General Discussion

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)

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

Reply to Generic Brad (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:04 PM

Dec 2012

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

203 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So it all begins: DWI for pot even though driver not at fault.... [View all] Bennyboy Dec 2012 OP

Same thing would happen with alcohol, why should pot be different? Lil Missy Dec 2012 #1

The two drugs are completely different with respect to how long they can be dected in your body. morningfog Dec 2012 #8

he was judged to be under the influence "at the scene", which means Lil Missy Dec 2012 #23

I'm suggesting THC in the blood does not an impaired driver prove. morningfog Dec 2012 #41

well he hasn't been given anything yet qazplm Dec 2012 #128

Most of us DON'T. But it stays in the blood for A MONTH after use. kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #133

What does? He failed the sobriety tests at the scene. pnwmom Dec 2012 #145

It's against the law to drive under the influence. Whether you cause an accident or not. nt Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #161

If he was not impaired, then "and so it begins," indeed--the medical establishment will have MADem Dec 2012 #202

Yes, but they are testing for a specific level Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #51

And that is precisely why a cheap, accurate, non-invasive field test MUST be developed Care Acutely Dec 2012 #74

because THC can stay in your system for more than a few hours. JesterCS Dec 2012 #17

it was determined at the scene that he was "under the influence", Lil Missy Dec 2012 #24

Determined by whom? blueamy66 Dec 2012 #25

The article says nothing about how that determination was made. morningfog Dec 2012 #43

There is a big difference between judging someone to being high and proving it TroglodyteScholar Dec 2012 #80

the determination is this "The officers believed." librechik Dec 2012 #168

But it wouldn't cause you to fail the physical sobriety tests for 40 days. pnwmom Dec 2012 #29

Some people can't pass the field sobriety test when they are perfectly sober. Yavapai Dec 2012 #155

True, and I'm guessing I'm one of them. So I'd be extra careful pnwmom Dec 2012 #160

k & r! nt wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #2

They finally have a marijana related death. It took a legalization bill to accomplish that. brewens Dec 2012 #3

you thought police would give up any of their welfare drug money without a fight? nt msongs Dec 2012 #4

Spot on, msongs. Expect a lot more of this bullshit. DollarBillHines Dec 2012 #5

+1! Bozita Dec 2012 #13

And this is wrong because.....? Generic Brad Dec 2012 #6

THC remains in the blood long after any effects. morningfog Dec 2012 #10

But it wouldn't remain at that level for weeks, at least for occasional users. pnwmom Dec 2012 #30

It stays at varying levels for varying users. morningfog Dec 2012 #42

Anyone, I smoked some swag at 7:30 this morning... snooper2 Dec 2012 #46

One cannot state that with any certainty. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #102

You share the road with impaired drivers much more often than not. mick063 Dec 2012 #11

Sleep deprivation can actually be the most deadly of all. EOTE Dec 2012 #56

Completely fucking wrong. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #58

Because of a lot of reasons..... Bennyboy Dec 2012 #14

That is an excellent response Generic Brad Dec 2012 #16

That was part of the initiative. former9thward Dec 2012 #18

plenty of people questioned it prior to it's passing frylock Dec 2012 #19

I wouldn't have voted for it without some limit. pnwmom Dec 2012 #33

It was questioned, and this arrest was anticipated. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #105

You are being optimistic. former9thward Dec 2012 #120

Indeed, I am, and for good reason. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #123

If it is true that Scott Rowles failed the sobriety test and admitted to smoking pnwmom Dec 2012 #139

If that is the case, I see no way for him to be acquitted. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #153

Even smoking one modern marijuana cigarette reduces reaction time by 40%. pnwmom Dec 2012 #31

There's TONS of misinformation at that link, some might call them lies. EOTE Dec 2012 #59

US Government patent #6,630,507 green for victory Dec 2012 #91

Nonsense. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #108

So which side do you think it's safest to come down on? randome Dec 2012 #109

On the side of science. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #114

You just said the same studies can be interpreted differently. randome Dec 2012 #117

No, we need real studies. New ones, that use the scientific method to determine blood level cleanhippie Dec 2012 #119

There aren't studies BainsBane Dec 2012 #36

Pot does affect your motor reactions Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #50

Thanks. I voted for legalization in Washington, pnwmom Dec 2012 #75

Right - drink or toke at home Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #78

No one should be saying it doesn't, and that is not the issue. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #125

Do you not believe in sobriety tests either? For any drivers, or just for possibly pnwmom Dec 2012 #140

You and I have several subtreads going. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #154

My THC content stays at 200 nanograms sorefeet Dec 2012 #175

People shouldn't drive for 30 days after getting high? DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #15

Thats rediculous. Seriously , educate yourself. bowens43 Dec 2012 #177

This hasn't run it's legal course yet. mick063 Dec 2012 #7

If you drive under the influence, djg21 Dec 2012 #9

and if you get in an accident a few weeks after having a couple of beers.. frylock Dec 2012 #20

Why should the level be this high if the person hasn't smoked in a few weeks? n/t pnwmom Dec 2012 #34

It could be this high from smoking yesterday or even early in the morning to night. morningfog Dec 2012 #44

Not according to the research that supported this limit, pnwmom Dec 2012 #71

You should educate yourself on the matter before blindly providing ridiculous links. EOTE Dec 2012 #60

You should educate yourself on the research that supports the law's blood levels. pnwmom Dec 2012 #68

The driver may have been charged regardless... Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #12

Some science............... Bennyboy Dec 2012 #21

How long can THC stay in your blood? B Calm Dec 2012 #22

it's never NOT in a regular user's blood. uncle ray Dec 2012 #26

As I understand it, driver 'hits' someone/thing, elleng Dec 2012 #27

Wouldn't he have been charged under the old law, too? pnwmom Dec 2012 #28

not necessarily green for victory Dec 2012 #32

But this driver was exhibiting signs of being under the influence. pnwmom Dec 2012 #35

The article doesn't say exhibiting signs. It says the cop believed he was under the influence. morningfog Dec 2012 #48

Why? Yavapai Dec 2012 #158

Good point. n/t Lil Missy Dec 2012 #37

From the YES on 502 campaign: the science behind the blood limit. pnwmom Dec 2012 #38

Here's an article about it. Son of Gob Dec 2012 #39

Thank you! So it seems that 5 nano grams is a reasonable standard. pnwmom Dec 2012 #40

If his blood results come back under 5 ng, will they drop the DUI? morningfog Dec 2012 #47

That was my understanding from reading the article. I guess we'll have to see. n/t pnwmom Dec 2012 #69

So what's the answer, then? Always assume that anyone with pot in their system is OK? randome Dec 2012 #45

When in doubt, throw the fucker in jail. EOTE Dec 2012 #62

So you don't have an answer. randome Dec 2012 #64

I know what the answer ISN'T and that's a presumption of guilt. That's antithetical to decency. EOTE Dec 2012 #65

No, the answer is the blood test that the people in the state voted for. pnwmom Dec 2012 #70

"Unlikely", what a fucking great standard. EOTE Dec 2012 #85

And you are apparently fine with the unlikely possibility pnwmom Dec 2012 #92

Uhhh, no. What I want would have zero bearing on that. EOTE Dec 2012 #98

Well, yes, because that happening is, well, UNLIKELY! cleanhippie Dec 2012 #129

If you'd read the rest of the thread, you'd understand the point I was making. pnwmom Dec 2012 #135

Put some of that anger to better use. randome Dec 2012 #94

No shit that's against the law, did I say it wasn't? EOTE Dec 2012 #99

Maybe he DID show evidence of being impaired. randome Dec 2012 #100

So one step closer to cops being judge, jury and executioner. Fantastic. EOTE Dec 2012 #103

How do you think tickets are handed out these days? randome Dec 2012 #106

I would still have an issue with this if it were alcohol involved, but there would be many EOTE Dec 2012 #110

Neither you nor I know what the cop's 'hunch' was. randome Dec 2012 #113

Yes, I do. The cop's hunch was that the guy was intoxicatied by marijuana. EOTE Dec 2012 #116

I'm with you. He failed the sobriety tests and admitted to smoking pot within 90 minutes pnwmom Dec 2012 #144

That is just plain false. Both NORML an ACLU disagree with you on that. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #127

If so, then they disagree with the YES on 502 committee that supported legalization. pnwmom Dec 2012 #136

They did (and do) support 502. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #151

Well, this should be interesting then. But if Scott Rowell turns out to have high blood levels pnwmom Dec 2012 #159

Agreed. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #167

Field Sobriety Test DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #130

How about we prove actual impairment, like the old law? Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #134

Put yourself in the driver's position; could you pass a field sobriety test? MindPilot Dec 2012 #49

Revenue, baby-Revenue fredamae Dec 2012 #52

"believed" mikeysnot Dec 2012 #53

Will they be conducting "tests" on the pedestrian ? ? ? MagickMuffin Dec 2012 #54

Same thing would happen with prescription drugs nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #55

I knew a woman back in the 80s who was busted for DUI for cold medicine - prescription Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #79

You're not supposed to drive impaired. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #57

You're supposed to read an article before commenting on it. EOTE Dec 2012 #63

Having a high level means one is likely to be impaired. Here: pnwmom Dec 2012 #73

I keep hearing this word "likely". EOTE Dec 2012 #84

So are you. You think it's likely that people who smoke pot won't ever drive while stoned, pnwmom Dec 2012 #93

No, that's not what I think at all. EOTE Dec 2012 #97

Then you should have no problem with this case, pnwmom Dec 2012 #137

Only because they let him go. EOTE Dec 2012 #141

He smelled like pot, admitted to using, and failed the sobriety tests. pnwmom Dec 2012 #143

The other driver very well could have prevented him from seeing the pedestrian. EOTE Dec 2012 #146

Smoking pot and then driving under the influence isn't legal, whether he was at fault or not. pnwmom Dec 2012 #147

How does that defeat the legal doctrine within the court system of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Selatius Dec 2012 #90

How do you know the behavior of the guy who hit the pededestrian? randome Dec 2012 #95

'cause its herb man, it's from like nature and shit Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #77

What a surprise to see you come down on the side of the authoritarians! Romulox Dec 2012 #88

The corollary dogmatic defense of sacred cows are just as unsurprising. LanternWaste Dec 2012 #196

Where is the evidence this driver was impaired? I don't want any "common sense" Romulox Dec 2012 #87

I don't think the charging officer needs to present evidence to DUers. randome Dec 2012 #96

A fact-free world view. Typical for you. nt Romulox Dec 2012 #121

BTW, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" is the basis of our entire justice system. Romulox Dec 2012 #122

No one has proven anything. There is a charge. randome Dec 2012 #138

Don't have a problem with this. Don't smoke and drive. nt Skip Intro Dec 2012 #61

It's entirely possible the driver wasn't smoking and driving. Occulus Dec 2012 #67

According to the research, it's unlikely it would be that high if he'd just smoked the night before. pnwmom Dec 2012 #72

Correct! Just because his blood had more than the arbirary limit does not mean impairment. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #112

Of course you don't have a problem with it. You have no idea what the issue at hand is. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #111

So what do you think would be evidence of impairment for someone who smokes pot? randome Dec 2012 #115

Field sobriety test, for starters. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #118

I am really missing the problem. They believe he was driving impaired. NCTraveler Dec 2012 #66

true dicksonm Dec 2012 #76

The actual level in your blood is irrelevant to a DWI charge. Xithras Dec 2012 #81

Most informative post in the thread... AgainsttheCrown Dec 2012 #179

Ok DUers, here's your $1 million dollar idea - design a sobriety test for pot usage/drivers riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #82

Make them stand on one leg and dangle a bag of cheetos in front of their face. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #83

Logic problem: why is a special test needed? If you can't tell someone is high, Romulox Dec 2012 #86

The police can stop you for any reason really, at random. riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #156

Nonsense. Look up "probable cause" and get back to me, Perry Mason. Romulox Dec 2012 #174

Actually the threshold is lower AgainsttheCrown Dec 2012 #180

Yeah, well obviously you've never been stopped at a random checkpoint. riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #181

You said "any reason"--a random sobriety checkpoint is a VERY SPECIFIC case. Romulox Dec 2012 #186

They can and do pull people over because they have 2 screws holding a license plate on, instead of 4 riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #195

No sympathy from me... brooklynite Dec 2012 #89

Marijuana doesn't impair motor skills. *FACT* based community, remember? Romulox Dec 2012 #124

If my attention to the road is distracted by my mind "being expanded"...that's not an improvement brooklynite Dec 2012 #132

That's a big "if" though. SCIENCE, (not your "common sense") has to fill in those gaps. Romulox Dec 2012 #152

so, do you have science to Prove DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #157

That's not how it works. YOUR claim, YOUR burden. And links from drugabuse.org Romulox Dec 2012 #172

the studies done were done by government agencies DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #189

your quote was that science DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #190

The fact is that it does Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #163

"Study shows medical marijuana laws reduce traffic deaths" Romulox Dec 2012 #170

"Marijuana Smoking Associated With Minimal Changes In Driving Performance, Study Finds" Romulox Dec 2012 #171

But that is at low levels Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #182

That's not evidence of impairment. You've moved the goalpoasts AND changed the game. nt Romulox Dec 2012 #185

This case, and the few others that will follow, will be overturned. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #101

Such bullsh*t! Rider3 Dec 2012 #104

DUI doesn't require an accident at all treestar Dec 2012 #107

DUI is *supposedly* based on the *science* of observed driver impairment... Romulox Dec 2012 #126

A friend of a friend was in an accident - solo, when drunk treestar Dec 2012 #131

The OP leaves out several pertinent points that, if factual, pnwmom Dec 2012 #142

Imagine that... Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #148

"Perps"? Are you role playing your avatar? Romulox Dec 2012 #150

No, just recognizing a well worn pattern Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #165

Nonsense. This guy was a LEGAL USER who was NOT AT FAULT. Romulox Dec 2012 #169

The facts of this case remain under investigation, so you can't say with certainty pnwmom Dec 2012 #191

and after failing a sobriety test advised the police he had just "smoked a bowl" Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #198

Well, it definitely should be investigated Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #162

what needs further investigation? would an alcohol incident be further investigated? Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #166

I call nonsense on the "failed roadside sobriety test". No details in the articles to Romulox Dec 2012 #173

here ya go DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #193

sometimes, a sweet baggie of grass is a seriously delicious sacred cow. LanternWaste Dec 2012 #197

Details, details. Everyone knows after the Missionaries of Charity... Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #201

The other guy slammed his brakes on though treestar Dec 2012 #178

If you tell the police you just "smoked a bowl" after failing a sobriety test... Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #199

The blood test Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #183

He is being charged with vehicular homicide (but wait) Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #184

They didn't drop the DUI charge Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #200

IMO MJ driver is not at fault treestar Dec 2012 #176

Pedestrians have the right of way DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #192

Depends on state law, but treestar Dec 2012 #203

Not defending him, but if he was to the right of the other car, he probably ecstatic Dec 2012 #187

That could be an explanation. But there is still the problem pnwmom Dec 2012 #188

And your anecdotes about your alcoholic friends reveal exactly *what* about marijuana? Romulox Dec 2012 #149

2 weeks ago: Legal pot newest target for Wash. DUII sting green for victory Dec 2012 #194

State kidnapping. Injustice. The jury should acquit regardless of the evidence. Vattel Dec 2012 #164