If the law says you can’t drive with THC metabolites in your blood, and you do so anyway, then you’re not innocent in the sense of the law. And it’s an easy law not to break.
Comparing requiring people who want to drive not to smoke weed all the time (if you’re not a habitual smoker you’re not going to be over the limit unless you smoked recently) with shooting people is so ridiculous it doesn’t even warrant a response.
I don’t find it unreasonable at all to expect people to make a choice between driving and smoking weed habitually. Certainly more reasonable than expecting everyone else to put up with stoned drivers so stoners don’t have to cut back on their habit if they want to drive. And it’s not like I have an issue with stoners. I used to smoke a ton of weed myself. But that doesn’t mean I’m okay with sharing the road with them.
Also, I’m sure we both agree that weed should be legal and I can tell you, as someone from a country that legalised quite recently, that it’s going to be a tough sell if you don’t accept some limitations on driving.
If you have some great idea on how to reliably tell if someone is currently high, then let’s hear it. And it better not be to let the cop who pulled you over decide whether you look stoned or not.
I understand that technically, by the letter of the law, such a driver would be in violation of the law, yes. My point, which I already brought up and that you side stepped, was that the purpose of the law is to prevent intoxicated driving, but its impact is to forbid drivers from smoking too much, even when they do so fully responsibly with regards to their driving. Two people have responded to me since this all began saying there are in fact tests that can detect the proper products and byproducts to make a far more reasonable judgment. The technology exists, then. It’s just a matter of a willingness to use it and pay for it. I’ve also already said they have ways to assess general impairment, which while obviously imperfect for a variety of reasons, at least actually attempt to assess the true factor. You’ve also ignored my question about what a reasonable false positive rate is with this policy. Sure, drivers may cross the threshold, but if we’ve established that the test isn’t a good test of impairment, what portion of totally unimpaired arrests is acceptable to you? How many unimpaired people are you willing to jail to get safety on the roads? You want people you’ve never met and who have not violated the intent of the law to face serious criminal repercussions to give you a sense of security. What portion of the arrests are you willing to allow them to be?
If the law says you can’t drive with THC metabolites in your blood, and you do so anyway, then you’re not innocent in the sense of the law. And it’s an easy law not to break.
Comparing requiring people who want to drive not to smoke weed all the time (if you’re not a habitual smoker you’re not going to be over the limit unless you smoked recently) with shooting people is so ridiculous it doesn’t even warrant a response.
I don’t find it unreasonable at all to expect people to make a choice between driving and smoking weed habitually. Certainly more reasonable than expecting everyone else to put up with stoned drivers so stoners don’t have to cut back on their habit if they want to drive. And it’s not like I have an issue with stoners. I used to smoke a ton of weed myself. But that doesn’t mean I’m okay with sharing the road with them.
Also, I’m sure we both agree that weed should be legal and I can tell you, as someone from a country that legalised quite recently, that it’s going to be a tough sell if you don’t accept some limitations on driving.
If you have some great idea on how to reliably tell if someone is currently high, then let’s hear it. And it better not be to let the cop who pulled you over decide whether you look stoned or not.
I understand that technically, by the letter of the law, such a driver would be in violation of the law, yes. My point, which I already brought up and that you side stepped, was that the purpose of the law is to prevent intoxicated driving, but its impact is to forbid drivers from smoking too much, even when they do so fully responsibly with regards to their driving. Two people have responded to me since this all began saying there are in fact tests that can detect the proper products and byproducts to make a far more reasonable judgment. The technology exists, then. It’s just a matter of a willingness to use it and pay for it. I’ve also already said they have ways to assess general impairment, which while obviously imperfect for a variety of reasons, at least actually attempt to assess the true factor. You’ve also ignored my question about what a reasonable false positive rate is with this policy. Sure, drivers may cross the threshold, but if we’ve established that the test isn’t a good test of impairment, what portion of totally unimpaired arrests is acceptable to you? How many unimpaired people are you willing to jail to get safety on the roads? You want people you’ve never met and who have not violated the intent of the law to face serious criminal repercussions to give you a sense of security. What portion of the arrests are you willing to allow them to be?