An accurate "under the influence" test for Marijuana

[SHRED]

Is there such a thing?
I have not heard of one.
Sure, they test for metabolites in the urine but this is NOT an "under the influence" test no matter what they say.
Metabolites remain for days sometimes.

This further begs the question; if CA legalizes Marijuana, part of the law states "no driving while intoxicated", I agree, however, how will they determine this accurately and not sweep up people who merely test positive for metabolites?


----

[hobbit709]

1. That's the question

Considering the test can show positive weeks later.

[MikeE]

2. I suggest

They set a huge table full of chips, cheese curls, chocolate sause, twinkies, etc. and if the person can resist for 5 minutes, they are not under the influence. Just a thought.

[SHRED]

3. ;)

There are lots of funny scenarios we can conjure up.

What's not so funny is when someone gets wrongfully convicted of driving while intoxicated because an inaccurate test is used.
The cost, insurance rate hike, etc...and having that on your record.


---

[MikeE]

6. I agree totally

Seriously, I don't think there is a test. And, there are some herbs that can give a false positive, such as taragon or sage. Therefore, lots of people may test positive after Thanksgiving.

[PonyJon]

28. You're right

In California the cops love to shove flashlights in your face and tell you your eyes don't dilate. Then they uses a "swab" to determine that you're under influence. Then you're in for jail, car impound, thousands in useless atty. fees (they're part of the system too), and thousands for rehab classes of some sort, or maybe even prison (it's a huge cash cow too). What a "gestapo" country we live in, law enforcement is the best place to have a job these days. Orwellian.

[eShirl]

4. don't they have a standard field sobriety test?

[SHRED]

5. But the fact remains

Law enforcement considers the metabolite test as an under the influence indicator.


---

[IDFbunny]

9. Bloodshot eyes and smell

are about the only real give aways. Otherwise a baked individual has no problem walking a straight line, forward and backward cartwheels, etc. Baked drivers are not really impaired.

[BridgeTheGap]

20. "not really impaired." They can be if they're "newbys." When the first

driving simulator tests were done, many of the participants did poorly. However, most of them were first time users. When they test people who have been regular users for a year or more, their driving, reaction times, etc., go back to the normal range.

[right2bfree]

25. Ugh, wrong! nt

[pnwmom]

30. Baked drivers don't think they are impaired. But they're not unbiased judges. n/t

[NikRik]

17. about the field test

I've heard where the police keep going with the feild test untill they find something you cant pass.I myself when completely straight have tried some of them and found them difficult to pass! When you are really in this situation you are nervous to top it off and you chances of failing are even higher. The should have some restrictions on how many test they can ask you to perform in a feild test.

[right2bfree]

24. In most states you can say NO to the FST with no license forfieture. nt

[PonyJon]

29. Really?

In Ca. cops can haul you to jail and take your blood on suspicion, they don't even have to go to a hospital.

[NikRik]

21. About field sobriety test .

first of all I have tried some of the test they have you take in the field test and I could not even do them completely straight. If the police are determined to have you fail the test they will continue to give you one test after another ,untill they find one you cannot pass.

[right2bfree]

22. FST are not mandatory in most states. PAS alcohol detection _is_ mandatory....

so until this issue is solved there will be no legal pot level while driving, I am certain.

[shanti]

35. just carry visine with you

works every time.

[SHRED]

7. I just wrote the DOT

This is in regard to the mandatory testing of those with a Commercial Drivers License.
it will be an interesting response I assume.

---


Hello,

Do you consider the urine testing for metabolites leftover in the body, due to marijuana use, as an accurate "under the influence" test?


---

If they answer "yes" then they are lying.
If they answer "No" then why have people lost their driving careers over something they did on their own time?


--

[jmowreader]

16. It doesn't matter

Pot metabolites in a CDL driver are indicative that you smoked weed sometime in the past--anywhere between 5 days and 30, depending on a lot of things.

The concern is that you may have been under the influence while driving a truck at some time in the past.

Most drivers have more sense than to do that.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[right2bfree]

23. Bingo. If you like pot ,dont drive a truck. Simple. nt

[Xicano]

27. It only indicates that you have smoked pot in the past. It doesn't indicate you drove while stoned.

eom.

[tama]

8. IIRC

there is way to test that in high tech lab but it's insanely expensive and no-can-do outside lab.

In my country (Finland) they just decided to punish for positive test of metabolites for "driving while intoxicated" - fuck the science and justice.

[bamacrat]

10. What about a mouth swab?

They make at home 5 minute drug tests just find a way to swab the inner cheek, residue wouldn't stay for more than an hour or two. And after an hour or two youre really not high anymore. just a thought.

[Xithras]

11. The same way they arrest for other drugs.

Alcohol gets all the press, but people get nailed for DWI while on over the counter and prescription meds all the time.

They will simply administer the standard field sobriety test. If you can pass it, you're not DWI. If you can't, you are DWI. Under California's laws, the police don't actually need to show which drugs you're taking. They merely need to show that your coordination and reaction times are poor enough to present a hazard. If they can do so in front of a camera where a jury can see it, there's no need for specifics.

Believe it or not, people were convicted of DUI/DWI violations LONG before fancy breathalyzers and BAC tests were invented. In situations where the new tests can't be used, the old laws and standards still apply.

[AgainsttheCrown]

26. Righto

I wasn't here, but I saw this forum and felt I had to add my 3¢.

In Texas the law states that:

"Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

Some of the 'or's are emphasized to get across the point that if you were intoxicated by alcohol and failed the Sobriety tests and blew a .04, you could still be charged if you demonstrated a loss of mental and physical faculties.

Failure of the Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) are good indicators of intoxication. They are only ineffective to an inexperienced officer who misses the clues of intoxication. Meaning you are more likely to let a drunk go than arrest someone who's not drunk (Although a diabetic reaction may cause officers to suspect you are intoxicated and can cause Nystagmus.)

The test with the pen is called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test. You look for bouncing of the eyes while they follow the pen (stimulus). Marijuana does not cause Nystagmus so it is useless in determining intoxication for Marijuana you must use other indicators and other sobriety tests to articulate a person's state of intoxication. The Standardized tests are the HGN, Walk and Turn, and the One leg stand. You must be able to demonstrate these tests so they can understand.

Every other test came out of someone ass. But if you can demonstrate that it's reasonable, even the best DWI lawyer can't beat you.

The only person that can conduct a test for intoxication by Marijuana or any other substance other than alcohol is a Drug Recognition Expert. They conduct a drug evaluation of some sort. I know nothing about it except that the school is like a month long and my department can't afford to send anyone. It's supposed to be pretty intensive training....

Yeah I'm a cop. (Where are the rest of us?) And yeah I support legalization of drugs. But I actually think that DWI/DUI laws should be relaxed in exchange for legalization. I have zero tolerance for DWIs and don't give a damn what they drank or smoked. Fuck anyone who gets behind the wheel and puts others at risk. I will ruin their week and if my county's prosecutors gave a damn, I'd ruin a bigger chunk of their time. :nopity:

[BrainlessGeorge]

12. well...

I am a pothead and have been for some time now...but I dislike when I'm riding with friends who don't smoke and get pulled over and searched. I just hope to someday live where that doesn't fucking happen.

Anyways...unless you carry around a sploof, blunt block, and visine everywhere you go I would simply just not smoke in the car or not get pulled over. :P

[wildbilln864]

13. don't think so...

as heavy smokers have thc in their blood up to 4-5 weeks after. So how could they say I smoked it 30 minutes ago or last night?

[David Tea]

14. they will...

...first stop you because you were either swerving or were in an accident, look at your eyes, then search your car, test urine, look at criminal history, then determine whether the dots link. This is a GUESS, but an educated one.

[Bert]

15. If there was one it would be suppressed

The government doesent care if you were stoned when you were pulled over or even in an accident at work, it is a way to invade your privacy by looking at what you have done for the last 30 days. When weed is legalized they will have to come up with something at work other than a test to see what you have smoked for the last 30 days if you are involved in an accident.

[Glassunion]

19. Doritos...

Lots of fu&#ing Doritos.

[Swampguana]

31. I think

because you can't test accurately is one of the reasons why it is so hard to legalize.

[immoderate]

32. Not reasons, excuses.

It's criminalizing a personal freedom for no reason. Why not ban driving until there is a test? :shrug:

--imm

[saras]

33. If there's no test that indicates you're impaired, then you're not impaired.

If you can think of some hypothetical situation that shows a conditional impairment, then test for it. No problem. You'll either find it or you won't. If you can't find an impairment, in any driving situation, then, in the *real world* you are not impaired.

[Alanofsac]

34. driving and pot

metabolites of pot if your are a heavy user can remain as long as 30 days.
There are what are called performance tests that test impairment by I don't know if they are practical in a field setting.
Stoned drivers in my experience drive slower and are if anything overly careful
There is some evidence that experienced potheads are better able to the function wile "high" then younger less experienced users.