Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

victorix58 OP t1_je2urne wrote

Reply to comment by SeptasLate in Lawmaker takes drug test to prove Pennsylvania DUI laws unfair by victorix58

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