How to test stoned drivers?

[alanjh595]

How to test stoned drivers?
South Okanagan—West Kootenay NDP MP Richard Cannings is worried about the federal government’s plans for testing motorists for cannabis impairment once the drug is legal.

Cannings spoke at length in the House of Commons last week about Bill C-46, which among other things, would test drivers for marijuana impairment by measuring THC in the blood stream.

“The real problematic thing is, if you are using marijuana frequently… you have chronic low levels of THC in your blood, so if you were tested it you could show up positive even, if you are by no means impaired at all,” he told Castanet News on Monday.

“You would be criminalizing people who use marijuana, when the whole idea was to legalize it,” he added.

While THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, Cannings told the House it acts very differently than alcohol.

“The effects of THC occur when the THC leaves the blood and binds to fatty tissues in the brain. THC binds to fatty tissues so strongly that blood levels generally drop very rapidly. When impairment levels are high, THC levels in the blood are usually very low, so THC levels in the blood do not necessarily relate at all to the level of impairment.”

He said he’s not aware of any other marijuana impairment test that doesn't rely on THC, but thinks “it can be done,” adding that “there are people working on this.”

Cannings added that marijuana impairment is completely different from drunkenness, so it makes little sense to test for it the same way.

“I do not want to suggest that people under the influence of marijuana are safe drivers, just that we have to test for impairment in a very different way,” he said

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... ed-drivers

I say the best test would be to place the suspect in an observation room with a plate of 5 warm, fresh chocolate cookies. Each cookie is valued at -2 points. Observe the suspect for 30 minutes, if all of the cookies are gone, that would indicate a -10 and a fail. If all of the cookies were gone after 20 minutes, that would score as a fail in the second degree. If they were gone in 10 minutes or less, that would be a fail in the first degree. I will leave it up to the courts/MVB to decide on the appropriate punishments.

[GordonH]

Since I'm one who has lost friends & close relatives to drunk drivers, impo there should be zero tolerances for alcohol & drugs for anyone behind the wheel.

[alanjh595]

Since I'm one who has lost friends & close relatives to drunk drivers, impo there should be zero tolerances for alcohol & drugs for anyone behind the wheel.

Zero tolerance, although preferable, is probably unobtainable. The restaurant, tourism and wineries would be the greatest proponents for the no side.

[JLives]

Since I'm one who has lost friends & close relatives to drunk drivers, impo there should be zero tolerances for alcohol & drugs for anyone behind the wheel.

I lost my father to drunk driving. I still understand that there are differences with driving and marijuana. It is not comparable to alcohol use at all. A daily smoker using no other substances is not necessarily more of a driving risk than an average driver. The majority of major accidents where marijuana is found in the driver's system had other substances as well, mainly alcohol. That doesn't mean anyone who uses cannabis should be driving though. Some people can have a tiny bit and be a mess. Some people use it medicinally to increase focus which makes them better drivers. You can't just set an arbitrary threshold across the board. And you can't use THC in your blood either because it can store in your body for 30 days past use so they would test positive but not necessarily be under the influence. I like the idea of means testing but also see potential for mistakes too. We need to think outside the box for this issue and definitely not treat it the same as booze.

[Omnitheo]

Not to mention that someone under the influence could pass a cognition test that someone who’s drowsey or slow might fail.

Likewise with your cookie analogy, stoned or not I’m not gonna pass up a free plate of freshly baked cookies.

[MAPearce]

Since I'm one who has lost friends & close relatives to drunk drivers, impo there should be zero tolerances for alcohol & drugs for anyone behind the wheel.

Sorry for your loss Gord ... But as you may remember , I lost my father to a stupid driver who didn't know the brake from the throttle ... But that was ok because she wasn't drunk ...

She could have been just stoned . How do I know ???

That's the point .

[MAPearce]

Zero tolerance, although preferable, is probably unobtainable. The restaurant, tourism and wineries would be the greatest proponents for the no side.

It's not that it's unobtainable but rather how to obtain it ? ..

If a person has a measly glass of wine , a beer or a toke how long is long enough for that substance to be considered metabolized and not an impairment ??

Some would say a day , week , month or in Gords case NEVER ....

[alanjh595]

Not to mention that someone under the influence could pass a cognition test that someone who’s drowsey or slow might fail.

Likewise with your cookie analogy, stoned or not I’m not gonna pass up a free plate of freshly baked cookies.

okay then...you proceed to the secondary screening. Either pee in the cup or give a blood sample. You will remain in custody for the next 72 hours or whenever we receive the results back from the lab. OH, and by the way, they will be testing for ALL other narcotics as a matter of standard practice.
Would you like to reconsider your choices?

[Silverstarqueen]

I don't think it has to be zero tolerance. I would venture that the vast majority of cases where a drunk driver caused a crash they were over the limit. Marijuana has been around for enough years, that science can design some way to measure impairment by pot if that is what is needed. Like alcohol, it needn't be set at zero, but set it somewhere, so that at least the wheat can be separated from the chaff. It does not matter if it is medical use or not, a person could still be impaired, same as if they use prescription drugs, they don't get a pass for causing an accident while impaired. There are quite a few people out there loaded on something, pot is just one of those things, so the police already have a problem, this is nothing new.

[jimmy4321]

We should have as close to zero tolerance as possible.
So from what I understand is that even if a "regular user" were to not smoke for couple days or a week, THC would still show in a test.

Is this correct?
If so, is this gonna be the "busted tail light" that allows police to pull over anyone for testing just because?

[Omnitheo]

Not to mention that someone under the influence could pass a cognition test that someone who’s drowsey or slow might fail.

Likewise with your cookie analogy, stoned or not I’m not gonna pass up a free plate of freshly baked cookies.

okay then...you proceed to the secondary screening. Either pee in the cup or give a blood sample. You will remain in custody for the next 72 hours or whenever we receive the results back from the lab. OH, and by the way, they will be testing for ALL other narcotics as a matter of standard practice.
Would you like to reconsider your choices?

Are you serious? So a regular smoker who has not partaken anything that day, drives home from work. They are stopped at a random check, and test positive for having the (legal) substance in their bloodstream. Now you’re holding them in custody without charges for 3 times the legal length of time to hold someone in custody without charges?! Meanwhile making them lose work and potentially their job? Simply for enjoying a legal substance at some point in the last 30 days?

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/just ... e-arrested

If the police do not release you after you are arrested, they must bring you in front of a judge within 24 hours for a bail hearing.

I’m sorry but this is absolutely preposterous.

[maryjane48]

We should have as close to zero tolerance as possible.
So from what I understand is that even if a "regular user" were to not smoke for couple days or a week, THC would still show in a test.

Is this correct?
If so, is this gonna be the "busted tail light" that allows police to pull over anyone for testing just because?

No. We dont live in police state. Comparing booze to pot is comparing a gun to a nerf gun .look at the data . Its not even close. Drunk drivers kill thousands a day .pot. Not so much

[GordonH]

Sound like those who partake in pot (smoke or otherwise) will get off.
Well until they kill someone and that family takes them to court for every penny they have & many they don't. Because the driver is to damn stupid not to be driving after getting stoned.

But hey who the hell cares about few (unknown number) innocence people & there loved one anyway. Clearly a number of posters on here don't give damn, just like many drinking drivers don't care what their actions cause. The loss of human life is not as important as getting drunk, high or both.

[DarkMagna]

Sound like those who partake in pot (smoke or otherwise) will get off.
Well until they kill someone and that family takes them to court for every penny they have & many they don't. Because the driver is to damn stupid not to be driving after getting stoned.

But hey who the hell cares about few (unknown number) innocence people & there loved one anyway. Clearly a number of posters on here don't give damn, just like many drinking drivers don't care what their actions cause. The loss of human life is not as important as getting drunk, high or both.

I'm sorry for your loss, Gordon.
I think you may be missing the main point of this conversation. Let me give you a specific case, using myself as a test subject.
I have a medical card for marijuana. I smoke it on a regular basis......but I NEVER - and I mean NEVER, smoke it and drive. I also don't drink and drive.
But if I smoke a little tonight and then three days later get stopped for whatever reason, if the cop decides to test me, I'll test positive....even though I'm as straight as a tea drinking grandma. That's what the issue at hand is, and with it, the question of how to accurately test and gauge impairment. Arresting me for impaired driving when I have ZERO impairment (basic bad judgement excluded) isn't solving anything.

Cheers

[GordonH]

I'm sorry for your loss, Gordon. Thank-you
I think you may be missing the main point of this conversation. Let me give you a specific case, using myself as a test subject.
I have a medical card for marijuana. I smoke it on a regular basis......but I NEVER - and I mean NEVER, smoke it and drive. I also don't drink and drive.
But if I smoke a little tonight and then three days later get stopped for whatever reason, if the cop decides to test me, I'll test positive....even though I'm as straight as a tea drinking grandma. That's what the issue at hand is, and with it, the question of how to accurately test and gauge impairment. Arresting me for impaired driving when I have ZERO impairment (basic bad judgement excluded) isn't solving anything.

Cheers

I'm not missing the point, my point is pot smokers or other forms of ingesting. Chances are good they would get off of any charges in court. Reason being the Crown would not be able to know without a doubt when the driver had the pot, sometime before being pulled over or day before.
So come July 1, highways could get that much more dangerous.