If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Hundreds of drivers in Washington score over five on the pot-o-meter, stoking fears that... that... I don't know either   (csmonitor.com) divider line 98
    More: Obvious, Washington State Patrol, mess  
•       •       •

7706 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Nov 2013 at 1:15 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-24 12:23:59 PM
This is more about cops exploiting the American People than it is dangerous drivers.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/04/thc_blood_test_pot_crit ic _william_breathes_3_times_over_limit_sober.php
 
2013-11-24 12:49:01 PM

Sleeping Monkey: This is more about cops exploiting the American People than it is dangerous drivers.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/04/thc_blood_test_pot_crit ic _william_breathes_3_times_over_limit_sober.php


Yeah, there is no "real" test for MJ impairment, so they set a BS threshold.

"It's like shooting fish in a barrel," he said. "It hits the kids of color the hardest."

If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges.  But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless.  It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.

If we repealed ALL the political crimes at once, the cops would be at a complete loss, and the prisons would start losing money hand over fist.
 
2013-11-24 01:18:50 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Sleeping Monkey: This is more about cops exploiting the American People than it is dangerous drivers.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/04/thc_blood_test_pot_crit ic _william_breathes_3_times_over_limit_sober.php

Yeah, there is no "real" test for MJ impairment, so they set a BS threshold.

"It's like shooting fish in a barrel," he said. "It hits the kids of color the hardest."

If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges.  But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless.  It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.

If we repealed ALL the political crimes at once, the cops would be at a complete loss, and the prisons would start losing money hand over fist.


The whole legalization thing didn't really start gaining ground until testing technology got better. Whether that makes it a money grab or a way to protect public safety is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
 
2013-11-24 01:19:51 PM

Marcus Aurelius: If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges.  But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless.  It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.


This. I don't even think you can get an accurate quantitative reading of a current THC level without a blood test.
 
2013-11-24 01:23:32 PM
Yeah. Found it. THC Testing is pretty much a sham.There is no national standard or evidenciary scientific standard for identifying an arbitrary limit for THC that correlates with behavioral impairment, unlike BAC.
 
2013-11-24 01:23:43 PM

hardinparamedic: Marcus Aurelius: If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges.  But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless.  It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.

This. I don't even think you can get an accurate quantitative reading of a current THC level without a blood test.


Fail roadside sobriety test + test positive for THC in the field = blood test

That's how it appears to work.
 
2013-11-24 01:24:11 PM
If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges. But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless. It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.

The whole legalization thing didn't really start gaining ground until testing technology got better. Whether that makes it a money grab or a way to protect public safety is in the eye of the beholder I guess.




America's prison industrial complex hard at work. You didn't think they would let the producers and sellers get rich without ensuring their cut of the pie did you?
 
2013-11-24 01:25:25 PM

MFAWG: Fail roadside sobriety test + test positive for THC in the field = blood test


Which appears to be set to an arbitrary, unscientific limit that does not correlate with impairment or behavioral changes at all.

Sounds legit.
 
2013-11-24 01:26:05 PM
If somebody is genuinely impaired to the point of posing a direct threat to his fellow drivers, that dickhead belongs in jail.

If somebody smoked a joint five days ago, I'm pretty sure his driving is no less worse than the other folks on the road who apparently are operating a motor vehicle for the very first time.

/maybe better
 
2013-11-24 01:27:17 PM
Well, OBVIOUSLY they're concerned about convenience stores near well-traveled thoroughfares running out of Funyuns and Doritos.
 
2013-11-24 01:28:23 PM

hardinparamedic: This. I don't even think you can get an accurate quantitative reading of a current THC level without a blood test.


So I know I have the right to request a blood test for alcohol if I'm pulled over. Does one have the same right if they're pulled over for pot?
 
2013-11-24 01:28:27 PM
"It's like shooting fish in a barrel," he said. "It hits the kids of color the hardest."

Ooooookay...
 
2013-11-24 01:29:07 PM

hardinparamedic: MFAWG: Fail roadside sobriety test + test positive for THC in the field = blood test

Which appears to be set to an arbitrary, unscientific limit that does not correlate with impairment or behavioral changes at all.

Sounds legit.


I'm not defending it, but failing the roadside test involves impairment.
 
2013-11-24 01:29:11 PM
Really?
Have accidents gone up proportionately?
Gee, why not?
Did any of these "drivers" fail any field sobriety tests?

What a load of the usual "uumm, pot is bad" bullroar demonizing a plant used safely for thousands of years by humans.

Not sure where you get your science, but I hope it is not here.
Hey, Mr Hot New Pope, want to make a change in your farking flock for the better?

/christian science/military intelligence
 
2013-11-24 01:29:50 PM
Smoking pot in the car: EABOD and DIAF. Under the influence even a little while driving: vera vera bad. Smoked a joint yesterday: no problem.

That seems fairly common sense. Why don't we have common sense in this country anymore?
 
2013-11-24 01:30:55 PM

RottNDude: "It's like shooting fish in a barrel," he said. "It hits the kids of color the hardest."

Ooooookay...


Well, that about covers all the paradigms that got us to this spot in the first farking place.
Anslinger would be so proud.
 
2013-11-24 01:31:21 PM
Talk about wired! Pot-o-meter.
sub.allaboutcircuits.com
 
2013-11-24 01:31:56 PM

Jument: Smoking pot in the car: EABOD and DIAF. Under the influence even a little while driving: vera vera bad. Smoked a joint yesterday: no problem.

That seems fairly common sense. Why don't we have common sense in this country anymore?


Because "Profit" and "War" are not sensible ways to go thru life, son.
 
2013-11-24 01:33:42 PM
MFAWG:I'm not defending it, but failing the roadside test involves impairment.

Not necessarily. There's a reason why you don't get a conviction on a subjective test conducted by a non-medically trained police officer alone, anymore. You either blow or get poked. (Giggity) When dealing with alcohol, you get an objectively measurable level, which has historically correlated to impairment in stud Bies. No such studies back up an arbitrary blood D9 THC level in correlation to impairment.

To put it another way, I can pull you over, and in five minutes find an objective, legally defensible reason to give you a breathalyzer test if I wanted to. Were you just twitching your eyes, or was that horizontal nystagmus I saw? Blow or go to jail.

I'm all four identification and jailing of impared drivers, as well as taking their licenses. DUI kills too many people each year.But the methods used to do such should be scientifically defensible and totally objective.
 
2013-11-24 01:34:46 PM
oh, look, "Christian Science"

/almost stopped reading there
//continued for a few sentences and laughed
///better luck fear mongering next time, ya puritan freaks
 
2013-11-24 01:35:05 PM
Wait... so when marijuana was illegal, 1000 people per year tested positive for using while driving. (Driving while, presumably, using something that shouldn't have been in their system at all.)

Now that it's legal, 1/2 of 745 people (373) are found over the limit in six months. Projecting linearly, that's ~745 a year who are over the "legal" limit. Which is <1000.

Serious question: do they count people who blow a 0.03 as DUIs? Because this sounds more like a reporting and statistics issue than a public safety problem. Nobody was under the impression legalizing MJ would make use go down, for chrissakes.
 
2013-11-24 01:35:25 PM
THC stays in your blood for weeks.

What the fark is going on here?
 
2013-11-24 01:37:58 PM

No Time To Explain: oh, look, "Christian Science"

/almost stopped reading there
//continued for a few sentences and laughed
///better luck fear mongering next time, ya puritan freaks


By Jonathan Kaminsky, Reuters / November 23, 2013
 
2013-11-24 01:38:03 PM

Jument: Smoking pot in the car: EABOD and DIAF. Under the influence even a little while driving: vera vera bad. Smoked a joint yesterday: no problem.

That seems fairly common sense. Why don't we have common sense in this country anymore?


The problem stems from the testing methods. There is currently no single way to test for impairment except for subjective evaluation. That might be fine for obvious dickheads, but it leaves a significant gray area.

It also leaves a huge gulf in actual testing. Alcohol consumption, for instance, can leave high levels of acetate in the blood for more than four or five days following the last drink. Most drugs leave a compound in the body well after the last usage and tests usually check for those very compounds rather than the shiat that gets you high (or more appropriately - impaired).

The end result is you could be stone-sober and yet piss a vial full of acetate and therefore be considered "legally drunk."
 
2013-11-24 01:38:25 PM

hardinparamedic: MFAWG:I'm not defending it, but failing the roadside test involves impairment.

Not necessarily. There's a reason why you don't get a conviction on a subjective test conducted by a non-medically trained police officer alone, anymore. You either blow or get poked. (Giggity) When dealing with alcohol, you get an objectively measurable level, which has historically correlated to impairment in stud Bies. No such studies back up an arbitrary blood D9 THC level in correlation to impairment.

To put it another way, I can pull you over, and in five minutes find an objective, legally defensible reason to give you a breathalyzer test if I wanted to. Were you just twitching your eyes, or was that horizontal nystagmus I saw? Blow or go to jail.

I'm all four identification and jailing of impared drivers, as well as taking their licenses. DUI kills too many people each year.But the methods used to do such should be scientifically defensible and totally objective.


You're not getting a DUI for pot based solely on the roadside sobriety test ('Walk The Line', Watch The Pen', etc).

You're getting the DUI on the blood test combined with the roadside test.

Trust me, I have some practical experience with how this works for alcohol.
 
2013-11-24 01:39:10 PM

dv-ous: Wait... so when marijuana was illegal, 1000 people per year tested positive for using while driving. (Driving while, presumably, using something that shouldn't have been in their system at all.)

Now that it's legal, 1/2 of 745 people (373) are found over the limit in six months. Projecting linearly, that's ~745 a year who are over the "legal" limit. Which is <1000.

Serious question: do they count people who blow a 0.03 as DUIs? Because this sounds more like a reporting and statistics issue than a public safety problem. Nobody was under the impression legalizing MJ would make use go down, for chrissakes.


Came here to say this. They also mention that there are 20,000 arrests for suspicion of DUI per year, which means 5% are testing positive for reefer and 2.5% are over the limit. Hardly a pandemic of stoned driving.

/how hard is it to wait until you get home? Or to ride the bus?
 
2013-11-24 01:41:56 PM

No Time To Explain: oh, look, "Christian Science"

/almost stopped reading there
//continued for a few sentences and laughed
///better luck fear mongering next time, ya puritan freaks


The Christian Science Monitor has nothing to do with the Church of Christian Scientists - in fact, it's mission statement explicitly states that it will not be used to promote their views. It's actually one of the most respected news sources in the United States, and has a very notable habit of approaching topics neutrally and without bias and sensationalism.
 
2013-11-24 01:42:43 PM

casual disregard: If somebody is genuinely impaired to the point of posing a direct threat to his fellow drivers, that dickhead belongs in jail.

If somebody smoked a joint five days ago, I'm pretty sure his driving is no less worse than the other folks on the road who apparently are operating a motor vehicle for the very first time.

/maybe better


Or even lack of sleep, which is a significant impairment.
 
2013-11-24 01:42:56 PM
Typical....

Those who can smoke it will provide evidence that state governments who don't allow it (like mine) can use as excuses for not allowing legalization.

Way to go Aszholes
 
2013-11-24 01:44:00 PM

hardinparamedic: The Christian Science Monitor has nothing to do with the Church of Christian Scientists - in fact, it's mission statement explicitly states that it will not be used to promote their views. It's actually one of the most respected news sources in the United States, and has a very notable habit of approaching topics neutrally and without bias and sensationalism.


Has there been a rash of dumb n00bs in the last week or so who don't know this or have I just not noticed them until now?
 
2013-11-24 01:46:49 PM
It took years to come up with a DUI policy that could be enforced nationally. It will take years for pot, but it will happen.
 
2013-11-24 01:48:41 PM

www.prlog.org

Meh, lots of handicapped drivers couldn't pass some of the road side tests, it doesn't mean they were legally impaired.  Not sure I could pass some of the road side tests and I never drink and drive......nor do I smoke.

 
2013-11-24 01:49:22 PM
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.
 
2013-11-24 01:49:44 PM
Ohh, OOh, how about if we agree not to smoke marijuana, but legalize ingestion?
Trust me(he he), it is mush,umm muck better that way.
 
2013-11-24 01:49:45 PM

The Evil Home Brewer: Typical....

Those who can smoke it will provide evidence that state governments who don't allow it (like mine) can use as excuses for not allowing legalization.

Way to go Aszholes


Neither the Colorado nor the Washington government legalized marijuana. The People did.
 
2013-11-24 01:49:55 PM

bojon: It took years to come up with a DUI policy that could be enforced nationally. It will take years for pot, but it will happen.


The problem is that it took years, as well, to come up with a DUI Policy that would stand up to scientific and forensic scrutiny in court, and has been backed by peer reviewed research. If you look at Europe, for example, many countries there have a 0.01 BAC limit. They have zero tolerance for it.

This isn't the case with this. D9THC metabolites have up to a 11 day half life, and there is poor correlation between content in blood and behavioral impairment with current studies. This kind of thing would get tossed out of court by a person with a good lawyer. The problem is, who this law will target will most likely not be able to afford a good lawyer.
 
2013-11-24 01:50:47 PM
What caught my eye was this line:

Calkins said that, in the first half of the year, the overall number of people pulled over by the State Patrol on suspicion of driving under the influence, whether of alcohol or drugs, remained roughly on par with figures from the last two years.

Could it be that legalizing marijuana will lower the number of alcohol DUI's?  And given that many (most?) of the drug DUI's are probably not real, this could mean that the streets are now safer.  Any chance of a story about that?
 
2013-11-24 01:51:27 PM

mazzz: Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.


UDS up to 5-10 days in most users, up to 30 in heavy users. Hair follicle test up to 3 months IIRC.
 
2013-11-24 01:52:11 PM
If you're stoned enough that the cops notice AND you fail the field impairment test, you shouldn't be on the road. The same should go for those too tired to drive.

Yes, you should get punished for this. I am totally okay with it.
 
2013-11-24 01:52:36 PM

hardinparamedic: bojon: It took years to come up with a DUI policy that could be enforced nationally. It will take years for pot, but it will happen.

The problem is that it took years, as well, to come up with a DUI Policy that would stand up to scientific and forensic scrutiny in court, and has been backed by peer reviewed research. If you look at Europe, for example, many countries there have a 0.01 BAC limit. They have zero tolerance for it.

This isn't the case with this. D9THC metabolites have up to a 11 day half life, and there is poor correlation between content in blood and behavioral impairment with current studies. This kind of thing would get tossed out of court by a person with a good lawyer. The problem is, who this law will target will most likely not be able to afford a good lawyer.


You're missing the MOST IMPORTANT PART: Good lawyer or no, money will still be flowing through the justice system.So it's a second revenue stream.
 
2013-11-24 01:53:24 PM

mazzz: Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.


Yup. What they discovered was that when people get stoned enough for it to affect their driving, they know they don't want to be on the roads anyway.
 
2013-11-24 01:53:26 PM
cdn.uproxx.com
 
2013-11-24 01:53:30 PM

mazzz: Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.


Please, be a tiny bit more accurate, or go learn the science. It has been repressed for nearly a century, but has managed to advance anyway.
There is more than just "THC" going on here. Basically, 3 different active compounds of interest, with different human affect.
 
2013-11-24 01:54:31 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: mazzz: Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.

Yup. What they discovered was that when people get stoned enough for it to affect their driving, they know they don't want to be on the roads anyway.


Which is somewhat different, imagine that, from the alcohol bulletproof stupor.
 
2013-11-24 01:55:12 PM
Did the article mention there has only been one alleged pot fatality?

/DNTFA
 
2013-11-24 01:56:31 PM

LaughRiot: What caught my eye was this line:

Calkins said that, in the first half of the year, the overall number of people pulled over by the State Patrol on suspicion of driving under the influence, whether of alcohol or drugs, remained roughly on par with figures from the last two years.

Could it be that legalizing marijuana will lower the number of alcohol DUI's?  And given that many (most?) of the drug DUI's are probably not real, this could mean that the streets are now safer.  Any chance of a story about that?


The militarized police of today rely on that DUI income.
They cannot exist if taken away and not replaced.
 
2013-11-24 01:58:34 PM
images4.wikia.nocookie.net

Posted because:
(1). Might see an interesting argument here, though I've probably heard the pro and anti-pot arguments trillions of times.
(2). Maybe this here panda got a contact buzz from the thread and decided bamboo just ain't gonna quench those munchies.
 
2013-11-24 02:01:15 PM

snocone: There is more than just "THC" going on here. Basically, 3 different active compounds of interest, with different human aeffects


It's still a handy shorthand for "the active ingredients in marijuana" in common parlance. I also don't gripe about people referring to a "pencil lead" because it's really graphite.
 
2013-11-24 02:03:30 PM
Oooh... I think I'm getting a context high...
 
2013-11-24 02:05:28 PM

Jument: Smoking pot in the car: EABOD ...


That's taking the munchies to a whole other level.
 
2013-11-24 02:06:08 PM
From the article and paraphrased:

20000 arrests per year for suspicion of impaired driving.

The math puts the % for those of those convicted of pot at 4%

Assuming every arrest led to a conviction, or that the per portion of those convicted is the same as those arrested for pot use,that is a low percentage.

There are roughly 4.5 million drivers licensed in Washington. If only 5% of those that drive pared were caught, that would be 8.9% of drivers impaired at some point in the year. For pot that makes it 0.36% of drivers impaired at some point in the year.

Frankly, I would have expected those numbers to be higher, but it does exclude habitual offenders.

Did that rise from previous years? I don't have that data.

/all math is grossly rounded and percentages are skewed to make the crime rate as scary as possible
 
2013-11-24 02:06:26 PM
Because most 'real' drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.) are cleared from the blood and urine fairly quickly, tests for them can show actual intoxication and therefore, impairment. But THC  persists for up to 6 weeks in some people, and a test for it does not reveal any time frame or intoxication, and therefore can only go to lifestyle.

Imagine getting a DUI for having had some drinks three weekends ago.

THC should not be part of a drug screen at work or otherwise. Keep the panels for hard drugs, but remove the marijuana component from the screening tests.

Someday, they may find a way of figuring out how stoned you really are (ie., gas chromatography evaluations) but until then, it should be dropped.

And, it should be noted, that gaining the freedom to smoke pot, yet giving up your rights in the form of allowing police to order blood tests on you, is not really a good deal.

Bottom Line - "Oh yeah, you can smoke pot, but if we catch you driving anytime in the next month, you're screwed."

/what a nightmare
 
2013-11-24 02:09:28 PM

vbob: Because most 'real' drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.) are cleared from the blood and urine fairly quickly, tests for them can show actual intoxication and therefore, impairment. But THC  persists for up to 6 weeks in some people, and a test for it does not reveal any time frame or intoxication, and therefore can only go to lifestyle.

Imagine getting a DUI for having had some drinks three weekends ago.

THC should not be part of a drug screen at work or otherwise.


Again, are we talking about active compounds or their metabolites? I agree that testing for metabolites is useless for determining impairment, but if one could reliably test for active compounds (THC, etc.) would that be useful?
 
2013-11-24 02:12:30 PM

vbob: THC should not be part of a drug screen at work or otherwise. Keep the panels for hard drugs, but remove the marijuana component from the screening tests.


THC is still illegal on a federal level, which puts employers at a huge legal liability for employing individuals in certain professions who have it in their system. In addition, no offense to anyone who tokes up, but I don't want you doing anything to me or involving me if you don't have the willpower and maturity to stop smoking at least 8 hours to getting behind the wheel or clocking in.
 
2013-11-24 02:14:36 PM

Churchill2004: snocone: There is more than just "THC" going on here. Basically, 3 different active compounds of interest, with different human aeffects

It's still a handy shorthand for "the active ingredients in marijuana" in common parlance. I also don't gripe about people referring to a "pencil lead" because it's really graphite.


It is time to spread the word, not just go w/ the derp.
 
2013-11-24 02:16:09 PM

vbob: Because most 'real' drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.) are cleared from the blood and urine fairly quickly, tests for them can show actual intoxication and therefore, impairment. But THC  persists for up to 6 weeks in some people, and a test for it does not reveal any time frame or intoxication, and therefore can only go to lifestyle.

Imagine getting a DUI for having had some drinks three weekends ago.

THC should not be part of a drug screen at work or otherwise. Keep the panels for hard drugs, but remove the marijuana component from the screening tests.

Someday, they may find a way of figuring out how stoned you really are (ie., gas chromatography evaluations) but until then, it should be dropped.

And, it should be noted, that gaining the freedom to smoke pot, yet giving up your rights in the form of allowing police to order blood tests on you, is not really a good deal.

Bottom Line - "Oh yeah, you can smoke pot, but if we catch you driving anytime in the next month, you're screwed."

/what a nightmare


My point is,,
if you can't tell, WTF?
 
2013-11-24 02:16:11 PM
FTA:  In the first six months with pot legal in the state,745 drivers stopped by police tested positive for the drug's psychoactive ingredient, THC, in their blood, the data show.

Anyone have a link to the WSP's stats?  How many of these drivers also had alcohol on board?

FTA: Calkins said that, in the first half of the year, the overall number of people pulled over by the State Patrol on suspicion of driving under the influence, whether of alcohol or drugs, remained roughly on par with figures from the last two years.

Meh....
 
2013-11-24 02:20:03 PM
I work with a guy who recently got popped for driving stoned and has been going on about the man being after him because he was black.

Seems like he walked into a convenience store,bought a blunt, emptied on the sidewalk in front of the store, rolled it up in his car and lit it up before he left the parking lot, and a cop saw the entire thing.

Smoking nor drinking and driving is cool.
 
2013-11-24 02:23:02 PM

MFAWG: hardinparamedic: MFAWG:I'm not defending it, but failing the roadside test involves impairment.

Not necessarily. There's a reason why you don't get a conviction on a subjective test conducted by a non-medically trained police officer alone, anymore. You either blow or get poked. (Giggity) When dealing with alcohol, you get an objectively measurable level, which has historically correlated to impairment in stud Bies. No such studies back up an arbitrary blood D9 THC level in correlation to impairment.

To put it another way, I can pull you over, and in five minutes find an objective, legally defensible reason to give you a breathalyzer test if I wanted to. Were you just twitching your eyes, or was that horizontal nystagmus I saw? Blow or go to jail.

I'm all four identification and jailing of impared drivers, as well as taking their licenses. DUI kills too many people each year.But the methods used to do such should be scientifically defensible and totally objective.

You're not getting a DUI for pot based solely on the roadside sobriety test ('Walk The Line', Watch The Pen', etc).

You're getting the DUI on the blood test combined with the roadside test.

Trust me, I have some practical experience with how this works for alcohol.


You are talking about a motor skills/physical impairment tests that is quite arbitrary.

I am going to assume your "pratical experience" is either in taking a few yourself or giving them.

Next time you are being put thru a roadside test feel free to ask the officer what constitutes a pass or fail on each individual task. Try not to be shocked when the officer says " I'll tell you when you fail"

Once they ask you out of the car they have already made the decision that you are drunk. The officer will keep giving you tests till they decided you failed.
 
2013-11-24 02:24:50 PM

theflatline: I work with a guy who recently got popped for driving stoned and has been going on about the man being after him because he was black.

Seems like he walked into a convenience store,bought a blunt, emptied on the sidewalk in front of the store, rolled it up in his car and lit it up before he left the parking lot, and a cop saw the entire thing.

Smoking nor drinking and driving is cool.


Making yourself low hanging fruit is definitely not cool.
 
2013-11-24 02:28:49 PM
Later, rather than sooner there will probably be a simple mouth swab or retinal test that can be used in a traffic stop. Too much money involved to pass up this revenue stream and if it would only save one life, wouldn't it be worth it.
I love that phrase.
 
2013-11-24 02:31:09 PM

RottNDude: "It's like shooting fish in a barrel," he said. "It hits the kids of color the hardest."

Ooooookay...


I had the same reaction; "the kids.. of color?.... 'kay Mr. Racist, whatever."

For some reason it makes me hear big  band or ragtime  music in the background.. I mean, he might as well have called them "Negro".

/is very, very fair skinned and blond, but still.. offensive much?
 
2013-11-24 02:33:21 PM

Why don't we lay the blame at the feet of the REAL culprit...


076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.com


Before I ship you off to military school with that Gawdamned Finkelstein shiat kid!

 
2013-11-24 02:33:48 PM

hardinparamedic: vbob: THC should not be part of a drug screen at work or otherwise. Keep the panels for hard drugs, but remove the marijuana component from the screening tests.

THC is still illegal on a federal level, which puts employers at a huge legal liability for employing individuals in certain professions who have it in their system. In addition, no offense to anyone who tokes up, but I don't want you doing anything to me or involving me if you don't have the willpower and maturity to stop smoking at least 8 hours to getting behind the wheel or clocking in.


No offense taken, but do you regularly check the people "doing anything to you or involving you" if they have been drinking?

What's that you don't?

Well then you have been well indoctrinated by the "if you make it legal your kids bus driver will be high at work!!!!" crowd.

Or does your assumption that people will obviously be regularly stoned at work come from somewhere else?
 
2013-11-24 02:49:24 PM

No Time To Explain: oh, look, "Christian Science"

/almost stopped reading there
//continued for a few sentences and laughed
///better luck fear mongering next time, ya puritan freaks



Regardless of the Christian Scientist denomination the Christian Science Monitor is actually a decent news publication and has been for decades. Take a look around the rest of their site and see for yourself.
 
2013-11-24 02:51:46 PM
1. People who used to smoke after work are now turning to substances which clear more quickly from their systems in order to keep their jobs.

2. BTW, urine tests are more accurate because metabolites are concentrated by the kidneys into the urine. Blood contains less.
 
2013-11-24 02:54:45 PM

hardinparamedic: No Time To Explain: oh, look, "Christian Science"

/almost stopped reading there
//continued for a few sentences and laughed
///better luck fear mongering next time, ya puritan freaks

The Christian Science Monitor has nothing to do with the Church of Christian Scientists - in fact, it's mission statement explicitly states that it will not be used to promote their views. It's actually one of the most respected news sources in the United States, and has a very notable habit of approaching topics neutrally and without bias and sensationalism.


Thanks for saving me the task of pointing that out.

I'm fairly certain that they just jumped on the word "Christian" as a knee-jerk reaction... I could be wrong though.

I'm basically Liberal myself, but there's that ideal, and then there's libtardedness, which is basically on the same level as overzealous Christians railing against anyone who describes themselves as "Liberal" or "Democratic".

Two sides to a every coin, Nietzsche quote about fighting monsters and abysses, etc. :p
 
2013-11-24 02:55:33 PM

IamTomJoad: No offense taken, but do you regularly check the people "doing anything to you or involving you" if they have been drinking?


Uh, the hell I don't. 8 hours bottle to throttle. Anything less, GTFO and go home. And get help for either your obvious maturity and self-control problems, or your drinking problems.

IamTomJoad: Well then you have been well indoctrinated by the "if you make it legal your kids bus driver will be high at work!!!!" crowd.


Uh, no. I'm very much for pot legalization on a recreational basis. The majority of people who want it legalized don't give two shiats about it's medical uses and promises, and are using it as a springboard for the later.

The difference is I'm very much for the same thing as I am for alcohol - if you're going to get behind the wheel or go to work, you shouldn't be high/drunk.

But you also shouldn't be prosecuting people on the basis of a blood test which has NO clinical evidence backing up it's findings other than an arbitrary number.

IamTomJoad: Or does your assumption that people will obviously be regularly stoned at work come from somewhere else?


I'll take things nobody said for 250, Alex.
 
2013-11-24 02:57:49 PM

vbob: BTW, urine tests are more accurate because metabolites are concentrated by the kidneys into the urine. Blood contains less.


Not really. Blood tests for Delta 9 THC, the active "intoxicating" component in marijuana can measure the quantitative level in the blood at that point and time. All a UDS tells you is that at some point, in the last 5-10 days, someone inhaled or swallowed.

The problem is those blood tests have NO Clinical Correlation, at this point and time, between D9THC levels in the blood currently and level of impairment.
 
2013-11-24 02:58:09 PM

mazzz: Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.


Correct. The same is true for Alcohol as well. The metabolite in this case is acetate. The thing that causes hangovers and extreme withdrawal symptoms is merely acetate buildup in the body.

The metabolites stick around for days if not weeks. You can be legally impaired by metabolites even if you are biiologically sober.
 
2013-11-24 02:58:30 PM
That doesn't seem like that significant an increase given the population of the state and the legalization of pot.

And the fact that the limit is completely arbitrary.
 
2013-11-24 02:58:43 PM

hardinparamedic: MFAWG: Fail roadside sobriety test + test positive for THC in the field = blood test

Which appears to be set to an arbitrary, unscientific limit that does not correlate with impairment or behavioral changes at all.

Sounds legit.


People smoke pot! Film at 11!

Given how long pot sticks around your liver, a random test of, say, attorneys, contractors, teachers or accountants would probably yield the same results.
 
2013-11-24 03:06:08 PM

theorellior: hardinparamedic: The Christian Science Monitor has nothing to do with the Church of Christian Scientists - in fact, it's mission statement explicitly states that it will not be used to promote their views. It's actually one of the most respected news sources in the United States, and has a very notable habit of approaching topics neutrally and without bias and sensationalism.

Has there been a rash of dumb n00bs in the last week or so who don't know this or have I just not noticed them until now?


I've noticed this in the last week as well (at several different web forums).  Maybe just co-incidence.
 
2013-11-24 03:07:37 PM

Silent But Deadly: I've noticed this in the last week as well (at several different web forums).  Maybe just co-incidence.


Or, the simple answer. Trollin' Trollin Trollin', Keep them typers rollin', trollin' trollin' trollin', Rawhide!
 
2013-11-24 03:09:12 PM

Sleeping Monkey: This is more about cops exploiting the American People than it is dangerous drivers.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/04/thc_blood_test_pot_crit ic _william_breathes_3_times_over_limit_sober.php


The blood tests that the crime lab does distinguishes between active THC and THC metabolite.  It's only illegal to drive with over 5 nanograms of the active stuff in your system.  The active stuff is metabolized out of the body in 3-4 hours.

The old piss tests that employers used to do for pot didn't distinguish between active and metabolized THC.  They only wanted to know if you had  ever smoked pot, not if you had  recently smoked pot.  Recent smoking is what law enforcement wants to know.
 
2013-11-24 03:14:37 PM

hardinparamedic: bojon: It took years to come up with a DUI policy that could be enforced nationally. It will take years for pot, but it will happen.

The problem is that it took years, as well, to come up with a DUI Policy that would stand up to scientific and forensic scrutiny in court, and has been backed by peer reviewed research. If you look at Europe, for example, many countries there have a 0.01 BAC limit. They have zero tolerance for it.

This isn't the case with this. D9THC metabolites have up to a 11 day half life, and there is poor correlation between content in blood and behavioral impairment with current studies. This kind of thing would get tossed out of court by a person with a good lawyer. The problem is, who this law will target will most likely not be able to afford a good lawyer.


In my experience, Washington typically has pretty good public defenders, for those who can't afford it. At most, you end up having to pay back the court costs, which can be costly but still.. you're not going to jail for it.

/not that I have any first-hand experience :p
 
2013-11-24 03:14:53 PM
I think a pretty good test for THC levels would to rapidly move a picture of a cat superimposed over a rainbow spiral towards and away from a suspect's face.  Depending on how far back they stagger and how long the "Whoooaaa" afterwards was, you could determine how high a suspect is.

Seriously, though, just don't smoke and drive! Why run the risk?
 
2013-11-24 03:17:09 PM
5 nanograms per milliliter of blood is about 1/1000 of an effective dose. You'd fail the test if you smoked a joint last week and none since. The absurd 5ng/ml limit was concocted by ALEC as a way to criminalize legal marijuana consumption. It makes as much sense as setting the blood-alcohol limit to .00005.
 
2013-11-24 03:18:22 PM
TFA: In the first six months with pot legal in the state, 745 drivers stopped by police tested positive for the drug's psychoactive ingredient

NO. Baaaaaaad reporter. NO.

Also: "Marijuana" is a made up word, and is racist as all hell. Please, please stop calling cannabis that.

And: THC can remain in one's system for 2-3 months after the last use. I know, as I've tested myself.
 
2013-11-24 03:24:41 PM

mazzz: Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.



There were supposedly studies done in the 1970s showing that low doses of THC do improve driving skills but that higher doses have the opposite effect.
 
2013-11-24 03:35:50 PM
Where's the stats on the carnage these stoners have caused while driving ?
 
2013-11-24 03:42:15 PM

uttertosh: Also: "Marijuana" is a made up word, and is racist as all hell. Please, please stop calling cannabis that.


What.
 
2013-11-24 03:43:05 PM

Thunderbox: Where's the stats on the carnage these stoners have caused while driving ?


Hidden under the stats on the number of lives destroyed by the war on drugs.
 
2013-11-24 03:47:47 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: mazzz: Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.


There were supposedly studies done in the 1970s showing that low doses of THC do improve driving skills but that higher doses have the opposite effect.


And since no one on Fark smokes regs but only the stickest of the icky, then they should not be driving on that shiat.

/just like everyone who is overweight has a hormone issue.
 
2013-11-24 05:16:16 PM

hardinparamedic: uttertosh: Also: "Marijuana" is a made up word, and is racist as all hell. Please, please stop calling cannabis that.

What.


Yeah, thanks, doc. My first thought.
 
2013-11-24 05:28:12 PM
It must be a whole lot easier than pulling people over for speeding.
 
2013-11-24 05:40:03 PM

Bennie Crabtree: Or even lack of sleep, which is a significant impairment.


Yeah can we test that? It would be better to teach people to consider all the impairments.

Tired? That's One.
Upset? That's One
Sick? That's another.
Had a Drink, Add one per drink.
GF's giving you a hand job? You dog you.
Unfamiliar Road? Add One.
Dark Out? Add One
Raining? Add One
Not your usual car?
etc etc

My gut feel is multiple impairment is how people often get popped for a 0.01 because without a co-factor there usually isn't enough impairment for a cop to notice.

Big problem with booze though is it increases peoples reaction time and messes with motor control period. It's why Alcohol driving and heavy machinery don't mix. Pharmacologically pot (and a lot of other drugs) don't do that.
 
2013-11-24 06:31:20 PM
You cannot test for THC in your bloodstream. The test is for the metabolites that are produced when it's processed by your body.  There is no test on the planet that can tell if you are currently stoned. Only if you have smoked recently.

Since THC binds to lipids (fat), A daily smoker will 100% of the time fail a drug test based on bloodwork, because the metabolites are still in the smokers body. In fact, A fat daily smoker would probably fail their drug test for the better part of a month after stopping smoking.
 
2013-11-24 06:36:44 PM
PS: You can absolutely be too stoned to drive. Know your limits, and be safe. Driving under the influence is driving under the influence.

This method of testing for if you are too stoned to drive just sounds quite a bit like bullshiat.
 
2013-11-24 08:33:10 PM

Danger Avoid Death: Jument: Smoking pot in the car: EABOD ...

That's taking the munchies to a whole other level.


s3.amazonaws.com

Many of us enjoy this.
 
2013-11-24 11:17:56 PM

hardinparamedic: No Time To Explain: oh, look, "Christian Science"

/almost stopped reading there
//continued for a few sentences and laughed
///better luck fear mongering next time, ya puritan freaks

The Christian Science Monitor has nothing to do with the Church of Christian Scientists - in fact, it's mission statement explicitly states that it will not be used to promote their views. It's actually one of the most respected news sources in the United States, and has a very notable habit of approaching topics neutrally and without bias and sensationalism.


This is mostly true, with an exception for any article involving cannabis.
 
2013-11-24 11:48:26 PM
That 'test' with that laughing girl and the rest was BS. I have smoked for 24 years, and can smoke an entire 1/4 and beat any one of you on a race track. I never drink, never smoked a cig in my life, I dont drink caffeine (you really want some nervous, jacked up meth-like crazy whos had too much coffee and been up 3 days next to you vs. a slow driving stoner who is driving as carefully as he/she can?). I would venture to say that if I smoked an entire cigarette I would puke and not be able to drive at all. It's all about tolerances, and I would elaborately prove this if I had to in court.
 
2013-11-25 01:30:13 AM
"at record high in Washington"

Gotta love the pun.
 
2013-11-25 03:06:35 AM

fluffy2097: PS: You can absolutely be too stoned to drive. Know your limits, and be safe. Driving under the influence is driving under the influence.


People too stoned to drive usually lack motivation to get off the couch.
 
2013-11-25 10:58:16 AM
Nice landing, man.

http://youtu.be/oBhMBHlg_Oo

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-25 12:42:29 PM

IamTomJoad: MFAWG: hardinparamedic: MFAWG:I'm not defending it, but failing the roadside test involves impairment.

Not necessarily. There's a reason why you don't get a conviction on a subjective test conducted by a non-medically trained police officer alone, anymore. You either blow or get poked. (Giggity) When dealing with alcohol, you get an objectively measurable level, which has historically correlated to impairment in stud Bies. No such studies back up an arbitrary blood D9 THC level in correlation to impairment.

To put it another way, I can pull you over, and in five minutes find an objective, legally defensible reason to give you a breathalyzer test if I wanted to. Were you just twitching your eyes, or was that horizontal nystagmus I saw? Blow or go to jail.

I'm all four identification and jailing of impared drivers, as well as taking their licenses. DUI kills too many people each year.But the methods used to do such should be scientifically defensible and totally objective.

You're not getting a DUI for pot based solely on the roadside sobriety test ('Walk The Line', Watch The Pen', etc).

You're getting the DUI on the blood test combined with the roadside test.

Trust me, I have some practical experience with how this works for alcohol.

You are talking about a motor skills/physical impairment tests that is quite arbitrary.

I am going to assume your "pratical experience" is either in taking a few yourself or giving them.

Next time you are being put thru a roadside test feel free to ask the officer what constitutes a pass or fail on each individual task. Try not to be shocked when the officer says " I'll tell you when you fail"

Once they ask you out of the car they have already made the decision that you are drunk. The officer will keep giving you tests till they decided you failed.


Yet somehow, I took a roadside sobriety test, passed, and was released.
 
2013-11-25 01:12:56 PM

JoieD'Zen: Danger Avoid Death: Jument: Smoking pot in the car: EABOD ...

That's taking the munchies to a whole other level.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 590x590]

Many of us enjoy this.


I enjoyed 2 deluxe, a fry, and shake on saturday night. I love Richards

Because no man should say I like a bad of Dicks, NTTAWWT :)
 
2013-11-26 12:59:00 AM
My wife and I love Dick's. When we're craving some Dick's, that's exactly what I say, "let's get a bag of Dick's" and she's like, "I love Dick's!"


/Dick's
 
Displayed 98 of 98 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report