cannabis in the system

[glasseye]

It seems to me that the tests should be aligned towards impairment, not historical toxicology. Various prescription or even over-the-counter substances can produce impairment, including fatigue as said above.

If I'm actually impaired, then get me off the road or off the job. Otherwise, leave me alone.

[Velokid1]

It seems to me that the tests should be aligned towards impairment, not historical toxicology. Various prescription or even over-the-counter substances can produce impairment, including fatigue as said above.

If I'm actually impaired, then get me off the road or off the job. Otherwise, leave me alone.

I don't think there's a valid argument that can be made against this logic ^^. This sort of legislation/mandate won't stand up in court for very long. I give it 5 years, max.

I'm all for impairment tests. I live in a town with a big ol' retired population. They are scary behind the wheel.

[BellePlaine]

It seems to me that the tests should be aligned towards impairment, not historical toxicology. Various prescription or even over-the-counter substances can produce impairment, including fatigue as said above.

If I'm actually impaired, then get me off the road or off the job. Otherwise, leave me alone.

I don't think there's a valid argument that can be made against this logic ^^. This sort of legislation/mandate won't stand up in court for very long. I give it 5 years, max.

I'm all for impairment tests. I live in a town with a big ol' retired population. They are scary behind the wheel.

How would you feel about a driver with an over the limit BAC but still passed all of the stupid human tricks? Free to go?

[hambone]

Yep.

[glasseye]

Me, too. It's impairment we want to restrict, not how much you've had to drink.

Permissible BAC level is a variable both in jurisdictions and in individuals. Some European jurisdictions, for example have set threshold BAC levels of .05 as opposed to the .08 we normally see in North America. Also, someone used to drinking might tolerate a higher BAC than a naive user.

[Velokid1]

As you guys know, I'm not a fan of alcohol. Very moderate drinker and not fond of the culture or of being around a drunk. But I pretty much agree that impairment and not BAL should be what is tested.

[DjEep]

The problem there is subjectivity. Chemical tests are at least subjectively impartial, even if the results can be false. A cop can say anyone he doesn't like is "impaired".

Had it happen to a friend on St Patty's. BAC <.04, Cop was fresh in from NC, never seen a hippy a in mural'd VW. Poor guy went through 3 hours of field testing from 3 officers and a DUI Specialist. Everyone but the first Officer said "The guy is fine!" Didn't matter. Mr. NC said he felt the hippy was "impaired", dragged him in and towed his masterpiece of a bus to a shady-tweeker impound in Springfield.

[Velokid1]

Doesn't sound like that cop's word would hold up in court with conflicting opinions from other officers, does it?

At any rate, I think any law enforcement can be subjective. In fact, most enforcement is. It seems like the problem with blood tests is that they aren't subjective at all, don't take individual factors into consideration. Is there a compromise in the middle-ground somewhere?

I don't know. I think finding the middle-ground is up to the officer on the scene. Most of them seem to find it very difficult to stand there.

[DjEep]

I vote for a "AT OWN RISK" approach to driving. Drunks are just another obstacle in the road. I'd rather die in the excitement of a car crash than a boring bed-death anyway


Jes' me though....

[chitwnvw]

... the excitement of a car crash than a boring bed-death anyway...

Jes' me though....

Are we talking 'bout a moving bj vs. a straight lay in a bed?

[DjEep]

I was gonna say "We are now..."



But that sounded a bit, um......

[glasseye]

Good story in the NYT today about the possible repeal of Montana's medical marijuana laws and the recent job-creating success of that very industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/us/06 ... ml?_r=1&hp

[Hippie]

If I'm actually impaired, then get me off the road or off the job. Otherwise, leave me alone.

+1 =D>
(And even that is relative. I do many things well on pain meds that would put non-chronic ouchers right to sleep.)

[Velokid1]

Arizona's new medical marijuana law does not allow for legal registered cardholders to be charged with DUI based on metabolites alone (impairment must be proven). A very interesting development given Arizona's standing as one of the strictest where DUI enforcement is concerned.

The new law also does not allow an employer to terminate an employee based on metabolites alone. Again, they can fire based on impairment on the job, but they must prove impairment; it cannot be based on a positive urine test or blood test result.

[BellePlaine]

In Minnesota, cement truck drivers must take random piss tests. Fail and they lose their license. So, that would not be the case in Arizona. Interesting.