Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheJohnMega t1_je2n83s wrote

The corporal who clearly is an asshole claims if you used Marijuana 24 hours ago You are still impaired lmfao I wish what I used 24 hours ago was still working

187

victorix58 OP t1_je2ov9v wrote

He didn't even bother to try to rationalize it with how much you use. Or reference any sort of study (because there isn't any). Standard state trooper bullshit, I'm sorry to say.

95

TheJohnMega t1_je2pez3 wrote

Exactly his 'expertise' is just willful ignorance

51

godofleet t1_je36ec4 wrote

yeah, he gets paid to put as many people as possible into for-profit prisons... :/

25

Arlaneutique t1_je4onb9 wrote

I can not stand how if you aren’t a fan of the police you’re an asshole. Just like everything else lee in this country the system Is BROKEN!

5

just_ge0ff t1_je56wx5 wrote

This is one of the (many!) reasons why I despise state troopers!

4

Zenith2017 t1_jefqpj4 wrote

Also how is a fking corporal the head of any agency?

2

Exodys03 t1_je31uqo wrote

Kudos. The existing law can saddle people with a life altering DUI solely because testing is able to detect THC far longer than alcohol. If politicians or police were being charged with DUI for the drinks they had a month ago, the law would be changed before tomorrow.

146

doransignal t1_je32wuc wrote

If a chem major could make an accurate test for the short term they would become a multi millionaire overnight.

42

Repo_co t1_je4cok6 wrote

An accurate, COST EFFECTIVE, THC (not metabolites test. I'm pretty sure THC, the psychoactive component that is generally gone within hours, is detectable in urine tests. It just takes several hours to run the tests and is too expensive for law enforcement.

20

Jerryjb63 t1_je5x56j wrote

I’m one of those people!

4

Jerryjb63 t1_je5xo68 wrote

I got a DUI because I had a trace of marijuana in my system and I also had one drink and that was enough to convict me even though passed a field sobriety test. If you have any trace of 2 substances they will charge you. Zero tolerance. I was legal to drive with my BAC but because of the trace amounts of marijuana in my system, they assumed I was under the influence of 2 substances and BAC goes out the window. I got ARD, a year probation, lost my license, and about $5,000 taken from me.

5

frickinheck420 t1_je9qdl6 wrote

Yes! Coworkers fiance has a med card, got into a car accident to avoid being swiped by a white truck who cut him off from the left lane to get onto the exit ramp. Driver drove off but her fiance was wandering up the highway bloody and confused due to a head injury. Police took him and drug tested because they assumed he was high and caused the accident and didn't get him medical attention. Once he came to he explained what happened. They didn't bother finding the guy who almost ran off the road but charged him with a DUI and house arrest!

1

Bowie-Rapped-A-Teen t1_je5uss1 wrote

To be fair, as a card holder myself, it really irks me how common it is to see someone getting out their car at the dispensary throwing out their THC vape they were just using as they walk in to refill and start hitting again as they drive off.

−2

Exodys03 t1_je6m81c wrote

I don’t disagree but the law should be based on an individual’s impairment. Nobody wants people out on the road drunk or stoned (at least I don’t).

The problem with testing for cannabis as opposed to alcohol is that, as the law currently exists, there is no real correlation between testing positive and actual impairment. A blood alcohol level is a pretty fair indication of someone’s impairment.

Politician love “zero tolerance” laws to sound tough on crime. Zero tolerance for cannabis just means that thousands of unimpaired drivers will be charged with DUI. Even if you don’t care about the repercussions for individuals, that is a huge waste of time, money and law enforcement resources, IMO.

2

ArcherChase t1_je3h8jx wrote

Sadly there is zero trust with police. Since testing for THC levels isn't an accurate measurement of impairment, I normally would say have a field test. However, I've seen my multiple examples just this week of police abusing this and trying to bring in people for DUI with no alcohol in their system. They can't be trusted to treat THC impairment without a physical test.

This is yet another reason why the police suck. We cannot have good laws because those with the power to enforce them, abuse that power immediately and constantly.

55

SeptasLate t1_je2runf wrote

The way it currently functions definitely isn't fair but there still needs to be some way to discourage people from driving impaired.

36

victorix58 OP t1_je2urne wrote

Edit: Please do not downvote u/SeptasLate for this legitimate concern.

Nothing suggests that there wouldn't be deterrents in place for impaired driving. I'm a criminal defense lawyer; allow me to explain for those who might not know.

Two types of DUI laws exist in PA, each with two sub-varieties. Those are alcohol-based DUI laws and drug based DUI laws.

Alcohol is subdivided into alcohol impairment DUIs and having a certain level of alcohol in your blood. You can be prosecuted in either circumstance.

Drug is differently subdivided into drug impairment and having ANY level of an illegal, non-prescription drug in your blood. Medical marijuana is not by prescription, only legally authorized, and so can still be prosecuted for any level.

All we have to do to make it fair, is to change marijuana from the ANY level DUI into a certain high level of THC which has been shown by study to cause impairment (like alcohol does). Right now, it's unfair because we KNOW it doesn't impair you at certain levels and yet it is still against the law and you WILL be prosecuted regardless of your lack of impairment.

48

Low-Public-9948 t1_je2z5zx wrote

How to you gage what that level is though? THC effects people differently.

How do you prevent it from being the money-making machine that alcohol-related DUI’s has become?

5

victorix58 OP t1_je316ug wrote

Alcohol effects people differently too though. If you're taking that tack, you would be suggesting get rid of the blood alcohol content laws as well. They are also generalizations based upon non-specific data.

I mean, we could do that, but it doesn't have as great of a logic or fairness justification. And I personally do not know that I would want to.

26

Tyrotoxism44 t1_je48nwy wrote

I once attended a class where a medical marijuana pharmacist spoke. He worked for dispensaries and “prescribed” the medical marijuana to the people that came in. He had the doctorate degree to go with the title.

He was adamantly against a per se limit like alcohol. He agreed that it should not be zero tolerance like we currently have, but also believed that THC affected people more then the per se limits of alcohol. A daily user could have an incredibly high dosage of THC in their system and not be impaired and someone who uses THC for the first time could be very messed up off one puff.

He took the route of proving impairment which more research needs to be done on. There are officers that have some testing in drug recognition, but more scientific research could be done.

It was interesting hearing his point of view as an expert and someone who was obviously very pro medical marijuana.

7

BrainWav t1_je4sfs6 wrote

The BAC limit is there to define a legal standard. Just going off of field observation is dangerous since it adds a large space for interpretation.

8

Low-Public-9948 t1_je4njxe wrote

I was quite literally asking your thought. I don’t condone impaired driving whatsoever, but the system in place isn’t designed to truly help people who get DUI’s. All that aside, we do have breathalyzers to measure BAC..fairly accurately. Field sobriety tests certainly help but seem significantly more open to opinion rather than fact. How do we find out if you just smoked an hour ago versus 5 days ago, a month ago. How far does government have to be up our ass? All things to consider

1

victorix58 OP t1_je78nug wrote

A blood test will show significantly higher levels if you just smoked a month ago vs. just smoked an hour ago. Like 50nanograms per ml vs. 5ng/ml.

Blood tests are absolutely standard in DUI investigations. They just don't care the level of the results in marijuana right now. They should, if we are seeking to punish actual impairment.

1

Low-Public-9948 t1_je80zug wrote

So everyone suspected of driving under the influence has to submit to a blood test?

1

victorix58 OP t1_je83um2 wrote

You dont have to, but they will suspend your license if you dont. they will still prosecute you as well.

1

Low-Public-9948 t1_je9p901 wrote

Imagine for a second that you don’t intake THC, in any way, ever. One day you get pulled over and are suspected driving impaired. Seems like a flawed system to me.

1

Braggolach t1_je346r6 wrote

In order for there to be a tort there has to be a harm. Let God decide

−21

victorix58 OP t1_je3547q wrote

I'm pretty sure God thinks we should have laws to deter drunk drivers from killing people.

12

bk1285 t1_je34dnc wrote

Especially as someone who was arrested for a DUI for thc may also be required to have the ignition interlock system installed in their vehicle and will have to pay all the fees for that when they are being tested for a substance they have never been found guilty to have used while driving

9

victorix58 OP t1_je78tsp wrote

They will also have to do "Alcohol Highway Safety School Classes" even though their DUI has nothing to do with alcohol. Our DUI laws are never being updated to be fair to defendants. Just to increase punishments for political capital with voters.

2

bk1285 t1_je7hacb wrote

“We’re being tough on crime”

I tell people I work with especially if their case hits the news, like yeah they are going to toss the book at you so they can say that they are tough on crime, but they will most likely plea you way down so they can get the guilty plea so that can say “look how many convictions I got, I’m tough on crime”

2

Yen-sama t1_je3krj0 wrote

>Nothing suggests that there wouldn't be deterrents in place for impaired driving

There are already two major deterrents in place. 1. The risk of killing or at least seriously injuring somebody including yourself, and 2. The risk of getting pulled over, arrested, charged with DUI, jailed, and fined out the ass.

If someone isn't deterred by these two possibilities, what hope is there for them?

5

SeptasLate t1_je2vxc7 wrote

Yeah and I agree with that, but the article mentions NJ as an alternative despite its system currently under review by their state courts.

I suppose what I was trying to say is that I commend that rep for pushing to change the laws but I'm confused why they didn't mention what the effective/acceptable alternative would be which appears to be raising the baseline for the in the system. Does this require a blood test?

1

victorix58 OP t1_je2yiaw wrote

> Does this require a blood test?

Yes. It is pretty standard to do blood tests in both alcohol and drug DUIs.

Alcohol also has the option, which isn't available for drug, to do a more reliable breath test on a machine that can be maintained at the police station. The breathalyzers or "preliminary breath tests" that they have on the side of the road are not admissible at trial and do not detect drugs, so they are just used as a guidepost on whether there is enough reason to send it for a more reliable test.

6

SeptasLate t1_je2yrf4 wrote

That makes sense. Thanks for sharing the information

1

WingedChimera t1_je2xqdb wrote

Colorado Department of Transportation did a study on the effects of cannabis on driving and found the standard of deviation was higher than the impairment.

Folks out here doing studies with government money proving smoking reasonable amounts of pot doesn’t impair driving and yet folks still want to listen to 89 years of propaganda.

16

SeptasLate t1_je30xm1 wrote

Are you sure youre not mixing up the research that focused on CBD? It seems their research conflicts with your point.

I don't think thr Colorado Department of Transportation would make a statement like "There are many misconceptions about marijuana use, including rumors that it can’t impair your ability to drive or that it can actually make you a safer driver. Several scientific studies indicate that this is false" if their scientific studies said otherwise. https://www.codot.gov/safety/impaired-driving/druggeddriving/data

4

Spookyvision404 t1_je4l820 wrote

I’d like to point out, if you are convicted of driving under influence of a controlled substance (marijuana in this case), the mandatory minimum is 12 month license suspension, 72 hours in hours in prison, and $1000 fine along with safety school classes and treatment if recommended. In the alternative if you’re offered ARD, your going to lose your license for 60 days and pay easily over $1500 in fines, court costs, etc. This is ridiculous considering the police do not use any reliable tests to determine impairment. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests were created to test for alcohol impairment and NOT marijuana impairment. The current Field sobriety tests are unreliable when it comes to an indication of marijuana impairment and people with a prescription are paying the high price of a DUI charge for seeking a non pharmaceutical alternative.

19

heili t1_je5vl5q wrote

> Standardized Field Sobriety Tests were created to test for alcohol impairment and NOT marijuana impairment. The current Field sobriety tests are unreliable when it comes to an indication of marijuana impairment

The only "field sobriety test" that has any scientific basis is a properly administered horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and even that is easily rendered completely inaccurate by things like holding the object too close or too far from someone's face, moving the object too fast, incorrect angle, not viewing the eyes at eye level, movement of the fluid in the inner ear, dry eyes, caffeine, contact lenses, stress, smoking, seizure medication and antidepressants.

So that one is garbage too. Field Sobriety Tests (the dog-and-pony show) exist for no other reason than that they will almost certainly be used to claim probable cause to force an arrest and chemical testing.

3

Spookyvision404 t1_je7kn3o wrote

Agreed, I just didn’t want to go down the rabbit hole of how much of a garbage science the SFSTs really are.

1

TheJohnMega t1_je4rlnl wrote

The arrogance of the corporal to imply anyone is still impaired 24 hours later would be comparable to me saying You took your insulin 24 hours ago Your blood sugar must still be at acceptable levels or You took your blood pressure medication 24 hours ago It Must still be working

14

thescorch t1_je6t69e wrote

How can they even determine when you took it? A daily user can test positive for months after stopping and the time it takes you to test clean varies greatly from person to person.

3

Thecrawsome t1_je4q974 wrote

The incentive to arrest people is in conflict with our own liberty. It doesn't need to be marijuana It will be something else. They get their money by preying on people.

5

Kneedeep_in_Cyanide t1_je3eqzl wrote

>Currently, there is no roadside test or technology to determine levels of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that gets you high and prove impairment.

Sure there is. Just offer them a twinkie

3

enbyriver t1_je4bdgo wrote

But yet there's legally a certain level of alcohol you can drink and still get behind a wheel minutes later. Make it make sense...

3

B0MBOY t1_je4jkr9 wrote

The reality is we’re at the limit of technical knowledge. The tests are super sensitive, and the experts can’t agree on a level of thc that accurately reflects impairment because it’s not as consistent as alcohol.

I’d suggest we structure our laws so it’s only a dui if the person fails and impairment test and a drug test. If they pass the impairment test they should be off the hook. But I don’t believe we should be enabling more DUI because of how much damage they can do

1

BlowMeWanKenobi t1_je58blm wrote

I mean. Where possible, keep the standards as they are. There's no reason to change DUI's as the pertain to alcohol.

1

No_Mission1856 t1_jedhbc1 wrote

Well imagine that something we all knew anyway.....

1

Patrollerofthemojave t1_jeehma7 wrote

I got one for weed while driving a drunk friend home.

I'm not saying I shouldn't have been punished but you're immediately placed in the highest tier which is the same as a .016 or above BAC. That's ridiculous and completely out of line with actual data on drunk/high driving

I should note I wasn't pulled over for bad driving. My headlight was out.

1

lidocainedreams t1_je5e35a wrote

Yep. Can confirm that I was given a DUI solely because I had THC in my system from weeks prior. Passed the roadside olympics & breathalyzer with flying colors. Statey was deeeeetermined to get me with something. I have a medical card too so the whole thing makes no sense 🙃🙃

0

worstatit t1_je4p7b5 wrote

Does the lawmaker squawking on here they are safe to drive "the next day" accept this for a CDL driver of a gasoline tanker riding by their children's school? How about Greyhound or transit rail operators? Industrial workers whose mistake could cause a chemical release?

−7

TheJohnMega t1_je4qu2j wrote

Absolutely I would prefer someone who used Marijuana the night before operating those vehicles
INSTEAD of someone hungover or popping Xanax or other 'acceptable pharmaceuticals'

8

worstatit t1_je4wosg wrote

Aside from preference, do you think it's ok? Most studies show intoxication and impairment from marijuana (two different things) vary widely between individuals, with product strength, means of ingestion, regularity of use, etc., all being factors. I would prefer someone with a habitual high alcohol tolerance to drive drunk, rather than a new years eve rookie, but they're still dui.

1

TheJohnMega t1_je4zgph wrote

Truthfully I don't want anyone driving impaired Everyone processes and handles what they ingest differently so it's not an exact science Sure there are functional alcoholics and coke heads and pill poppers doing all kinds of jobs you wouldn't expect but it's reality Cannabis has always been demonized by some and always will be unfortunately And now Medical Marijuana patients are the biggest safety hazard on Pennsylvania roadways? Rediculous

2

worstatit t1_je502s0 wrote

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro cannabis, including recreational. I'm very anti-dui, and would love to see an objective intoxication test. This appears to be a struggle.

4

BlowMeWanKenobi t1_je57zfp wrote

24hours later? No one. Not a single person. Ever. Has been impaired 24 hours after weed.

2

worstatit t1_je5owhj wrote

Can't say. The studies I looked at stopped testing after 10. Apparently some impairment was measurable in some subjects. I was under the impression we were talking about smoking at perhaps 9 or 10 in the evening, then driving to work at 7 in the morning. Regardless, state law is pretty certain in it's wording...

0

heili t1_je5w491 wrote

They probably stopped testing at 10 hours because they couldn't find a single study subject who was still impaired at 10 hours. In that case it's asinine to think that 14 hours after they were unable to detect any impairment that someone would suddenly magically just be impaired again.

1

worstatit t1_je653v0 wrote

Well, do as you like and take your chances...

2