Drunk Drivers' Rights?

[Dauphin]

I'm against punishing drunk drivers just for being intoxicated. If they're driving is dangerous, it'd be one thing, but when they're clearly not at fault, their alcohol level is irrelevant.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think the result would be many people thinking they are ok to drive when they really aren't. Arresting them after the accident, or worse fatality, is not my preferred option.

[Felch]

I'm against punishing drunk drivers just for being intoxicated. If they're driving is dangerous, it'd be one thing, but when they're clearly not at fault, their alcohol level is irrelevant.

[rah]

I don't have a problem with that either. It's in accident situations where it's a problem.

[DinoDoc]

Saying a person that smoked last week is impaired this week is absurd. But that's how it's treated in Illinois.
If there was a better test, this would change. But it would be interesting what they considered to high to drive.

If they are driving badly enough to attract the attention of the cops and test positive for drugs, my heart bleeds for them.

[rah]

Saying a person that smoked last week is impaired this week is absurd. But that's how it's treated in Illinois.
If there was a better test, this would change. But it would be interesting what they considered to high to drive.

[SlowwHand]

It's illegal to operate a vehicle while impaired. It's also illegal to drive without required insurance. In both these scenarios the driver shouldn't be driving. If they weren't driving, they wouldn't have been there and possibly no accident would have occurred.

[Sava]

Agree.

[rah]

On target... splash. As a regular taker of centrum silver.

But seriously, I hope they find a more effective way to test. This all or nothing is absurd

[Sava]

I have always found this so ridiculous.
Just because I may have attended a rock concert a couple of weeks ago, where there was enough pot smoke in the arena to get even those people that weren't smoking slightly buzzed, means I drove impaired for the next few weeks. Just plain silly. And worse, if you got into an accident where someone was killed, even if you weren't at fault, you'd spend many years in jail.

Don't worry. If you get pulled over, you can always say you were out looking for your daughter/son.

lol parenthood burn LOL #tooold #centrumsilver

[Sava]

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...a-dui-laws.htm

lol

This is actually good for me.

Now I have a universal "nope, I can't drive" excuse.

Some of those laws will change over time. I wonder what they say about DWI on prescription meds... about what levels make you "impaired".

[rah]

I have always found this so ridiculous.
Just because I may have attended a rock concert a couple of weeks ago, where there was enough pot smoke in the arena to get even those people that weren't smoking slightly buzzed, means I drove impaired for the next few weeks. Just plain silly. And worse, if you got into an accident where someone was killed, even if you weren't at fault, you'd spend many years in jail.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

In states with so-called “per se” DUI laws, any amount of marijuana in the driver’s system at the time of the offense will conclusively establish impairment. In these states, a prosecutor will not need to present any further evidence (such as behavior consistent with being under the influence or unsafe driving) in order to establish that the driver was under the influence.

State per se laws often include marijuana metabolites—compounds left over when the body metabolizes (or processes) marijuana—which can remain in a person’s body for days, weeks, or longer after marijuana use. While metabolites indicate that the person ingested marijuana at some point in the past, they do not indicate how long ago, or necessarily point to current impairment. Even so, state per se laws that include metabolites accept their presence as conclusive evidence of impairment for the purposes of a DUI charge.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/dui-and-dwi-charges/marijuana-dui-laws.htm

lol

[Sava]

How stoned is too stoned?

I read that.

Standards for marijuana impairment are a tricky business. It doesn't work like alcohol. I could be stoned out of my mind, yet still be "okay to drive".

But as far as I'm concerned, impaired drivers should be punished, regardless of the substance. Driving a car is serious business.

[Sava]

At least there's no evidence the driver smoked marijuana recently, right?

Why?
Stoned driving is bad, illegal, and should be punished.

[The Mad Monk]

How stoned is too stoned?

A small group of volunteers spent much of the last year getting drunk and stoned on marijuana furnished by the federal government before getting behind the wheel.

The volunteers were part of what federal scientists say was the most comprehensive study ever conducted on how marijuana, and pot combined with alcohol, affect drivers. The data now being analyzed ultimately will help regulators decide how stoned is too stoned to drive. It's similar to the studies conducted to develop levels for drunken driving. Volunteers were recruited from around Iowa City, home to the University of Iowa's National Advanced Driving Simulator.

"They were happy to participate," says Marilyn Huestis, chief of chemistry and drug metabolism at the Intramural Research Program at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

RELATED: Roadside tests check for impairment

The participants never got on real roads. Instead, they drove for about 40 minutes behind the wheel of NADS, a federally funded simulator that can mimic the look and feel of everything from urban parking lots to darkened gravel roads. Deer jump out unexpectedly. Passing cars swerve.

Before getting behind the NADS wheel, each volunteer was required to consume specific combinations of marijuana and alcohol, or a placebo. Because the university has a smoke-free campus, the volunteers had to use a vaporizer to consume their marijuana, which was furnished under strict rules by a federal garden at the University of Mississippi.

Each of the 19 drivers who completed the six combinations of pot and alcohol gave blood and saliva tests during their drives to check intoxication levels, Huestis says. She says the entire experiment took three years to design and administer.

The testing finished this spring, and now scientists are studying the 250 variables checked by the tests. They hope to have initial data available by October.

"In this country, there's a huge controversy over whether there should be zero tolerance or there should be some level that's acceptable. It's a terribly difficult problem," Huestis says. "We will be looking at what are the kinds of functions that are affected, and whether they are significantly different … whether alcohol is on board or not."

Colorado State Trooper J.J. Wolff has made a career of tracking down drunken and drugged drivers. As one of the state's leading experts in identifying impaired drivers, Wolff knows many Americans are watching what's happening on Colorado roads. He says he's not yet seen a major increase in stoned drivers, but state troopers are definitely looking.

"I have personally not seen more stoned drivers, not arrested more stoned drivers," says Wolff, who also trains new troopers on how to recognize impaired drivers. "From my point of view, that's good."

To check whether drivers might be impaired by alcohol, marijuana or prescription drugs, Wolff puts them through a series of voluntary roadside tests. The tests, which include standing on one leg while counting silently, and walking in a straight line, check someone's sense of time and motor skills. Marijuana, like alcohol, is a central nervous system depressant. That means it affects how someone perceives time, Wolff says.

"My first objective is to make sure you're OK to drive," he says.

One of the most useful tools police officers have is the portable breath test, which instantly checks a driver's intoxication level through the amount of alcohol they exhale. In the past few weeks, Wolff has been testing a new kind of rapid screening system for marijuana use. The test takes about 10 minutes, using a drop of saliva from a driver. Most of the commonly used marijuana tests require a blood draw and take days to yield results. Those tests can really tell only whether someone has used marijuana in the past week or so, not whether they are impaired now.

Wolff says the federal research will help by leading to specific guidelines on what's considered impaired. For alcohol, police generally say that someone with a blood-alcohol level of .08% is too drunk to drive. Wolff and Huestis say decades of federal research on alcohol impairment has given lawmakers and police sound science upon which to base drunken-driving laws. Marijuana hasn't been studied as carefully.

Colorado has significantly boosted the number of "drug-recognition expert" officers patrolling its roads, and other states are following suit. In Cheyenne, Wyo., just north of the Colorado state line, all officers there have received special training to better recognize marijuana-impaired drivers.

"When it comes to cannabis, it's a lot trickier than when it comes to alcohol," Wolff says. "I can't tell you if one joint is going to make you high to the point where you can't drive. That's a really hard question to answer at this point. ... "The safest thing to do right now: If you are going to drink any amount, don't drive. And if you are going to consume any amount of cannabis, don't drive."