Driving whilst high

Tranquility

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
What would you do?

I was going to get my lunch at Jack in the Box today as a person came up behind me as I reached the door. I opened it and held it open for her to enter (I'd have done the same for a man.) and, as she passed me, the smell of recently-smoked cannabis overwhelmed. Combined with the "just the flu"-type symptoms--especially in the eyes, the louder and slightly slurred ordering, and the desire to talk to strangers, I formed the opinion the woman was high. I'm not a legally-trained expert in detecting cannabis intoxication, but I bet I can tell as well as you can tell if another is high. Especially way high.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she was just in a place where she was exposed to cannabis smoke just before entering. Maybe she just didn't bathe or wash her clothes after her last session. Maybe, she just had a bit to take the edge off and felt stone cold sober, I don't know.

I didn't care either.

As she left a moment before me, I saw the vehicle she arrived in. A bus. A short bus. Not a short school bus, but one of the type in the area that are contracted by the district and takes disabled students to services during the school day and after.

There were no passengers in the bus as she got in to drive away. Maybe she had just finished her morning and wouldn't have to drive a person until after school in a few hours and would have 3 or 4 hours before a passenger would enter her bus. Again, I don't know.

What I do know is a person who was hired to safely transport disabled kids for services, from all appearances, recently smoked marijuana before getting behind the wheel of the bus used to transport them.
 
His_Highness

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
OldNewbie said:
What would you do?

I was going to get my lunch at Jack in the Box today as a person came up behind me as I reached the door. I opened it and held it open for her to enter (I'd have done the same for a man.) and, as she passed me, the smell of recently-smoked cannabis overwhelmed. Combined with the "just the flu"-type symptoms--especially in the eyes, the louder and slightly slurred ordering, and the desire to talk to strangers, I formed the opinion the woman was high. I'm not a legally-trained expert in detecting cannabis intoxication, but I bet I can tell as well as you can tell if another is high. Especially way high.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she was just in a place where she was exposed to cannabis smoke just before entering. Maybe she just didn't bathe or wash her clothes after her last session. Maybe, she just had a bit to take the edge off and felt stone cold sober, I don't know.

I didn't care either.

As she left a moment before me, I saw the vehicle she arrived in. A bus. A short bus. Not a short school bus, but one of the type in the area that are contracted by the district and takes disabled students to services during the school day and after.

There were no passengers in the bus as she got in to drive away. Maybe she had just finished her morning and wouldn't have to drive a person until after school in a few hours and would have 3 or 4 hours before a passenger would enter her bus. Again, I don't know.

What I do know is a person who was hired to safely transport disabled kids for services, from all appearances, recently smoked marijuana before getting behind the wheel of the bus used to transport them.
Click to expand...

Tricky situation....I had a dentist who was fond of tea and had allergies. The tea made his breath smell like he just smoked up and the allergy reddened his eyes. I had overheard him talking to his assistant about the tea and his allergies as they were setting up for my surgery which was before he hovered over me where I could catch the smell. I think I would have made an excuse to get out of there if I hadn't overheard him first. Could he have been high...I may never know.

About the bus... I may have let it go even if there were passengers as long as they weren't children or challenged and if I'm being totally honest I don't know if I would have done anything even then. As much as you sound like you are 100% sure the person was buzzed, if I were in your shoes my prior experience would probably have caused me to second guess and do nothing.

Lets add some weight to the scale....if someone I cared about were on that bus I would have told them what I suspected if they were old enough to deal on their own. If it were someone who wasn't able to deal on their own I would have pulled them off the bus and let the chips fall where they may.

After writing the above I guess it comes down to whether I have skin in the game which makes me feel like shit/guilty knowing that.
 
Last edited:
Tranquility

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
His_Highness said:
After writing the above I guess it comes down to whether I have skin in the game which makes me feel like shit/guilty knowing that.
Click to expand...
I did nothing.

I believe that if it would have been a school bus or if there were people on board then, I would do something. Then again, I believe many things that just might not be true if confronted with reality.
 
nosmoking

nosmoking

Just so Dab HAppy!
I coach Special Olympic athletes to snow ski. Been doing it with my Mom for 20+ years. All the other coaches know of my use and have been very understanding. Not a single one of them has a problem asking me to drive knowing moments before I was medicating. I say no.

I am a father of 4. My own wife asks me to drive moments after I medicate. I say no.

My driving record is very clean other than a few speeding tickets and minor fender benders from when I was learning I have Narcolepsy. I work long hours and drive 1 hour to work each day, however it is because of people like many that have posted here that are even pro mmj but still heavily stigmatized and judgemental...it is because of those people that I say no to driving my family around or my athletes around. I have always refused. It started out as me thinking it was for safety, but now I realize theres no evidence to support that. Its just because I am afraid of pitchforks!
 
C No Ego

C No Ego

Well-Known Member
OldNewbie said:
I did nothing.

I believe that if it would have been a school bus or if there were people on board then, I would do something. Then again, I believe many things that just might not be true if confronted with reality.
Click to expand...
maybe she grew up on a farm and learned to drive at a young age... judging always leads us to suffer no matter how justified we feel
 
C No Ego,
  • Like
Reactions: nosmoking
davesmith

davesmith

Well-Known Member
Glass Blower
Just gonna open up a can of worms and say I've driven stoned everyday for about 15 years. I've only ever had 1 road traffic accident and I was sober (driving like a prick because of it too). As for cycling please ive cycled while so fucked i can't walk so cycling stoned isnt even a consideration. I would say being intoxicated in any way is a negative where cars are concerned but as a medical patient and functioning stoner (read every day) I genuinly drive better stoned. As an example the baby mama is a social worker and she would never let me dring a can of beer before driving my daughter (i would NEVER drink drive) but shes happy for me to rip a fat dab and jump straight in the whip. I dont think being in an altered state o mind is great for driving but when you're a medical patient then being sober is often a more altered state than being stoned.
 
Tranquility

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
TommyDee said:
I might have to move... expound please.
Click to expand...
It gets to definitions. (Illustrated by a law student post. https://blogs.law.nyu.edu/lifeatnyulaw/when-is-a-bicycle-a-vehicle-and-other-legal-questions/)

I believe the definition required in New Jersey is one state that there is not DUI on a bicycle.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2016/title-39/section-39-4-50/
39:4-50. (a) Except as provided in subsection (g) of this section, a person who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or operates a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood or permits another person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug to operate a motor vehicle owned by him or in his custody or control or permits another to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood shall be subject:​

Where someone from my great state of California could be:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=23152
23152.
(a) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.​

I suspect a person who is drunk on an bike in Jersey, if stopped by the police, might just go to jail with a drunk in public or disorderly conduct charge, but, it shouldn't affect your license in the same way it would in CA.
 
CANtalk

CANtalk

Well-Known Member
TommyDee said:
I might have to move... expound please.
Click to expand...
One needs to check out jurisdictional law to see what's on the books (as mentioned by @OldNewbie).

In Canada you can't get a DUI charge on a bicycle. A while back I posted about getting haf and taking the mountain bike out to an event; it was an experience. I also take the bike to festivals where I can enjoy some alcohol and bicycle back home without issue (it's a healthier lifestyle too).

It never even occurred to me that this may be illegal in the US until I saw the discussion here because it's legal in Canada. However, DUI's and bicycles are an issue in much of the US (welcome to the US
whip.gif
), though not in all states.

Here's a primer video on the topic I found in a quick search but always verify info by looking at jurisdictional laws. I didn't do much of a deep dive so there's probably some more good info out there.

:peace: :leaf:.
 
Last edited:
Alex3oe

Alex3oe

Accessory Maker
Before this swipe, piss, wtftests appeared, it's been common around us rural region potheads to drive while under the influence of THC.
If you're only a little responsible and a experienced pothead, you're able to evaluate, if you can drive or not imho.

I've driven lots on a daily base while stoned for more than 10 years. Had one "accident", the repair of the Golf IIs back I crashed in was ~20$. Ok, I know, this personal experience doesn't say anything :D
But overall I don't remember any heavy self caused accident around my circles of friends and family while stoned. Different to alcohol, that did and still does carry off so much young people here.

Meanwhile you'll get treated as Satan himself, if you tell anyone and maybe even stand for this behavior. Much more science would be needed here!

Wouldn't say there have not been situations in my younger years where it's been better not to drive and wait another hour. But you grow older, get more responsible and patient and then you wait this hour or two before starting your car, or even stay overnight.
 
JCat

JCat

Well-Known Member
Accessory Maker
biohacker said:
https://globalnews.ca/news/6245267/cannabis-and-driving-study-thc/

@JCat I don't use cannabis or even drive anymore since moving downtown, but I haven't heard much about driving with THC in the system and it was a massive fear campaign a while back. Can you quickly sum up the situation for me since legalization? :D
Click to expand...
I think if you are someone who is responsible, and don't look like a heat-score, and if pulled over are respectful, you'll generally not have a problem; us middle-aged folk don't seem to be the target demographic. That being said, all it takes is a cop with something to prove ... in some states though, they have ruled that smell of cannabis is no longer probably-cause, so that's good. It means that they would have to have other reasons apart from smell to suspect you are high.

Anyways ... I think the rule of don't drive high has you covered short of getting unlucky (and by don't drive high, I don't mean don't drive 10 min after consumption, what I mean is don't drive while intoxicated regardless of when or how much you consumed ... I guess its a bit of a gray area, but it seems based on most studies that the law is biased the wrong way, as it seems generally cannabis users are aware of their levels of intoxication, and act accordingly (at least that's what above study seems to suggest) ...
 
hinglemccringleberry

hinglemccringleberry

Well-Known Member
In Davis CA you can get a BUI. Bicycle cops exist, short shorts and all. But again, you're only in trouble if there's probable cause and/or you do something stupid. Just like with driving. Looking/acting intoxicated, not necessarily being intoxicated, is what lands you in the tank.
Fun fact, Davis CA was the first city in the country to get bike lanes.
 
Last edited:
hinglemccringleberry,
  • Like
Reactions: pxl_jockey
Tranquility

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
JCat said:
in some states though, they have ruled that smell of cannabis is no longer probably-cause, so that's good. It means that they would have to have other reasons apart from smell to suspect you are high.
Click to expand...
Probable cause is a flexible standard and can apply to a number of things. I think that the cases you might be thinking of have to do with searches of people when they smell of cannabis in a legal/medical state. However, driving under the influence is different from possession of something that COULD be illegal. (The cases I've seen on cannabis smell and probable cause had the state argue they smelled the odor [the one I remember was raw smell-not smoke] and the suspect could have had more than the legal limit in the state.) In a DUI, the drug use is one of the elements and the smell...while it might not be enough probable cause to arrest alone, they'll find something. (Often it will be those ol' bloodshot and watery eyes of yours.)

Lexipol is a place some cops go to share info. On this question, one wrote:
https://www.lexipol.com/resources/b...n-car-still-creates-probable-cause-to-search/
January 29, 2019 | Ken Wallentine

State v. Seckinger, 920 N.W.2d 842 (Neb. 2018)

Kathy Seckinger sped into an intersection across four lanes of traffic, cutting off a state trooper and another driver. The trooper slammed on the brakes to avoid a collision, then stopped Seckinger. When the trooper walked up to Seckinger’s car, she smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside. The trooper told Seckinger she could plainly smell marijuana, but Seckinger denied smoking and said there could not have been marijuana in the car some time before. She also refused to consent to a search.

Based on the long-established mobile vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement, the trooper searched Seckinger’s car. She found over 4 grams of methamphetamine and arrested Seckinger.

Seckinger did not challenge the basis for the stop, the scope of the search or the duration of the detention prior to her arrest. Instead, she based her appeal on the single claim that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle could no longer provide probable cause for a search. Seckinger argued marijuana possession was legal in Colorado, a state about 60 miles south of the stop (as the unstoned crow flies). Therefore, it is conceivable the odor of marijuana stemmed from lawful consumption, albeit in another state.

The court succinctly stated the narrow question: “Does the odor of marijuana coming from a vehicle, standing alone, still provide probable cause to search the vehicle?”
Though marijuana possession in some form or fashion is lawful in about half of the United States, it remains unlawful under federal law (21 U.S.C. § 812(c)). Nebraska state law also prohibits marijuana possession. Seckinger’s argument would mean probable cause cannot exist if there is some lawful explanation for the odor of marijuana, such as a fast dash to Colorado for a quick Rocky Mountain high.

The Nebraska Supreme Court disagreed with Seckinger’s logic. The court held: “Assuming the vehicle is readily mobile, the odor of marijuana alone provides probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. And while there may be innocent explanations for the odor of marijuana inside a vehicle, the concept of probable cause is based on probabilities and does not require officers to rule out all innocent explanations for suspicious facts.”

The Nebraska court’s decision is in line with contemporary rulings from other federal and state courts, even in states where some marijuana possession is lawful. For example: Over 10 years ago in California, the nation’s largest state to allow marijuana possession, a court held an officer still had probable cause to search a suspect’s car for marijuana after the officer smelled the drug’s odor. This was despite the fact that the suspect presented an apparently valid medical marijuana prescription, because the state’s medicinal marijuana statute provides a limited immunity—not a shield from reasonable investigation. The court held an officer with probable cause to search is not prevented from doing so by someone presenting a medical marijuana card or a marijuana prescription.

Other courts have ruled similarly. See:

  • People v. Strasburg (56 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, 310 (Cal. App. 1st Dist.), denied, 552 U.S. 1049 (2007))
  • United States v. White (732 Fed. Appx. 597 (9th Cir. 2018))—Despite Nevada’s legalization of medical marijuana, the smell of marijuana emanating from a vehicle still provides probable cause for warrantless search because nonmedical marijuana remains contraband.
  • Robinson, Williams & Spriggs v. State (152 A.3d 661 (Md. 2017))—Despite decriminalization of less than 10 grams of marijuana, marijuana remains contraband and the odor of marijuana emanating from vehicle provides probable cause to search a vehicle.
  • State v. Cheatham (375 P.3d 66 (Az. 2016))—Although the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act created limited exception to laws proscribing marijuana, the odor of marijuana alone supports probable cause to search a car unless totality of circumstances suggests marijuana possession complies with the Act.
  • People v. Zuniga (372 P.3d 1052 (Colo. 2016))—Despite California’s legalization of 1 ounce or less of marijuana, the odor of marijuana is still relevant to the totality of circumstances test and can contribute to probable cause determination.
As more and more states allow medical and recreational marijuana possession, expect more challenges to searches based on the odor of marijuana—whether detected by the officer or a drug detector dog (see the forthcoming 3rd edition of The K9 Officer’s Legal Handbook for further discussion of the impact of relaxed marijuana laws and detector dogs). Officers must carefully document the observations that lead to probable cause, their training and experience in detecting the odors of contraband, and their understanding of search and seizure principles. It won’t work to simply state, “saw drunk, arrested same” (with thanks to Dave Smith AKA Officer J.D. Buck Savage) or “smelled weed, searched and arrested.”
​
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: macbill
ClearBlueLou

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
The bulk of my comments in this thread are a ways back, and I stand by them.
That said, I make it a rule NEVER to get high *while* I drive: operating a vehicle for me requires remaining on a level, not chasing new ones. You’re *driving* goddammit, pay attention. Quit crossing the streams!
 
EverythingsHazy

EverythingsHazy

Well-Known Member
This is the "Driving While HIGH" thread, not the "Driving a few hours after light Cannabis use, where you aren't buzzed anymore but still would fail a test" thread, so the arguments for the allowance of the latter should be separated from those arguing for the allowance of driving while high.

Also, it seems like people who are regular users tend to forget just how intense a Cannabis buzz can be for someone without much of a tolerance, and assume that being high can't inhibit many people's driving abilities, which it most definitely can.
 
TommyDee

TommyDee

Vaporitor
EverythingsHazy said:
This is the "Driving While HIGH" thread, not the "Driving a few hours after light Cannabis use, where you aren't buzzed anymore but still would fail a test" thread, so the arguments for the allowance of the latter should be separated from those arguing for the allowance of driving while high.

Also, it seems like people who are regular users tend to forget just how intense a Cannabis buzz can be for someone without much of a tolerance, and assume that being high can't inhibit many people's driving abilities, which it most definitely can.
Click to expand...

NEVER FUCKING DRIVE WHILE HIGH! Simple enough? NEVER FUCKING DRIVE WHEN DRUNK EITHER but that's another thread.
You hit my car messed up, I mess you up to the highest degree the law allows. Simple enough?
That should be a very simple reply to this thread in all cases unless you are also willing to admit that risking someone else's life for your stupidity and arrogance is acceptable which is no excuse whatsoever. I have a super high tolerance and I know better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom