. Here in Victoria, the random booze busses have cut the total number of deaths on the road by over 50% in the last 25yrs (from over 700/yr down to under 300/yr), this is despite there being twice as many cars on the road. The highest death toll was in 1969 when there were something like 1/10th the number of cars on the road as there are today, no seatbelts, no breathalysers, no speed/red light cameras, ~1200 people killed a year.

Evidence is lacking

[fozzy1015]

Even the National Highway Traffic Administration says measured active THC levels can't be correlated with impairment:

"It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects ... It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone." - http://www.businessinsider.com...

Also, given the difference in absorption rates between edibles and smoking, it's possible for someone who ate it to be more impaired but give a lower reading than someone who smoked it. - http://www.theverge.com/2012/1...

Re:Evidence is lacking

[cold fjord]

Even the National Highway Traffic Administration says measured active THC levels can't be correlated with impairment:

They quote research that indicates driving while intoxicated by marijuana increases risk.

Effects on Driving:

The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own.

That seems consistent with emerging research.

Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis

Acute cannabis consumption nearly doubles the risk of a collision resulting in serious injury or death; this increase was most evident for studies of high quality, case-control studies, and studies of fatal collisions

Re:The future for marijuana consumers

[amiga3D]

Maybe people could just not be stoned or drunk while they drive? Is it that much to ask?

Re:Only 25% positive?

[Idarubicin]

So the cops blood tested all of these people with what I assume is probably cause and only 25% were actually under the influence? Or do they just randomly blood test everyone and 25% of all Washington drivers are high?

Could be neither. In many jurisdictions, the roadside breath test (or field sobriety test) merely provides probable cause for law enforcement to obtain a warrant, with which they can compel a blood sample. I wouldn't be surprised if they are allowed to test for a range of intoxicating substances - including THC - and not just ethanol with these tests.

Note, as well, that "25% tested positive" is not the same as "25% were 'high' or intoxicated". Detectable amounts of THC or metabolites don't mean, necessarily, dangerous or intoxicating quantities. (Depending on exactly what was being tested, and the sensitivity of their instruments, they could have been seeing very low levels associated with marijuana use days or even weeks previously, or even with secondhand exposure.)

Re:The future for marijuana consumers

[davydagger]

I am very skeptical, historically, this has been proven to not be the case. While its true, things like fines can bring in money, once they become dependant on than money, they depend on people violating the law in order to keep their budgets. This creates a very perverse effect, similar to the indian cobra effect

We see this throughout history, from the paid theif catchers of victorian england, to red light cameras, to ticket quotas, manditory sentancing, the war on drugs, etc...

Theif catchers saw well dressed criminals running "theif catching rings", bringing in very questionable arrests. Red Light Cameras saw towns make "short yellows", or shorten the amount of time a traffic ligh is yellow to encourage more people to accidently get caught running a red light, making intersections far more dangerous.

Ticket quotas resulted in uneven enforcement, mainly at the end of the month to meet quota. It also tended to make the officers do unsavory things like tailgate suspects with their lights on, and arrest people for marginal violations, all for the sake of making the town money.

Manditory sentancing gave a career criminal a chance to do anything else, merely made him get comfortable in prison, and often sent him back there.

The war on drugs speaks for itselves. Massive busts fuel the DEA's budget and allowed their reckless abandonment of any and all virtues this country has stood for, but seem to still take mabey %1 of total drug sales per year off the market. They've also been caught siding with one cartel against another, letting the system continue, so long as they got their portion of the pie, arrests, and with it, funding.

No sir, as long as their financial incentive, then there is an incentive for crime to continue. Especially in this day and age, when that incentive is making a "career" that pays better than anything else, and its union isn't subject for debate like other unions.

Why not a cheek swab?

[thegarbz]

Why not use a swab as an initial indicator like in other parts of the world.

I don't understand why this necessitates new technology, especially when it would seem more important to study level of impairment with drug concentration before going any further down the legislative road.

Been there, didn't work.

[labnet]

I worked with a chemist 15 years ago to develop such a product. A professor had found a salt, Fast Blue B, would change color specific to THC.
We were charged with trying to commercialize this, BUT, we couldn't prove that blood ratio had anything to do with breath concentration.

Breathalyzers for Alcohol are calibrated with an inferred ratio of 2100:1, of blood/breath concentration ratio. This is usually a fairly accurate assumption. The alcohol molecule is very volatile. THC on the other hand is a very different beast. If someone has smoked Marijuana, what you are reading is the residue on the lining of the airways which has a very poor correlation to what is in their blood.

This alone was enough to kill the idea, because ingesting vs smoking would give wildly different results.

Re:I have been waiting for this

[TechyImmigrant]

What does "too much" mean to you?

I'd set that level at "causing actual harm". But I haven't noticed being set upon by horrible pot smokers who are marginally above some well defined blood-THC content limit recently

Field Sobriety Tests Anyone?

[NotSanguine]

A field sobriety test doesn't care what substance you've been imbibing. It tests your current level of impairment. Which is what we should be looking at if the goal is to reduce injuries and fatalities on the roads.

Why waste all kinds of money on tests that may or may not be able to measure actual impairment? And that goes for alcohol too.

Re:Field Sobriety Tests Anyone?

[Todd Knarr]

Agreed. If you're impaired, it shouldn't matter why you're impaired. Combine a field sobriety test with dash/body cams so there's an objective record of the actual test (so the defense can't claim the officer is exaggerating the results) and just use the blood tests as supporting evidence, eg. "Defendant failed the field sobriety test miserably. When his blood was tested during booking, the results showed the following levels of potentially-impairing substances which are consistent with and support the field test's result of "massively impaired".".

Ugh Thank God!

[Greyfox]

It's been impossible to get up to the speed limit since they made pot legal in Colorado! Pick any random road and everyone's driving 10-15 under! Ticket revenues are drying up fast, and people in a hurry are experiencing a lot more RROOOAD RRRAGE! It's either this or Taco Bell needs to start delivering, thus removing any need for those people to be out on the road!

Gotta love medical community rhetoric, never fails

[AudioEfex]

I just love how they bring up the "% of folks who tested positive for marijuana" like every other slanted sound bite does when it comes to this supposed epidemic of stoned drivers. What they fail to clarify, as usual, is that the vast majority of those people were also drunk, on pills, and/or on other narcotics at the time, which is why they were being tested and presumably were impaired in the first place. They just happened to smoke a joint at some point during all their other drug use. The amount of folks who have only smoked marijuana at some point and driven dangerously enough to pull over is rather tiny.

Opiates?

[msobkow]

Even though I'm a medical cannabis user (migraines), I do believe that people shouln't be driving under the influence -- of anything, and that includes the doctor's and pharmacorp's favourte: opiates.

Here in Saskatchewan, the law is intentionally vague and refers to "Driving Under the Influence" without that being restricted to alcohol. If you're obviously impaired, the police don't have to run a bunch of tests to determine what you're impaired by -- it's your driving that is the deciding factor, and your inability to pass basic roadside sobriety tests.

Re:Hilarious!

[src1138]

It stands to reason that more people will consume it now that it is legal. That usually translates to more cases of people under the influence.

Anyways, before legalization it was general use that was the problem - not just driving under the influence.

Also, the US has so many cannabis-derived products that do not smell when consumed it is more difficult to spot on causal inspection if the user does not get visual symptoms like bloodshot eyes.

Finally, the cannabis products in the US seem to be taking the "let's see how potent we can make it" approach. To the point where I don't really enjoy it as much. I've lived in Amsterdam for almost a decade and the stuff in the US takes getting stoned to a whole new level.

Re:Car safety responsible for most of it.

[TapeCutter]

I've been driving in Victoria since 1977, seat belts and random breath tests have been the most effective at cutting the road toll, period. Everything else just adds to that result. What they realised here in Vic 30yrs ago was that it's not sufficient to just make a law and start enforcing it, you have to change the public's attitude, unlike the 70's people are now regularly shamed by their friends and family if they choose to drink drive or fail to strap in their kids. The results of this deliberate science based effort by the TAC has been widely acclaimed as "ground breaking" by the rest of the world.