Redstate

We already have laws against driving while impaired, so your objection is unfounded.

Question: are there effective tests for marijuana impairment analogous to BAC? This is the main sticking point with me, personally, on marijuana legalization: it's going to be very difficult to deal with marijuana-intoxicated drivers, employees, etc. if it can't be easily detected (in a way that will hold up in a court of law).

It seems to me that if one is impaired, a standard field sobriety test should be able to do it.

That is the real issue, after all: Are one's motor skills up to the task?

Blood alcohol content is a red herring.

People should not be driving while impaired, and should not be going to work impaired.  To my knowledge, there is not a non-intrusive test that can tell the level of intoxication.  They can use eye dialation as a very good indicator, but they would have to have a record of your eye when sober to compare it with.  So in order to use this, you would have to have a scan done when they know you are sober and have it on file, or they would have hold you a considerable amount of time to check your eyes again once they know you are not impaired.

The first is a privacy concern, the second is alot of trouble to go through for someone falsly accused.  And standard drug tests have nothing to do with intoxication, since traces of the drug last much longer than any effects.  With the exception of some drugs that are out of the system quickly.  Although with any of these drugs, it would be quite obvious the user is impaired.

We have to have a way of effective, and quick, testing intoxication levels.  We need to enforce driving laws.  Standard tests don't cut it.  Without a fast way of intoxication detection, I think legalization is a bad idea.

But then again, people are driving around stoned now anyway.  Legalizing it isn't likely to stop that.

Unlike DUI cases that involve alcohol, there is no "per se" or legal limit that is employed for persons accused of driving under the influence of prescription medication or illicit drugs. Instead, the key inquiry focuses on whether the driver's faculties were impaired by the substance that was consumed. The detection and successful prosecution of drivers impaired by prescription medication or illegal drugs is therefore quite difficult. Similarly, although urinalysis toxicology screens can detect the presence of such substances in the driver's bloodstream, these analyses are unable to demonstrate that the substance was actually causing impairment at the time of driving. In response to these problems, several jurisdictions are currently considering legislation that would establish "zero tolerance" laws for those drivers arrested for DUI and found to have drugs or medication in their system. Additionally, breathalyzers have been developed for the purpose of administering roadside or laboratory tests that can detect the actual level of a controlled substance in an individual's body.

So it sounds like we're getting there, but the legal hitches have not been entirely worked out.

about drugged driving enforced now? Since we already have the situation I don't think legalization would create any problems that do not currently exist. Also, I would guess that if police are properly trained to recognize the signs of drug intoxication (which are not difficult to detect) they should be able to remand a suspect to a hospital for a blood test just as they can with alcohol.

The biggest issue regarding driving is people driving when they shouldn't be, no matter what the reason.  Personally, I think senior citizens are a bigger driving risk than people driving while stoned-- when's the last time you heard about a stoner hitting the gas instead of the brake and mowing down a bunch of people?

a statement, I'd have to discount it.  I do know that I don't feel comfortable driving on roads with people that are drunk or stoned.  I also cannot agree with the current DUI policy of throwing people in jail for a positive drug test that is no indication to the intoxicatation at the time the person was driving.  We need an effective test for intoxication.

If marijuana were to be legalized, we need a concrete way to enforce DUI laws.  Just as we should have with all driving impairments.

There are lots of things that can impair a driver than drugs or alcohol: being tired, talking on a cellphone, being distracted by the radio or other passengers, loud music keeping them from hearing sirens or other audio cues, being too old to drive effectively, having other things on the mind, never being taught good driving techniques in the first place, I could go on and on.

How could we ever come up with tests for all those impairments?

is people who drive when they are in states of extreme emotional upset. My one serious accident was caused by a lady who ran a stoplight and plowed into me, totaling my 5 week old new car (I was wearing my seat belt so escaped with lots of cuts and bruises). The woman had just had a huge fight with her boyfriend and was in no state to be behind the wheel of a car.

While half of all fatal accidents may be alcohol related, that leaves the other half related to other factors which ought concern us no less.