HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So it all begins: DWI fo...

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:28 PM

 

So it all begins: DWI for pot even though driver not at fault....

I-502 In Action: Cops Say Driver 'Technically At Fault' Because He Had THC In His System

Before Washington state "marijuana legalization" Initiative 502 passed last month, some in the community, Toke of the Town included, publicly worried about the fallout from the measure's section on driving under the influence of cannabis. It appears those concerns were not groundless -- a driver, not at fault in a fatal accident, has been charged with DUI-marijuana in a deadly crash which ended the life of a pedestrian.

According to the Vancouver Police Department, this is probably the first deadly crash involving marijuana since it became legal in Washington. The driver was not at fault, but was charged anyway, since police "believed him to be under the influence of marijuana."

The victim, a male in his 50s, was believed to have been walking back home from a grocery store and stepped out into the middle of traffic around 5:50 p.m. at East Mill Boulevard and Andresen Road on Monday, according to police.

Officials said the victim was close to two different lit and controlled intersections, "but chose to step out into the middle of traffic, which would clearly put him at fault," reports KPTV.

But because the cops at the scene of the accident "believed" driver Scott Rowles to be "under the influence of marijuana," he was charged with DUI anyway. If his blood test shows that he was over five nanograms per milliliter (5 ng/ml) THC blood level, he will be considered automatically guilty; that's the legal effect of an arbitrarily set "per se" THC limit, as unscientific and as unfair it may be.


MORE AT LINK:

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/12/so_it_begins_not-at-fault_driver_charged_with_mari.php

203 replies, 11601 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 203 replies Author Time Post
Reply So it all begins: DWI for pot even though driver not at fault.... (Original post)
Bennyboy Dec 2012 OP
Lil Missy Dec 2012 #1
morningfog Dec 2012 #8
Lil Missy Dec 2012 #23
morningfog Dec 2012 #41
qazplm Dec 2012 #128
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #133
pnwmom Dec 2012 #145
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #161
MADem Dec 2012 #202
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #51
Care Acutely Dec 2012 #74
JesterCS Dec 2012 #17
Lil Missy Dec 2012 #24
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #25
morningfog Dec 2012 #43
TroglodyteScholar Dec 2012 #80
librechik Dec 2012 #168
pnwmom Dec 2012 #29
Yavapai Dec 2012 #155
pnwmom Dec 2012 #160
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #2
brewens Dec 2012 #3
msongs Dec 2012 #4
DollarBillHines Dec 2012 #5
Bozita Dec 2012 #13
Generic Brad Dec 2012 #6
morningfog Dec 2012 #10
pnwmom Dec 2012 #30
morningfog Dec 2012 #42
snooper2 Dec 2012 #46
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #102
mick063 Dec 2012 #11
EOTE Dec 2012 #56
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #58
Bennyboy Dec 2012 #14
Generic Brad Dec 2012 #16
former9thward Dec 2012 #18
frylock Dec 2012 #19
pnwmom Dec 2012 #33
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #105
former9thward Dec 2012 #120
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #123
pnwmom Dec 2012 #139
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #153
pnwmom Dec 2012 #31
EOTE Dec 2012 #59
green for victory Dec 2012 #91
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #108
randome Dec 2012 #109
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #114
randome Dec 2012 #117
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #119
BainsBane Dec 2012 #36
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #50
pnwmom Dec 2012 #75
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #78
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #125
pnwmom Dec 2012 #140
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #154
sorefeet Dec 2012 #175
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #15
bowens43 Dec 2012 #177
mick063 Dec 2012 #7
djg21 Dec 2012 #9
frylock Dec 2012 #20
pnwmom Dec 2012 #34
morningfog Dec 2012 #44
pnwmom Dec 2012 #71
EOTE Dec 2012 #60
pnwmom Dec 2012 #68
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #12
Bennyboy Dec 2012 #21
B Calm Dec 2012 #22
uncle ray Dec 2012 #26
elleng Dec 2012 #27
pnwmom Dec 2012 #28
green for victory Dec 2012 #32
pnwmom Dec 2012 #35
morningfog Dec 2012 #48
Yavapai Dec 2012 #158
Lil Missy Dec 2012 #37
pnwmom Dec 2012 #38
Son of Gob Dec 2012 #39
pnwmom Dec 2012 #40
morningfog Dec 2012 #47
pnwmom Dec 2012 #69
randome Dec 2012 #45
EOTE Dec 2012 #62
randome Dec 2012 #64
EOTE Dec 2012 #65
pnwmom Dec 2012 #70
EOTE Dec 2012 #85
pnwmom Dec 2012 #92
EOTE Dec 2012 #98
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #129
pnwmom Dec 2012 #135
randome Dec 2012 #94
EOTE Dec 2012 #99
randome Dec 2012 #100
EOTE Dec 2012 #103
randome Dec 2012 #106
EOTE Dec 2012 #110
randome Dec 2012 #113
EOTE Dec 2012 #116
pnwmom Dec 2012 #144
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #127
pnwmom Dec 2012 #136
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #151
pnwmom Dec 2012 #159
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #167
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #130
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #134
MindPilot Dec 2012 #49
fredamae Dec 2012 #52
mikeysnot Dec 2012 #53
MagickMuffin Dec 2012 #54
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #55
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #79
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #57
EOTE Dec 2012 #63
pnwmom Dec 2012 #73
EOTE Dec 2012 #84
pnwmom Dec 2012 #93
EOTE Dec 2012 #97
pnwmom Dec 2012 #137
EOTE Dec 2012 #141
pnwmom Dec 2012 #143
EOTE Dec 2012 #146
pnwmom Dec 2012 #147
Selatius Dec 2012 #90
randome Dec 2012 #95
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #77
Romulox Dec 2012 #88
LanternWaste Dec 2012 #196
Romulox Dec 2012 #87
randome Dec 2012 #96
Romulox Dec 2012 #121
Romulox Dec 2012 #122
randome Dec 2012 #138
Skip Intro Dec 2012 #61
Occulus Dec 2012 #67
pnwmom Dec 2012 #72
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #112
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #111
randome Dec 2012 #115
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #118
NCTraveler Dec 2012 #66
dicksonm Dec 2012 #76
Xithras Dec 2012 #81
AgainsttheCrown Dec 2012 #179
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #82
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #83
Romulox Dec 2012 #86
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #156
Romulox Dec 2012 #174
AgainsttheCrown Dec 2012 #180
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #181
Romulox Dec 2012 #186
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #195
brooklynite Dec 2012 #89
Romulox Dec 2012 #124
brooklynite Dec 2012 #132
Romulox Dec 2012 #152
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #157
Romulox Dec 2012 #172
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #189
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #190
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #163
Romulox Dec 2012 #170
Romulox Dec 2012 #171
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #182
Romulox Dec 2012 #185
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #101
Rider3 Dec 2012 #104
treestar Dec 2012 #107
Romulox Dec 2012 #126
treestar Dec 2012 #131
pnwmom Dec 2012 #142
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #148
Romulox Dec 2012 #150
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #165
Romulox Dec 2012 #169
pnwmom Dec 2012 #191
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #198
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #162
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #166
Romulox Dec 2012 #173
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #193
LanternWaste Dec 2012 #197
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #201
treestar Dec 2012 #178
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #199
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #183
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #184
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #200
treestar Dec 2012 #176
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #192
treestar Dec 2012 #203
ecstatic Dec 2012 #187
pnwmom Dec 2012 #188
Romulox Dec 2012 #149
green for victory Dec 2012 #194
Vattel Dec 2012 #164

Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:32 PM

1. Same thing would happen with alcohol, why should pot be different?

Note he was only charged with DUI (which he was) and not vehicular homicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:54 PM

8. The two drugs are completely different with respect to how long they can be dected in your body.

THC remains long after any effects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:29 AM

23. he was judged to be under the influence "at the scene", which means

he must have appeared to be impaired.

On the flip side, are you suggesting that a stoned driver should get a free pass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:43 AM

41. I'm suggesting THC in the blood does not an impaired driver prove.

Which is why he was given the DUI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:49 PM

128. well he hasn't been given anything yet

there's the whole court thing...so if he can prove he wasn't under the influence, and he gets a fair trial (which is always a consideration in any case) then he can get acquitted.

But yes, if you are going to smoke marijuana, just like if you are going to drink alcohol, then you probably shouldn't get anywhere near a car until well after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm (Reply #128)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:16 PM

133. Most of us DON'T. But it stays in the blood for A MONTH after use.

The effects only last a few hours.

So blood tests and actual impairment bear virtually no relationship to each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:26 PM

145. What does? He failed the sobriety tests at the scene.

If he admitted to drinking and failed sobriety tests, would you be against blood tests, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:56 PM

161. It's against the law to drive under the influence. Whether you cause an accident or not. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:31 PM

202. If he was not impaired, then "and so it begins," indeed--the medical establishment will have

to do a better job of determining what levels constitute impairment, now.

Previous to this, all they needed to determine was "presence."

Sounds like a great test case, to get the ball rolling. Unless, of course, the cops smelled a little weed about the guy, and they had an actual reason to wonder if he was impaired, because he was...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:36 AM

51. Yes, but they are testing for a specific level

which is not going to be around for very long after major use, and which has been shown to be associated with greater driving risk.

This test is completely different from a standard type of drug screening test used by companies, which will indeed show "positive" long after use.

From a link another person posted:
http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502%20Backgrounder%20-%20Science%20Behind%20the%20Per%20Se%20-%20092912%202.pdf

“For drivers with blood THC concentrations of 5 ng/ml or higher the odds ratio was greater and more
statistically significant (OR 6.6, 95% CI 1.5–28.0). The estimated odds ratio is greater than that for drivers
with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10–0.15% (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.5–9.1).” Drummer, O. H.,
Gerostamoulos, J., Batziris, H., Chu, M., Caplehorn, J., Robertson, M. D., & Swann, P. (2004). The
involvement of drugs in drivers killed in Australian road traffic crashes. Accident, Analysis and Prevention,
36(2):239-248.


What they are testing for is a blood limit that appeared to produce worse driving results than a blood alcohol content of 0.10% - 0.15%.

The good news is that even a heavy marijuana smoker wouldn't test at those levels the day after smoking, and almost certainly wouldn't test at those levels 6-8 hours after use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:08 PM

74. And that is precisely why a cheap, accurate, non-invasive field test MUST be developed

It protects the smoker and society.

I am 1000% for across the board, nation-wide, full legalization the day AFTER that is accomplished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:12 PM

17. because THC can stay in your system for more than a few hours.

upwards of 40 days at the max end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JesterCS (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:45 AM

24. it was determined at the scene that he was "under the influence",

that's how I read this. As though he was obviously impaired at the scene of the accident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:03 AM

25. Determined by whom?

 

Oh yeah, the cops! Bwahahaha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:51 AM

43. The article says nothing about how that determination was made.

It could have been that they smelled weed and found some in his car. They may have smelled it on him. Without more details, you can't jump to the conclusion that he was obviously impaired at the scene.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:02 PM

80. There is a big difference between judging someone to being high and proving it

Tests for the presence of THC don't show that someone was high at a particular time, but rather that they were under the influence some time in the past 4-6 weeks. There's nothing analogous to a brethalyzer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:49 AM

168. the determination is this "The officers believed."

no other test was administered at the arrest, as I recall from the original article I read about this incident.

There will be a flurry of these as the states try to figure out their responsibilities and limitations and I fear as you imply that police corruption and/or desire for revenue will cause a spike in DWI arrests.

This is quite predictable. I'm sure the MJ lawyers will be on this & other cases to curb abuses of the system.--but it will take a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JesterCS (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:26 AM

29. But it wouldn't cause you to fail the physical sobriety tests for 40 days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:20 PM

155. Some people can't pass the field sobriety test when they are perfectly sober.

 

For example, some have poor balance due to illnesses. Others, such as some dyslexics can't recite the alphabet forwards or backwards. I am not sure that there exists other conditions that could cause such failures while normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #155)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:53 PM

160. True, and I'm guessing I'm one of them. So I'd be extra careful

to make sure I didn't drive if I'd smoked recently, or if I was a chronic user who might have chronically high blood levels.

If someone already has issues with balance or physical coordination, putting pot in the system before driving isn't a great idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:33 PM

2. k & r! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:34 PM

3. They finally have a marijana related death. It took a legalization bill to accomplish that.

He probably wasn't stoned enough. A few more tokes and he would have been going slower and maybe a little paranoid, looking around more. He might have spotted the guy in time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:39 PM

4. you thought police would give up any of their welfare drug money without a fight? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:46 PM

5. Spot on, msongs. Expect a lot more of this bullshit.

It's crazy, out here (NorCal).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:02 PM

13. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:52 PM

6. And this is wrong because.....?

DUI is DUI. If there was THC in his blood stream he should not have been driving. I would expect to receive a ticket if I was over the legal alcohol limit and had the same thing happen to me.

Is it the lack of definition of a legal limit of THC or a scientifically reliable method to determine the level that upsets you?

From my standpoint - I do not want to share the road with anyone who is drunk or high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:57 PM

10. THC remains in the blood long after any effects.

Someone can have THC in the blood for weeks after getting high one time. It is not an indicator that the person is intoxicated. It would be like if you drank 4 beers at dinner tonight and got charged with a DUI two weeks from now and had drank nothing in between. Totally different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:27 AM

30. But it wouldn't remain at that level for weeks, at least for occasional users.

Chronic users are the ones who might have a problem, from what I've read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:46 AM

42. It stays at varying levels for varying users.

THere are a lot of variables. How much you smoked, how often, how long since the last time, amount of body fat, amount of exercise you do, hydration levels, etc.

The point is, even if it were a chronic user, THC in the blood or urine at any level is not an indicator of intoxication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:57 AM

46. Anyone, I smoked some swag at 7:30 this morning...

two and a half hours later I can guarantee you any effects are long gone but my blood would tell a different story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:11 AM

102. One cannot state that with any certainty.

Until real research and studies are done (as was with alcohol and driving impairment to get the .08 limit) with THC, there is no evidence to support any position on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:58 PM

11. You share the road with impaired drivers much more often than not.

 


At my place of employment, they don't think twice about putting drivers on the road after an 18 hour shift.

Having experienced marijuana, I will tell you in all honesty, that alcohol is not a fair comparison. Sleep deprivation would more closely approximate the influence of marijuana than alcohol.

If you are willing to share the road with sleep deprived drivers, then you shouldn't have an issue with marijuana.


I would also add that I believe the body chemistry likely changes when a person is deprived of sleep. Someone with expertise prove me wrong. Perhaps all drivers should be tested for that as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mick063 (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:28 PM

56. Sleep deprivation can actually be the most deadly of all.

Of course, as with anything, the amount is key as well. I saw a study where sober drivers, drivers who have had a .1 BAC, drivers who had no sleep for 24 hours and drivers who had just smoked a joint where compared. The sober drivers and joint drivers were pretty much equal at the top of the back. Then came the .1 BAC drivers at a distant third and the sleep deprived drivers came a fair bit behind the drunk ones. Sleep deprivation can really turn you into a different person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mick063 (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:29 PM

58. Completely fucking wrong.

I don't want to share the road with ANY impaired drivers. I don't give a fuck how they're impaired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:04 PM

14. Because of a lot of reasons.....

 

One is there is not testing whatsoever that suggest that any amuont of pot is more harmful than fast food and cell phones. n some testing, done in other countries of course due to scheduling in the US that do not allow for any testing at all to be done. suggest that in some people, males under 30 especially, it is beneficial. (Slows them down and makes them more ware)

Pot is NOT ALCOHOL. It's effects are NOTHING AT ALL LIKE ALCOHOL. It does not affect your reaction time, your motor skills etc. It is a mind expansion thing and personally I would prefer that people's minds were expanded a bit when it comes to driving.

The number is arbitrary, not based in science. I guarantee, that after i wake up I will have that much in my blood stream. it is nothing at all and does not have any basis in science or testing. And now the cops will be testing everyone that gets pulled or has an accident.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:08 PM

16. That is an excellent response

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:16 PM

18. That was part of the initiative.

The voters approved it and while it is totally arbitrary it is now the the law. Too bad nobody questioned this before approving it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:36 PM

19. plenty of people questioned it prior to it's passing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:36 AM

33. I wouldn't have voted for it without some limit.

Having been in a car with people who were high (a long time ago), I disagree with those who think it has no effect on driving skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:14 AM

105. It was questioned, and this arrest was anticipated.

Both NORML and the ACLU stated that they knew this would happen, and that the limit set by I-502 had no scientific basis at all, and that fact alone will get it overturned.

Legalizing pot was more important than squabbling over an arbitrary limit that can be argued as invalid by any 1st year lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #105)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:51 AM

120. You are being optimistic.

Judges don't overrule limits that have been set by law because they are "unscientific". The 0.08 limit on alcohol is arbitrary also. Many experienced drinkers are just fine at 0.12 while someone inexperienced is trashed at 0.03. In general men can handle higher limits than women. People who are heavier can handle higher limits than people who are light. But a line is set by law and the courts follow it. I would love to see the legal precedent the ACLU plans to use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #120)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:44 PM

123. Indeed, I am, and for good reason.

I attended a legal symposium hosted by NORML and the ACLU this past summer where this scenario was THE topic being discussed.
While my summation is elementary at best, it does represent the concensus of legal experts. NORML and the ACLU both stated that they would be providing legal assistance to the first cases. We will see what happens, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #123)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:07 PM

139. If it is true that Scott Rowles failed the sobriety test and admitted to smoking

within 90 minutes of the accident, as the police reports say, do you still think the ACLU will have a good case?

I think they'd wait for a better opportunity to go after this law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #139)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:44 PM

153. If that is the case, I see no way for him to be acquitted.

Not would I want him to be, if that is how it happened.

No one, especially me, is advocating driving while high, but having the ability to fail a blood test hours, days, even weeks after using is rediculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:32 AM

31. Even smoking one modern marijuana cigarette reduces reaction time by 40%.

I voted for legalization, but I don't think people who are high on pot should be driving.

From the University of Oregon:

http://uodos.uoregon.edu/SupportandEducation/SubstanceAbusePreventionandStudentSuccess/MarijuanaDidYouKnow/tabid/84/Default.aspx

Today's marijuana is 10 to 15 times stronger than it was in the 60's.

Reaction time for motor skills, such as driving is reduced by 41% after smoking 1 joint and is reduced 63% after smoking 2 joints.

Data has shown that people high on marijuana show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had to much to drink.

The daily use of 1 to 3 marijuana joints can produce the same lung damage and potential cancer risk as smoking five times as many cigarettes.

Marijuana is the second most common drug, after alcohol, present in the blood stream of non-fatally and fatally injured persons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:34 PM

59. There's TONS of misinformation at that link, some might call them lies.

Regarding today's MJ being 10 to 15x more potent, well that's just ludicrous. The most potent bud today contains about 25% THC. And while that is pretty damned potent, it's certainly not anywhere near 10x as potent as the stuff from the 60s. Today the great bulk of the stuff you see is about 4%, the same as the great bulk of stuff in the 60s. Of course, you could still get the really good stuff like Thai Stick in the 60s and that was far closer to the 20+% we see today in the well bred strains. Also, it's incredibly stupid to think that more potent MJ is a bad thing. More potent simply means that people stop smoking quicker, yes? People are capable of self titration if you weren't aware.

Also, there's just tons of bullshit in that link with absolutely NOTHING in terms of data to back it up. I've heard that cancer risk bullshit over and over again, yet the actual scientific studies show that cannabinoids have an ANTIcarcinogenic effect, even when smoked. Your link is just loaded with ridiculous bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:48 AM

91. US Government patent #6,630,507

 

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia....

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

While the Feds bust dispensaries they patented the use of the main ingredient.

They have to protect their patent after all!

You'd think a reporter could ask once in a while about this but apparently they're too used to reading press releases

An Oakland Attorney gets it:

Oakland cites surprise medical pot backer

In papers filed late Tuesday with the magistrate who is considering the fate of the Harborside Health Center, lawyers for Oakland said patent and research records reveal that "the government believes in the medical efficacy of cannabis" - contrary to the Justice Department's insistence that marijuana is a dangerous drug with no legitimate use.

Cedric Chao, a lawyer for the city, cited a 2003 patent application by the U.S. government that said cannabis compounds are "useful in the treatment and prophylaxis (prevention) of a wide variety of oxidation-associated diseases," including certain types of strokes and immune-system disorders.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Oakland-cites-surprise-medical-pot-backer-4113767.php

*Note that the article said "application" and not that it was awarded

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:16 AM

108. Nonsense.

The Dean of Students at UofO is just peddling anti-pot propaganda. Those same "studies" he refers to can be used to show exactly the opposite of what is stated on that page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #108)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:21 AM

109. So which side do you think it's safest to come down on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #109)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:26 AM

114. On the side of science.

Real studies and research need to be done to determine impairment at the time of the accident or incident (just like we have for alcohol).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #114)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:29 AM

117. You just said the same studies can be interpreted differently.

I would rather cops erred on the side of caution, especially when someone, as the driver is alleged to have done, show evidence of impairment.

We don't know what 'impairment' the cop referred to so it's all speculation at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #117)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:48 AM

119. No, we need real studies. New ones, that use the scientific method to determine blood level

impairment.

Please do not misconstrue what i have stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:39 AM

36. There aren't studies

Because it wasn't legal before. Marijuana impairs cognitive functioning. Using it as a legal substance does not absolve people of responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:28 AM

50. Pot does affect your motor reactions

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/Wheelock-e.pdf
The main potential adverse acute effects of cannabis use arise from its effects on psychomotor performance. Intoxication produces dose-related impairments in a wide range of cognitive and behavioural functions that are relevant to a skilled performance such as driving an automobile or operating machinery104. These include slowed reaction time and information processing, impaired perceptual/motor coordination and motor performance, impaired short-term memory, attention, signal detection and tracking
behaviour, and slowed time perception 105.


The reason why is contained in the full report, which was done for the Canadian Parliament.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:14 PM

75. Thanks. I voted for legalization in Washington,

and the reason I felt comfortable was because of the blood level tests and the research I'd read about it.

No one wants more impaired drivers on the roads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:44 PM

78. Right - drink or toke at home

But don't mix it with driving.

I think a lot of people in WA state voted for the legalization because of the DUI measures - which do seem to be an attempt to only detect people who are truly slammed while driving.

Surely legalization with some safeguards is better than the alternative?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:47 PM

125. No one should be saying it doesn't, and that is not the issue.

The issue is the objective ability to determine if a person is impaired and unable to operate a motor vehicle. The limit set in I-502 does not represent that ability at all. That is the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #125)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:09 PM

140. Do you not believe in sobriety tests either? For any drivers, or just for possibly

stoned ones?

Because this driver failed a sobriety test, according to the police. And he admitted to recent use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #140)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:46 PM

154. You and I have several subtreads going.

I'm gonna end this one, I think I answered your questions is another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:07 AM

175. My THC content stays at 200 nanograms

I took a drug test in Albama, at ten in the morning, had not smoked all night because I was sleeping. The report came back I was 50 times over the legal DOT cut off limit. I have neuropathy and I use marijuana lots daily. I am not impaired at all. Now my buddy who hadn't smoked in lets say a month, would probably be quite high after 2 tokes for an hour. A DUI test for marijuana means nothing to me, but revenue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:04 PM

15. People shouldn't drive for 30 days after getting high?

That's harsh, but I guess that's fat solubility for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:15 AM

177. Thats rediculous. Seriously , educate yourself.

THC can be detected for quite a long time after use that does not mean the person is impaired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:53 PM

7. This hasn't run it's legal course yet.

 



We have to see how the courts handle this. Since this is a precendent setting case, I would hope that there is some money behind it as well as some a preconceived defense awaiting such a predictable event. Tackling this type of case should have been thought out in advance as well as financed.


If this man is left on an island, a lot of effort will go down the drain. Hopefully the legal response is proactive as opposed to reactionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:56 PM

9. If you drive under the influence,

You should be charged and arrested, and automatically lose the privilege of driving. There simply is no excuse for driving while impaired. My heart does not bleed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djg21 (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:37 PM

20. and if you get in an accident a few weeks after having a couple of beers..

then you should also be charged with DUI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:37 AM

34. Why should the level be this high if the person hasn't smoked in a few weeks? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:53 AM

44. It could be this high from smoking yesterday or even early in the morning to night.

There are far too many variables for this to ever be a reliable indicator of intoxication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:59 PM

71. Not according to the research that supported this limit,

that the YES on 502 pro-legalization group campaigned on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:36 PM

60. You should educate yourself on the matter before blindly providing ridiculous links.

THC is very fat soluble and stays in your body for MANY days after consumption. There are also many factors which determine how long it will stay there. One person could smoke two weeks ago and have a much higher level of metabolites in their system than someone who smoked very recently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:52 PM

68. You should educate yourself on the research that supports the law's blood levels.

This is from the YES on 502 campaign -- the group supporting legalization in Washington.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2027925

And here's another link to information that might educate you, from another pro-legalization source.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/24/sorry-medical-marijuana-activists-your-study-doesnt-prove-that-i-502-will-nab-sober-drivers-for-duis/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:00 PM

12. The driver may have been charged regardless...

In Wisconsin, we have a moving violation called "Inattentive Driving"

(1) No person while driving a motor vehicle shall be so engaged or occupied as to interfere with the safe driving of such vehicle.

It's the ticket they give you when they can't think of an actual violation. A few years back, a kid on a bike came out of nowhere and hit my car broadside while I was going through an intersection. The officer didn't cite me, but said that if his Sergeant make a stink or the kid's family complained, he might still have to cite me for inattentive driving.

In some jurisdictions, there's presumption that pedestrians and cyclists (but especially pedestrians) are never at fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:41 PM

21. Some science...............

 

Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence

Cannabis and Driving
STATE DUID LAWS

It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing.

Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.

Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.

Today, a large body of research exists exploring the impact of marijuana on psychomotor skills and actual driving performance. This research consists of driving simulator studies, on-road performance studies, crash culpability studies, and summary reviews of the existing evidence. To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol. Below is a summary of some of the existing data.

MORE AT LINK: http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:10 PM

22. How long can THC stay in your blood?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:12 AM

26. it's never NOT in a regular user's blood.

literally, weeks.

and the measurement of THC in blood is not an indicator of impairment. we simply need a roadside impairment test. problem is, we'd then have to bust ALL impaired drivers, even if their impairment is just stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:20 AM

27. As I understand it, driver 'hits' someone/thing,

driver is at fault. Some states' statutes contain options to do % of fault, between/among the parties, and this sounds like such would be appropriate, so driver ?30% fault because he 'hit,' was unable to stop, and pedestrian ?70% fault? 'Under the influence' not relevant here, probably, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:24 AM

28. Wouldn't he have been charged under the old law, too?

So it means that marijuana smoking is only okay as long as your blood levels, while driving, stay within the statutory limits.

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:33 AM

32. not necessarily

 

Washington Marijuana DUI Law To Take Effect on December 6, 2012
Submitted by tcmilios on Wed, 11/28/2012 - 12:04pm

On November 6, 2012, the voters of the State of Washington passed Initiative 502 on marijuana reform. From the broader public perspective, the passage of this measure legalizes the adult possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use and creates both a system to tax the sale of marijuana and marijuana products and a revenue stream designated for substance abuse education and treatment. From a DUI perspective, I-502 creates a very specific legal standard for Marijuana DUI setting a per se limit of active THC of 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood.
Marijuana DUI prosecution in Washington State after I-502

Prior to the passage of I-502, there was no set legal limit for THC as it related to Washington DUI law. If the state believed an individual had been driving while impaired by the use of marijuana, it had to prove actual impairment irrespective of the actual level of THC in driver’s system. Under the new law, set to go into effect on December 6, 2012, the presence of 5 nanograms of THC in a state approved blood test within two hour of driving creates a per se DUI akin to a .08 level of alcohol....

more
http://www.washingtondui.com/blog/I502-washington-marijuana-dui-law-changes

DUID: The New Drug War
You Are Going Directly To Jail: What It Means, Who's Behind It, and Strategies to Prevent It
http://norml.org/library/item/you-are-going-directly-to-jail

Some of us tried to warn of this and we were accused of being growers, or cops, which is ironic because cops supported this "legalization" which is more appropriately called decrim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization

So now enjoy your "legal" pot, and good luck with getting the Fed Banks to accept the marijuana stores (that don't exist yet) cash.

The media kept saying this is legalization and hordes of people bought it without even reading the text of 502.

Good luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:39 AM

35. But this driver was exhibiting signs of being under the influence.

So he would have been charged under the old law, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:59 AM

48. The article doesn't say exhibiting signs. It says the cop believed he was under the influence.

THis could have been due to the smell of weed or finding some in the car. Without more details, that can't be said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:43 PM

158. Why?

 

So now enjoy your "legal" pot, and good luck with getting the Fed Banks to accept the marijuana stores (that don't exist yet) cash.


U.S. banks don't seem to have any problems accepting Mexican drug cartel's cash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:48 AM

37. Good point. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to pnwmom (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:16 AM

39. Here's an article about it.

Publishing their work in December 2009, the researchers measured levels of active THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana, in 25 heavy, long-term marijuana users over a seven-day period. The report finds that only one of the participants had active THC levels above 5 ng/mL on "admission (day 1)," which suggests that the woman was high when she arrived, and the rest had levels lower than 5 ng/mL. The woman had reported smoking four blunts per day. However, despite Martinelli's claims, the day after smoking, her THC levels had dropped to 2.9 ng/mL. Every other participant's THC levels had dropped even lower by day two. By day six, the levels were undetectable in most of the participants—and all of them were far below 5 nanograms. (And for the record, this research concerns active THC, not inactive THC metabolites.)

In short: According to the study they cite, none of the heavy pot users showed THC levels above the cut-off that I-502 would establish for drivers, except for one person on the same day she was admitted. Meanwhile, other studies show drivers with more than 5ng/mL of THC have a higher risk for crashes.

As the anti-legalization campaign repeatedly points out, the science on THC and driving is minimal. That's true, and per se cutoffs are imperfect. I agree with them on these counts. But the science that does exist shows significant potential for impairment among drivers over 5ng/mL. "At concentrations between 5 and 10 ng/mL approximately 75-90% of the observations were indicative of significant impairment in every performance test," reported Ramaekers et al in 2006.

Likewise, Grotenhermen et al found in 2005: "The crash risk apparently begins to exceed that of sober drivers as THC concentrations in whole blood reach 5–10 ng/mL." But THC levels drop rapidly after smoking marijuana. "THC concentrations in serum typically drop to 1–4 ng/mL within 3–4 hours after consumption," the researchers reported (the concentrations in serum are equivalent of about 0.6 to 2.5 ng/mL of THC in blood, the report says, which is obviously even lower).

So here's what we can glean: The claim that THC will persist in high levels a day after people are high, even in chronic users, appears unfounded. Further, active THC levels above 5 ng/mL are associated with higher risk of accidents, but the THC levels tend to drop below that level within a few hours after smoking pot.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/24/sorry-medical-marijuana-activists-your-study-doesnt-prove-that-i-502-will-nab-sober-drivers-for-duis/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Son of Gob (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:54 AM

40. Thank you! So it seems that 5 nano grams is a reasonable standard.

"In short: According to the study they cite, none of the heavy pot users showed THC levels above the cut-off that I-502 would establish for drivers, except for one person on the same day she was admitted. Meanwhile, other studies show drivers with more than 5ng/mL of THC have a higher risk for crashes."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:57 AM

47. If his blood results come back under 5 ng, will they drop the DUI?

They should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:53 PM

69. That was my understanding from reading the article. I guess we'll have to see. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:55 AM

45. So what's the answer, then? Always assume that anyone with pot in their system is OK?

Or always assume it's from a long, long time ago because, you know, anyone who smokes pot doesn't lie, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:41 PM

62. When in doubt, throw the fucker in jail.

I'm pretty sure that's what our forefathers sake. Fuck the presumption of innocence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:44 PM

64. So you don't have an answer.

He was said to appear to be under the influence. Absent evidence of a frame-up, that should be all we need to know. If his reaction time had been 'normal', maybe he would not have hit the guy.

When you drive a car, you should be on the alert for pedestrians. Apparently, the drive in this article was not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:51 PM

65. I know what the answer ISN'T and that's a presumption of guilt. That's antithetical to decency.

Really? The word of an officer is enough for you? Yeah, your honor, randome appeared to be under the influence. Judge: GUILTY!

Fuck the field sobriety test, we've got an officer's word. And what more does a fascist society need than that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:58 PM

70. No, the answer is the blood test that the people in the state voted for.

Which research shows is unlikely to "nab" unimpaired drivers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:02 AM

85. "Unlikely", what a fucking great standard.

I hope you're fine knowing that your son or daughter is unlikely to be thrown in jail and have their lives ruined for something they did which is completely legal. Get a fucking grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:50 AM

92. And you are apparently fine with the unlikely possibility

that some guy will drive while stoned and kill you or someone you love.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:05 AM

98. Uhhh, no. What I want would have zero bearing on that.

I've just got this wild notion that someone should actually do something wrong or at least show signs of impairment before having their blood drawn. Wild, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:50 PM

129. Well, yes, because that happening is, well, UNLIKELY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #129)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:49 PM

135. If you'd read the rest of the thread, you'd understand the point I was making.

It is also UNLIKELY that unimpaired drivers will be stopped who have blood levels that high. For one thing, studies have shown that a driver with that blood level is very likely to be impaired. For another, if the driver IS driving well, he is unlikely to be stopped.

And yes, it is unlikely that someone I love will be injured or killed by a stoned driver. Of the two unlikely possibilities, though, this is the possibility that disturbs me a lot more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:53 AM

94. Put some of that anger to better use.

If you're driving while impaired, it's against the law. Now whether or not this guy wants to contest it is his choice. It's not up to you or I to determine guilt or innocence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:07 AM

99. No shit that's against the law, did I say it wasn't?

Evidence of impairment should come well before any blood is drawn, first and foremost. If there was no evidence the man was in any way responsible for the accident, why the fuck should he have his blood drawn? Considering how likely it is for unimpaired drivers to be flagged by this test, that should be very obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #99)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:08 AM

100. Maybe he DID show evidence of being impaired.

None of us were there so why make the assumption that because pot was involved, he's somehow innocent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:12 AM

103. So one step closer to cops being judge, jury and executioner. Fantastic.

Being forced to take the cops word for it is bullshit. So you believe that ANY cop has the right to pull over ANY motorist and force him/her to have blood drawn. Nice to meet you Mr. Dredd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:15 AM

106. How do you think tickets are handed out these days?

Do you think a judge and jury follow every cop around 24/7? No one is forced to take anyone's word for anything. But the cop's word is a piece of evidence. A blood test would be another piece of evidence. How fast the driver was going before he ran over someone is another piece of evidence.

Just the involvement of pot makes some people foam at the mouth here on DU.

Do you put this much effort into disproving other DUIs in the world? My guess is No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #106)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:23 AM

110. I would still have an issue with this if it were alcohol involved, but there would be many

differences. First of all, alcohol intoxication can be detected by a simple breathalyzer. Second of all, IF alcohol were involved, evidence of intoxication would most likely have presented itself at the scene of the accident. And with pretty much every case with DUI for alcohol, evidence of intoxication in terms of one's driving ability is the reason the person is stopped in the first place. Do you think that cops at roadside checkpoints should have the right to draw blood from any rando as well? I do think there has to be a very concrete reason for drawing blood for someone, this case doesn't even come close. Just going by some cop's hunch is utter bullshit.

On edit: Basically, it boils down to this as being a case of incarceration roulette. While this cop is waiting for the blood test to return, he doesn't know if there's even been a crime. He seems to admit that there's no evidence of any wrong doing at the scene, he's just hoping he can bust the guy on something irrelevant (which it is because he's not at fault in the accident). The fact that he wasn't at fault is all that should matter in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #110)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:25 AM

113. Neither you nor I know what the cop's 'hunch' was.

Maybe the driver was going 12 miles an hour. Maybe he hit the guy on the wrong side of the road. Maybe he didn't notice he'd hit someone until after he'd driven another 40 yards.

Neither you nor I know why the cop suspected the driver was impaired and the article does not mention it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #113)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:27 AM

116. Yes, I do. The cop's hunch was that the guy was intoxicatied by marijuana.

The details of the article make it very clear that the man wasn't at fault in the accident And the cops didn't arrive until AFTER the accident occurred. So yeah, their hunch was that a guy who was obviously in a horrendous state after being involved in a fatal accident appeared to be under the influence of marijuana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:25 PM

144. I'm with you. He failed the sobriety tests and admitted to smoking pot within 90 minutes

of the accident.

If this guy failed the sobriety tests and admitted to recent drinking, would anyone object to his blood being checked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:49 PM

127. That is just plain false. Both NORML an ACLU disagree with you on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #127)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:51 PM

136. If so, then they disagree with the YES on 502 committee that supported legalization.

By the way, do you have links for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #136)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:41 PM

151. They did (and do) support 502.

No link. I attended two symposiums this summer where this was discussed by a panel of NORML and ACLU people and lawyers. The symposium at Hempfest was really good. Two hours of Q&A. These questions all came up.

The take away from that was that in the short term, some people will be incarcerated and inconvenienced by the DUI limit in 502, but they were confident that once a few cases got in te system, it would be changed, as it is arbitrary and not based on scientific evidence or studies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #151)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:48 PM

159. Well, this should be interesting then. But if Scott Rowell turns out to have high blood levels

I doubt that he'll turn out to be a good test case. They should wait for someone who didn't fail sobriety tests and admit to using shortly before accidentally killing someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #159)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:44 AM

167. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:50 PM

130. Field Sobriety Test

duh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:17 PM

134. How about we prove actual impairment, like the old law?

Can you walk in a straight line?

Recite the alphabet backwards?

Close your eyes and touch your index finger to your nose?

Okay, not impaired, no matter what the level of THC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:02 AM

49. Put yourself in the driver's position; could you pass a field sobriety test?

You're happily cruising down the road, following all the rules, and then, in an eyeblink...you killed a man.

I don't know about any of you, but I probably couldn't even stand after that let alone walk a straight line.

I think the sobriety test would not be valid given the circumstances, therefore, there would be no probable cause for a blood test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:41 AM

52. Revenue, baby-Revenue

and no small means of continuing unreasonable laws. Catch-22. Sure you can use it in the privacy of your own home, but don't you dare drive (cars/bikes etc) after consumption.
We Know metabolites stay in your system Weeks after use. We also understand the Effects wear off after 2-3 Hours--but we're gonna get'cha anyway--one way or the other.

I would have voted Against Legalization based upon this One issue. Bad bill and it offers an illusion of "freedom" imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:44 AM

53. "believed"

If he was not high, would this be an issue?

he was not at fault.

I would be shaken up if this happened and out of it if this was me, no matter how sober or not I was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:05 PM

54. Will they be conducting "tests" on the pedestrian ? ? ?

Perhaps this person was also "impaired" and it showed by his lack of observation to his environment and surroundings.

It didn't mention in the article whether or not the police will be conducting tests on the pedestrian. Seems reasonable and logical to me. Perhaps he had smoked, drank, or other medications impaired his judgmental skills.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:06 PM

55. Same thing would happen with prescription drugs

It's driving under the influence, not under the influence of a particular drug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:53 PM

79. I knew a woman back in the 80s who was busted for DUI for cold medicine - prescription

She was impaired, though. She caused an accident. It was legally correct.

When medicines warn about not driving, people should pay attention.

As for pot, the levels in the WA law seem to be much higher than those that would catch habitual smokers unless they literally were driving stoned.

That 5 ng in whole blood is a very high level. Most people would have used very recently and used heavily. This law shouldn't cause many unfair prosecutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:28 PM

57. You're not supposed to drive impaired.

What is so fucking difficult to understand about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:43 PM

63. You're supposed to read an article before commenting on it.

What is so fucking difficult to understand about that?

Here's a hint. Having cannabinoid metabolites or even THC in your blood stream does not mean one is impaired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:04 PM

73. Having a high level means one is likely to be impaired. Here:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:01 AM

84. I keep hearing this word "likely".

You've said that many times. That people who are not impaired are not "likely" to be arrested for DUI. Apparently you're fine with that standard. Also, even the links you provide don't really suggest that at all, they're even more ethereal and less concrete. That slog link you provided is one of the most biased and unscientific articles I've ever read. They talk about their test group and say that only one person tested above 5ng/ml on the first day of the test, then they say that this suggests that the woman was high at the time. Their evidence for this? NOTHING. They just say it and expect one to believe it. Then they say that the day after, her blood levels dropped to 2.9ng/ml . That's a full day later and only about a 40% drop. A marijuana high lasts an hour or two at most. It's utterly asinine to charge people for DUI when there is zero evidence to suggest that they are impaired. Apparently you're just fine with it being relatively unlikely for people to be arrested falsely. I think it's absolutely unconscionable. Some people have no problem sleeping at night knowing that people are to be thrown in jail for doing something completely legal by state standards, I refuse to be like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #84)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:52 AM

93. So are you. You think it's likely that people who smoke pot won't ever drive while stoned,

and if they do, it's likely that their driving skills are unimpaired.

Sorry, but I disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:03 AM

97. No, that's not what I think at all.

I think that before anyone should have a blood test to begin with, they should at the very least be at fault for something or demonstrate an impairment on the road. At that point, then they can administer an FST and then if it is failed a blood test. Pretty simple, no? That would certainly make it hell of a lot less likely that unimpaired drivers lives would be ruined, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:53 PM

137. Then you should have no problem with this case,

because he smelled like pot, admitted to using pot, and failed the sobriety test. That's why he got the blood test.

Since you weren't at the scene, how are you so sure he wasn't partially responsible? How do you know he didn't have a delayed reaction time when the victim stepped into traffic?

The victim was standing on the median before he suddenly stepped off. The driver in the left lane stopped in time to avoid hitting him. Scott Rowles, in the right lane, did not.

He failed the sobriety test and admitted to smoking pot within 90 minutes of the incident. Given these circumstances, the police were correct to do the blood test.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/dec/19/no-charges-now-east-mill-plain-pedestrian-traffic-/

Just before 5:50 p.m. Monday, Collins crossed the eastbound lanes of Mill Plain in front of Safeway carrying a grocery bag, according to witnesses. He stopped in a median, and then proceeded into westbound traffic. He was not in a crosswalk or an unmarked intersection.

A man driving a black Hyundai Sonata in the left lane slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting Collins. Rowles’ pickup, in the right lane, struck Collins.

Collins was dead when Vancouver police arrived.

Rowles told police that he had smoked “a bowl of marijuana” about one hour to one and a half hours before the collision, according to a probable cause affidavit.

Police said they could smell the pot on Rowles’ breath. He also failed a sobriety test, police said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #137)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:11 PM

141. Only because they let him go.

I DO have a very big issue with him being apprehended and having his blood drawn. But these lines in your article do make me feel quite a bit better:

"Vu said a vehicular homicide conviction requires evidence that the actions of the driver were largely responsible for the victim’s death."

"Scott “Scotty” R. Rowles was released Wednesday because there is not enough evidence to charge him, said Senior Deputy Prosecutor Kasey Vu."

So thanks for providing that article, it shows me that there's at least SOME common sense going on here. I just hope the charging officer gets disciplined/fired. But given how many other things cops get away with, I don't see that happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #141)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:21 PM

143. He smelled like pot, admitted to using, and failed the sobriety tests.

Another driver, closer to the victim than he was, was able to stop in time. He wasn't.

So why do you have an issue with him having his blood drawn? You aren't supposed to be driving if you're under the influence, as he apparently was. The blood tests will provide more information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #143)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:36 PM

146. The other driver very well could have prevented him from seeing the pedestrian.

Smelling like pot is irrelevant, the smell can stay on you quite a while and also we're just going by the word of the officer. The fact he admitted to smoking pot is also irrelevant as it's legal. Whether or not he was intoxicated at the time is the only thing that matters and if it is determined he didn't cause the accident, he should not have his blood drawn as there is no evidence to suggest he did have something to do with causing the accident.

The blood tests WILL provide more information, that's beside the point. The most important thing is that common sense prevailed and this man is going free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #146)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:47 PM

147. Smoking pot and then driving under the influence isn't legal, whether he was at fault or not.

Just like drinking alcohol and driving under the influence isn't legal. So even if he isn't found at fault with regard to this accident, he could still be charged with a DUI, if the blood tests are over 5 nanograms.

He admitted to smoking recently AND he failed the sobriety tests. That is why he should have had his blood drawn.

Your insisting that there's no evidence to suggest he did something wrong is using circular logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:18 AM

90. How does that defeat the legal doctrine within the court system of "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

The law could be challenged in the court for that alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:56 AM

95. How do you know the behavior of the guy who hit the pededestrian?

It's like I said, absent evidence to the contrary, the arresting officer's word should be good enough for us -and by that I mean, 'us' on DU who only have an article to reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink