Funny, some of our posters on here seem to think otherwise: Jokes aside (DD's clueless), I just don't think it's enough. People driving stoned aren't obvious like drunk drivers are. The danger of them on the road doesn't come from them speeding or weaving in and out of traffic -- it comes from their delayed reaction time and impairment, especially with regard to depth perception. Likewise, do we institute a "no blazing and driving" policy? Or is it ok to chief while you cruise down I-10? We don't allow drinking and driving anymore, independent of whether or not you're over the legal limit -- would this apply to mar1juana as well? How do we inform the public of what is considered smoking too much mar1juana? They say you should wait an hour for every beer you drink -- how do you translate that to mar1juana? For the record, I agree with you that mar1juana should be legalized, taxed, etc. I'm just unsure on how to go about it from a law enforcement perspective, and I don't think your simple "field sobriety test" answer can completely fix those problems. This would probably lead to a hell of a lot more court cost for the state, with citizens fighting their DUIs on similar arguments that DD used (subjective test; officer's word vs. yours). It's not as simple as waving a wand and legalizing it -- we need to have solutions and answers to these problem that will arise from legalization. You should be working on a mar1juana breathalyzer -- then you can become a millionaire and greatly help your cause with one stone!
This was actually addressed in the study results, it appeared that people who smoked pot before driving were apt to drive more slowly than normal, making up for their slow reaction time. You study the issue and come up with a standard measure at which people appear too high to drive. Personally, I think that being able to pass a roadside sobriety test should show that one is not impaired. I doubt there would be higher court costs for DUI fights than for the current court fights for possession. People these days are far more motivated to fight their court case because they are in danger of going to jail. If the roadside sobriety test is videotaped and it is clear that the person is too impaired to drive, then it would be an open and shut case for the prosecution. If the person is able to pass a roadside sobriety test, then they should be able to use that tape to prove their innocence. You are absolutely correct that we have to have solutions and answers, but we should be developing those from a place of mar1juana being legal and regulated, not from a place of it being prohibited. There is no good reason that I have heard for mar1juana to be illegal. Even the points you have brought up here are relatively minor given that people go to jail for mar1juana every day (actually, it averages over 2,000 people per day) for no good reason. Would that I were a scientist.
No, I think that DUI should be extended to mar1juana just as it applies to alcohol. If someone is too impaired to drive, they should not be behind the steering wheel. I'll let the "herbal heroin" comment go since I know you were being sarcastic.
Is it wrong? or is it you just don't believe it? It's a fact, I love to smoke a 'J' and drive around listening to the radio , and yes I do drive much slower. But if I've been drinking my wife always takes the keys away from me.
