Why no "under the influence" test for Marijuana yet?

[SHRED]

Seems to me to be a critical question as we move forward.

The lack of a realtime test for pot intoxication catches many since the current test only tests that it has been present at sometime. Very vague.

People are losing jobs, not getting jobs, and getting DUI's based on a test that is not even close to being an accurate indicator of "under the influence".
I could get stoned on a Sunday, get tested at work Monday, and even though I am sober I could lose my job because the test would show I had it in my system at one time.

When will this be addressed, the absolute unfairness of this terrible test?


---

[tekisui]

1. It should be no different than a field sobriety test.

If you can walk the line, touch your nose, speak coherently and are not visible intoxicated---you should be allowed to continue.

[Montauk6]

2. Currently, "under the influence" is beside the point, right?

I mean, as long as it's illegal, it's shown in your system, they can nail you on that alone ("AHA! A lawbreaker!")

I agree, it's all Big Brother BS.

[SHRED]

3. Medical is legal in some States

What about them?

[nebenaube]

5. No, a positive urine test does not constitute possession. n/t

[Montauk6]

7. What's the legal definition of possession?

Somehow, it seems this nebulousness is well-calculated to create criminals that wouldn't exist in a sane world.

[paulsby]

11. this is a democratic republic

therefore there is not one legal definition of possession, because case law and statutes vary state to state.

there are also things like "constructive possession" and some crimes (mostly federal) that impose "strict liability" for some possessory offenses.

but just for the record, in most jurisdictions, having consumed a drug prior to contact with a LEO and having it in your system is not a crime. iow, if you are under the influence of drug X, you cannot be charged with possessing it merely based on the fact that you are currently carrying it, or its metabolites in your bloodstream

[paulsby]

10. not really

very few (if any states) states criminalize having pot in your system. most don't criminalize having any drug in your system, including my own, HI, MA, etc.

iow, it is illegal to possess a drug, but having a drug in your bloodstream is not considered "possession".

some states, like california iirc, do criminalize being under the influence of heroin, though.

as for DUI.

it is not enough in a DUI case to show a person had a measurable quantity of an illicit substance in their blood. you must show that they were impaired BY that substance.

alcohol has a prima facie limit. if a person is .08 or above they are PRESUMED impaired. many states also make it a crime to drive with a .08 or above ALONE, iow as long as that threshold level is present impairment need not be proved.

many jurisdictions have no threshold limit for many (or all) illicit drugs that is presumptively considered impaired. it is up to the DRE to determine impairment based on totality of circumstances

[dmallind]

4. Can we get the one for alcohol right first?

The BAC level has no direct linear bearing on driving ability consistent among the population either.

[SHRED]

6. True story:

I had a "National Safety Compliance" officer (a private firm) tell me that he expected an increase in testing. This was following the passage of prop 215 in California. I questioned his logic based on the people's will and 215 passing. He quietly told me, away from others present, of "political powers in play" and besides he said, "there are drug testing lab jobs at stake".
This was in 1997.
This is the bullshit of the system.


----

[bamacrat]

8. A mouth swab should work.

If they could do that it would show use within the past few hours or so...may not mean youre high but .08 doesnt mean youre drunk.

[Lefty48197]

9. This test does exist

There is some sort of a tongue depressor type swab that when dragged across the tongue, tests whether marijuana is present in the saliva. It doesn't test past usage only usage within the last few hours.
Here's my plan for beating these bastards: Get a really rich person like George Soros to start manufacturing these swabs and give them away free to anybody that wants them. Then the current manufacturers (probably Haliburton) will lose any profit incentive to keep manufacturing the swabs. When Haliburton stops manufacturing them, then Soros can too.

[VoteForCantwell]

12. Just Punish Bad Driving

As another member pointed out, you might want to get the Alcohol test right before you try creating a marijuana test.

Be careful what you wish for.

Breath Alcohol Testing works on the assumption that all human beings are exactly the same, a falsehood in and of itself. It works on a concept that we all pass alcohol from our blood into our lungs at a given ratio of 2100:1, so the alcohol in your blood is 2100 times higher than the alcohol on your breath. It then measures a breath sample of 81ml and determines how much alcohol (acetone and dozens of other naturally occurring volatile chemicals chemicals) are in 210 Liters of breath. All told, multiplying the sample more than 5,000,000 times based on a hunch, then prosecutes a person for a crime based on a guess of what may or may not be in their blood, kind of Orwellian if you ask me.

There are "Drug Recognition Experts" and another member pointed out the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests - These are more government lies. Even if you believe the NHTSA (The fully owned regulatory arm of MADD, currently run by a MADD Chapter Leader) the SFST only determines with 80% certainty whether a person has a BAC of .10% or more. When the limit went down to .08%, they just said "Well, it works for that too" and one must ask oneself, how many innocent people were convicted of DWI while the limit was .10% based on a test which the NHTSA now admits discriminates all the way down to .04%

According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, more than 1.46 Million people were arrested for DWI in 2006 alone. If just 1% of them were wrongly convicted, that is 14,600 innocent people who were arrested, had their licenses suspended, possibly charged with a felony, had their vehicles taken, their names released to the papers, put in danger of losing their jobs and all the other horrors that come along with such an ordeal.

What will happen when we implement a new test that doesn't work? Well, then the number will go up above 2 Million for sure.

Just prosecute bad driving, attempting to criminalize blood is dangerous.

[rantormusing]

13. To be honest

Those who have lobbied for the current form of testing like it that way. It ratchets up more arrests and convictions which show that cops and prosecutors are doing a great job. It also gives the private interest who makes and administers the test a little gold star to pin on their lapel.