Driving whilst high

[killick]

So I'm back on cannacaps. Herb, coconut oil, turmeric. I took 4 this morning, and kept popping them through the day. I don't feel intoxicated in any fashion. But I did have a decently productive day, which, as a chronic pain person, isn't so bad. One thing I notice when using caps is that I tend to vape a lot less.

@Krazy makes some great points. Plus
Everyone loves a good sheep!

 

[King_Bob]

I wouldn't want a buss driver to be wired on too much coffee, or crashing from an appropriate doss of coffee imbibed 1.5 hours ago. Distracted by an argument with a supervisor or a breakup with a SO. How about a high carb all you can eat meal 1/2 an hour before driving? How about lack of sleep?

I believe distracted drivers are the most dangerous drivers on the road.

Their is a huge difference in perspective between a responsible medical user and recreational use.

I totally agree that most responsible medical users have developed a tolerance that makes it so they can use cannabis and not have it affect their ability to drive safely. Being a medical user myself I would like to be able to keep driving once the ng/ml rules come into affect.

The problem is that the irresponsible users always end up screwing things up for the responsible ones. And the rules are always set to protect us from the few. So I am afraid that as much as I would love to see them be more flexible with medical users, once they apply the 5ng/ml rule in Canada many of us medical users may no longer be in a position to legally drive.

 

[invertedisdead]

Medical cannabis should be the least of anyones worries. Half the people on the road are absolutely toasted on prescription opiates.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

Medical cannabis should be the least of anyones worries. Half the people on the road are absolutely toasted on prescription opiates.

That's not true. Are a lot of people on prescription opiates? Yes. Are most of them "toasted" while driving? No.

A lot of prescription drugs people take are imperceptible aside from decreased anxiety/pain. It's not that they are used to driving "high". It's that they aren't getting high if they are dosing properly, and shouldn't be driving when they feel mentally altered, anyway. The ones who do drive when they are "toasted" are breaking the law, and should be punished for endangering others.

All of that said, using the "it could be worse" tactic doesn't make for a solid argument, anyway.


Also, I'd like to point out that this thread was initially about actually driving while high, not just driving after consuming but not being high due to tolerance, and even getting high while driving. We've taken a bit of a turn into medicinal "not feeling high" use, which is cool, because it needs to be discussed, but I'm still curious how the people who claim they use but don't get high, feel about those who use and do get high and drive.

 

[His_Highness]

All of that said, using the "it could be worse" tactic doesn't make for a solid argument, anyway.

Absolutely agree.

 

[invertedisdead]

That's not true. Are a lot of people on prescription opiates? Yes. Are most of them "toasted" while driving? No.

A lot of prescription drugs people take are imperceptible aside from decreased anxiety/pain. It's not that they are used to driving "high". It's that they aren't getting high if they are dosing properly, and shouldn't be driving when they feel mentally altered, anyway. The ones who do drive when they are "toasted" are breaking the law, and should be punished for endangering others.

All of that said, using the "it could be worse" tactic doesn't make for a solid argument, anyway.

Nobody is making an argument. It was simply a comment that struck the wrong chord with you.
Regardless, I meant what I said; around here people are indeed, "toasted" on prescription meds behind the wheel. Your comment makes it sound like nobody is doing it and I just don't agree, it's a huge concern that doesn't get talked about near enough in the media; instead all of the blame and slander goes to cannabis. The ones lit on prescription meds don't see it as breaking the law, they were just in pain and took their pills. I see it time and time again. These people hurt and want to feel better, the same as with medicinal cannabis. I know people, have family etc with awful chronic pain etc. to witness firsthand. I only comment to raise awareness because It's not discussed enough and I know for a fact these "medicines" are incredibly dangerous.

 

[Krazy]

... but I'm still curious how the people who claim they use but don't get high, feel about those who use and do get high and drive.

Fair point.

I have no problem with the responsibly medicated of any stripe. I take exception to any kind of distracted/impaired driver. Bottom line? If adding x to the equation makes you a better driver it is good; words is bad. And yes; shades of grey indeed.

 

[syrupy]

Nobody is making an argument. It was simply a comment that struck the wrong chord with you.
Regardless, I meant what I said; around here people are indeed, "toasted" on prescription meds behind the wheel. Your comment makes it sound like nobody is doing it and I just don't agree, it's a huge concern that doesn't get talked about near enough in the media; instead all of the blame and slander goes to cannabis. The ones lit on prescription meds don't see it as breaking the law, they were just in pain and took their pills. I see it time and time again. These people hurt and want to feel better, the same as with medicinal cannabis. I know people, have family etc with awful chronic pain etc. to witness firsthand. I only comment to raise awareness because It's not discussed enough and I know for a fact these "medicines" are incredibly dangerous.

I think the difference, IN THEORY, is that prescription drugs are prescribed and monitored by licensed physicians. Even in a medical state, cannabis use isn't really monitored, which accurately gives the impression that it's unregulated. In the real world the difference may be negligible, but in the eyes of the public, driving on, say, bath salts sounds worse than driving on pain meds.

Statements like 'half the drivers are using prescriptions meds', or 'no drivers are using prescription meds' are hyperbolic (as is the statement 'all of the blame and slander goes to cannabis').

There are a large number of ways people can abuse their PRIVILEGE to drive, but none of them absolve driving while high on cannabis. Just because some people engage in unsafe driving with legal drugs doesn't mean driving on illegal ones should condoned.

 

[invertedisdead]

but in the eyes of the public, driving on, say, bath salts sounds worse than driving on pain meds.

Only because media propaganda of perceived danger increases public support for the "war on drugs."
The public certainly isn't aware of the dangers of conventional medicine, or much of anything for that matter. You actually make a fantastic point, as the public almost always indeed fears what "sounds worse," more so than what has actually killed hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[Tranquility]

People have been convicted with driving under the influence of drugs that were prescribed to them. Marijuana is not "prescribed" it is recommended (In my state.) because of the Schedule I category and the way doctor licensing works. (No doctor wants to get script-writing taken away from them.)

I think the real difference gets to the signs presented by the driver to the officer on contact. Not only are some drugs easier to detect than others, but also we have the discretion issue.

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

Has anyone in Colorado Oregon or Washington encountered a DUI checkpoint requiring you to use a "potalyzer" (field saliva test for detecting THC inebriation)? As a CA resident living in a state that's about to pass our Adult Use of Marijuana Act less than a week from now, I want to know what happened. I've been driving under some degree of MJ influence nearly every day for the last 10 years. Admittedly one of my favorite things to do is go for a drive after puffing. If I have to change my usage routine so as not to be driving for at least 6 hours after using, well that's going to change my usage patterns ALOT.

 

[Tranquility]

Has anyone in Colorado Oregon or Washington encountered a DUI checkpoint requiring you to use a "potalyzer" (field saliva test for detecting THC inebriation)? As a CA resident living in a state that's about to pass our Adult Use of Marijuana Act less than a week from now, I want to know what happened.

The police, at this time, cannot force a driver to take a preliminary test. They can ask, but they cannot force you. If they have probable cause to arrest for DUI (Which is not the case in a random stop at a checkpoint.), they CAN force a chemical test under some situations. (I don't think the roadside saliva test is meant to comply with any state's chemical test requirement.)

I've been driving under some degree of MJ influence nearly every day for the last 10 years. Admittedly one of my favorite things to do is go for a drive after puffing. If I have to change my usage routine so as not to be driving for at least 6 hours after using, well that's going to change my usage patterns ALOT.

As a fellow driver on CA roads, if you could do that:

 

[invertedisdead]

Has anyone in Colorado Oregon or Washington encountered a DUI checkpoint requiring you to use a "potalyzer" (field saliva test for detecting THC inebriation)? As a CA resident living in a state that's about to pass our Adult Use of Marijuana Act less than a week from now, I want to know what happened. I've been driving under some degree of MJ influence nearly every day for the last 10 years. Admittedly one of my favorite things to do is go for a drive after puffing. If I have to change my usage routine so as not to be driving for at least 6 hours after using, well that's going to change my usage patterns ALOT.

Isn't it interesting that the people who develop this kind of technology come from affluent communities the police don't harass anyways. If you live in a neighborhood with an income class high enough to get through Stanford, the police aren't bothering you. I've only seen DUI checkpoints in lower income parts of CA.

http://news.stanford.edu/2016/09/08/potalyzer-roadside-marijuana-tests/

The police, at this time, cannot force a driver to take a preliminary test. They can ask, but they cannot force you. If they have probable cause to arrest for DUI (Which is not the case in a random stop at a checkpoint.), they CAN force a chemical test under some situations. (I don't think the roadside saliva test is meant to comply with any state's chemical test requirement.)

Isn't refusal of the test automatically probable cause? Like a big catch-22

Mod note: posts merged.

 

[Tranquility]

Isn't refusal of the test automatically probable cause? Like a big catch-22

I am uncertain as to which refusal you mean. A refusal of the chemical test after arrest can have presumptions and penalties. One state's criminal penalty for refusal was found unconstitutional recently. A refusal of preliminary testing (FST, hand held PBT) cannot be a fact that leads to probable cause nor can be held against you in court.

HOWEVER, that is the law. What of reality? If the officer believes a person is under the influence and that person refuses preliminary testing, the officer has to make a determination as to if he has probable cause to arrest with the facts he already has. (As suspect invertedisdead rolled down his window, I smelled a moderate odor of alcoholic beverages/marijuana coming from his breath and person. He had bloodshot and watery eyes and was giggling inappropriately. etc.) Most officers will put their thumbs on the scale towards finding PC if they believe a person is intoxicated but are prevented from further investigation.

 

[invertedisdead]

I was under the impression refusal of testing at DUI checkpoints is the probable cause since you have failed to comply with law enforcement. I definitely will do more research if they are going to be implementing new practices as it's something everyone needs to know.

 

[Tranquility]

I was under the impression refusal of testing at DUI checkpoints is the probable cause since you have failed to comply with law enforcement. I definitely will do more research if they are going to be implementing new practices as it's something everyone needs to know.

One must obey the lawful orders of a police officer or be subject to arrest. The Supreme court found the minor intrusion of a checkpoint for DUI is narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means is Constitutional if done in certain ways. In other words, the minor seizure for a quick check is reasonable under the 4th amendment.

If you are the purported randomly selected person to be stopped, the court addressed "only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation by checkpoint officers." That is the part that is reasonable. To do more requires (Other than with consent of course.), "satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard" for the detention of a particular motorist for more extensive testing.

States can give more protections, but they can't give less.

 

[t-dub]

It also depends on the state. Oregon has "implied consent" which means if you refuse a breath or blood test you automatically lose your license for a year. Then they just make you take the blood test anyways. I haven't seen any check points here though.

 

[Vaked420]

Here's what I'm interested in. How do they test the 5ng/ml law? first off, I have literally not even a clue of when I reach the limit. is it after 1 hit, 2 hits, 10 hits? do I wake up above the limit cause I vaped all day yesterday? I microdose through the day so A. I'm never really what I would consider stoned. as others have said the medical benefits for me greatly outweigh and negatives, which there definitely are. I can lose focus easier and don't have quiet the reaction time. but there's a reason I consume cannabis, and for the same reason that I vape before a job interview I vape before driving. because it has nothing to do with it. it's medicine to me. it helps me with my problems, and I deal with the side effects. why is driving any different? I do not feel intoxicated, or else there are a million other things in my life I would be fucking up a lot worse than driving.

As others have similarly said, the negative effects of cannabis to me are nothing compared to other effects. my health, what I've eaten, how stressed I am etc. and I focus more on those when I get in a car. if I'm driving an I'm low blood sugar, holy shit is that bad. but stoned? nah all it does for me is remind me to slow down and focus on my driving.

Anyways the main thing for me in Washington is not knowing the cutoff and when I reach it. as someone said people arent toasted on prescription opiates, they're medicated and if they're not they should be charged with a DWI. But the reality is they don't have to worry. they don't have to worry about a cop smelling weed. they don't have to worry about prejudice, discrimination for their choice of medicine, or a system in place designed to make you the worst time of criminal for just using your medicine like you would any other time. if I get a DWI for driving under the influence of Marijuana, my career is most likely shot, I have thousands of fines, and will likely lose my license. there are good odds of that happening. what about for someone who uses prescriptions? what fear do they have of being pulled over and thrown in jail? I agree that lots of people get stoned and drive all day and are a danger to society, but look at DUI laws. how well have those worked? I still regularly see people driving blackout drunk...because the underlying problem is putting penalties on bad behavior is not the solution. There is no cutoff where we jump from sober to intoxicated. We need to educate people to think for themselves and be able to make an educated decision on their own.

Anyways ramble ramble, does anyone know how I will be tested if I am pulled over and suspected of a DWI in Washington? is there a cotton swab? blood test? and does it make a difference if I am a registered medical user?

 

[Papa Woody]

The "Draeger Drug Test 5000" is the mouth swab test Nevada uses.

http://www.draeger.com/sites/enus_us/Pages/Alcohol-and-Drug-Detection/Draeger-DrugTest-5000.aspx

 

[Tranquility]

It also depends on the state. Oregon has "implied consent" which means if you refuse a breath or blood test you automatically lose your license for a year. Then they just make you take the blood test anyways. I haven't seen any check points here though.

Implied consent is implicated after arrest and has to do with chemical testing designed to be evidentiary.

The "Draeger Drug Test 5000" is the mouth swab test Nevada uses.

http://www.draeger.com/sites/enus_us/Pages/Alcohol-and-Drug-Detection/Draeger-DrugTest-5000.aspx

Just say no.

Officer: Open your mouth so I can swab some spit.
Papa Woody: I don't consent to search.
Officer: It's not a search, I just want you to open your mouth a moment.
Papa Woody: I'd like to talk to an attorney before making a decision to consent to a search.
Officer: If you pass the test, I'll let you go on your way.
Papa Woody: Am I free to leave now if I don't consent to a search?
Officer: What are you trying to hide?
Papa Woody: I agree it is hard for me to hide my love of the Constitution.
(Of course, once arrested, implied consent demands you comply with testing or suffer sanctions.)

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

As a fellow driver on CA roads, if you could do that:

pretty rich for knowing nothing about my driving record..nice try.

 

[Papa Woody]

Implied consent is implicated after arrest and has to do with chemical testing designed to be evidentiary.

Just say no.

Officer: Open your mouth so I can swab some spit.
Papa Woody: I don't consent to search.
Officer: It's not a search, I just want you to open your mouth a moment.
Papa Woody: I'd like to talk to an attorney before making a decision to consent to a search.
Officer: If you pass the test, I'll let you go on your way.
Papa Woody: Am I free to leave now if I don't consent to a search?
Officer: What are you trying to hide?
Papa Woody: I agree it is hard for me to hide my love of the Constitution.
(Of course, once arrested, implied consent demands you comply with testing or suffer sanctions.)

Nevada judge: Automatic loss of your driving privilege for 1 year...

Nevada DMV:
Chemical Tests

Failure to submit to a breath, blood or urine test as directed by a police officer results in a driver’s license revocation of at least one year. A blood sample can be drawn involuntarily if the officer obtains a warrant or court order.

(NRS 484C.150,
484C.160, 484C.200, 2015 AB 67)

My post was intended to help @Vaked420 to know what kind of tools LEO's have available to them and was not intended to join the just say no to roadside sobriety testing debate that has been discussed. I do not know what Washington LEO's use, only that Nevada Highway Patrol uses the mouth swab. (and in Nevada having an MMJ card makes no difference if you are over the 5ng/ml limit).

Anyways ramble ramble, does anyone know how I will be tested if I am pulled over and suspected of a DWI in Washington? is there a cotton swab? blood test? and does it make a difference if I am a registered medical user?

 

[Krazy]

At a DUI check point they have no probable cause for YOU specifically; do not even roll down the window. Keep saying "am I being detained or am I free to go?" Keep the doors locked and the windows closed. Film everything.

 

[Vaked420]

At a DUI check point they have no probable cause for YOU specifically; do not even roll down the window. Keep saying "am I being detained or am I free to go?" Keep the doors locked and the windows closed. Film everything.

Now that sounds pretty Krazy...

Lol but actually tho, if I feel I have nothing to hide, cops will try to mess with you the least if you are cooperative. though that also depends on where you're at...

 

[Tranquility]

At a DUI check point they have no probable cause for YOU specifically; do not even roll down the window. Keep saying "am I being detained or am I free to go?" Keep the doors locked and the windows closed. Film everything.

For those who want to make the play:

http://fairdui.org/flyer/

Go to your specific state to be sure.