My only concern is for impaired drivers...if someone wants to sit home and get baked that's fine. Just don't drive down I-75 at rush hour that way.

 

No different than alcohol in that sense.

I'd be interested to know if the breathalyzer would show the presence of THC if the THC was consumed through edible foods, such as brownies. My gut tells me yes, but I think that'd be a bigger challenge.

 

It doesn't answer your question but from the article:

 

WSU chemistry professor Herbert Hill said existing technologies used by airport security and customs agents to detect drugs can be repurposed to test breath for THC.

 

Hill said the marijuana breath test probably won't be able to pinpoint the level of THC in the body, but it will tell law enforcement that some active THC is present.

 

In the Tacoma newspaper report, Hill said the breath test could be helpful to officers as they decide whether to arrest a suspected impaired driver.

 

"We believe, at least initially, that it would lower the false positives that an officer would have," Hill said. "They would have a higher level of confidence in making an arrest."

 

Follow-up test results will still be needed to use as evidence in court — which is the same as they do in drunken driving cases.

^ Sounds to me like a legal nightmare for authorities. THC stays in the body for weeks, correct? Talk about a slippery slope.

 

I will say, since portable devices used to detect alcohol are not admissible in court I don't see any way ones for THC would be. As a matter of fact, this sounds like a perfect way for the government to get their tail sued off a thousand times over.

Why can't you just use Denver or Oregon accident statistics to prove if it's impacting safety? Sure it can impair you to an extent but I think people are putting too much emphasis on how much it actually impairs a driver.

Why can't you just use Denver or Oregon accident statistics to prove if it's impacting safety? Sure it can impair you to an extent but I think people are putting too much emphasis on how much it actually impairs a driver.

 

You are impaired if high, no doubt about it. Would you want to ride home from work in crazy traffic with someone that just toked one or someone that didn't?

 

I have to believe most would ride with the driver that is not impaired.

Why can't you just use Denver or Oregon accident statistics to prove if it's impacting safety? Sure it can impair you to an extent but I think people are putting too much emphasis on how much it actually impairs a driver.

 

I like your approach, but the traffic density in Oregon is nothing compared to the amount of traffic in some of the bigger cities, so I'm not sure the two are comparable.

 

Obviously you could use percentages or per capita, but I don't know that those would provide any meaningful statistics.

It was an issue when I was in law enforcement and as far as I know it is still an issue today. In short, how is the law going to equate THC levels with impairment and how is the law going to differentiate between a THC level from a party last weekend and the time immediately before someone got behind the wheel of a vehicle?

You are impaired if high, no doubt about it. Would you want to ride home from work in crazy traffic with someone that just toked one or someone that didn't?

 

I have to believe most would ride with the driver that is not impaired.

 

Well based on stigma of course you'd go with a sober driver over a high driver.

 

Would I rather drive with my 88 year old grandmother who still drives or with my buddy who is freshly toked off a joint? One is legally driving one is not. I'd drive with my buddy.

 

I'm not denying it can impact one's awareness, reaction time, concentration, etc. by the way.

I would love for the Big O to light up, he always seems to be disgruntled.

No different than alcohol in that sense.

True, but no current way to easily check it like there is alcohol. Impaired drivers could in many cases escape detection by some regular methods of detection.

^ Sounds to me like a legal nightmare for authorities. THC stays in the body for weeks, correct? Talk about a slippery slope.

 

I will say, since portable devices used to detect alcohol are not admissible in court I don't see any way ones for THC would be. As a matter of fact, this sounds like a perfect way for the government to get their tail sued off a thousand times over.

 

How are people who are driving under the influence of something like prescription drugs dealt with? I'm assuming they'd be given a field sobriety test and the officer would have some evidence of impaired driving (weaving, crossing the lines, delayed reactions, etc.). Is that inadequate here?

^ Sounds to me like a legal nightmare for authorities. THC stays in the body for weeks, correct? Talk about a slippery slope.

 

I will say, since portable devices used to detect alcohol are not admissible in court I don't see any way ones for THC would be. As a matter of fact, this sounds like a perfect way for the government to get their tail sued off a thousand times over.

PBT's aren't but Breathalyzers are...same with this new technology from my under standing. Portable test would be like PBT and only be a tool while a more precise test would have to be completed later like a Breathalyzer.

 

From the link...In Washington state and Colorado, drivers can be charged with DUI if they have five nanograms or more of THC in their blood.

So it looks like levels have been determined in at least two states.

I'm not sure if there are any KSP members or attorneys on here that can verify this, but I believe the KSP tested a similar breathalizer years ago. It tested for thc in saliva that entered the breathalizer as you blew into it. The person that told me about it is an attorney and said it would never fly, that it would be too hard to prove its time related accuracy in court. This was 10+ years ago, so maybe the technology has changed.

^ Sounds to me like a legal nightmare for authorities. THC stays in the body for weeks, correct? Talk about a slippery slope.

 

I will say, since portable devices used to detect alcohol are not admissible in court I don't see any way ones for THC would be. As a matter of fact, this sounds like a perfect way for the government to get their tail sued off a thousand times over.

 

This is my entire argument against. And why I'm opposed.

 

This is my entire argument against. And why I'm opposed.

 

But why are you opposed? The same tests could be performed as a dui stop. A field sobriety test, then a breathalizer at intake. THC does not stay in your saliva for long periods of time.

 

If a person can pass a field sobriety test then their shoukdnt be any question whether they are capable of driving. If they fail it and the officer suspects marijuana use, book them and test at intake. If they fail both, then the answer is simple. If they pass the calibrated intake test, your just dealing with the same thing as someone who has been drinking that failed only the field sobriety test.