DriveSmartBC - What About Zero Drugs?

[skidmark]

One of the conditions attached to the driver's license of any new driver in British Columbia's Graduated Licensing Program (GLP) is that the driver must have zero blood alcohol when they are operating a motor vehicle. Of course, the idea behind this is that the driver has enough to worry about while driving the vehicle without adding alcohol to the mix. So, what about drug use?

This question came to my mind one afternoon while I was observing a lineup of vehicles stopped for the flag person at a construction zone. I found a lone male GLP "N" driver who wasn't wearing his seatbelt and pulled him out of the line when it moved on. As soon as I walked up to the driver's door I could smell the marihuana smoke inside, and since the windows were down and he was alone, I knew who had been smoking.

His green bordered license with the zero alcohol condition printed on the back had me thinking about other reality changing drugs. Shouldn't a new driver have a zero tolerance condition for those as well? He spoke to me candidly about smoking a joint while waiting for the construction and I made careful notes and a no charge drug seizure.

Before the end of my shift I contacted the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. No, we're not interested was the response. The Superintendent would only take action if the driver was issued a 24 hour suspension or was charged criminally for impaired driving by a drug other than alcohol.

The situation is the same today. A new driver cannot drink and drive, but it's OK to toke up and drive as long as you don't do enough to be suspended or charged. I repeat, what about zero drugs?

Reference Links (http://www.drivesmartbc.ca/impaired-driving/what-about-zero-drugs)

[speedog]

Should probably be zero drugs as well, but I don't know if there's an actual reliable way in a roadside check stop to test for the myriad of drugs currently available. One thing's for sure, it is quite common to be sitting at a red light in Calgary and look over and see someone toking up in the vehicle beside you.

[D. Dub]

One, the evidence that MJ significantly effects driving performance is loose and far from conclusive; unlike alcohol.

Two, there are no effective tests that can prove recent marijuana usage like blood alcohol level.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by D. Dub
One, the evidence that MJ significantly effects driving performance is loose and far from conclusive; unlike alcohol.

Two, there are no effective tests that can prove recent marijuana usage like blood alcohol level.

those are 2 pretty weak arguments.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by spikers


those are 2 pretty weak arguments.

How are they weak?

Good law in this area has to be built on provable, conclusive science. Determining MJ's effect on driving and the ability to accurately measure & time the MJ in the offender's body are both inconclusive science at this point.

Rather than clogging up the court system with numerous expensive trials and appeals -- why not base the initial drug driving law on good science to begin with? and save taxpayers money?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by D. Dub


How are they weak?

Good law in this area has to be built on provable, conclusive science. Determining MJ's effect on driving and the ability to accurately measure & time the MJ in the offender's body are both inconclusive science at this point.

Rather than clogging up the court system with numerous expensive trials and appeals -- why not base the initial drug driving law on good science to begin with? and save taxpayers money?

Here is some pretty easy science here.

Is MJ a mind altering drug? Yes. Many proponents of MJ use the argument that is makes you relax. So it alters your normal alert state of mind. Interesting how alcohol does the same thing...

and in the spirit of the article written, if there is zero tolerance for booze, why is there such for another, even illegal, substance?

[D. Dub]

Because alcohol use/overuse can be proven at the time of driving with breath testing.

There is no technology that does that for MJ, yet just blood/urine.

If someone smokes MJ on Monday it's still in their system on Friday.

How can you possibly prove usage at the time of driving?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by D. Dub
Because alcohol use/overuse can be proven at the time of driving with breath testing.

There is no technology that does that for MJ, yet just blood/urine.

If someone smokes MJ on Monday it's still in their system on Friday.

How can you possibly prove usage at the time of driving?

again, you just have to show recent usage, and there are plenty of studies that show how long MJ effect's last. In Skidmarks story, the kid has admitted to JUST THEN smoking a spliff. since MJ can affect a person's judgement just like booze, why do you get a zero tolerance with booze, but not other drugs? they both are imparing a person's judgement.

[D. Dub]

There is no conclusive proof re: how long MJ affects driving ability.

Law has to be based on solid research though or else it devolves into numerous, time wasting & expensive trials, mistrials, and appeals.

[spikerS]

ok, so we will just allow people to blaze up and fill their veins and shit with all sorts of mind altering drugs. So as long as we can't prove something, it must be ok.

your argument is weaksauce

[D. Dub]

The justice system is kinda based on proving things.

[89s1]

q6Fcks7pla0

[spikerS]

Originally posted by D. Dub
The justice system is kinda based on proving things.

In the above example, it is proven.

The officer spotted a lone person in a vehicle. noted a stong smell of MJ, and the driver admitted to just doing it.

It is at the officer's discression to then lay a DUI charge or impaired driving charge.

again, why is there a zero tolerance for alcohol, but not one for drugs? Officers in Calgary are specially trained to recognize the signs of impairment to both alcohol and drugs.

again, your argument is weak.

[4lti]

That video is key!

High drivers drive more aware since they know there high and dont wanna hit anything.
When youre drunk or normal youre more "invincible" feeling. Since youre either drunk out of your mind or just because youre sober.
When youre regular driving you listen to music, talk, look around here and there. Sober theres a higher confidence level at what youre doing.
High however... You always got that thought in the back of your mind telling you that your high so dont wanna fuck up. Its like youre checking up on your driving alot more rather then trying to multitask.

At least when someone is REALLY Baked out of their minds, they just wanna sit there rather then go drive fucked up. Drunk people on the other hand seem to love driving when there fucked.

[4lti]

Originally posted by spikers


In the above example, it is proven.

The officer spotted a lone person in a vehicle. noted a stong smell of MJ, and the driver admitted to just doing it.

It is at the officer's discression to then lay a DUI charge or impaired driving charge.

again, why is there a zero tolerance for alcohol, but not one for drugs? Officers in Calgary are specially trained to recognize the signs of impairment to both alcohol and drugs.

again, your argument is weak.

Thats because he admitted to it.
Never admit to anything.

[D. Dub]

If the driver in the OP's scenario did not admit MJ use -- the police officer's case would be the the weak sauce.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by 4lti


Thats because he admitted to it.
Never admit to anything.



Originally posted by D. Dub
If the driver in the OP's scenario did not admit MJ use -- the police officer's case would be the the weak sauce.

you both are dancing quite poorly around the question at hand, and the whole point behind the thread. In case you both missed it...

Why is there a zero tolerance for alcohol for a new driver, and not the same tolerance applied for drugs?

[4lti]

Originally posted by spikers





you both are dancing quite poorly around the question at hand, and the whole point behind the thread. In case you both missed it...

Why is there a zero tolerance for alcohol for a new driver, and not the same tolerance applied for drugs?

Well I guess then:
Situation one: Prove im high officer.
Situation two: Prove im drunk officer.

Situation one: BLOOD TEST OR SPIT!
Now problem is it stays in your system for a while
So no proof as to when this was just taken in. Its been proven that MJ was used at some point between last week and now. Its not proven that within the hour ive smoked MJ.

Situation two: BREATHALYZER
BAM if youve been drinking its dead on.

Booze doesnt stay in your system to be traced by a breathalyzer one week later.
Imagine getting your license suspended for a drink you had last week.

When they figure out a way to prove youve JUST smoked, then damn make it illegal. For now if you smell like weed and your eyes are fucking blitzed then yeah... Good luck.

Remember its innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not the other way around like some police around here...

[spikerS]

actually, in Calgary, the police are trained to detect the signs of drug impairment, and when an officer runs the tests, he then has a superior officer attend the scene and verify them.

If both officers are in agreement, that is considered proof in a court of law if they both have been trained in this.

let me dig around for a news article that was out in the last year or so on this. Was even debated on Beyond too if i remember correctly.

[spikerS]

ahh, not exactly what I was looking for, but I will keep digging.


There were 22 traffic fatalities in Calgary in 2009; 15 of these involved alcohol or drugs.
Changes to the Criminal Code in 2008 increased the minimum penalties for impaired driving offences. This change
also gave police the right to demand roadside sobriety tests and bodily substance samples where impairment by
drug and/or alcohol is suspected.
In 2009, changes were also made to the Alberta Administrative Licence Suspension (AALS) program to include
drivers who are impaired by drugs, as well as a combination of alcohol and drugs. A minimum three-month licence
suspension is automatically imposed on these drivers in addition to drivers with a blood alcohol content of over .08
mg% or refusing to provide a sample of blood or urine.

taken from page 15 of this PDF.
http://www.calgarypolice.ca/pdf/2005-2009%20Annual%20Statistical%20Report.pdf

I will keep looking for the article I referred to earlier.

*edit* not the exact article, but it is close enough.


The drug tests are different from the roadside examinations given for people suspected of drunk driving. Motorists are taken to a local police station for a one-hour, 12-step evaluation by a specially trained officer.
"It involves blood pressure. It involves eye dilation, pupil dilation. It involves doing actually a breath test to rule out alcohol as the cause, and then at the end of which there's also a urine analysis that's completed," explained Butler.

so again, the question is, for a new or GDL driver, we have a zero tolerance for booze, why not the same for drugs?

[4lti]

Originally posted by spikers from Article
There were 22 traffic fatalities in Calgary in 2009; 15 of these involved alcohol or drugs.


So we'll say its 14 drugs and 8 alcohol.
Or was it 2 drugs and 20 alcohol.
Now was it Marijuana or Crack. Maybe they drizzled some heroin on top of that.
Wait was it booze and crack?

So much missing information in that article...
Scrolled through that Collisions section of the article and its written by the police. Of course its gonna give the most generalized information as possible to sound more scary.

Youre reading this article trying to read what you wanna hear.
This article is just the statistics of the general stuff.
Show me some police reports saying collision was caused by marijuana and not drugs/alcohol.


Originally posted by spikers
actually, in Calgary, the police are trained to detect the signs of drug impairment, and when an officer runs the tests, he then has a superior officer attend the scene and verify them.

If both officers are in agreement, that is considered proof in a court of law if they both have been trained in this.

As for the police having to agree with each other if youre high or not. :rolleyes: Show me a cop who wont agree with his partner; let alone "Superior Officer"



Originally posted by spikers from Article
The drug tests are different from the roadside examinations given for people suspected of drunk driving. Motorists are taken to a local police station for a one-hour, 12-step evaluation by a specially trained officer.
"It involves blood pressure. It involves eye dilation, pupil dilation. It involves doing actually a breath test to rule out alcohol as the cause, and then at the end of which there's also a urine analysis that's completed," explained Butler.

If a cop thinks im drunk to get off I just gotta have a 1 minute breathalyzer and my fate is decided.

If a cop and his partner "Superior Officer" (If hes even there) agrees that you're high you get dragged to the cop station and harassed by a "trained specialist" with tests for an hour until THEY decide your fate.
Shit I hope there good at deciding if your high or not.

At least we know how a breathalyzer works so we know if were being fairly judged. Sounds like if you get accused of being high and youre not; youre gonna have to hope youre white.
I mean judged fairly :poosie:

[spikerS]

Originally posted by 4lti


So we'll say its 14 drugs and 8 alcohol.
Or was it 2 drugs and 20 alcohol.
Now was it Marijuana or Crack. Maybe they drizzled some heroin on top of that.
Wait was it booze and crack?

So much missing information in that article...
Scrolled through that Collisions section of the article and its written by the police. Of course its gonna give the most generalized information as possible to sound more scary.

Youre reading this article trying to read what you wanna hear.
This article is just the statistics of the general stuff.
Show me some police reports saying collision was caused by marijuana and not drugs/alcohol.



As for the police having to agree with each other if youre high or not. :rolleyes: Show me a cop who wont agree with his partner; let alone "Superior Officer"




If a cop thinks im drunk to get off I just gotta have a 1 minute breathalyzer and my fate is decided.

If a cop and his partner "Superior Officer" (If hes even there) agrees that you're high you get dragged to the cop station and harassed by a "trained specialist" with tests for an hour until THEY decide your fate.
Shit I hope there good at deciding if your high or not.

At least we know how a breathalyzer works so we know if were being fairly judged. Sounds like if you get accused of being high and youre not; youre gonna have to hope youre white.
I mean judged fairly :poosie:

I'm not reading what i want to see there, I am showing you that there are court backed ways to tell if a person is under the influence of drugs, verified independently by 2 specially trained officers and medical staff.

having a machine does not guarantee a conviction. a police officer may know very well how to operate a laser gun, but if he is not "properly trained" to use one, everyone can get off a speeding ticket.

you can argue till you are blue in the face, but you can't honestly tell someone that it is 100% safer to be baked and drive then to be sober.

but again, you are dodging the real question here. why is there not a zero tolerance for drugs? There are tests that can be done, both by officers and medical staff. Both will have more training on it than either of us, and I will believe one of them over you.

you brought up how there is no testing, I am showing you there is.

[Kloubek]

Sorry to interupt your debating gentlemen, but I just want to state my thoughts on the subject.

Weed is a drug, and with any drug you are going to have adverse effects if you have too much of it. I took too many T3's and I got all shakey. Same with drinking too much coffee. Too much booze, and nobody is remotely safe to drive. We know this.

As it is with weed. I can see that to a point there is potentially no big deal. But for any who have smoked a lot and tried driving, you DO know that it can affect you in different and ways detrimental to your driving ability.

I remember once I was in a somewhat familar neighborhood, then realized I had entirely gotten lost for the first time ever. If I get *too* relaxed, I end up missing things. I've had deeply dizzy spells on occasion. That probably isn't the best time to be driving.

The video posted was very interesting, but put the driver in a scenario without other distractions. Drive in a city, and I think the limit before being a detriment to your driving goes down.

If there was a proper, accurate test that was no more intrusive than a breathalizer to see if someone was completely fried out of their mind, I would support it. Being dragged down to the station because of weed is entirely too intrusive, imo. Furthermore, having a "medical team" on staff to assess these individuals is a waste of taxpayers money.

I find it interesting that the cop just let the guy go in the article. There must have been a roach at least - and I didn't know they just let that go. Is it the same in Alberta? Not many people seem to really care about the use of Mary Jane.

Spikers: You have shown no proof to indicate that smoking a *small* amount of weed is detrimental to driving abiliy. If that is the case, then it probably should be zero tolerance for drivers. With that said, however, if it stays in your bloodstream for 4 weeks then a test would have to be for an amount that proves that the driver was impared at the time. If the tests cannot determine that then there can be no rights-abiding conviction for it.

The article you site only said "drugs" as opposed to singling out weed. Clearly, if someone took acid or mushrooms I would expect their driving to be impared. I'm willing to guess the vast majority of offenses where they bring you to the station for these tests are for drugs much stronger than weed.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Spikers: You have shown no proof to indicate that smoking a *small* amount of weed is detrimental to driving abiliy. If that is the case, then it probably should be zero tolerance for drivers. With that said, however, if it stays in your bloodstream for 4 weeks then a test would have to be for an amount that proves that the driver was impared at the time. If the tests cannot determine that then there can be no rights-abiding conviction for it.

The article you site only said "drugs" as opposed to singling out weed. Clearly, if someone took acid or mushrooms I would expect their driving to be impared. I'm willing to guess the vast majority of offenses where they bring you to the station for these tests are for drugs much stronger than weed.

Small or not is not the debate here. it is the zero tolerance. a new driver can be suspended for the smell of booze on his breath, but can blaze away? If the distinction for booze is 0, any amount of any drug, esp illegal mind altering drugs should have that 0 tolerance stamp as well.

There is no machine like a breathalizer available yet to determine if someone has been using drugs yet. I am sure one will be developed in the future. Having said that, in addition to the breathalizer used now, police officers use field sobriety tests. same thing here. They are trained to recognize the signs of alcohol impairment, and have now been trained to find the signs of impairment by drugs, and those methods have continually been upheld by the courts.

so again, back to the point, why not a zero tolerance for drugs for new drivers in addition to a zero tolerance for booze?

[gretz]

Originally posted by spikers


Small or not is not the debate here. it is the zero tolerance. a new driver can be suspended for the smell of booze on his breath, but can blaze away?


so again, back to the point, why not a zero tolerance for drugs for new drivers in addition to a zero tolerance for booze?

They can't blaze away and drive, it is illegal, as you've outlined... If caught, they face the same outcome as any other person that is high, regardless if he is a new driver or not... If the cop doesn't know the laws or rulings on the situation and lets the high person go, thats his problem, doesn't mean its okay to smoke and drive...

Why not zero tolerance?
-inconclusive testing on the negative effects while driving
-they have a poor way of detecting / testing for high drivers
-Oh wait, there is zero tolerance... if you are caught driving high, you are charged, no matter how strong the smell is, how big the dube was, or how red your eyes are... ZERO...

Hope this helps...

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by spikers





you both are dancing quite poorly around the question at hand, and the whole point behind the thread. In case you both missed it...

Why is there a zero tolerance for alcohol for a new driver, and not the same tolerance applied for drugs?


You cannot prove small amounts of MJ use AT THE TIME OF DRIVING. Whereas with alcohol you can.

Detecting impairment is not the same as detecting use of small amounts.

If such a law was in effect -- the courts would be clogged with un-winnable cases

[spikerS]

ugh, it is like banging my head against a wall here.

when someone gets high, thier friends can easily spot it. They have seen it enough, the recognize the signs. Officers and medical personel are trained to recognize them as well.

before the breathalizer, there were roadside sobriety tests. Same as this. before a new fandangled machine is invented and accepted, officers are using "sobriety" tests to detect impairment for drugs. There is that law in effect, and court systems are no more clogged because of it.

I am sure in the example codetrap provided us, if there was a way to charge this kid with it, he would have if there was a zero tolerance policy in effect.

[D. Dub]

You're banging YOUR head against the wall? Here is the simple basis for the people debating against your extremely black and white argument.

The burden of proof.

Without attention to the burden of proof the court system is inundated with un-winnable cases based on the opinions of police officers; rather than actual evidence.

The opinions of police officers that a driver has used a "little MJ" in such cases would be torn to shreds by any defence lawyer worth his salt.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by spikers


Small or not is not the debate here. it is the zero tolerance.

...but your position is flawed Spikers. It has been proven that even one drink can impair your ability to drive. It has not, however, been proven that one inhalation of a joint does. In fact, that unbiased video appears to indicate almost the opposite.

I support zero tolerance for booze and new drivers. While I would not agree with it, I could even see an argument for zero tolerance for ALL drivers. (After all, why is there an "acceptable" reduction in driving ability for most drivers?)

If one were to accept the argument that a small amount of weed did not reduce driving ability, then why even go further into the zero tolerance debate? Bang your head against a wall all you want, but you'll be doing it alone.

Point to mention: You talk of a field sobriety test being the previous way of testing drivers prior to the breathalizer. This worked fine because alcohol severely messes with motor function and balance, whereas weed generally does not. Therefore, with the prior tests you were a) measuring the individuals ABILITY to drive, as well as b) making an assessment of whether or not you believed the individual was intoxicated.

In the case of a field test for weed, it is unlikely "A" will yield much in the way of a result. And symptoms of being stoned are similar to that of a variety of other drugs and conditions. (Red glossy eyes, dilated pupils, etc) So simply doing a field test would not be successful.

Therefore, the only way this would work is to have some indication the individual is stoned. Smell, symptoms, etc. Then they would be dragged down to the station to have this "medical team" and supervisors, etc look them over, take their piss, and everything else. On the event it turns out they were just overly tired, or took too many Asprin, they would be released without charge.

Seems like a significant inconvenience to try to stop something which doesn't even appear to be hazardous. Look how long it took to put "texting" legislation in place... and I can guarantee you that texting while driving is much more distracting. What about a test to see how tired you are behind the wheel?

At one point, people have to realize that there is policing then there is OVERpolicing. What you are talking about falls under the latter classification, imo.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by D. Dub
You're banging YOUR head against the wall? Here is the simple basis for the people debating against your extremely black and white argument.

The burden of proof.

Without attention to the burden of proof the court system is inundated with un-winnable cases based on the opinions of police officers; rather than actual evidence.

The opinions of police officers that a driver has used a "little MJ" in such cases would be torn to shreds by any defence lawyer worth his salt.

sure, but the burden of proof is a moot point that you want to keep arguing. I have shown you repeatedly, that officers are trained on how to recognize the signs, and backed by medical staff and the courts.

So, if the officer can demonstrate that there are court backed signs of drug use, the same zero tolerance approach should be applied to drug use as it is with alcohol with new drivers.

It is black and white, quit trying to mix the paints!

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Kloubek


...but your position is flawed Spikers. Point to mention: You talk of a field sobriety test being the previous way of testing drivers prior to the breathalizer. This worked fine because alcohol severely messes with motor function and balance, whereas weed generally does not. Therefore, with the prior tests you were a) measuring the individuals ABILITY to drive, as well as b) making an assessment of whether or not you believed the individual was intoxicated.


I think you need to go back to the article that I quoted. I am not claiming that the tests for booze impairment and drug impairment are the same. The tests done for the drug impairment are outlined there. If these tests did not help them, they would not be backed by the crown or courts, and would not be done at all.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by spikers


I have shown you repeatedly, that officers are trained on how to recognize the signs, and backed by medical staff and the courts.



The laws allowing this have only been effect since 2008 (in Bill C32). I wonder what the actual real life arrest and conviction rates are for these expert "opinions" of drug impairment.

I would venture to say low to non existent.

[Kloubek]

Uh... read my post. I just mentioned that there needs to be a field sobriety test first to indicate the need to bring them to the more "official" tests. I realize testing for drugs is an entirely different process.

...but, again, what about what appears to be evidence that indicates a small amount of weed is not detrimental to driving ability? You're so insistant that people stop deviating from the original concern about zero tolerance, yet you don't seem to have the ability to establish WHY zero tolerance for weed would be necessary. It seems to me you are missing a very integral part of your argument.

Instead of focusing on weed, or drugs in general for advocating zero tolerance, perhaps it should be better focused on other drugs which DO obviously impair driving ability. If that were the argument, then I could see the benefit.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by spikers


I think you need to go back to the article that I quoted. I am not claiming that the tests for booze impairment and drug impairment are the same. The tests done for the drug impairment are outlined there. If these tests did not help them, they would not be backed by the crown or courts, and would not be done at all.

You have no proof they are being used or even used effectively. There are good laws and bad laws. Anything pushed through by Art Hanger and Stephen Harper is likely a knee jerk, reactionary, bad law. :D

[spikerS]

Originally posted by D. Dub


The laws allowing this have only been effect since 2008 (in Bill C32). I wonder what the actual real life arrest and conviction rates are for these expert "opinions" of drug impairment.

I would venture to say low to non existent.



Originally posted by D. Dub


You have no proof they are being used or even used effectively. There are good laws and bad laws. Anything pushed through by Art Hanger and Stephen Harper is likely a knee jerk, reactionary, bad law. :D


Just wondering when you are going to stop posting garbage, and put up something that has some meat to it. Or are you just that good at trolling?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Uh... read my post. I just mentioned that there needs to be a field sobriety test first to indicate the need to bring them to the more "official" tests. I realize testing for drugs is an entirely different process.

...but, again, what about what appears to be evidence that indicates a small amount of weed is not detrimental to driving ability? You're so insistant that people stop deviating from the original concern about zero tolerance, yet you don't seem to have the ability to establish WHY zero tolerance for weed would be necessary. It seems to me you are missing a very integral part of your argument.

Instead of focusing on weed, or drugs in general for advocating zero tolerance, perhaps it should be better focused on other drugs which DO obviously impair driving ability. If that were the argument, then I could see the benefit.

I already have made that argument.

You want to keep focusing on weed, fine. lets go back to my argument.

Is weed a mind altering illegal drug? yes or no?
If yes, does this affect your judgement, rationale or reflexes? yes or no?
If yes, should you continue to operate a motor vehicle? yes or no?

If there was no concern about the effects of driving while under the influence of drugs, this would be a non issue. Obviously it is for skidmark to be bringing this up.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by spikers






Just wondering when you are going to stop posting garbage, and put up something that has some meat to it. Or are you just that good at trolling?

You are making the assertion that zero tolerance for drugs could be a valid and useful law.

I, Kloubek and others have brought up many points that refute the validity and usefulness of such a law in actual day to day law enforcement.

These arguments are based on:

1. A lack of any conclusive science that proves out that small amounts of MJ affects driving performance significantly.

2. There is no valid way to screen for zero tolerance other than your "specially trained" police officers -- AKA opinions.

3. Charges/Convictions ultimately have to be provable.

We have presented these fairly solid arguments against zero tolerance based on it's utility to society, cost to society and on the simplest concept of justice.

You basically keep saying the same thing over and over again.

"Drugs are bad..... Mkay?"

and I'm trolling?

[Kloubek]

Is weed a mind altering illegal drug? yes or no?
Yes. So is Prozac.

If yes, does this affect your judgement, rationale or reflexes? yes or no?
Yes. So does Prozac. There is no proof I've seen to indicate either Prozac or weed affect one's reflexes.

If yes, should you continue to operate a motor vehicle? yes or no?
Yes. Like I would if I was on Prozac.

The reason it is a concern for the police is because the vast majority of them equate driving on drugs = bad. Because it must be right? And you know what - I 100% understand where they are coming from. To someone who is uneducated, it does indeed seem like a bad idea.

...but until there is proof to indicate driving after smoking some grass is a hazard, then why make up more laws against it? Don't we already have enough laws?

[gretz]

Originally posted by spikers
why not a zero tolerance for drugs for new drivers in addition to a zero tolerance for booze?

There is...

If they smell drugs / deem you under the influence, they can convict you... They even have trained officers / medical staff blah blah blah... to test for drugs, what else are you looking for in an answer?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by D. Dub


You are making the assertion that zero tolerance for drugs could be a valid and useful law.

I, Kloubek and others have brought up many points that refute the validity and usefulness of such a law in actual day to day law enforcement.

These arguments are based on:

1. A lack of any conclusive science that proves out that small amounts of MJ affects driving performance significantly.

2. There is no valid way to screen for zero tolerance other than your "specially trained" police officers -- AKA opinions.

3. Charges/Convictions ultimately have to be provable.

We have presented these fairly solid arguments against zero tolerance based on it's utility to society, cost to society and on the simplest concept of justice.

You basically keep saying the same thing over and over again.

"Drugs are bad..... Mkay?"

and I'm trolling?

show me your evidence. you have not provided one link, one law, one study, one ANYTHING to back up your frivolus claims.

2, they are not opinions. they stopped being opinions when the process became backed by the courts.

3, charges and convitions are provable using the processes that were outlined before, again, that are court backed and are acceptable evidence in court.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by gretz


There is...

If they smell drugs / deem you under the influence, they can convict you... They even have trained officers / medical staff blah blah blah... to test for drugs, what else are you looking for in an answer?

Obviously, for someone on a GDL, something pretty major happens for someone found with any amount of booze in their system, and abviously does not have the same thing happen for drugs.

at least that is my impression from skidmarks' article.

might be nice to have one of the officer's on the board chime in here.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Is weed a mind altering illegal drug? yes or no?
Yes. So is Prozac.

If yes, does this affect your judgement, rationale or reflexes? yes or no?
Yes. So does Prozac. There is no proof I've seen to indicate either Prozac or weed affect one's reflexes.

If yes, should you continue to operate a motor vehicle? yes or no?
Yes. Like I would if I was on Prozac.

The reason it is a concern for the police is because the vast majority of them equate driving on drugs = bad. Because it must be right? And you know what - I 100% understand where they are coming from. To someone who is uneducated, it does indeed seem like a bad idea.

...but until there is proof to indicate driving after smoking some grass is a hazard, then why make up more laws against it? Don't we already have enough laws?

I didn't know that prozac was illegal...

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by spikers


I didn't know that prozac was illegal...

Did I say it was? Funny... I don't recall that.

This isn't about whether something is deemed illegal or not. Is it? If it was, then you'd see people being arrested left right and centre for smoking dope - because a lot of people do.

It is about whether it affects your ability to drive - in particular, whether or not there should be zero tolerance for new drivers. Was that not the topic you were trying to keep everyone on? Now it appears you are deviating from it yourself.

Look Spikers - it is evident that nobody could say *anything* which would make you happy. You avoid answering or commenting on things that are said which conflict with your own thoughts, and you add in questions which have no bearing on the real issue at hand. (Ie: the above question.) In this regard, you debate much like GTSJeff used to on here.

And what I learned with him - and is becoming quickly obvious in debating with you as well- is that even if someone came up with something iron clad to contradict what you are saying (and which I am pretty much doing) it would never be enough for you.

My final word on the subject:

Until it is proven that weed has a negative impact on one's driving, and until there are tests which can be administered without being completely intrusive, I say we remain status quo.

Now keep banging your head. I have to exit this topic because you are going to lead me to do the same.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by spikers


show me your evidence. you have not provided one link, one law, one study, one ANYTHING to back up your frivolus claims.

2, they are not opinions. they stopped being opinions when the process became backed by the courts.

3, charges and convitions are provable using the processes that were outlined before, again, that are court backed and are acceptable evidence in court.


OK here you go. If you want to be spoonfed -- I can do that for you.

Here is a fairly recent study

1. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2010 Mar;42(1):19-30.
Sex differences in the effects of marijuana on simulated driving performance.

Anderson BM, Rizzo M, Block RI, Pearlson GD, O'Leary DS.

Olin Neuropsychiatry Research Center, 200 Retreat Avenue - Whitehall Bldg, Hartford Hospital Institute of Living, Hartford, CT 06106, USA. [email protected]

Abstract

In the United States, one in six teenagers has driven under the influence of marijuana. Driving under the influence of marijuana and alcohol is equally prevalent, despite the fact that marijuana use is less common than alcohol use. Much of the research examining the effects of marijuana on driving performance was conducted in the 1970s and led to equivocal findings. During that time, few studies included women and driving simulators were rudimentary. Further, the potency of marijuana commonly used recreationally has increased. This study examined sex differences in the acute effects of marijuana on driving performance using a realistic, validated driving simulator. Eighty-five subjects (n = 50 males, 35 females) participated in this between-subjects, double-blind, placebo controlled study. In addition to an uneventful, baseline segment of driving, participants were challenged with collision avoidance and distracted driving scenarios. Under the influence of marijuana, participants decreased their speed and failed to show expected practice effects during a distracted drive. No differences were found during the baseline driving segment or collision avoidance scenarios. No differences attributable to sex were observed. This study enhances the current literature by identifying distracted driving and the integration of prior experience as particularly problematic under the influence of marijuana.

Here is a lengthy literature review from the MJ reform lobby NORML


It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing.

Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.

Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.

Today, a large body of research exists exploring the impact of marijuana on psychomotor skills and actual driving performance. This research consists of driving simulator studies, on-road performance studies, crash culpability studies, and summary reviews of the existing evidence. To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol. Below is a summary of some of the existing data.


Summaries
Crash culpability studies
On-Road Performance Studies
Driving simulator studies

SUMMARIES

“At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.

To date ..., seven studies using culpability analysis have been reported, involving a total of 7,934 drivers. Alcohol was detected as the only drug in 1,785 drivers, and together with cannabis in 390 drivers. Cannabis was detected in 684 drivers, and in 294 of these it was the only drug detected.

... The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. … [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.”

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

“Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

“This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.

… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

“Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:

1. There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2. The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3. It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

“In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.

With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

“Intoxication with cannabis leads to a slight impairment of psychomotor … function. … [However,] the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator. This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take great risks and drive more aggressively.”

REFERENCE: UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. London: United Kingdom. Chapter 4: Section 4.7.

“The evidence suggests that marijuana presents a real, but secondary safety risk; and that alcohol is the leading drug-related accident risk factor.”

REFERENCES: D. Gieringer. 1988. Marijuana, driving, and accident safety. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 93-101.

CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES

“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”

REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.

… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”

REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.

“Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.

… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”

REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.

ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES

“Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.

… THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”

REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.

“This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O’Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.

TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)

DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES

“Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.

In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.”

REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

[B]
I could also likely give you many studies that support your position -- that there is a higher risk in MJ driving.

This ultimately tells me that the science is inconclusive.

Simply then, if the science is inconclusive -- a zero tolerance law is pretty much unprovable in court

[gretz]

Originally posted by spikers


Obviously, for someone on a GDL, something pretty major happens for someone found with any amount of booze in their system, and abviously does not have the same thing happen for drugs.

at least that is my impression from skidmarks' article.

might be nice to have one of the officer's on the board chime in here. \

That's your impression, not the fact...

There is a zero tolerance policy, the officer in this particular case didn't know what it was... He used his discretion on whether or not it was safe to let the GDL driver go while high... He let him go, as it didn't seem to be a threat to society...end

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Kloubek


Did I say it was? Funny... I don't recall that.
you did, as the question was not about prozac, but about weed. you infeered that it was.




This isn't about whether something is deemed illegal or not. Is it? If it was, then you'd see people being arrested left right and centre for smoking dope - because a lot of people do.

So, because a lot of people do it, it is no longer illegal?



It is about whether it affects your ability to drive - in particular, whether or not there should be zero tolerance for new drivers.
it is not about if it affects your ability to drive. you even admitted that it was mind altering.


Was that not the topic you were trying to keep everyone on? Now it appears you are deviating from it yourself.
quit dragging me away from it lol




Look Spikers - it is evident that nobody could say *anything* which would make you happy. You avoid answering or commenting on things that are said which conflict with your own thoughts, and you add in questions which have no bearing on the real issue at hand. (Ie: the above question.) In this regard, you debate much like GTSJeff used to on here.

Ouch, I don't think you could have tossed a bigger insult at me. No sarcasm there.

The question again is, why is there no zero tolerance in a new driver or GDL license like there is for alcohol.



And what I learned with him - and is becoming quickly obvious in debating with you as well- is that even if someone came up with something iron clad to contradict what you are saying (and which I am pretty much doing) it would never be enough for you.


That is just it, there is nothing iron clad from you. No links to medical reports, no case law, no articles on the subject interviewing people in the know. No ANYTHING, just your rhetoric on "A little bit is not going to do anything"



My final word on the subject:

Until it is proven that weed has a negative impact on one's driving, and until there are tests which can be administered without being completely intrusive, I say we remain status quo.

I really hope this is not your final word, I am enjoying debating with you.

While I respect your opinion on the matter, I just can't agree with it.

[spikerS]

ok, i realize i am about to contradict myself here from what I just said to Kloubek. i guess i am a hypocrite.


D. Dub, i have not read the entire thing, but I read the first 5 or so studies. In each study, they have stated an impairment, to varying degrees. some less than others, but in each one, they have stated there IS an impairment. Do you really think that new drivers really need this as yet another distraction while learning to drive? again, is zero tolerance for drugs while on a GDL program that bad?

[D. Dub]

So by your logic then, we should also screen new drivers for cold medicine, sinus medicine, pain killers, lack of sleep and other drugs that MAY cause impairment in some people?

Even the makers of pharmaceutical THC, Marinol only suggest that caution be used when driving.

"According to extensive studies done by GW Pharmaceuticals of the UK, manufacturers of tincture of cannabis (Sativex), cannabis is much less euphoric than Marinol. This is because of the presence in marijuana of cannabinoids (CBDs). Marinol has no CBDs. Nevertheless the FDA clearly allows for the driving and operation of heavy equipment and engaging in any hazardous activity once “...it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and to perform such tasks safely.”

This quote is from the FDA approval package insert for dranabinol (Marinol) made by Unimed pharmaceutical Inc. A Solvay Pharmaceutical Inc. company" http://www.davidbearmanmd.com/docs/Cann&Driving.pdf

The point I am making is that the science as to MJ's effects on driving is inconclusive -- so how can you create and enforce a law based on a fundamentally faulty foundation?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by D. Dub
So by your logic then, we should also screen new drivers for cold medicine, sinus medicine, pain killers, lack of sleep and other drugs that MAY cause impairment in some people?

Even the makers of pharmaceutical THC, Marinol only suggest that caution be used when driving.

"According to extensive studies done by GW Pharmaceuticals of the UK, manufacturers of tincture of cannabis (Sativex), cannabis is much less euphoric than Marinol. This is because of the presence in marijuana of cannabinoids (CBDs). Marinol has no CBDs. Nevertheless the FDA clearly allows for the driving and operation of heavy equipment and engaging in any hazardous activity once “...it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and to perform such tasks safely.”

This quote is from the FDA approval package insert for dranabinol (Marinol) made by Unimed pharmaceutical Inc. A Solvay Pharmaceutical Inc. company" http://www.davidbearmanmd.com/docs/Cann&Driving.pdf

The point I am making is that the science as to MJ's effects on driving is inconclusive -- so how can you create and enforce a law based on a fundamentally faulty foundation?

First off, the point being made by the OP is illegal drugs.

but it isn't inconclusive. they all state that there is varying degrees of impairment with the use of MJ. Do new drivers on a GDL license need to have the added impairment of drugs combined with inexperience? some of your reports indicated that it made them drive slower. slower != safer. (and beyond really hates slow drivers)

so, going back to new drivers and drugs, why not have a zero tolerance?

and as a side note, you can still be charged with impaired driving at the discression of the officer for anything. even being tired.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by spikers




and as a side note, you can still be charged with impaired driving at the discression of the officer for anything. even being tired.


Since this is the case. Why do we need more laws then?

[spikerS]

I think that with the GDL licence, if you are caught with any booze in your system, you lose you license on the spot, in the case of drugs, you are just charged, but keep your license.