Tranquility
Well-Known Member
The problem is, the crime is considered driving under the influence. (It can be named differently in each state.) "Influence" is far less than being unable to remember a dogs name.In addition even if we talk non medical usage the effects and tolerances are vastly different per individual. I have a freaky "still entirely functional" level. I know people that a single mild puff on a generic J will be too wrecked to remember the dogs name.
With alcohol, U.S. states define a person is under the influence by two methods. One is the proof one is actually driving under the influence. The other is a "per se" limit. For adults under no special restrictions, that limit tends to be .08% BAC. Many experienced drinkers can be pretty functional at .08. *I* can be pretty functional at .08 and I don't have any tolerance. But, study after study will put some effects of alcohol to most all people when they are at .08. The FST's the police do look for subtle signs of that intoxication and not gross ones. Divided attention impairment is a major indicator the police look at--not that the person walking the line is fall over drunk to the point they have lost good balance or coordination. A person at that level of impairment is going to have a LOT higher BAC than the person that merely stops looking in their wallet for their license when asked where they were coming from.
There is going to be some per se limit for THC as well. It will be a lie as the variation of effects at certain doses vary wildly within the population. Yet, there will be a limit. It is not going to be a limit on where dogs names are forgotten, but where one finds Spicoli hilarious rather than merely humorous. If one smokes recreationally, I assume one smokes for effect and not to just look cool blowing vapor rings. If one obtains that effect, The State will try to keep one off the road. One factor The State will adjust to limit the perceived evil is to arrest those who do so.