APNewsBreak: Police seek help on drugged driving Yahoo / AP / 1,30,2012 ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - The federal government should help police departments nationwide obtain the tools and training needed to attack a rising scourge of driving under the influence, two U.S. senators said Sunday. Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Mark Pryor of Arkansas proposed that federal funding in a pending transportation funding bill be used for research and to train police. They said police have no equipment and few have training in identifying drugged drivers, who don't show the same outward signs of intoxication as drunken drivers do, such as slurred speech. "Cops need a Breathalyzer-like technology that works to identify drug-impaired drivers on-the-spot - before they cause irreparable harm," Schumer said. "With the explosive growth of prescription drug abuse it's vital that local law enforcement have the tools and training they need to identify those driving under the influence of narcotics to get them off the road." Drugged driving arrests have risen 35 percent in New York since 2001, Schumer said. He said that's a fraction of the cases. The Democrats cited a 2009 federal report in which 10.5 million Americans acknowledged that they had driven under the influence of drugs. Schumer said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in a 2007 roadside survey, more than 16 percent of weekend and night-time drivers tested positive for illegal prescription drugs or over-the-counter drugs. Eleven percent of them were found to have taken illegal drugs. The administration also found that a third of 12,055 drivers tested who died in car crashes in 2009 had used drugs. Yet police have no approved equipment to help identify drugged drivers, though saliva tests are being researched. Pryor wants to create federal grants so police can participate in programs that require up to 200 hours of instruction to detect drugged driving as well as to better detect drunken driving. Schumer said the effort is prompted in part by two fatal December crashes in the New York City area in which two boys - one 5 years old and the other, 4 - died. Prescription drug abuse is being investigated in both cases. First there was this: White House Drug Czar to Launch National Initiative Against Drugged Driving Then we heard this: New Hi-Tech Police Tool to Detect Marijuana Use Then we started hearing this: Drug Czar Warns on Drugged Driving Now they are trying to get congress to buy the detectors from Motorola/Phillips for billions of dollars if they intend on having them in every city across the nation. The ex-DEA administrator that was in office when the original decision to go after "drugged drivers" is now a lobbyist for Motorola,Karen Tandy. There are too many ex-drug warriors in businesses that would probably not exist except for the war on marijuana.
They hedge their bets on the side of prohibition, and when Wall Street is convinced its under their control, these same companies will of course be the ones to cash in on the other side of the spectrum once legalized. It mirrors politics so much. If you control both sides, no one ever need truly "win." The rich still control it no matter what.
You know people could simply avoid driving high. As long as it's only a short term level tester I don't see what the big deal is. I think it's reasonable that some people don't want people smoking shortly before or while they drive. There's already enough drunk drivers on the roads. We don't need a ton of stoned drivers adding to the mess. I realize that stoned drivers are safer than drunks, but I also know that this is one of the main arguments against legalization. All the concerned mothers etc always freak out and rage about how everybody would drive stoned cause there's no viable test for it. Everyone can't have their cake and eat it too. Compromises must be made in the name of progress. Keep in mind that while some people might be able to handle driving stoned there might be a lot of newer smokers who can't and they might freak out behind the wheel or do really stupid/careless things. If there was a tester that could reliably detect any use within the last 2-3 hours that would be fine.
what about pain relief and spasticity control? cannabis mitigates many symptoms that can actually make driving more dangerous and Id rather have people medicated and safe than have spasms while on the road. will there be an exception for those who medicate for spasm control you think? or shold they keep off the road alltogether you think?
Well that's where I could see any exception being made. If people genuinely need it for a legit medicinal reason and have proven that they can still drive safely I'm cool with that. My problem is more with all those people who have the opinion that it's fun to get blazed and then go driving. I mean probably 95% of those who drive high don't have a medicinal need to do so. And YES I know that driving high isn't all that bad. Some people even drive better high IMO. However this is from a public relations perspective.
I am tired of playing oh please master,,make some more bogus rules and throw more hoops up,,we can jump through them,. I am getting more towards letting them continue digging the hole,,their prisons and jails are full and the tax base has dropped substantially. If they will build more prisons,we will come.
See, stuff like this scares me. It only serves as a reminder that I am closer and closer to losing my license. If they ever impose a law with the technology to know what drugs are in my system, I'm just fucked. I have to take my medications, or I can't drive. Only two of my meds are considered "narcotic", and one of them is cannabis. Cannabis is not legal in my state at all, only slightly decriminalized. If they ever passed something like this here, I would just have to stop driving voluntarily, and only drive if it's an emergency in order to lower the risk of getting caught.