Is Marijuana legal in your state and do you want it to be?

My city just decriminalization the cultivation and consumption of hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Pretty much all independent studies have shown dre programs to be flawed, biased, and inaccurate... especially for weed. It's psudoscience at best. Your biases come through in the way you talk about giving duis almost giddily. I guarantee you wouldn't have any clue about the majority of people who you come in to contact with that are "high".... and there are a lot more than you'd ever suspect. Most weed tests also don't even check for thc, they check for byproducts of thc the body has broken down that remain in the body for weeks after any sort of impairment occurs. You wanna develop a thc threshold and test for thc directly, after failing a field sobriety test to determine impairment... fine. Using solely the judgement of a person using nonspecific signs(many of which mimic nervousness and anxiety that many sober people experience as well) even when they can't prove that person is impaired, no that's bullshit. All you're doing is catching people who happen to be "stoned" even when it had no bearing on their ability to drive. Especially when you think there is no difference between somebody using alcohol and somebody using weed. Alcohol has been proven time and time again to have a vastly more profound effect on coordination, cognition, and judgment.

:

I don't care if you want to smoke but if you drive while under the influence then I hope the cops DO catch you.

@Steppy_76:

@Stevo_the_gamer

I'm assuming Stevo would be using a field sobriety test in nearly every case?

Otherwise it's rather hard to prove impairment by marijuana no?

@appariti0n: that's the thing worth these dre's. You can pass the field sobriety tests and still be ticketed based on the "expert" opinion. The tests they do for Marijuana will only show if you've used it in the last several weeks and not if you are currently under the influence. I'm not advocating for smoking and driving, I'm merely pointing out that the standard for a Marijuana dui is based on bullshit.

AZ here and we're recreationally legal as of March, I believe. I don't care whether it's legal or not. It's legality or illegality never stopped people tbh

Yeah, I kinda knew from the start that having a definitive line where one is impaired/not impaired with weed, similar to the 0.08% or 0.05% BAC limit for alcohol would be very challenging.

I don't advocate for driving while under the influence of either, but if forced to choose, I'd take the stoned driver over the drunk driver any day of the week.

They can both kill you.

This will be fun!

Please feel free to provide any said studies regarding an internationally recognized, validated, and accredited program. I always like updating my curriculum vitae to include any research. So weird, you would think such "pseudoscience" would have been laughed out of court by now ... maybe the courts and attorneys just aren't as intelligent as you?

Your biases come through in the way you talk about giving duis almost giddily. I guarantee you wouldn't have any clue about the majority of people who you come in to contact with that are "high".... and there are a lot more than you'd ever suspect.

Of course I'm biased! I teach new recruits in the academy on DUI enforcement, DUI case law, and the standardized field sobriety testing. I also teach new officers as a field training officer and am in control of our inhouse DUI training program. I'm also endorsed by the IACP and currently a California certified instructor! Not a DRE instructor, yet sadly. Oh and the work I do with MADD/donations. Every DUI arrest is saving lives from either death or injury. I'm always excited to help make the streets safer and make a (small) dint in a huge societal issue.

As for that last quip, exactly! There's a large number of impaired drivers out there that do not get caught, sometimes even by trained observers. That should worry everyone, especially in a society where drugs are becoming more "social." Nevermind the prescription pill abuse which are fairly overt.

Plus, I get these cool little things!

Most weed tests also don't even check for thc, they check for byproducts of thc the body has broken down that remain in the body for weeks after any sort of impairment occurs.

This is why blood tests and crime lab criminologists get the lovely opportunity to discuss the difference between active and inactive.

You wanna develop a thc threshold and test for thc directly, after failing a field sobriety test to determine impairment... fine.

I doubt we will ever see a per se limit for any narcotic. Like alcohol however, just because you're under the per se limit does not mean you're not impaired.

Using solely the judgement of a person using nonspecific signs(many of which mimic nervousness and anxiety that many sober people experience as well) even when they can't prove that person is impaired, no that's bullshit.

Non-specific signs? And yes! As an California peace officer, I get the "powa" to make a decision based on the totality of the circumstances and use probable cause to place the shiny bracelets on those wrists. If they want to argue, that's why they go to court - and I love court.

All you're doing is catching people who happen to be "stoned" even when it had no bearing on their ability to drive. Especially when you think there is no difference between somebody using alcohol and somebody using weed. Alcohol has been proven time and time again to have a vastly more profound effect on coordination, cognition, and judgment.

I don't even know where to begin with this one. We can agree to disagree. lol

@LJS9502_basic: Absolutely agree. This is a "lesser of two evils" conversation imo.

In the case of impaired driving there is no "lesser".

Every time they shall be given if there's any objective signs and symptoms of impairment. But you may not be able to do it (or have to do limited/modified tests) if the driver is involved in a vehicle collision and driver goes to the hospital, or the driver refuses to participate in the process.

@LJS9502_basic:

You may feel that way, but I dont think glossing over the difference between drunk drivers, and those stoned on weed achieves anything.

Remember drug education in school?

At my school at least, we were told that drugs are bad. Period. No distinction between weed, and heroin for example.

I believe this led many kids to no longer trust adults on this, once they found out that weed is downright benign compared to some of the harder drugs. If they lied about weed, maybe they were lying about everything else!

For the purpose of the law, we perhaps agree there should be no legal distinction between the two though.

I'm not arguing the severity of drugs. I'm saying when someone is impaired they are a danger to others and shouldn't be driving.

@LJS9502_basic: I 100% agree.

But this can be true, at the same time as the fact that drunk drivers, are (in general) the more dangerous of two types of impaired drivers.

@LJS9502_basic: Here's an analogy, which I hope works for this purpose:

Encountering a bear in the wild, or a moose during the rutting season.

Both are dangerous and you don't really want to run into either.

But if I was forced to choose? I'd prefer to run into the bear 10 times out of 10.

Impairment is impairment. There is no degree difference.

@LJS9502_basic: Do you think someone who has had 4 beers is more or less impaired than a person with similar tolerance/weight/height who has had 12 beers?

That's a bad reading of the situation. Anyway most alcoholics have a higher tolerance than those who drink rarely. So the 4 beers actually could be more dangerous but society sets it's limits. My point is this, whether impaired by marijuana or alcohol, you are a danger and should not operate a motor vehicle.

But using your hyperbole in analogies then I guess if your family was killed/injured/your property destroyed by someone under the influence and the cops said it was marijuana, your response would be that's better than if they were drunk. That's irrational.

@LJS9502_basic: Sorry you feel that way, but you appear to be the one being irrational right now, by conflating me admitting that there are varying levels of impairment, with "being impaired is no big deal". I've never said that, nor have I even implied it. Yet that seems to be all you're willing to take away from this discussion.

My point is this, whether impaired by marijuana or alcohol, you are a danger and should not operate a motor vehicle.

I don't know how many more times I need to agree with this statement, or some variant of it before you understand I'm not advocating for driving while under the influence of any substance.

Why are you even picking between the two then? Makes no sense.

@LJS9502_basic: Because it's a hypothetical, and I was curious to get an actual cop's opinion. I also wanted to see if what he observed, in any way matched up with what I have anecdotally experienced. I mean, how many times do you hear "alcohol was a factor" vs "Marijuana was a factor" in relation to a news report where an accident occured?

As far as you and I though, we both believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that as far as the LAW is concerned, there IS no difference, nor should there be.

I think because alcohol is easier to detect perhaps? I have been saying all along there is no difference because impairment is just that so the law shouldn't differentiate.

@LJS9502_basic: I disagree with the idea that impairment is a binary concept. There are definitely varying levels of impairment.

I do agree the law should treat it as a yes/no situation however.

And yes, probably some truth there, alcohol is far easier to measure impairment somewhat objectively anyhow.

See you are equivocating on impairment. I gave you an example earlier that alcoholics are more functional after drinking than those who drink rarely. They have a tolerance for it. The drinker who rarely drinks can be more of a risk of accidents. But that law picks a standard and all who violate it are going through the court system. I'm not arguing that point. But when you try to quibble over one being better than the other that is when I say it's irrational. Impairment is a danger, yes? Then there is no better.

@LJS9502_basic: I don't see myself equivocating on anything.

I've been very insistent from the start, that real world impairment is more of a spectrum, rather than a binary choice of impaired/not impaired. As far as the law is concerned though, there is not, and should not be any distinction.

Your example of the career alcoholic who may be more functional with 12 beers, than an amateur at 4 beers, while definitely sometimes true, does not counter my previous point, as I clearly said "assuming similar weight, tolerance, etc". A career alcoholic does not have the same tolerance as the rest of us.

The more of a substance you use the more tolerant you are with said substance. Obviously if you drink too much you are legally over the limit. That doesn't mean you're more at risk of an accident than someone who drank less but has no tolerance.

I take it you smoke marijuana? You seem to defend it's use. I don't see a difference. Taking the law side out of the equation and talking impairment means you are incapable of proper responses/attention while driving. I don't get this degrees of impairment you seem fond of protecting TBH.

@appariti0n: there is a difference in the law though. You can legally operate a motor vehicle with up to a .08 bac(provided you don't display signs of impairment). You are still impaired from "peak" ability even if your impairment is insignificant enough to still safely operate a motor vehicle.

It isn't legal in Maryland for recreational use. I wouldn't mind if it was. The state government is missing out on a windfall.

@Steppy_76: Yes, and I should clarify.

Someone at 0.06 in your scenario is considered "not impaired" in the eyes of the law.

Two people, one who is at 0.1, and another at 0.25, are both "impaired" in the eyes of the law, with no distinction between the two legally.

I can't speak for other states, but in California we have a specific statute here which explains presumptions.

• 0.00 to 0.04, presumed to be not under the influence;
• 0.05 to 0.07, no presumption/arguable based on facts;
• 0.08 and above, presumed to be under the influence.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Right. But once you're over 0.08 and considered impaired, you're not considered "more impaired" from a legal standpoint at say, 0.25 as far as I know.

@Stevo_the_gamer: We used to have a limit of 0.08 here too, before they would take any action against you. It has been lowered to 0.05, and I'm kinda shocked it took this long.

A few years back, I spent good money on a police grade breathalyzer, to keep in my vehicle. Just so I could be reasonably sure of where I stood before making the decision to drive.

The results? I learned that 0.08 is actually QUITE impaired in my opinion. And I always assumed 0.08 would feel as though one was just beginning to feel a slight effect from alcohol.

Now I have kids, so I'm literally never out at pubs, and when I do, I just use uber. Got rid of the breathalyzer too, once friends of mine started trying to see they could beat the high score. :P

Correct, but there are sentencing enhancements/additional penalties depending on your BAC. California has enhanced penalties if your BAC was over a .15%, and an even more harsh penalty if you're over a .20%. However, the actual criminal case itself -- be it if you were a .08 or a .28 remains the same.

I have issues with those consumer "bac testers;" a) encourages risky behavior because the average citizen doesn't understand what impairment entails, b) they're inaccurate and/or not calibrated, and c) susceptible to errors/mouth alcohol, or user error.

And yes, it takes A LOT of alcohol to reach the per se limit of .08%. Some of the best DUI training I ever received in the academy and the DRE course was actual exposure to controlled drinkers in a "wet lab." Seeing how many drinks correlates to BAC based on the individual was fascinating.

I would love to assist law enforcement in any way I can. Do these "wet labs" take volunteers? And is it BYOB or is alcohol provided?

For science and the greater good, of course.

😁

Where does "wet and reckless" factor in? I work in the alcohol industry so naturally I know a lot of people that have received DUI's or been pulled over while under the influence, sometimes they say they argued it down to a "wet and reckless" or there was some grey area where they were sitting in their car with the keys in the ignition, but not actually driving, and were charged with a "wet and reckless".

It’s legal where I am but I don’t agree with it. Too many people get dumb and lazy when they are high, as if our society needs more people like that.

What is wet and reckless? Is that a California thing?

@LJS9502_basic: Sounds like an adult movie title lol.

Not sure about the California thing, but wet and reckless (to my knowledge) is essentially like getting a DUI, but less severe; I don't think the fines are as steep, and it doesn't stay on your record as long.

I'm more curious in its application, whether it is up to the officer's discretion, or if it something determined in court.

From what I gather it seems to be determined on the severity of the infraction. The people I know that got them were in weird situations, i.e.

• literally in their driveway when the cop came up to them (because they saw them driving weird a few blocks earlier and didn't get to the driver until they were home)
• I think one had a BAC of like 0.02 and the judge was like "meh" and thought it was nonsense.
• The other was pulled over sleeping it off but since they technically had the keys in the ignition it counted as a "vehicle in motion" or something like that and they got a DUI, but were able to reduce it to a wet and reckless.

*edit: found a good explanation here https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/dui/plea-bargains/wet-reckless/

That it does.

haha yup.

@mrbojangles25: I've never seen it happen actually. I've heard of the concept and it's in relation to DUIs under the per se limit. Our DA will just drop the case if he/she believes it won't be prosecutable, instead of charging reckless.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Thanks for your input btw. Always helpful to hear from actual police on what's actually happening.