Ross Siler ‏@rosssiler

Just realized that if Washington state legalizes pot today, Seattle becomes prime NBA free-agent destination.

I fully lean towards legalization.

 

My only concern is regarding how police determine how to determine if one is impaired while driving.

 

I'm definitely pro legalization as well...although I had literally NEVER though about the impaired driving testing. That's a BIG problem that I think would HAVE to require solving first.

I fully lean towards legalization.

 

My only concern is regarding how police determine how to determine if one is impaired while driving.

 

I think they use the Twinkie test. Give the impaired driver a box and see how long it takes him/her to eat them all. If he/she finishes the entire box = totally high!

You can get a DUI for being high right now.

You can get a DUI for being high right now.

 

I was just going to ask that. Why would it be any different than it is now?

You can get a DUI for being high right now.

 

Correct...but I'd have to guess that DUI's for being under the influence of THC are rarely assessed without another charge (possession, paraphernalia, etc).

 

It's illegal to HAVE weed, period. The primary charge (my assumption) would be the possession, and the DUI is another charge tacked on after they have you arrested for the first charge. You make possession legal, then they don't have any reason to detain you other than some kind of justified suspicion of THX intoxication...we all know how much difficulty people have with police saying "a subject was acting drunk". Seems like when there's no quick test (i.e. - breathalyzer) to test for the presence, and blood testing is what's required, there's going to be a whoooooole lot of people pointing fingers at cops for hassling them at a traffic stop when they suspect weed is in your system.

Is a field sobriety test adequate for conviction, or does it need to be backed up by analytical testing?

Correct...but I'd have to guess that DUI's for being under the influence of THC are rarely assessed without another charge (possession, paraphernalia, etc).

 

It's illegal to HAVE weed, period. The primary charge (my assumption) would be the possession, and the DUI is another charge tacked on after they have you arrested for the first charge. You make possession legal, then they don't have any reason to detain you other than some kind of justified suspicion of THX intoxication...we all know how much difficulty people have with police saying "a subject was acting drunk". Seems like when there's no quick test (i.e. - breathalyzer) to test for the presence, and blood testing is what's required, there's going to be a whoooooole lot of people pointing fingers at cops for hassling them at a traffic stop when they suspect weed is in your system.

I'd say you are probably right on that part, but not certain.

 

Cops have the same avenues provided to them as a DUI for alcohol when the actual alcohol isn't present in the car such as field sobreity tests, smell of marijuana on the suspect or in the vehicle, driving patterns, etc. The only difference is you don't have the breathalyzer, however anyone can refuse a breathalyzer if they'd like to. While a DUI for getting high is probably harder to detect I don't see the legality making it any harder to detect. If your driving around in a car that reeks of pot I'd say you are going to (and should) get hassled legal or not.

 

Since the police already have methods in place to determine DUI's I don't think making pot legal would change that. It's already there.

Is a field sobriety test adequate for conviction, or does it need to be backed up by analytical testing?

 

If the subject wants, they need to be given a blood test as well. However, if the police request a blood test you can refuse it once every 4 years.

Would be huge for Frito-Lay too.

Correct...but I'd have to guess that DUI's for being under the influence of THC are rarely assessed without another charge (possession, paraphernalia, etc).

 

It's illegal to HAVE weed, period. The primary charge (my assumption) would be the possession, and the DUI is another charge tacked on after they have you arrested for the first charge. You make possession legal, then they don't have any reason to detain you other than some kind of justified suspicion of THX intoxication...we all know how much difficulty people have with police saying "a subject was acting drunk". Seems like when there's no quick test (i.e. - breathalyzer) to test for the presence, and blood testing is what's required, there's going to be a whoooooole lot of people pointing fingers at cops for hassling them at a traffic stop when they suspect weed is in your system.

 

:lol: Just noticed that little oopsy...

 

 

"Oh my gosh, I'm so intoxicated by this excellent sound quality..."

 

 

Correct...but I'd have to guess that DUI's for being under the influence of THC are rarely assessed without another charge (possession, paraphernalia, etc).

 

It's illegal to HAVE weed, period. The primary charge (my assumption) would be the possession, and the DUI is another charge tacked on after they have you arrested for the first charge. You make possession legal, then they don't have any reason to detain you other than some kind of justified suspicion of THX intoxication...we all know how much difficulty people have with police saying "a subject was acting drunk". Seems like when there's no quick test (i.e. - breathalyzer) to test for the presence, and blood testing is what's required, there's going to be a whoooooole lot of people pointing fingers at cops for hassling them at a traffic stop when they suspect weed is in your system.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but I don't think a DUI is something that is just tacked on as an extra charge. In most cases the person would probably be demonstrating behaviors that lead the officer to believe they are intoxicated which would be the main reason for any extended time this person is detained. Paraphernalia would likely be found after the officer has already determined the person is under the influence.

 

As for police detecting someone being high...it ain't hard. If you have seen anyone while they're high it's not hard to detect. Add in the fact that police are trained to detect whether or not someone is intoxicated and many are trained well enough that they can pinpoint what kind of drugs a person is using.

 

Lastly I will say there is a difference between having weed in your system while driving and driving under the influence of weed.

Is a field sobriety test adequate for conviction' date=' or does it need to be backed up by analytical testing?[/quote']

 

That is up to a judge or jury. They would have to decide whether or not they believe in the officers field sobriety tests. A blood/urine/breath test is probably nice to have regarding prosecution though.

I'd say you are probably right on that part, but not certain.

 

Cops have the same avenues provided to them as a DUI for alcohol when the actual alcohol isn't present in the car such as field sobreity tests, smell of marijuana on the suspect or in the vehicle, driving patterns, etc. The only difference is you don't have the breathalyzer, however anyone can refuse a breathalyzer if they'd like to. While a DUI for getting high is probably harder to detect I don't see the legality making it any harder to detect. If your driving around in a car that reeks of pot I'd say you are going to (and should) get hassled legal or not.

 

Since the police already have methods in place to determine DUI's I don't think making pot legal would change that. It's already there.

 

I don't really disagree with anything you said in your post. I'm not really for or against legalizing marijuana fwiw.

 

If the subject wants, they need to be given a blood test as well. However, if the police request a blood test you can refuse it once every 4 years.

 

A person is allowed to request a blood test of their own paid for by them. However they can refuse any of the three tests they are asked to take (breath/blood/urine). However according to the KRS they're license will be suspended if they refuse and a refusal can be used as evidence against them.