MADD Canada calls for drug testing at roadside

[theyeti]

well steroids make ppl stronger . maybe some drugs make u a better driver . find a stat some one please

[GenuinelyInterested]

well steroids make ppl stronger . maybe some drugs make u a better driver . find a stat some one please

You have made the claim, you find the evidence to back-up your claim.

[fluffy]

I don't see this as the typical pot vs. booze argument. Fact is that people under the influence of pot are at higher risk of having a car accident than people driving clean and sober.

Do you have stats to back this up?

Google is your friend.

There is a multitude of articles on the subject that can be accessed with a simple google search on "marijuana and driving skills". As with any online research one has to consider the source and the potential for bias. I have found that pro-legalization sites will downplay hazards associated with stoned driving, while anti drug-and-alcohol sites will exaggerate those same hazards. The common thread I've found is that there are hazards, it's a matter of who you're listening to as to how serious those hazards are. Some of the more "scholarly" articles I've read agree that while not as severe as alcohol, pot smoking does affect psycho-motor abilities to the point where reaction time and cognitive abilities are reduced. The level to which that reduction affects driving abilities and driver safety is what is at issue. We need access to reliable research and testing methods if this is ever going to be anything more than another legalization debate.

[Bsuds]

OK then maybe we need to get together and do some research of our own.

[Smurf]

That is a problem I have been bringing up all along in these debates. There are no real stats out there yet and no real tests as to the amount of impairement. I have seen tests conducted on TV etc. and in almost every case people are amazed how bad their skills are yet they still feel fine. I can see the tests and stats coming because they are now starting to pay more attention to it as it is becoming more common. However it will still take years to build up true stats that mean anything and they also have to start separating the drugs instead of "drug impaired" if we ever want to know the true effects of say MJ. It is a while down the road yet I am afraid. But impaired is still impaired and people should be charged if they are driving impaired no matter what substance they are using or even if they are fatigued they should at the very least be taken off the road for 24 hours. To say it isn't happening because there are no stats is totally wrong. I believe we all know there are people out there who are driving impaired to some extent on probably almost every type of mind impairing drug there is. The bigger question is how impaired are they.

[GenuinelyInterested]

OK then maybe we need to get together and do some research of our own.

Hey! I'm UP for that. (scholastically speaking). Of course maybe, I should pre-qualify that statement? I an now old, getting, "UP" meant, out of bed. Getting "high" meant, more than 3 drinks of Scotch. (Straight, no ice, no water). Being "high as a kite" meant, finished the fourth Scotch. Being "Gay" was a girl's name. Parachuting was dangerous and sex was safe.
I'm okay with meeting up with you BSuds and discussing the "good O'l Days", just like they were yesterday. I remember when a puter was used for golf, not this .........Oh how I digress. Sorry.

Just to stay on topic; I agree totally with the post above by: Smurf.

[Static]

I agree. But, there has to be different levels of intoxication. I'm certain that most Green smokers would agree that they are fine driving after 2-3 tokes. It has to be treated the same way as liquor. By why stop there? Medication, lack of sleep etc should also be included.

[Captain Awesome]

Not to mention DWF.

Driving while Female.

[GenuinelyInterested]

I agree. But, there has to be different levels of intoxication. I'm certain that most Green smokers would agree that they are fine driving after 2-3 tokes. It has to be treated the same way as liquor. By why stop there? Medication, lack of sleep etc should also be included.

Medication CAN be tested for today, but the studies are incomplete as to what levels are to be restricted. As for "lack of sleep", there has yet to be a definitive test for that, just like so many other impairments to driving ability. That time WILL come, whether it happens within OUR lifetime is yet to be seen.
I think that by the time that comes, automobiles as we know them today will be antiques, and will be controlled completely by computers.
Just think about it for a second, ALL traffic deaths and accidents will be a piece of ancient history. Ancient history will be considered, 3 years prior to their present. 40 years from now, they will be looking back at US and be amazed at how we could even survive under these simple and crude conditions.
Almost 100 years ago, was WWI. No bombers, No "flack" jackets. ALL the repeating rifles were "belt fed". Hay was cut by hand and Wheat was "Threshed" by a belt driven tractor.
We have come a long way, and each step after this will be much shorter than the one before. Be a LITTLE more patient and you too will have your simplest of self serving desires satisfied. Be patient grasshopper, your time will come soon enough.

[fvkasm2x]

I volunteered with the RCMP at traffic stops and you'd be surprised how many people we stopped that were high and/or smoking WHILE driving. Disturbing really...

That said, this should never pass. It's way too complicated and intrusive to practically implement.

[NAB]

Why should taking a saliva swab be any more complicated and intrusive than having a suspect blow into a breathalizer?

Western Australia has been doing it for 5 years now..

http://drugaware.com.au/DrugDriving/Faq.aspx

Nab

[MAPearce]

If they're going to push this thing there has to be an accurate way of testing level of impairment similar to BAC with drinking drivers.

That should be the core of this issue IMO...I don't have a problem with getting a "warn" at the side of the road and having to take cab but to suffer so many expensive and punitive damages, I think the onus to prove the exact level of impairment should be on law enforcement..

And I don't mean "warn" or "fail" I mean .05 , .08 , or . "whatever". I think the same should apply to drugs.

[zzontar]

I think the onus to prove the exact level of impairment should be on law enforcement..

And I don't mean "warn" or "fail" I mean .05 , .08 , or . "whatever". I think the same should apply to drugs.

I'm starting to think they're not worried about dangerous drivers but instead ones who register a certain number on a machine. I guarantee you that I could drink until I blow a "fail" then smoke some pot, and I and many people would still be a much safer driver than anyone on "Canada's Worst Driver," yet in a checkstop they'd drive on and I'd lose my license. Of course the best idea would be for me not to do that, but the point is that the way the system is now, it would be the more dangerous drivers who would be allowed to go on their way. Would any mother from MADD feel safe letting their child ride with someone from CWD? Why don't they start M.A.C.E. (Mothers Against Crappy Examiners) seeing as it's sober people who are crappy drivers who cause most of the crashes? Could it be because they might see themselves as one?

[kibbs]

i think if they can test as accurately as alcohol its a good thing we don't need seriously baked people any more than drunks driving.But like alcohol and prescription meds some tolerance should be allowed.When you see a senior drive through a store window it makes you wonder how many meds they did that morning.Warning salty language,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXBdSRQtXI0

[fvkasm2x]

Why should taking a saliva swab be any more complicated and intrusive than having a suspect blow into a breathalizer?

Western Australia has been doing it for 5 years now..

http://drugaware.com.au/DrugDriving/Faq.aspx

Nab

Because no charges can be laid until the work is all confirmed by a laboratory. That's big $$$