Said Before, I'll say again. We CAN'T legalize, till we can test.

[WingDinger]

There is no satisfactory test for present level of Cannabis intoxication. Therefore, any and all you would allow to imbibe, are subject to the same capricious dispatch by employers that medical marijuana patients suffer. Creating a permanent underclass.

As is becoming a credible threat, testing for denial of any gov. help for among other things cannabis use. Add posthumous testing to include cannabis use, after a serious accident, and you have the makings of a social nightmare.

Don't get me wrong, I am a patient, and a very precarious one. But one recorded work drug test fail, and you can soon literally starve to death.

It is unconscionable that we have maintained the level of scrutiny that would not discern present intoxication, but the mere whiff of use as far back as four months.

No legalization till proper testing. If those that want legalization REALLY did want that, they would donate to labs that would develop a test. The public groundswell would take care of the rest.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Rumsfeld is probably going to make out like bandit on that one

Mandatory tests make perpetual monopolies.

[lame54]

2. Fuck that - just legalize it...

and stop putting people in PRISON for it

[WingDinger]

5. Will you employ them all? Or force work comp ins cos. to stop insisting on ZERO TOLERANCE?

[lame54]

11. Seriously? - That's your argument?...

The wrongly imprisoned may add to the unemployment #'s if they are rightfully freed?

Wow

[WingDinger]

15. Is that what you heard? I decry those imprisoned, and work to end it permanently.

[lame54]

19. after reading it again...

that's exactly what I heard (or read)

[WingDinger]

24. So then, those imprisoned because they killed someone driving, and tested

positive for cannabis should be free to roam stoned, hands wet on the wheel.

[lame54]

25. they are convicted of a completely different crime...

DUI is still illegal

[WingDinger]

29. Could you please explain what DUI stands for?

[lame54]

32. Driving Under the Influence...

Be it Alcohol, Pot, Meth, Coke, etc

It's illegal

[WingDinger]

34. Yes, and the OP decries the absence of a test for, PRESENT LEVEL OF SAME.

[lame54]

118. The OP is not about driving...

nice bait and switch

The OP is asking pot smokers to wait in PRISON until some guys in lab coats can figure out a way to help employers decipher what employees were up to the night before.

[Maru Kitteh]

154. It's about a satisfactory test for PRESENT LEVELS, and emoplyment, and driving, and other

and some of the benefits such a test leading to legalization could mean. Any sane person supporting legalization should welcome a non-invasive test that shows present levels of THC. It would be a huge move forward.

ETA - legal pot without a practical test for present levels of THC will only expand the prison population, not reduce it.

[Warren Stupidity]

158. "legal pot without a practical test for present levels ..."

of THC will only expand the prison population, not reduce it."

ok why exactly would that lead to increased prison populations? I am struggling to imagine the assumptions behind that claim, and I am coming up with nothing sensible.

[Warren Stupidity]

159. manslaughter would likely be the charge

such a person was imprisoned for. Not dui or whatever else you are imagining. Such laws remain on the books. However you have yet to cite any statistics for THC impaired driving fatalities. Please document the problem you are so concerned about so that we can understand why you prefer keeping people in prison rather than allow pot heads on the road.

[Spike89]

174. Great point, but don't get sucked into the faulty logic

behind the post...what they are talking about keeps people in prison and does NOTHING to stop or encourage pot heads on the road. This is a totally after-the-fact enforcement issue, not a prevention issue. The breathalyzer does almost nothing to keep people from driving drunk. Social awareness (it isn't cool any more) and the expense of dealing with a DUI are the major factors.

The fact is that pot heads and people using tons of other "untestable" drugs are on the road right this second! Despite what the OP wants to imply, plenty of these people get cited and convicted for being under the influence. The existence of some roadside test won't really have any/or much effect on this, other than a few cases of reckless driving becoming DUI (and the two aren't treated that differently in most places).

It is about the same as saying finger-print databases stop property crime--they don't. They are sure useful in getting convictions, but they aren't needed to make an arrest, and they didn't make crime go away when they became available. Also true is that the death penalty doesn't lower murder rates.

Not really directly on target, but a bit of a sore spot with me.

[RC]

100. Yeah, a good reason to keep them in prison, because a mistake was made.

Was that Sarah?

[WingDinger]

105. Had someone the forethought that I have, they likely wouldnt be there now.

[Bandit]

172. For seventeen years pot was completely legal in Alaska and none of what you suggest

would occur, did. I(n fact the exact opposite turned out to be the case. There were less people put in prison and no, meaning absolutely zero, car accidents blamed upon pot intoxication..IMO you are talking out your ass.

[Johonny]

26. +1

[jmowreader]

132. Imagine legal pot with no intoxication test

How many seconds do you think it would take for Joe Arpaio to buy a skid of saliva pot tests and set up marijuana test checkpoints all over Maricopa County? The SOB would have to build a second tent gulag to hold all the Driving While Stoned suspects, and you know he'd do it.

The reality is legal pot without a test to prove you're stoned right now would be the same as illegal pot, because the nature of pot (you know, how the final, non-psychoactive metabolite stays in your system for 10 to 30 days after your last use) would enable the cops to arrest completely sober drivers who prefer marijuana to beer and get convictions because "Your Honor, the chemical test clearly proves the suspect was using marijuana, and since this test has to be backed up with the sworn testimony of the arresting officer we have a statement from Deputy Barney Fife here who says the defendant was wearing blue jeans, had his hair parted down the middle and was drinking grape Nehi so he had to have been stoned."

[Spike89]

175. That makes NO friggin sense!

There is nothinbg stopping the scenario you imagine from happening today! So, I'm supposed to believe that Joe Arpaio loves pot smokers today because it is illegal, but if it becomes legal, he'll hate them and decide to violate the law and spend tons of money to prosecute a non-crime he ignored when it was a crime?!?! Geez!!!

Then, I'm supposed to believe that the courts will decide, only after pot is legalized that they will allow the same evidence that they DO NOT allow now when pot is illegal?

Legalizing pot would not lead to either of those things...it makes no sense at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Note Vermont's laws...

http://www.atg.state.vt.us/issues/employment-law/drug-testing.php

[MilesColtrane]

4. "There is no satisfactory test for present level of Cannabis intoxication."

What about the Hostess Resistance Factor Test?

[Le Taz Hot]

8. Different strains of pot

have different properties. Very few of them actually give you the munchies but the ones that do are highly desirable by chemo and other patients who cannot hold down food. Some make you sleepy which is wonderful for insomniacs. Others calm your nerves which is wonderful for those with anxiety disorders. Spreading ignorant urban myths does nothing to educate the public.

[WingDinger]

10. I'm sold, but you cannot hold employment.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. Of course you can. I've been doing it

for 40 years. I'm unemployed at the moment but that was due to a layoff, not anything to do with herb use. Besides, urine drug tests are very easy to pass.

[MilesColtrane]

12. Lighten up, Francis.

(Or, maybe that should be, light up, Francis?)

[Le Taz Hot]

30. No thanks.

There are thousands of people whose lives are in shambles due to this insane prohibition on marijuana. It's a Civil Liberties issue and I take that very seriously.

[hootinholler]

83. I don't care how stoned I am, I ain't eating anything with an expiration date of May 16, 7110

That can't be good.

-Hoot

[jmowreader]

133. Doesn't work, sorry

I've got a box of those things in my desk at work and I never smoke weed. You stick a box of Hostess in front of me and I'll kill the whole fucking thing right away.

(On edit: I think I'd be a little put off by the $3.99 part...I get mine at bakery thrift shops.)

[Shagbark Hickory]

6. Evaluate people on their performance, not on what they choose to put in their bodies.

Chances are that will be a pretty good way to test anyway.

[WingDinger]

7. In dangerous jobs? Or transportation? Working in a donut shop?

[Shagbark Hickory]

22. Performance tells all.

I wouldn't be opposed to drug sniffing dogs in locker rooms though.

[Maru Kitteh]

52. No thanks. I don't want to find out my bus driver or pilot is impaired by crashing.

I prefer people responsible for my safety be tested.

[Occulus]

67. And in most cases they already ARE tested.

Why are people suddenly acting like we don't already test for cannabis and other drugs in professions in which others' safety is in the hands of the operator of a vehicle?

It's already done.

[Maru Kitteh]

77. I do not argue that they are tested. I support legalization

as soon as a reliable, non-invasive field test is developed.

[Occulus]

90. Suppose such a test is actually impossible.

What then?

[WingDinger]

93. That is a fatalistic assumption that would still see us in the trees.

[Occulus]

95. Why would such a test be developed, then,

in the absence of demand for such a test?

And there is no demand for such a test because it's illegal in any amount.

Thus,

it needs to be legalized first, to create demand for such a test.

[WingDinger]

98. DAMMIT, there is already a call for a test, by ME. If I was to hit a pedestrian that

played chicken, like in that youtube, and they tested my hair, I could be up for manslaughter. Even though my baggie ran dry weeks ago.

[LanternWaste]

136. Much like sobriety tests being impossible.

"Suppose such a test is actually impossible...

Much like sobriety tests being impossible.

[jmowreader]

139. Actually, such a test is possible

Marijuana contains THC-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH). It's not psychoactive. If you don't believe me, and you smoke weed, get some pot out of your stash and make salad dressing out of it without heating it. You won't get high.

Heating (either by burning or cooking the carrier plant) the THC-COOH disconnects the carboxylic acid chain and leaves you with psychoactive THC. Your body will metabolize THC to 11-OH-THC, which is also psychoactive, then metabolize that to THC-COOH--which is what they test for, because it's what lodges itself in your fat cells.

Here's the trick: studies have proven that THC and 11-OH-THC are both detectable in urine, although the window is very short because the halflife of those two molecules is also very short. So...all one has to do is to come up with a test that is reliable enough to stand up in court, cheap enough the cop shops of America can afford it and easy enough that a police officer can run it after a short training period, and you can detect cannabis intoxication.

And it would be very easy to get a system like this: bring the CEOs of Agilent and Perkin-Elmer in and tell them, "we are going to legalize marijuana in 24 months. We don't have a Driving While Stoned test. We need you to create a machine that can measure levels of THC, 11-OH-THC and THC-COOH in a urine sample and print the results on a laser printer. We want the machine to cost $7500. We do not want a machine that has to be connected to a computer, but it should have an Ethernet port if a local jurisdiction wants to integrate it into its court system computer network. The machine needs to be equipped with a calibration routine. The machine should operate by placing a sample cup of urine in a chamber, closing a door over the chamber and pressing one button. The chamber should be able to hold any sample cup, because there are more than one kind. And it must fit on a desk. If you create this machine you will not only earn money for the machines, but also for maintenance, training and supplies. We need the machine to be made in the United States using, as much as possible, American-made components. And you have 18 months to do this." After the government has this machine, they must determine the "legally stoned" level the old-fashioned way: bring in a thousand people, have them smoke dope and test their urine and their motor skills.

[DireStrike]

146. These people spend all day drinking before work now, right?

[Avant Guardian]

9. The old boy system is too deeply imbedded in this country

Phony puritanism runs amok.

[WingDinger]

13. Phony puritanism is losing when polled. Rhetorically, legalization wins.

But some obstacles stand in the way, chiefly, a test.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rebubula]

33. distort time/space????

Man...I need to find what you are smoking.

My pot just gets me hungry and more accepting of watching movies on the SyFy Channel.

Distorting time\space - me thinks someone has just been reading propaganda...

But you have NO problem with people having a few drinks and then driving - even though 10s of thousands have died on the roads in this country (in the last 40 years) due to drunk driving and not one (please find me one) where a stoner kills someone while driving.


Please...keep dancing, but stop posting

[EOTE]

35. Even though there is ZERO evidence that marijuana impairs driving ability?

In fact, in the only tests I've ever seen done on the subject, the group who smoked marijuana not only performed better than those who were intoxicated by alcohol or lacked sleep, but they performed better than the fully rested, unintoxicated control group. So perhaps we should only be testing for things which are proven to impair ability.

[WingDinger]

So, your newly legalized pot message would be, have at it hoss?

Cheech and Chong choo choo?

[EOTE]

41. Do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion?

Or perhaps just some more fear mongering?

[WingDinger]

45. But you said, pot doesnt have ANY effect on driving.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

147. And it doesn't have any negative effect on driving.

That doesn't mean that pot is for every one. If you're an adult and you decide that it's a drug for you, by all means, go at it.

[Warren Stupidity]

153. He said there was no evidence that it does.

Not that impaired driving should be encouraged. Do you see a difference? Do you have any damn evidence?

[MNBrewer]

73. That's not a bad message, no.

[Nye Bevan]

16. How about a sobriety test? Heel to toe walking, stand on one foot, etc.? (nt

[WingDinger]

17. And if you had a stroke? Or ear infection?

[EOTE]

36. And if you had that while having any other FST?

The same thing would happen. If there are circumstances specific to you, you have the ability to argue that in court. The simple fact remains that there is nothing to suggest that marijuana impairs one's driving ability. There is, however, information to suggest that it makes one a better, more cautious driver.

[WingDinger]

40. When you fail a sobriety test, YOU ARE TESTED. WITH more reliable methods.

So that you arent railroaded for spurious data.

[EOTE]

42. So why would an FST for marijuana intoxication be any different? NT

[WingDinger]

50. Do you want to be at the mercy of the cop's interpretation of your words and actions?

Sounds like no civil rights to me.

[Occulus]

59. Don't diabetics face EXACTLY THAT SAME SITUATION?

Haven't diabetics been incarcerated as drunks?

Gee... I think they have.

So we're already "at the mercy of the cop's interpretation of your words and actions".

You fail. AGAIN.

[WingDinger]

62. I do not believe that. Have ANY evidence?

[Occulus]

71. Oh, Jesus. LOTS and LOTS of evidence.

"diabetic arrest DUI" at Google returns "About 3,840,000 results".

http://www.google.com/search?q=diabetic+arrest+DUI&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

And it's been posted many many times here at DU in the past as well.

Are you trying to be disingenuous? Most diabetics know of this issue and fear it.

[WingDinger]

74. You've convinced me, we need an OP for a new DUI test as well.

[Occulus]

76. Which, by your logic on this thread, means alcohol should be illegal as well.

Until we have a reliable test.

Right?

[WingDinger]

78. No, a revised test, and expanded appeals, to cover possible mistakes.

[Occulus]

79. And until then?

Do we continue to use what you freely admit is a faulty test?

[WingDinger]

81. I would say, print a diabetese code on drivers licenses.

[Occulus]

89. Okay, fine. Here's a (common) scenario for you.

A driver in the middle of a diabetic 'episode' has just been pulled over on a suspected DUI (alcohol). The officer requests the driver's license, and the driver's speech in response is slurred and incoherent. The driver's movements are uncoordinated, and the officer detects a 'fruity aroma' on the driver's breath. Requests to "step out of the car, please" are not met in a timely manner, if at all.

Which will the officer assume is true first: that the driver is having a diabetic 'episode', or that the driver is extremely drunk and/or belligerently non-compliant? Bear in mind that all the above occurs (and often occurs) before the officer ever sees the license.

[Occulus]

96. Oh, come on, Wingding, don't give up.

I just know you have something to say to that!

[WingDinger]

97. SO, determine the next step AFTER seeing the diabetes code.

While being told to stay in the car. Then, after failing what others could do, by a wide margin, take them to a doctor for further testing. Much cheaper than the drain on the economy of one more convict.

[Occulus]

122. But that's NOT what actually happens, is it?

If it were, all patrol cars would be equipped with a diabetes testing kit and all officers would be trained to recognize the differences between a diabetic having an episode and someone who is actually drunk. That clearly is not the case.

Since we already know that roadside sobriety testing can mistake a diabetic having an episode for someone who actually is driving under the influence of alcohol, and we know that even breathalyzer testing kits are occasionally faulty and do occasionally return false positives (even for post-mouthwash use) or false negatives (wherein the driver is quite clearly actually drunk, but the test says otherwise), it stands to reason that, to err on the side of caution, we should not be allowing any alcohol use at all until such a time as an accurate test is available because of the possibility that drivers might drive drunk.

Right?

[EOTE]

84. Game, set match.

That's exactly what it means, but the OP certainly won't admit to that.

[EOTE]

61. We're already at the mercy of the cop's interpretation of your words and actions.

So nothing would change. And all of this assumes that marijuana makes one a worse driver. There's ZERO proof of that.

[fishwax]

113. you mean how it is now?

so you're saying that we can't have legalization because then it would be the same as it is now? What would be different?

[WingDinger]

117. Legalization, would exacerbate inequities, and falsely imprison.

[fishwax]

119. how?

Perhaps it would, but I'm not convinced.

[WingDinger]

138. As I said, creating an unemployeable underclass. Subject to blackballing by Work Comp Ins.

ETC> ETC>

[fishwax]

142. but all those mechanisms are in place now

I just don't see what legalization will change in that regard.

[jmowreader]

173. And that's the big problem

The more reliable methods for pot show use 30 days back, not use recent enough to still be stoned on it (the way alcohol does).

[KansDem]

18. I "tested" it all during the 1970s...

...the results are in.

Now it's time to legalize it...

[WingDinger]

20. When you declare it is time, that doesnt help. It is time to go about it as adults.

[lame54]

21. I trust you were thorough - so I'm here to back you

[Ship of Fools]

23. hear hear! from another kansas dem

[WingDinger]

28. If we are going to argue from authority, I am a crackerjack grower.

Not presently, for I have no space to grow, as I am unable to work, given that I am a patient. So, My grove beats your baggie.

[RadiationTherapy]

31. This is the standard, accepted method of ensuring public sobriety.

I agree with the OP, regrettably. All conversations about the nature, duration, and intensity of the intoxication are irrelevant to the public-at-large.

[Occulus]

39. Just a minute. If the ONLY way we can know if someone is CURRENTLY under the influence

is to have a test for it...

if we can't know by observation of their behavior...
if we can't know via a roadside test, similar to that of a suspected alcohol DUI...
if we can't know by listening to their speech...

doesn't that argue that a test for current intoxication is completely unnecessary?

[EOTE]

43. You bet your ass it does.

And you can bet your ass that this very point will be entirely ignored by the OP.

[WingDinger]

44. Try selling that to the voting public. Stoner activism must grow up.

[Occulus]

49. No, puritan prohibitionists such as yourself need to engage some basic logic.

If you need a test to determine those things because they are not self-evident, perhaps the substance isn't nearly as harmful or as dangerous as you have been led to believe.

[RadiationTherapy]

64. Your assertion is currently unmarketable.

Although there is potential for critical mass awareness through educating people via the newer communications models, current marketing, media, and perception controls will prevent the notion of an MJ buzz being significantly different from an alcohol or other buzzes.

[Uncle Joe]

128. I disagree, newer communications models are already changing perceptions and marketability, combined

with the pressing needs of the economy, states are taking the lead in this and politicians; at the federal level not having the good sense to recognize this social, technological evolution/revolution will quickly be turned out of office.

The times are changing now, and if CNN thought they were doing the Republican Party a favor by denying a pro-cannabis candidate participation in the New Hampshire Debate, they and the Republican Party will be sadly mistaken. They can run but they can't hide, the Internet will make sure of that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4872379

Gary Johnson excluded from June 13 CNN Debate

[RadiationTherapy]

140. Do you think there is potential to convince people that MJ's buzz is unique and

largely safe to drive under the influence of? Can it be done soon? Is it not easier, in our current environment, to attempt legalization based on responsible use?

[Uncle Joe]

141. I believe it's easier to convince most people that legalization should be adopted based on

responsible use, but I don't believe that requires an ironclad, full-proof test for determination before legalization can take place.

Having said that some people will be convinced of the lower threshold that MJ's buzz is unique.

[Romulox]

53. We haven't pandered to the Drug Warriors' debilitating stupidity for long enough?

:hi: :shrug:

[EOTE]

65. Yeah, how dare he use logic and reason.

If only people would use strong emotions like you do to make up for the lack of a sound argument. Yeah, those stupid stoner activists trying to use logic.

[RadiationTherapy]

58. I'm sorry I did not further clarify that this is a PR and marketing issue.

The act of 'being stoned' is condemned in this society - by media and authority - and so I am of the opinion that demonstrating a willingness to prove one is sober 'when it matters' is a potentially more successful model than asserting that a marijuana buzz is such that one can operate a vehicle or whatever.

I understand that it is illogical because coordination tests demonstrate impairment rather than blood toxicity, but we live in irrational times when perception is reality.

[meow mix]

37. so because MJ doesnt cause enough impairment.. we have to continue destroying people over it.

because some jerk cant tell if im stoned or not, he' scared. fuck that... total fucking bs argument. gtfo

[WingDinger]

54. So, you would place the level of impairment at INFINITY? And that is your sales pitch to

average Joe?

[JuniperLea]

38. It's the individual user's metabolism and chemical reaction that counts...

Same goes for booze. I know people who can drink all night... not me... two stiff drinks and I'm done.

On the other hand, doesn't matter how much weed you give some people, they just don't get very high.

I think this whole argument is bogus.

[Dreamer Tatum]

51. So the standard needs to be relatively stringent.

You said yourself: two drinks and you're done. The standard should be toward the minimum, not toward people who are genetically blessed.

[JuniperLea]

121. Not when it comes to The Weed...

Because no matter how much you smoke or eat, you will only get so high.

Smoking more weed doesn't get you more high, it just gets you less weed.

[Dreamer Tatum]

124. When that is an accepted medical fact, I will accept it. Not before. nt

[JuniperLea]

125. LOL

Whatever, dude... water is wet, but I won't believe it until I read the bonafides...

[Dreamer Tatum]

126. Typical response.

Pot is more religion than drug, I think.

[JuniperLea]

129. No, it's just a benign little weed that keeps getting knocked around...

Mainly by people who don't have the first clue what it's all about. THAT is the typical response... the completely uninformed and unknowing response and the attempt to belittle anyone who says differently. Sorry to say your attempt at insult fell flat.

[Dreamer Tatum]

134. It will need FDA approval.

"Dude, like, it's safer than, like, alcohol" is likely not going to work.

[JuniperLea]

137. Oh, but the studies that show just that will...

All I have is anecdotal, true... but I did smoke a fattie minutes before sitting down to take the Mensa exam and it didn't lower my IQ at all. It did, however, lower my level of agita which may have allowed me to calmly ace all four tests.

[Le Taz Hot]

56. Another point about which people

seem ignorant. With alcohol, the more you drink, the more intoxicated you get. (Your point on tolerance is good one.) With pot, you can only get as high as the quality (or lack thereof) of the pot. If you're ingesting some kind of crap ditch weed, you can smoke 10 joints in a row and get the same buzz that you would have gotten after only a few tokes -- it doesn't get you any higher.

[JuniperLea]

120. I can't remember the comedian who said it...

But it seems rather Carlin-esque... smoking more pot doesn't get you more stoned, it just gets you less weed!

And eating gets some people a lot more high than smoking the same amount. There are many, many variables.

I still say that alcohol is the real gateway drug!

[ChoppinBroccoli]

46. That's An Easy Fix

Rather than hedging, like we do with alcohol, and making it illegal to drive WITH A CERTAIN CONCENTRATION of alcohol in your blood, just make it illegal to drive with ANY presence of marijuana in your blood. Make it a bright-line, black-and-white test. That way, you're punishing the BEHAVIOR (impaired driving) rather than the SUBSTANCE, which is the way it SHOULD be. Plus, if you look at the way things are trending right now, it won't be too much longer before State legislatures start doing the same thing with alcohol. Most States have already lowered the BAC necessary to convict people of DUI to .08, despite the fact that most studies show that the indicia of impairment don't start to surface until around .10. So just go all the way. Make it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with ANY presence of intoxicating substance in your blood, in ANY amount. It would allow for the legalization of marijuana AND allow lawmakers to take the "I'm tough on crime" posture at the same time.

[WingDinger]

57. So, what is the halflife of THC in blood? and that is a call for a new test.

[backscatter712]

63. See the post I made below.

The key isn't to look for all varieties of THC, but for specific compounds of THC. Looking at the text of the proposed law I posted below, the blood test I mentioned tests for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which has a half-life of a few hours, and thus is potentially useful for measuring intoxication level.

[WingDinger]

68. Is there a paypal?

[WingDinger]

102. I believe you would be broadening the possibility of false positives.

[Dreamer Tatum]

47. Unlike a lot of people here, I agree completely

The testing is to protect the user and to set the bar. Makes perfect sense.

[WingDinger]

92. This doesnt even get into feeding children pot brownies etc. All Good?

[Romulox]

48. OP is completely illogical; there is already a roadside sobriety test.

There is no logical reason to believe that the existing roadside sobriety test is not sufficient to monitor those intoxicated by marijuana.

[WingDinger]

60. Have you EVER heard of someone CONVICTED, for field sobriety, and not given followup testing to corr

[Romulox]

69. Yes. Moreover, reckless driving is a crime irrespective of intoxication.

[WingDinger]

72. I'm not sure anyone would buy reckless driving as field sobriety.

[Romulox]

85. "field sobriety" is a TEST administered by the police. "Reckless driving" is an infraction.

If you're not more careful, you might sound like you know what you're talking about! :silly:

[WingDinger]

86. Yes, and reckless driving is a posthumous way to deal with the issue.

Reliable testing, to reassure the public that we are being responsible, is the only way that legalization will pass adult muster.

[Romulox]

103. "Posthumous" means "after death". I can't even guess what you *meant* to say there.

:shrug:

[WingDinger]

108. Posthumous means after the fact, not necessarily after death.

[Romulox]

112. No. It does not. Jeesus. "Ex post facto" is what you mean.

And even allowing for this substitution, your comments make little sense. :shrug:

[WingDinger]

130. You are correct, and it works that way just as well.

[backscatter712]

55. The Colorado legislature was actually working on a Marijuana DUI law, based on an actual blood test.

As I was working as an intern in the state capitol at the time, I got a ringside seat for some of the debates.

The bill would have set standards for the level of THC in the blood to be used to define "intoxicated" for the purposes of charging someone with per-se DUI (or to be more technical, a specific short-lived compound of THC that some scientists have deemed to be useful as something one can measure that is roughly correlated with actual levels of intoxication.)

To say there are no tests for THC intoxication just plain isn't true - there's one that was deemed good enough that the Colorado General Assembly debated making a law declaring it to be the standard for marijuana DUI in the state. Granted, there are flaws here. If a cop suspects marijuana intoxication, he's either have to be trained himself to take a blood sample on the spot (shudders :scared:) or he's have to whisk you to the nearest hospital so a trained nurse can take a blood sample, though in that case, the amount of the THC metabolite will decrease, to the point where it's below the limit, in the hour or two it takes to get a blood sample at the hospital.

Also, there are still arguments as to exactly what the levels of this metabolite should be that indicate a DUI - a lot of the MMJ patients and advocates testifying argued that a person who's been using MMJ for a long time, and who has developed a tolerance, might have a blood level that would show he's "intoxicated" when he or she's actually still OK to drive.

There are tests. They just aren't quite so refined as BAC tests for alcohol. But then again, even the alcohol BAC test has problems.

The bill in question is Colorado's HB 11-1261, found here: http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/D32906E49DB93102872578180067E0CB?Open&file=1261_ren.pdf

[MNBrewer]

66. We don't base our laws on the "level" of alcohol intoxication

why should we base laws on the "level" of THC intoxication? All that is required is a certain blood alcohol percentage, "level of intoxication" be damned. There are tests for amount of THC in the blood. Saying that we can't test for it is a lie.

[Maru Kitteh]

70. What is needed is a non-invasive field test. Breath, skin, cheek swab, something like that. n/t

[WingDinger]

75. Level of intoxification is a composite averaging agreement.

[MNBrewer]

80. And legally, it's an arbitrarily set standard.

Some people may not be intoxicated at 0.08% bac, while others are at 0.07%. There has to be research on this already, use it to set a threshold and legalize!

[WingDinger]

82. Thank you for agreeing.

[MNBrewer]

87. The fact that the government chooses not to set that standard

as part of its fight against legalization does not argue against the call for immediate legalization, however.

[WingDinger]

88. The call for immediate legalization, with no caveats, is foolhardy.

[eShirl]

91. There are tests for the amount of THC in the blood?

This is news to me.

[backscatter712]

94. There are. See post 55.

They can do it, and measure specifically for short-lived compounds that can serve as evidence of acute intoxication, as opposed to the workplace drug tests that show a positive if you smoked weed a month ago.

[WingDinger]

99. I am heartened to find that we can stand on others shoulders instead of reinventing the wheel.

[JVS]

101. What is the test for sleep deprivation?

[WingDinger]

104. More than seeing a guy yawn in his hummer.

[Initech]

107. Sit through all three Lord Of The Rings extended editions in one sitting.

[fishwax]

106. those issues are issues already, so why should it prevent legalization?

I see your point about how a test for present intoxication would be a very useful development, but I don't see how that should prevent legalization/decriminalization.

[WingDinger]

110. If there is a vote to be involved, THAT is how legalization will be prevented.

And those seeing us say we dont care about being responsible, we want to get obliterated, will sour to the whole idea.

[fishwax]

116. perhaps, perhaps not

Whether or not it will block legislation is a rather different issue from whether or not it's a good argument, of course, but it might be the case that that argument would sway enough minds to prevent legalization and it might not.

[Initech]

109. The sad thing is the people who will benefit off such testing shouldn't.

[WingDinger]

111. necessary evil. Nothing is ever clean.

[Romulox]

114. BTW, the "some people will say" line of argument is disingenuous. Own your own argument. nt

[Horse with no Name]

115. What about testing for Oxycontin? Hydrocodone?

We have tests that detect the presence, however, none that really and accurately quantify the actual amount present.

THOSE two drugs are more toxic to our culture than marijuana...yet, they are pushed by the pharmaceutical industry.

What this OP should really say is that marijuana will ONLY be legal when the pharmaceutical companies can completely control and dispense the product--if people could grow their own Lortabs, they would be illegal too.

[ecstatic]

123. Or... legalize and let people face the consequences of their own decisions?

That's an option too! Just like we're free to drink alcohol and face whatever fallout may occur as a result.

I do think a standard should be set for DUIs though. Weed interacts with alcohol, so anyone who gets in an accident with MJ & alcohol in their blood stream should face harsher penalties.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Green Manalishi]

131. It should be illegal to test

No one's business.
It should be completely illegal to test anyone's blood, breath or urine.

If you wreck a car, get charged with bad driving, but the state nor any employer should never be able to get a samply of anything except your writing.

[winston65]

135. marijuana prohibition is an big industy in this country-

too much money to be made from the prohibition. From the cops on the beat, to the DAs and lawyers, to legislators, to banks, to private prisons. Too many 'respectable' citizens and businesses raking in too much cash to ever allow it be made legal. It will truly take a groundswell of people sick and tired of being bullied and jailed for nothing.

[Never Stop Dancin]

143. Pot 2.0 is just too strong - do not legalize

The scariest thing is that they claim to "drive better when theyre stoned" -- that alone's enough for me to keep it illegal.

[WingDinger]

144. tHERE IS NO POT 2.0. jUST FEARMONGERING ABOUT POTENCY.

[Never Stop Dancin]

145. says someone screaming in all caps and a run-on sentence

case proven

[WingDinger]

150. Sorry about the crash and caps. But, losing my keyboard.

Tell me what is more potent about todays pot? And how you theorize we did that!

[Never Stop Dancin]

148. there's simply no way

it should be legal in America, with the lack of driver education/skills here. Now I can see it in Israel where people can handle their drugs and know how to drive in high speeds on a controlled access highway without getting into stupid accidents, or in the Netherland where no one drives.

[Romulox]

149. Lulz. We should continue to lock up people for a harmless herb--because driver competency is so low

?

Logicical? Um, nope.

[WingDinger]

151. Here's logic. Says the DUI guy. Why doesn't he go to jail for driving high?

Just letting it ride, and fully decriminalizing possession and cultivation won"t sell. And the so called Pot 2.0 is as much art as science. And results mostly in better taste. With less of it stale, due to transportation and packaging. Mostly spurred on as a called for quality, by patients. And not mostly for their druthers, but their physicians.

In reality, pot 2.0, will allow more alert driving. Less lethargy. Stale pot, if peddled by state, would lead to a portion of society couch-locked. As the term is used. Fresh, well handled pot had better be the product sold if or when, by state.

[Romulox]

156. Oh yes. The all important drunk driving constituency drives most legislation!

:silly:

[Gold Metal Flake]

169. Oops. Your pizza is here.

I'm guessing zombie.

[Warren Stupidity]

152. with all due respect, that is total bullshit

do we apply the same standards to the vast commercial pharmacopia the population is ingesting to reduce stress? No f'ing way. But you would rather THROW PEOPLE IN FUCKING PRISON because you are nervous about a problem YOU CANNOT DOCUMENT AT ALL.

[WingDinger]

155. Yes, they are ramping up scrutiny of prescribed high drivers.

[Warren Stupidity]

157. eh? so ramp up scrutiny of high inhalers.

seriously, instead throw them in prison for a problem lacking any evidence?

[WingDinger]

160. You think I intend cops with hypos on every corner?

No, you weave, act strange when the cop pulls you over, instead of convicting on circumstancial evidence, or worse, convicting on three month old evidence, not having ANY relationship to your present drive, there is solid proof. And you call that unwise?

[Warren Stupidity]

166. No you claimed that prescription drug users are not the same problem,

if there is a problem, a claim you have not provided ANY evidence for, because of some weird increased scrutiny allegedly occurring for the tens of millions of daily users of various psychoactive drugs, many of whom operate vehicles of all sorts on a regular basis.

THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED PROBLEM WITH POT DRIVING FATALITIES.

Until there is such a problem, your vast concern is noted, but that concern should not be ANY BARRIER AT ALL to legalizing use of marijuana.

[DefenseLawyer]

161. And the raping of the white women, we need to get a handle on that

before we let the demon weed loose on our children.

[librechik]

162. what we really need is a test for impairment, not intoxication

I don't believe MJ intoxication impairs you for tasks in the same way that drinking does, even driving. You shouldn't be punished for intoxication if it doesn't impair performance.

[WingDinger]

163. While that is a fine example of logic, that wont reassure the squares.

[KamaAina]

164. So the ancient Egyptians had breathalyzers?

They must have, 'cause they brewed beer. :sarcasm:

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. Zero tolerance is part of the war on drugs

when we have zero tolerance for alcohol (and lord knows we have the test)... but we don't.

The war on drugs has been a disaster and a failure, stop enabling it.

[Spike89]

167. Very poor logic behinde this argument

The reality is that the BA test and the ".08 limit" are not the primary "tests" for DUI. In NO state in the U.S. will blowing .075 actually get you out of a ticket--the .08 is additional evidence, but police already have the power to cite you for DUI without you blowing any alcohol. You may be able to convince a judge, but probably not.

I did have a friend pulled over, cited for DUI, taken to jail, tested and found "clean". He was a bartender and had some beer spilled on him, but hadn't had a drop to drink. He eventually saw a judge who let him go. On the flip side, my stepdaughter got pulled over, she was 21 and had been drinking. She got a ticket, tested about .07 and the judge explicitly stated that the blood test is only a guideline, unless you go over.

The point is that the primary test for a DUI (whether alcohol, prescription drugs, or pot) is not, and never has been a roadside blood test. The blood alchohol test has also never been a solid defense either.

Legalize pot or not, I don't really care that much, but this is a bogus argument that isn't a real factor.

[WingDinger]

168. See, it aint up to you. It is up to all us voters. You think we can be as insular as teabaggers.

With all rights come responsibilities. Telling worried parents, and authorities, CHILL, will sound just like Spikoli. Or Cheech and Chong. I wouldnt use Charlie Sheen to advertize Booze either. He exudes irresponsibility.

[Warren Stupidity]

170. the teabag loonislature in my state

voted to legalize medical marijuana, as did the democratic legislature it replaced. Our dumb-fuck democratic governor is the only obstacle in the way of this step towards sanity. I reject your assertion that the voters are the problem.

[Spike89]

171. Huh?

Your point is what? People drive stoned now, and they get busted for it. Most people aren't clinging to pot prohibition because of a lack of testing. The anti-pot forces are authoritarians, and quite frankly the same types that foisted alcohol prohibition on us (btw - there was no blood-acohol test available to police when booze was made legal following prohibition). The first ones practical for police didn't arrive until 1938 and they weren't accurate or common until decades later. Oddly enough, people were very much for the end of prohibition, and police had no problem finding and citing drunk drivers (even though it wasn't as frowned upon as it is today).

People will vote for or against legalizing pot and they'll base their decisions on a bunch of things, some stupid and/or false (like some phantom belief in pot 2.0). I don't believe the lack of a breathalyzer equivalent is going to make much difference either way. If you have actual polling data saying otherwise, I'd be interested.