The cops are going rogue in MA over the new pot law

leaningright said:
This, among other reasons, is exactly why pot shouldn't be legalized. How are police going to determine if someone is "under the influence?" It's not like a breath test will work. A urine sample will show positive for weeks, it is my understanding. A person would be unjustly charged by that test. How are they going to know? I sympathize with the police on this deal. I really don't think they decided something like, "hey, I smell pot from that car. Let's stop it on a trumped up inspection sticker violation and then we can cite the guy for being under the influence." Sounds like they stopped him, smelled the pot, found the pot and reacted. How are they going to know when someone is under the influence?
Click to expand...

All of those problems exist with non-legal weed as well.
 
Chapdog said:
here you go.. in CA they already have it figured out:

http://www.californiacriminaldefenseblog.com/2008/10/driving_under_the_influence_of.html



Bottom line however is that they shouldn't be able to arrest u for DUI in MA without any proof other then you having a joint in your coat. that would be like getting arrested with a bottle of wine in the backseat even tho you didnt drink out of it.
Click to expand...


Well, he did have a roach in the car . . . I'm sure that doesn't help his cause. Nor do his statements that driving while high makes him a better driver.

I'm inclined to agree that there is little evidence of impairment and that something ought to be done to ensure that people that possess pot aren't arrested for DUI when they aren't high. I'd just be cautious to hitch my hopes to this particular fellow.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
All of those problems exist with non-legal weed as well.
Click to expand...

Difference is that it is/was against the law to posess. Makes it easy for the cops. They pull you over, smell pot, find it in your possession you get arrested. Now that it is legal they have to determine whether or not you are under the influence of it.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, he did have a roach in the car . . . I'm sure that doesn't help him cause. Nor do his statements that driving while high makes him a better driver.

I'm inclined to agree that there is little evidence of impairment and that something ought to be done to ensure that people that possess pot aren't arrested for DUI when they aren't high. I'd just be cautious to hitch my hopes to this particular fellow.
Click to expand...

i here you there. who knows what the actual situation was when he got pulled over. BUT I cant support a cop arresting someone based on suspicion with no evidence of poor driving or some sort of field sobriety test. We dont live in aruba.
 
Damocles said:
It's already there.

By making it illegal testing needs to be done. A whole industry is out there just for this testing. Companies make you take it before you are hired, etc.
Click to expand...

But now it is just the presence test, not a blood serum level over a predetermined limit to indicate THC intoxication.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, he did have a roach in the car . . . I'm sure that doesn't help his cause. Nor do his statements that driving while high makes him a better driver.
I'm inclined to agree that there is little evidence of impairment and that something ought to be done to ensure that people that possess pot aren't arrested for DUI when they aren't high. I'd just be cautious to hitch my hopes to this particular fellow.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There are people who swear that they're better drivers under the influence of alcohol, too.

I'd also question just what the officer smelled. Does pot have a noticeable smell in unlit roach form, or did he smell the smoke, which is quite pungent and unmistakeable? That would have a big influence on whether or not the person would be considered to be driving under the influence.

How long do the effects of THC last subjectively? (i.e. a single joint?)
 
Thorn said:
Exactly. There are people who swear that they're better drivers under the influence of alcohol, too.

I'd also question just what the officer smelled. Does pot have a noticeable smell in unlit roach form, or did he smell the smoke, which is quite pungent and unmistakeable? That would have a big influence on whether or not the person would be considered to be driving under the influence.

How long do the effects of THC last subjectively? (i.e. a single joint?)
Click to expand...

Yes many things to establish. A single joint of what? Trashweed or Sans?
 
Thorn said:
Exactly. There are people who swear that they're better drivers under the influence of alcohol, too.

I'd also question just what the officer smelled. Does pot have a noticeable smell in unlit roach form, or did he smell the smoke, which is quite pungent and unmistakeable? That would have a big influence on whether or not the person would be considered to be driving under the influence.

How long do the effects of THC last subjectively? (i.e. a single joint?)
Click to expand...

in terms of impairment? and at what level? Reaction time? We all know that alcohol impairs driving ability but does pot and if so how much? What about having a cold and being on cold medicine? poor road conditions, being tired, having a cold.. all of this impairs driving as well. Whats acceptable levels? I highly doubt that pot smokers who arent drinking are more risky then say an 80yo driving or perhaps someone on allergy medicine.
 
Chapdog said:
in terms of impairment? and at what level? Reaction time? We all know that alcohol impairs driving ability but does pot and if so how much? What about having a cold and being on cold medicine? poor road conditions, being tired, having a cold.. all of this impairs driving as well. Whats acceptable levels? I highly doubt that pot smokers who arent drinking are more risky then say an 80yo driving or perhaps someone on allergy medicine.
Click to expand...

The degree of impairment has to be determined; in fact I'm fairly certain that it already has been done in a laboratory setting. It was long ago enough, though, that it would take some digging to find the data.

As I understand it, the reaction to THC can be highly variable, from paranoia to not giving a damn about anything, to altered perceptions, etc. It's not my field of study (I went straight to the stimulants and heroin! -- in the lab, I mean), so my knowledge here is spotty.

You can be charged with DUI if your cold medicine or other prescription or OTC medicines make you unfit to drive, but this rarely happens. I understand that the determining factor there is whether or not you knew that you shouldn't drive after taking these meds. Indeed, many OTC meds do carry the warning not to "drive or operate heavy machinery" after taking them. The onus really is on the person and the meds aren't considered a valid excuse.

Aged drivers are another matter. Out here in the middle of nowhere we see quite a few even over 90; they're generally used to rural conditions, and tend to drive anywhere from 10 to 20 or so mph under the limit. Drives you crazy if you're behind them. Also you have to really watch for them at intersections, where their driving competence seems to suffer. So long as they have a valid driving licence, though, they're legal to go, even if they are a menace sometimes.
 
there is no level of pot that makes you unfit to drive.
If you have been around it enough in real life this you would know.
You'd fall asleep first.
 
Thorn said:
The degree of impairment has to be determined; in fact I'm fairly certain that it already has been done in a laboratory setting. It was long ago enough, though, that it would take some digging to find the data.

As I understand it, the reaction to THC can be highly variable, from paranoia to not giving a damn about anything, to altered perceptions, etc. It's not my field of study (I went straight to the stimulants and heroin! -- in the lab, I mean), so my knowledge here is spotty.

You can be charged with DUI if your cold medicine or other prescription or OTC medicines make you unfit to drive, but this rarely happens. I understand that the determining factor there is whether or not you knew that you shouldn't drive after taking these meds. Indeed, many OTC meds do carry the warning not to "drive or operate heavy machinery" after taking them. The onus really is on the person and the meds aren't considered a valid excuse.

Aged drivers are another matter. Out here in the middle of nowhere we see quite a few even over 90; they're generally used to rural conditions, and tend to drive anywhere from 10 to 20 or so mph under the limit. Drives you crazy if you're behind them. Also you have to really watch for them at intersections, where their driving competence seems to suffer. So long as they have a valid driving licence, though, they're legal to go, even if they are a menace sometimes.
Click to expand...

I felt sorry for him when I read the title.

When I read that he said that pot made him drive better, I assumed he actually was driving after smoking pot.
 
No one drives better.
I played tennis on pot and looked like I arrived on the little yellow bus. Never again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top