Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheJohnMega t1_je4qu2j wrote

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

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