Would you guys and gals agree to the option of making weed legal if it would be controlled like drunk driving? By that I mean weed is legal (according to your terms and conditions) but you cant go to work or drive high or past a certain "limit of highness". Just like a DUI check you breath into a breathalyzer and it says something like how much youve smoke in the past 4 hours and how much thc is in your body right now, something like that. There are people who cant function like a basic human being but others can.
I don't like the limits on how much you can have in your system or what number you test at to determine if you are too stoned to drive or not. I think it should be more like a roadside impairment test to test reflexes, judgement/response appropriateness and thinks like that. Sanjay Gupta did a hour long program on Marijuana for CNN. In the program they covered influence of pot use on driving ability and safety. Newer pot users were likely to be negatively influenced. Those who had been using for a long time are not nearly as likely to be. I've been using pot since '67. I agree.
Absolutely. And FST's are severely flawed. If i was too be pulled over and was 100% sober I'd still massively fail.
It's actually one of the regulations for legalization in CO and WA. Driving under the influence of MJ is still driving under the influence. We'll soon see what methods are put into place to uphold these laws but I think your idea is on track " The memo also outlines eight priorities for federal prosecutors enforcing marijuana laws. According to the guidance, DOJ will still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent: the distribution of marijuana to minors; revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels; the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states; state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity; violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use; growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html
Not really no, weed doesn't impair your driving or working abilities the way alcohol does, that said I don't ever go to work high, i do drive high and I drive perfectly fine high but I know people that can't drive for shit when they're high, i don't really know what the right answer to this is, my main point was just that weed doesn't affect you in the same way alcohol does, so I don't think it should be treated the same way in legal terms
I would completely agree to all of these standards. I drive high when I need to but I know it will fuck up your driving... I just hope they don't pin all alcohol/tobacco regulations to Marijuana. They should be making regulations like "legal age" based on research and marijuana itself... Not the generic 18 or 21 options. I honestly think 16 would be a good age.
I think 21 is a good barrier age. By 21 the state recognized that you've matured enough to use alchohol. The only problem i see with the roadside impairment test is officer discretion. If it's totally up to an officers discretion, what happens when we run into an anti-pot officer? Any pot use may cause him to issue a dui. Atleast with a breathylizer there is something solid to base a DUI on. Even then it's still like pot. .08 for person A, and .08 for person B could be totally different. Person A may be able to drive and function but person B could be falling on the floor. They need some sort of method for testing thc content in your blood. Portable blood strip test or something.
Yeah. It's better then not being able to drive at all. I wonder what they will come up with to determine the level of impairment.
I suppose that would be a starting point. If level of intoxication is going to be based on discretion, then we should throw all of our dui/public intoxication laws out the window. Why make the limit .08 if someone behaves fine at .11? You can't have laws for one drug based on across the board limitation, and laws for another based on discretion.
Dude there should be like, this driving test that you have to take stoned, and if you pass it you get an upgraded toker's license so you can cruise and blaze
Blood content should definitely not be a criteria any more than a number on a breath test should, and for the same reasons. Some people function fine on high levels while other people do not. Only a "on the spot" impairment test can be fair and honest. They can be completely technical with very little, if any, room for the tester's discretion or influence on the results. Either the test subject passes or fails. Either they can or they can't successfully complete a task. Nothing ambiguous about it.
If you are a "HEAVY" smoker like I am at some point in your life you have taken a toke and the world has gone black for a few seconds. If you are driving at the time you can cause a crash. It happened to me on a trip across the mountains between Mora and Taos N.M. I took a toke and the world wend black. When it came back there was a car coming at me in my lane. A couple of seconds more and I couldn't have taken the evasive action I took to avoid being hit head on. Ever since that experience I don't toke while driving. I do drive while stoned though.
It doesn't matter. In the eyes of the law we are all equals. A Nascar driver can easily control a car at 110mph. Does that mean they should have a different speed limit to follow on the freeway? Of course not. Laws don't apply differently to you because you have [or, in most cases, THINK you have] more ability than others.