[longtermmemmory]

it is admissible in court as evidence of usage.

so the accused has a history of consistent usage for the last 30 days. That history can be used against them.

Again, it is enough to support the arrest.
Again, it will be admitted into evidence for the jury to decide. The accused will have to have their lawyer defend the case and, if their state has a presumption of imairment clause in the law, rebut the presumption.

regardless, there is jail, bail, court expenses, attorney fees, etc...

the answer is really easy, use pot in ANY amount then don’t drive for thirty days after the last use. period.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Not a single word of your post is in any way responsive to my point: The law has no proper interest in what is stored in fatty tissue inaccessible to neuroreceptors.