Behind the Wheel - Detecting Marijuana Impairment

[impactX]

Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe

Could you please elaborate on why being able to tell what kind of drug the user has taken requires such an intensive course, when all you need to know is if the user is drugged or not?

Because the DRE has to know what he/she's talking about in court, or else the Defense Counsel would rip him/her a new one?

[CRS]

Originally Posted by stutterr

See what happens when cop thinks he is qualified because his buddy passed a course? What don't you understand?

Just because you work along someone long enough does not qualify you for a course. They wouldn't have the course available and have something called an exam, inorder to say that you are infact "DRE" certified.

Clearly people (especially cops) have the ability to pass knowledge through osmosis.

Did you not know that? Or have you been smoking too much of the reefer?

[stutterr]

I have never heard of that in my life. So why would they even have a DRE program and testing? All troops would just learn from one another.

[stutterr]

Originally Posted by Great68

The problem is that establishing a "breath weed content" is that it sets a precedent that using marijuana would be "legal" to a certain degree.

There is no "detailed test" for being stoned. You can't blow into a machine like you would to detect blood alcohol levels.

There have been a few options, mainly a mouth swab, but you cannot tell if the person had smoked a few hours ago or months ago.

[ws6ta]

this is perfect proof of how cops always think they know everything....i bet after watching someone fly a plane you probably think your a pilot too....or watched someone performing a surgery...now your a surgeon!!

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by ws6ta

this is perfect proof of how cops always think they know everything....i bet after watching someone fly a plane you probably think your a pilot too....or watched someone performing a surgery...now your a surgeon!!

Seems like someone thinks that they know everything about cops.....

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by stutterr

There is no "detailed test" for being stoned. You can't blow into a machine like you would to detect blood alcohol levels.

There have been a few options, mainly a mouth swab, but you cannot tell if the person had smoked a few hours ago or months ago.

I'm aware how the various tests work, I've talked with the company who administers it to our employees (on the railroad: safety sensitive positions, post-accident, etc).. neat stuff really. They have it down to a pretty exact science.. you'll know in minutes if you pass or fail. And to fail, you have to have smoked marijuana recently... ie a week or so, I've been told. And you can't have just been standing around a bunch of people smoking to fail... won't show up. (Ross Rebagliati would have been cleared... or not... )

As for "a few hours ago"... if the person is currently stoned, it's not usually that hard to tell.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Rich Sandor

There should be some sort of BWC (breath weed content, lol) tester!

well they could always offer the driver a pack of cookies. if the guy demolishes the whole pack while the officer is in his car running the info, the drivers stoned

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by underscore

well they could always offer the driver a pack of cookies. if the guy demolishes the whole pack while the officer is in his car running the info, the drivers stoned

Ahahahah, that's so win!

[zulutango]

I used to tie a Twinkie to a Fly rod and see if the driver would chase it as I did a 100 yard cast. Back East they use Vachon "Mille Feuille"....the source of all the hydrogenated fat and sugar needed to OD Jenny Craig in less than 12 seconds. Ah...gateaux Vachon.

[stutterr]

Originally Posted by jlenko

I'm aware how the various tests work, I've talked with the company who administers it to our employees (on the railroad: safety sensitive positions, post-accident, etc).. neat stuff really. They have it down to a pretty exact science.. you'll know in minutes if you pass or fail. And to fail, you have to have smoked marijuana recently... ie a week or so, I've been told. And you can't have just been standing around a bunch of people smoking to fail... won't show up. (Ross Rebagliati would have been cleared... or not... )

As for "a few hours ago"... if the person is currently stoned, it's not usually that hard to tell.

Exact science is not "a week or so". Still so many legal holes in this procedure. Try using the old his eyes were red in court. More accurate testing is needed. Sure you can assume someone is stoned, but will that hold up in court? NOPE!! You have to prove your acusations. Unfortunately telling me that you can guarantee that someone was stoned sometime during a week will just not do. I still do not see any serious, definite proof. Of course if you are just testing for use, not specific use then its a completely differant ball game. We are talking about testing for weed for that exact moment, much like a blood alcohol test does. You cant arrest a person for smoking a doobie and getting high sometime during the last week. You have to proove that the driver was under the infulance while driving. Unless caught red handed its very hard to proove.

Zulutango, funny how you joke about using a twinkie on a fly rod to see if a driver was stoned. I remember when Krispy Kreme was booming in Toronto. All the cops couldnt resist the fresh made smell of the tasty treat. All the cruisers were lined up for miles. Were they stoned? No, well maybe..lol. But cops do love their donuts!! Doesn't prove anything.

[zulutango]

OH COME ON....HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF A "SUGAR HIGH"????????????

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by stutterr

I still do not see any serious, definite proof.

In the case of the guy who was smoking it in his truck, then drove off... I told the folks at E-COMM that I would be willing to appear as a witness.

I saw him smoke the doob... I smelt it... I know it was marijuana. I will stand there in court if I'm asked to, and testify against him.

Too bad more people aren't willing to stand up and do the right thing...

[stutterr]

Originally Posted by jlenko

In the case of the guy who was smoking it in his truck, then drove off... I told the folks at E-COMM that I would be willing to appear as a witness.

I saw him smoke the doob... I smelt it... I know it was marijuana. I will stand there in court if I'm asked to, and testify against him.

Too bad more people aren't willing to stand up and do the right thing...

Good job buddy!!! Do you want a gold star???

If you actually opened your eyes you would see I clearly stated "Unless caught red handed its very hard to prove."

We all know that you called the police because you saw some guy smoking weed.

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by stutterr

If you actually opened your eyes you would see I clearly stated "Unless caught red handed its very hard to prove."

Maybe I'm missing the point of your post, but this IS a "caught red handed" situation, isn't it?

BTW, where do I send the gold star? I always appreciated the public's help in situations like this....

[stutterr]

Hey Skidmark,

I completely agree that if you are caught red handed its the only real way to prove that yes he was smoking weed.

To quote me saying "I still do not see any serious, definite proof" and to than argue the point on a completely difference subject from which the quote was taken from. I clearly stated that the only definate way to prove this is to catch someone red handed. When did I not agree?

[Rich Sandor]

Looks like the UK is setting some precedent for roadside drug testing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ent-plans.html

[stutterr]

Very interesting article. With alcohol they can test your blood/alcohol content. With this saliva test they can only determine that you have taken in marijuana anytime between 1-14 hours ago. Do they have a certian percentage of THC is in your body? It seems like the test is either a yes or no answer. We are moving closer towards determining imparement of drugs other than alcohol, but there is still much ground to be made. Its nice to see they also included pharm. drugs as well.

http://www.students.ubc.ca/health/qu...e=1&view=14#q2

[underscore]

Originally Posted by skidmark

Maybe I'm missing the point of your post, but this IS a "caught red handed" situation, isn't it?

BTW, where do I send the gold star? I always appreciated the public's help in situations like this....

I just gave him a thanks, I would offer him a cookie too but if he eats it while driving he might get a ticket for driving under the influence

technically though even if the weed in the guys system is a week old, couldn't they get charged with possession? as in order to smoke it you need to possess it.

[Five-Oh]

I think before you all jump on Skidmark about him saying he feels confident in giving out a 24 hour suspension based on marihuana impairment you guys should research what he is saying.

A DRE is designed to give evidence in CRIMINAL COURT to show that you are impaired by a drug. A 24 hour driving suspension takes your license away for 24 hours so that you can sober up before driving again, a far less severe consequence. A 24 hour suspension by drug is disputable if you do not agree with it. However, in my time I have only seen one person dispute a 24 hour suspension by drugs and he did that by going and getting a blood test right away and showing the results of the blood test as his dispute. Blood test showed marihuana in his system and the 24 hour suspension was upheld.

[stutterr]

Originally Posted by Five-Oh

I think before you all jump on Skidmark about him saying he feels confident in giving out a 24 hour suspension based on marihuana impairment you guys should research what he is saying.

A DRE is designed to give evidence in CRIMINAL COURT to show that you are impaired by a drug. A 24 hour driving suspension takes your license away for 24 hours so that you can sober up before driving again, a far less severe consequence. A 24 hour suspension by drug is disputable if you do not agree with it. However, in my time I have only seen one person dispute a 24 hour suspension by drugs and he did that by going and getting a blood test right away and showing the results of the blood test as his dispute. Blood test showed marihuana in his system and the 24 hour suspension was upheld.

That guy must of been a goof. Any good lawyer could argue the fact that there is no way to pin point a driver being stoned, unless caught red handed. There is no definate way to determine exactly when marijuana was injested and how stoned a person is. It is not like a blood/alcohol reading. So what he tested positive for Marijuana. Maybe he smoked a joint the day before. Just because Marijuana can be detectable for 2-8 months after 1 joint, does not justify an arrest. It would be like me getting drunk on a Saturday, and getting pulled over 2 weeks later from injesting any alcohol and being arrested for DUI. This is where the grey area is. I looked up to what a DRE is and it seems to be quite a complex and lengthy course. The very reason why I do not see how working next to someone who was trained even beings to justify "self certification" or even close to. I would hope that an officer shooting radar has had training on how to calibrate and operate a gun. If I went to court and requested to see when the gun was calibrated, and if the officer was trained in using that radar gun history. If he was not qualified or the gun was not recently calibrated, the case would be tossed out. I would imagine the same would be with the so called suspension. Just having red eyes, or a driver eating a cookie (as put by many viewers of this thread) does not justify being "impaired".

I found some interesting articles to relate to "stoned driving", again coming out of the UK.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1775.html

"concluded that the only statistically significant effect associated with marijuana use was slower driving"

"Another NHTSA study performed in 1993 dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia analyzed blood samples from 2,500 accidents, and found that drivers with cannabis in their system were actually slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without.
CC Online Store
Advertisement

A University of Toronto study released in March 1999 found that moderate pot users typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed than non-users.

An important consideration when considering the effects of cannabis and driving is whether the smoker is an experienced user. Novice tokers typically experience more difficulty driving than regular users.

The British study also found that tiredness caused 10% of all fatal accidents, compared with 6% for alcohol."



Here is another article that explains why "roadside testing" does not work for Marijuana.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/4187.html

"Assume that you drink two bottles of beer while watching a baseball game at home on a Saturday. Then, while driving home from work the following Thursday, you're pulled over for a broken tail light. At his own discretion, the police officer decides to test you for alcohol impairment. The beer you drank five days prior are detected. As a result, your car is impounded, you're dragged away to jail, you lose your license, and you suffer a hefty fine.
Think this sounds far-fetched? Think again. Increasingly widespread "drugged driving" laws are doing exactly this: testing for trace amounts of THC and cannabinoid metabolites that can exist in the human body for weeks, or even months, after all behavioral effects have disappeared."

"Politicians often compare drugged driving initiatives to existing drunk driving laws, treating them as nearly identical. However, there's a basic logic to all drunk driving laws: alcohol consumption at a certain rate equals impaired driving performance, which in turn increases the chance of accidents. While the nuances of individual laws and enforcement techniques will always remain a point of contention, the basic public policy of preventing drunk driving is sound."

[Soundy]

And yet again the argument drifts away from the primary point of law: you don't have to be drunk or stoned to be IMPAIRED. What if a guy is falling asleep at the wheel because he hasn't slept in three days? Do the cops need to prove, or even know, how long it's been since the guy slept to be able to hand him a 24-hour suspension? Or is it enough that it's obvious the guy's ABILITY TO DRIVE SAFELY IMPAIRED?

I would guess that most of a cop's training in this area BEGINS with being able to recognize driving impairment in general, and determining the cause(s) for that state being secondary and intended more to back up the initial opinion.

[stutterr]

I think the post was detecting Marijuana impairment, not impairment detection in general. My post is clearly on topic. You are telling us your opinion, which has no proof or scientific reasoning behind it.

Originally Posted by Soundy

I would guess that most of a cop's training in this area BEGINS with being able to recognize driving impairment in general, and determining the cause(s) for that state being secondary and intended more to back up the initial opinion.

Actually the evidence is the main reasoning for an accusation. Since when is word taken over fact? Where have you been for the past 100 years? Training does begin with the ability to recognize impairment, but without fact to backup those claims they are useless. Without the backup and/or eveidence you have nothing. You can't charge someone based purely on your own thoughts or opinions. Regardless if you are a trained officer, or a citizen. What kind of legal system would we have if that were the case?

A cop must backup his claims or thoughts with proof. Just because he thinks that someone is impaired does not mean the person is. That is why we have tests to provide us with data to backup these claims. Being stoned does not mean you are impaired, tests have shown (read above post). Just because your views and thought about being stoned are opinion. I have posted facts that argue this point. Are you going to post some relevant information or just your thoughts?

In law everything must be proven. Since you are bringing in this sleep depravation thing into the mix, Lets take the case of Robert Dziekanski. RCMP states they assumed he was drunk and or making life threatening actions with a stapler. The video clearly shows a totally different story.

Back to the drawing board for you!

[zulutango]

In the same way that the smell of booze on your breath does not mean you are impaired by alcohol, the mere smell of grass in your car does not mean you are stoned. They are indicators that Police follow to see IF there is impairment and not just evidence of previous consumption. IF the actual sypmtoms of impairment exist, then an imparied by drug or alcohol investigation will follow. As others have said above, impairment does not require complete inability to function.

""Another NHTSA study performed in 1993 ( remember my comments about hugely increased THC levels today?) dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that "THC's ADVERSE effects on driving performance APPEAR RELATIVELY SMALL".

If we read what you posted...the last line agrees that their IS impairment ( by the 1993 TCH levels)...and what is "relatively small" mean in a medical and legal definition ? Relative to what? ...and small when compared TO what? Amputation of a finger is "relatively Small"...as opposed to loosing your entire arm....loosing your entire arm is small when compared to death.

[stutterr]

Hey Zulutango,

Your claim that THC content has steadily risen in the past years. The Dutch have been leaders in Marijuana genetics and processing for many years. While here in North America the THC levels have been low and increasing, they have always been high in Europe. I think the statement speaks for itself. You can try to bash what they are saying, "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small." speaks for itself.

I brought that article up to showcase just what the rest of the world is doing with Marijuana impairment. I do agree that you should not be driving while smoking weed, or under the influence of any alcohol. I have just been reading alot and tests show quite the opposite of what you may think.