Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

victorix58 OP t1_je316ug wrote

Reply to comment by Low-Public-9948 in Lawmaker takes drug test to prove Pennsylvania DUI laws unfair by victorix58

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