National "Drugged Driving" Laws Considered

[NebariNookiee]

This has the potential to blow up in someone’s face –
_______________________
National "Drugged Driving" Laws Considered
Thurs, March 18, 2004

If you have any amount of illegal drugs in your system during a traffic stop -- whether you took the substance three weeks ago or three minutes before getting in the car -- you could face stiff penalties under a pair of bills introduced in Congress.

Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV)'s proposal demands that state legislatures amend their driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) laws to enact mandatory minimum penalties for anyone convicted. HR 3907 would give states until 2006 to pass and enforce the new laws, or lose up to half of their federal highway funding.

Several members of Congress from both parties also want to impose a DUID law for states to follow. HR 3922 demands that states penalize drivers with any detectable amount of a controlled substance present in their bodies. This law would give states an incentive -- money for police training, prosecutors, and driver counseling -- rather than threatening to take funds away.

Right now, eight states have laws on driving under the influence of drugs. Unlike drunk driving laws that define a specific blood-alcohol level as "impaired," the state laws on drug impairment are vague. Similarly, HR 3907 and HR 3922 do not clearly define drugged-driving. Current tests can only detect the presence of drugs in someone's system, but not the amount or how long ago the drugs were used. These tests could be used as a way to seek out and punish drug users -- whether they're driving impaired or not. This is relevant to marijuana users in particular, as traces of the drug remain detectable in the blood and urine for days and sometimes weeks after past use.

The Governors Highway Safety Administration has advised its members not to adopt any drug testing laws for the time being
_____________________________

So basically if you had smoked a joint three weeks prior to getting pulled over – you can still go to jail for driving under the influence. I’m frelling worried about this – the war on drugs is an utter failure and the Government absolutely refuses to acknowledge it! None of their programs have worked and they are willing to destroy us all so they don’t have to admit it!
:evil: :headbang: :irate: :ppbb: :yuck:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/03_18_04drugged.cfm

[zap]

You dont have to smoke pot to test positive. A friend of mine gave me cannabis tea for xmas. She bought it in Germany, and it clearly had cannabis leaves in it, however, it did not give anysort of buzz. I also sometimes consume other foods with cannabis ingredients, none of which get ya high, but all of which would cause me to test "positive" for THC (one of the active compounds in cannabis). It is also well know that poppy seed bagels cause one to test positive for opiates, and certain OTC allergy medications cause "positive" test results for amphetamines. This country is going to hell in a handbasket, and unfortunatly, I'm not enjoying the ride.

[waltersgirl]

Right now, eight states have laws on driving under the influence of drugs. Unlike drunk driving laws that define a specific blood-alcohol level as "impaired," the state laws on drug impairment are vague.

in California, there are two subsections for 23152...(A) and (B). one is the blood alcohol greater than a .08, the other is simply impairment.

the process is the same for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

you have to be able to articulate driving "obs" on a vehicle before you pull it over. it's the "probable cause" for the detention. the driver then has to fail the field sobriety tests. based on what the driver says they consumed/ingested/snorted/whatever, chemical tests are then conducted accordingly.

so, NN's example of still being able to test positive for traces of marijuana days later is not valid here, unless the driver were manifesting the driving patterns of someone impaired. you can't just pull someone over that is driving "normally".

[Darth Buddha]

WG, your description is how it is now, and how it should be. I suspect this proposed law would be implemented quite differently.

The testing costs would be prohibitive up front, but it is really the same technology as cuirrent employment screens... you wouldn't test for one, you'd test for all. Increase the number of people tested, and you'd see better tests, with economies of scale. I know the testing end... it could be done.

In which case, somebody could be nailed, but not have been impaired at the time they are operating the vehicle.

[Clarsax]

I would think they could only charge those who are clearly drugged out of thier minds. If police start arresting tons of people who drink herbal tea and eat bagels, I don't see how the law last that long.

[Harveylives]

The people that this is going to hurt more are the terminally ill on pain killers that have to drive to get either chemotherapy at the hospital or other special treatments.

[shamecube]

you won't fool the children of the revolution

[waltersgirl]

whatever. think what you want.

[StarsGoBlue]

Originally posted by Harveylives
The people that this is going to hurt more are the terminally ill on pain killers that have to drive to get either chemotherapy at the hospital or other special treatments.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but if a person's medications or medical treatments make them an impaired driver, they have no business behind the wheel. There are taxicabs, and public transportation, and friends/family who drive, and often hospice and hospital transportation programs for exactly that reason.

[waltersgirl]

but if a person's medications or medical treatments make them an impaired driver, they have no business behind the wheel. There are taxicabs, and public transportation, and friends/family who drive, and often hospice and hospital transportation programs for exactly that reason.

yes. and the families of victims that die in traffic accidents where drivers were under the influence aren't going to care if the driver was using whatever had them under the influence as a pain reliever, however severe the pain. they are only going to care about the fact that their loved one was killed in a car accident and someone was behind the wheel that shouldn't have been.