Fatal crashes involving pot use have TRIPLED!!

[Iceweasel]

The fact that there is no positive determinant for marijuana impairment is presently the main impediment to marijuana legalization.

Pot smokers arrested for DUI: A record high in Washington - CSMonitor.com

With recreational use of pot now legal in the state, in the first six months of this year 745 drivers stopped by police tested positive for THC. For all of last year, about 1,000 test positive for THC, the active drug in marijuana.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The fact that there is no positive determinant for marijuana impairment is presently the main impediment to marijuana legalization.

Pot smokers arrested for DUI: A record high in Washington - CSMonitor.com

With recreational use of pot now legal in the state, in the first six months of this year 745 drivers stopped by police tested positive for THC. For all of last year, about 1,000 test positive for THC, the active drug in marijuana.

Testing positive for marijuana doesnt mean you're stoned.
I havent smoked pot for three weeks and I would still test positive.

 

[Contumacious]

[ Roadside tests can determine to the cop's satisfaction if you are under the influence of inebriants or not. .

Legalize Drunk Driving

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law. "

.

 

[Iceweasel]

Testing positive for marijuana doesnt mean you're stoned.
I havent smoked pot for three weeks and I would still test positive.

The article states 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. If you are correct you have a problem. The potheads should have had that ironed out before making it legal. But I know...they're potheads.

 

[MikeK]

The fact that there is no positive determinant for marijuana impairment is presently the main impediment to marijuana legalization.

Pot smokers arrested for DUI: A record high in Washington - CSMonitor.com

With recreational use of pot now legal in the state, in the first six months of this year 745 drivers stopped by police tested positive for THC. For all of last year, about 1,000 test positive for THC, the active drug in marijuana.

Yes. But the problem is the test cannot determine when the THC was ingested. It could be the same day or it could be as long as three or four weeks ago.

Any of those defendants who were convicted of DUI can be acquitted if they can afford competent representation. The odds are they were convicted of nothing more than using a controlled substance -- which in the case of marijuana is in itself difficult to prove because of the ambiguity of the test results. Certain foods produce the same indications as do THC metabolytes. Poppy seeds being the most common.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And people have been rolling their eyes at everything you say for years.

The board notes you evaded the issue and made a personal attack. Thanks for admitting i'm right.

Here are the facts.

Alcohol metabolizes at approx. one once per hour. Marijuana (MJ) can remain in a users system for days after s/he is no longer under its influence. Hence, the data does not report out if the driver was impaired at the time of the accident, only that s/he had ingested MJ in the recent past.

Another misconception is that LE cannot tell if a person is under the influence of MJ. There are a series of field sobriety tests (FST) involving coordination, speech and the tracking of the eyes wherein an officer can discern a subject is under the influence of AOL (alcohol or other drugs). This presumptive test (FST) allied with a blood or urine test are necessary and sufficient for an arrest, and if a complaint is issued the officer/deputy's testimony along with the blood/urine test are probative evidence that the person was under the influence of AOL, including MJ.

In re MikeK above: In my training we learned MJ in a chronic user can be discerned in the urine for up to 30 days since last use. As to his comment on poppy seeds, we learned from the lab we used that poppy seeds consumed by eating two large Costco poppy seed muffins and shortly thereafter being tested for opiates a false positive may occur. A defendant can be acquitted as suggested by MikeK for many reasons, however, the testimony that the driver was impaired and an explanation as to which FST were administered along with the physical evidence - blood or alcohol results - make acquittal unlikely.

 

[hazlnut]

Isn't more deaths a small price to pay for the right to get high and drive?

Shit, we'll abide 20 children massacred just so gun nutters can compensate for their small dicks with a big gun.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Testing positive for marijuana doesnt mean you're stoned.
I havent smoked pot for three weeks and I would still test positive.

The article states 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. If you are correct you have a problem. The potheads should have had that ironed out before making it legal. But I know...they're potheads.

They havent proved those numbers,do a little research.
They are however working on a breathalyzer that will detect recent use.
If it's accurate I'm all for it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Testing positive for marijuana doesnt mean you're stoned.
I havent smoked pot for three weeks and I would still test positive.

The article states 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. If you are correct you have a problem. The potheads should have had that ironed out before making it legal. But I know...they're potheads.

They havent proved those numbers,do a little research.
They are however working on a breathalyzer that will detect recent use.
If it's accurate I'm all for it.

I don't smoke the stuff so I don't need to research how long it stays in your system. The fact is that in Washington 5 nanograms is the law. If there is no way to determine how long it's there, driving is risky here for a smoker. As well as any drug tested workplace.

 

[MikeK]

Testing positive for marijuana doesnt mean you're stoned.
I havent smoked pot for three weeks and I would still test positive.

The article states 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. If you are correct you have a problem. The potheads should have had that ironed out before making it legal. But I know...they're potheads.

They havent proved those numbers,do a little research.
They are however working on a breathalyzer that will detect recent use.
If it's accurate I'm all for it.

So am I, for two reasons: I strongly disapprove of DUI and a conclusive test for pot DUI will accelerate federal and Nationwide legalization.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Testing positive for marijuana doesnt mean you're stoned.
I havent smoked pot for three weeks and I would still test positive.

Yes you are stoned - at least some. You're another loony who thinks we should let drivers decide for themselves whether or not they're impaired.

 

[Indofred]

And people have been rolling their eyes at everything you say for years.

The board notes you evaded the issue and made a personal attack. Thanks for admitting i'm right.

When posters don't have a valid argument, an insult is used to try to hide that fact.
In my opinion, drug users are idiots and, because they're a bunch of morons, you can expect them to be stupid and drive whilst stoned.

People can come up with all the pro drug stuff they like but they can't get past one simple fact; you have a be a fucking idiot to want drugs for fun.

Idiot drug users driving cars proves this point.

There you go, insults with a valid point.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Legalize Drunk Driving

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law. "

.

HAHAHA. The loony libertarians are at it again. They want us to leave drunk drivers alone until they actually kill someone. They also want to legalize child porn and hand grenades and no doubt nuclear bombs. !!!! Everything should be legal until you actually harm someone. HAHAHA

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
So am I, for two reasons: I strongly disapprove of DUI and a conclusive test for pot DUI will accelerate federal and Nationwide legalization.

Federal? Is regulating pot one of the listed powers of congress?.

This is a state issue.

 

[MikeK]

I've been saying for years that the legal pot movement is funded by the auto industry. They have lost a bundle because of the war on drunk drivers and would love to see stoned drivers everywhere. Car crashes mean car sales.

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled « CBS Seattle

Feb 4, 2014

– According to a recent study, fatal car crashes involving pot use have tripled in the U.S.
“Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana,” Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia, and co-author of the study told HealthDay News.

Researchers from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health gathered data from six states – California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia – that perform toxicology tests on drivers involved in fatal car accidents. This data included over 23,500 drivers that died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010.
Li reported in the study that alcohol contributed to about 40 percent of traffic fatalities throughout the decade.
The researchers found that drugs played an increasing role in fatal traffic accidents. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, which is 16 percent more than it was in 1999.

The researchers also found that marijuana was the main drug involved in the increase. It contributed to 12 percent of fatal crashes, compared to only 4 percent in 1999.
“If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol,” Li said. “But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person.”

If traces of beverage alcohol were detectable within 30 days following ingestion my guess is it would show up in the blood of at least 90% of everyone involved in a motor vehicle accident.

 

[bianco]

Ah yes, stoned etc drivers are causing deaths on the roads?
Of course they are.
And as pot is legalized in more US states, so the number of stoned etc drivers causing deaths on the roads will increase.

One way to 'fix' this problem...random breath tests [and random drug driving tests]...'RBT'...no excuse needed for cops to stop and test people.

Drunk and drugged drivers need booting off the roads.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfVkUQjDkow]Officers stunned by DUI results - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOTa9chWRE]Please employ my friend Trev, he promises not to touch drugs again - YouTube[/ame]