Drugged Driving

[greenleaf]

Drugged Driving: Should we ammend the drugged driving law?

 

I was sitting in a club meeting when I asked myself... Should we? I'd like to know what you think?

 

 

There was an attorney addressing a personal matter, and I ddint' want to put her on the spot, but I did want to ask her if she knew the process involved in ammending the Drugged Driving Laws, and then the question quickly followed, should we?

 

Should we remove medical marijuana from the Drugged Driving laws? I thought about it. I'm still thinking about it.

 

 

I find myself driving around or in different situations pictureing what life would be like if that we ammended. I'm holding the rest of my thoughts there and instead I'd like to know your views.

 

This is open to anyone. I did post it in the Legal forum, because it's a core legal issue. Not necessarily to hear the opinion of an Attorney, although you're welcome to contribute as well. It're purely a citizen issue.

[Moss]

Absolutely this law needs to be changed. This law is complete trash when it comes to cannabis. It only takes into account if THC is in your system, it doesn't care if you are under the influence or not. You could have not smoked for 30 days and still be found guilty of drugged driving. Now you add on that patients are legally allowed to have it in their system. You have to send your licence off to the state to become a patient but once you are accepted, according to this law you have no right to have a drivers licence because THC is going to stay in your system.

 

I don't support anyone driving under the influence of any mind altering substance (aside from caffeine) but this law goes to far and I doubt makes any sort of difference.

Philips Saliva roadside drug test

Philips has developed a roadride tester that is much like a breathalyser. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find out if it can tell the difference between THC in your passively in your system or that you are under the influence.

[phaquetoo]

Moss I agree

 

we def need to have a type of breathalizer that can tell if you used mm within a few hrs, like alcohol if you are the rite weight most people can have one drink an hour and pass a pbt, and your normal liver can process that much an hr. mm is in your system for ever even if you didnt smoke for a week they can get us for impaired driving, like any medication or liquir, something needs to be done

 

ok another example, Im medicating in the car on the freeway or any road, im the passenger, my driver is not smoking with me, we get pulled over they smell the mm, i produce my card and state im the only one using my medication, leo asks driver if they were using, they say no, but they used last nite,(dont tell cop that) they decide to mess with driver, do blood work, tests pos for thc, now they get the impaired?!?

 

we do need to do something!

[jmorrison71]

I agree that the length of time that marijuana stays on your system is a huge concern but something to think about with drugged driving. If a person has his/her blood drawn for suspecion of intoxicated driving and that individual had used any narcotic medication, opiate, cocaine, etc. it will still show up in the blood draw within 2-3 days of that person's last use. That individual would no longer be experiencing the intoxicating effects of the substance but the blood draw would still indicate a presence of that drug in their system. So a person that had used cocaine for example and then received a blood draw for suspecion of intoxicated driving or for causing an accident, and had not used the cocaine in over a day, could potentially use the defense of "I'm not under the influence because I had not recently used."

 

The only way currently to determine recent drug use is to have a lab analyze a blood/saliva/urine sample and provide ng/ml levels. The higher the levels the more probability of recent drug use but that isn't an exact science because it doesn't take into consideration different amounts of the drug used.

 

I guess my long winded point is that right now there is no real good indicator for recent drug use besides what I mentioned above. If anyone could figure that out, and in a way that is addmissable in court, they would stand to make millions!

 

One more thing to consider is that an arresting officer has to have suspecion of intoxication in order perform a test for drug use. In other words if you are not appearing under the influence to the officer during the traffic stop (for whatever reason) then that officer is not going to have enough probable cause to request a blood draw.

[T1420]

Yes, we NEED to get rid of the Zero tolerance laws put in act in 2006.

[phaquetoo]

I agree that the length of time that marijuana stays on your system is a huge concern but something to think about with drugged driving. If a person has his/her blood drawn for suspecion of intoxicated driving and that individual had used any narcotic medication, opiate, cocaine, etc. it will still show up in the blood draw within 2-3 days of that person's last use. That individual would no longer be experiencing the intoxicating effects of the substance but the blood draw would still indicate a presence of that drug in their system. So a person that had used cocaine for example and then received a blood draw for suspecion of intoxicated driving or for causing an accident, and had not used the cocaine in over a day, could potentially use the defense of "I'm not under the influence because I had not recently used."

 

The only way currently to determine recent drug use is to have a lab analyze a blood/saliva/urine sample and provide ng/ml levels. The higher the levels the more probability of recent drug use but that isn't an exact science because it doesn't take into consideration different amounts of the drug used.

 

I guess my long winded point is that right now there is no real good indicator for recent drug use besides what I mentioned above. If anyone could figure that out, and in a way that is addmissable in court, they would stand to make millions!

 

One more thing to consider is that an arresting officer has to have suspecion of intoxication in order perform a test for drug use. In other words if you are not appearing under the influence to the officer during the traffic stop (for whatever reason) then that officer is not going to have enough probable cause to request a blood draw.

 

In the state of michigan, a cop is not allowed to ask passengers in the vehicle for I.D unless they have probable cause! I hear what you are saying but they make up their own probable cause, and than it is your word against theirs in court! who wins there?

[stonecrowe316]

In the state of michigan, a cop is not allowed to ask passengers in the vehicle for I.D unless they have probable cause! I hear what you are saying but they make up their own probable cause, and than it is your word against theirs in court! who wins there?

it says in the rules,that we can iternaly posses it,that means its in our system,victor was saying in our last meeting.that in the law we were exempt from this law,i should have taken one of those papers he had.but like you said too if your not driving goffy,they wont pull you over to start with,but he says that it in there that were exempt.i didnt read it yet .but i dont drive....hope this helps

[welj31]

There is a swab test that could be used to clear this up, but I dont think they really want to clear it up.IMHO

[Guest Wayne]

All you need is enough legislator's to pass a law, piece of cake with the current political climate. Or we just elect a majority of both houses that support medical marijuana, another piece of cake. How many are currently getting positive feedback from their legislator's regarding medical marijauana and related issues like the zero tolerance law? How many Medical marijuana supporters will survive the primary and remain open and vocal in their support? How many will make this argument and introduce legislation to change the zero tolerance law? Pessimism? Sure hope that's me, not the reality. I could live with being labeled paranoid if I'm truly delusional.

When you think about it do you really read a lot about DUI and marijuana? Rarely before this law, even when charged with possession, transporting, etc after a traffic stop. Now just another part of the LEO political strategy in the WAR ON (MEDICAL MARIJUANA) DRUGS!!!!

We are not free yet!

[tutman2006]

Cops will pull you over for anything! If they want to pull you over they will.. its that simple... The coppers get away with everything they want..

[dent58]

Drugged Driving: Should we ammend the drugged driving law?

 

I was sitting in a club meeting when I asked myself... Should we? I'd like to know what you think?

 

 

There was an attorney addressing a personal matter, and I ddint' want to put her on the spot, but I did want to ask her if she knew the process involved in ammending the Drugged Driving Laws, and then the question quickly followed, should we?

 

Should we remove medical marijuana from the Drugged Driving laws? I thought about it. I'm still thinking about it.

 

 

I find myself driving around or in different situations pictureing what life would be like if that we ammended. I'm holding the rest of my thoughts there and instead I'd like to know your views.

 

This is open to anyone. I did post it in the Legal forum, because it's a core legal issue. Not necessarily to hear the opinion of an Attorney, although you're welcome to contribute as well. It're purely a citizen issue.

[dent58]

WELL LETS SEE HOW EVERY ONE STARTE THERE DAY LIKE EVERY ONE YOU BRUSH THERE TEETH SHOWER AND TAKS THERE MED 4 ME THATS XANAX,NORCO AND A JOINT THEN ITS OFF 2 WORK I DRIVE "BUZZED" AS THE STATE SAYS BUT IM NOT ALONE YOU TAKE AWAY MY JOINT AND NO "BUZZED DRIVING" SO THY SAY !LOOK UN LESS I SMOKE MY SELF OUT I CAN DRIVE AND IF I GET SMOKED OUT YES I WILL NOT DRIVE! BUT JUST TAKING MY EVERY DAY MED I HAVE TO DRIVE I DO HEATING AND COOLING AND I RUN MY OWN BUSINESS SO THE ANWSER IS YES ITHANK THANK REFORM IS GOOD!