DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Colorado and Marijuana Driving Laws

I don't believe people have a problem with convicting someone who is actually "high". The problem lies with the method of the testing. Marijuana can stay in the system for up to 30 days. Thus you can get a positive test often times when the driver isn't high. Thus the result of the test has zero correlation with the driver actually being high.

With employment drug screens people have figured this out. Once an accurate test has been implemented to identify if the driver is actually high, I believe this problem will no longer exist.

Actually, they do ask about those things. But typically once it becomes alcohol is the primary factor, all that other stuff becomes less relevant OR let's say someone blows a .04 on the roadside but are all messed up. Then you start looking to see if there are other factors like medication, etc that have compounded the problem.

As to a general reply to some other comments:

-Regarding Fed law...

1) I'm not sure they have the equivalent of a simple possession law.

2) Municipal cops and county deputies don't have the authority to enforce or charge Federal Statutes.

-Regarding testing... this is a big challenge. The standard Field Sobriety Tests are centered around alcohol. They also point to a general lack of sobriety, but the stats show a significantly high likelihood that the clues a person exhibits are under the influence of alcohol. Intoxication due to drug use is more difficult to determine, at least in terms of prosecution. I can interact with a person and tell you if they are high on weed, tweakin on meth, strung out heroin, or cracked out.. and based on my experiences I can testify to those observations but only to the extent of deciphering their behavior. Now there is training to become a Drug Recognition Expert where you have the science and data to back up what you are seeing and can determine what types of drugs they are under the influence of, but that training is difficult and pretty rare.

The other thing to consider is the invasiveness of the testing. DWI laws are generally considered Implied Consent Offenses. Basically implied consent is an agreement you make with the State to be a licensed driver to not drive intoxicated. If an officer develops a reason to believe you may be in such a state, according to implied consent you've agreed to submit to any tests he asks you to take. You certainly can refuse, and in rare instances it might save you from prosecution, but typically if you refuse to take the tests, the DMV suspends your license for a year. It doesn't matter if you beat the charge in criminal court because the suspension is due to your breach of a civil agreement.

As I mentioned earlier, most testing is geared towards detection of alcohol. Its the only thing a breathalyzer will detect. Technically as the investigating officer, if my investigation leads me far enough to the point of having you blow in to the big machine, I actually have the option to perform a blood draw. For practical purposes we only do blood draws when a) people refuse to blow (then we get the search warrant), and b) if we suspect there are other factors such as drug use at play.

The prosecutor does not need to prove that you were drunk or intoxicated in order to prove the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicants. Instead, you are guilty of the charge if you are merely affected to a noticeable degree by the intoxicant you have consumed if the intoxicant is alcohol, a controlled substance, inhalant or any combination of those intoxicants. The test is whether you lack the clearness of mind and physical control that you normally possess because of the intoxicant you have consumed.

If you are in such a physical condition through the use of medication, drugs or even fatigue, so that you become affected by a lesser amount of intoxicant than would normally affect you, you are still guilty of the charge of driving under the influence of intoxicants if your mental or physical faculties are affected to a noticeable degree.

23152(a) does not require an alcohol concentration, only that your ability to drive was impaired

Calm Down Kim Jung.

thats the problem there is no reliable way to test it..and the standard they are using to pop people is not scientifically sound..hence the jury are throwing out the cases.

I know fed trumps on this but its obvious the feds aren't stepping in on drivers getting caught driving high.

If they have the pot on them maybe if its a couple hundred pounds crossing state borders..but what if they dont and the policeman is just going off of arbitrary evidence??

There is an easy way to set a standard. You grab 100 people and have them drive 2 laps on a driving course while gradually increase the pot they have smoked and testing the blood for thier levels of THC concentration.

Eventually you will find a common range that shows when those levels create an impairment. I am certain they could rig a diabetes tester to check blood level for THC fairly easily.

I am a huge supporter of state rights however state right as defined by our constitution is only those things that federal law does not regulate. Since there are federal drug laws they will always trump state ones.

Well they havent been able to figure out how to get a reliable way of determining if/how high someone is while driving..which is why the juries are not ruling in the prosecutors favor. hell the amount the prosecutor in the case cited couldnt even get the jury to convict..

/But you lets just go get some of them stoners to drive around in a circle and figure it out..WHAT?? We have some pretty smart people on this planet and I'm sure they will figure out a way to measure it so juries will convict..and it will probably get here when it becomes more widespread/legal in this country.

And damn man I thought we already hashed out state rights verses the federal law..I KNOWWWW fed law trumps state law in this instance but the freaking feds are not stepping in over a damn case of someone DRIVING high..get it??

What in the heck am I missing here with you??

Or are we arguing for the sake of arguing???

I'm very versed in state law/constitutional rights..I'm involved in gun rights stuff that is trying to defend our rights...so I educated myself in state rights and federal law from people who are a lot smarter then I am.

Ok unless youve got something other then fed law trumps state rights blah blah blah..I guess we have no more to discuss on this issue.

kapesh?

Weed here is considered a Sched VI (out of 6) here. That's why I'm surprised that the Fed's classify it as Sched I. But then we both know how the Fed's like to do their own thing regardless of the Constitution

Uhh yea, while high.

When I'm not high, everything works just fine. Still can't believe I got A's in all my classes right now.

Must be that dank.

Key word "may".

Meaning it's not concrete, not conclusive.