Impaired Reasoning - Should last week’s joint disqualify a pot smoker from driving today?

Reason ^ | June 28, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[neverdem]

I wonder if Rimonabant, aka Acomplia, will be a false positive?

[Tanniker Smith]

The difference, of course, is that alcohol is a legal substance.

Now, if they want to make a test case someplace with a zero tolerance law and legal medicinal marijuana, that should prove interesting.

[Lexington Green]

When drunkards write our laws...

[mtbopfuyn]

They would have had to have had reason to pull you over in the first place. Of course the little bags you're frantically pushing under the seat might have the cop asking more pointed questions.

[ThomasThomas]

If impaired reasoning is a reason not to let someone drive, then how will NYT reporters get to work.

If impaired reasoning is a reason not to let someone drive, then how will democratic members of congress and RINOs get to work.

If impaired reasoning is a reason not to let someone drive, then...

[DesScorp]

We've been over this story once allready, but the drugheads keep bringing it back up, apparently.

[stands2reason]

If the point is to make the penalties for smoking marijuana more severe, let's have a debate about that, instead of pretending the issue is traffic safety.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

But, i think I can break any law I don't like if I enjoy the feeeeeeellllings it gives ME.

[tubebender]

One Joint a Week? I don't think they were talking about these guys...

[Calusa]

If impaired reasoning is a reason not to let someone drive, then how will democratic members of congress and RINOs get to work.

I wish people would just stop picking on that unfortunate young man Patrick Kennedy. Sarc.

Gee, Ossifer, I was on my way to an important vote!!

[Cleburne]

More importantly, it will help extend state power, which will (for the rightist statists) help us Defeat Terrorism; for the lefist statists it will help us Defeat Poverty and other Societal Ills. If you question the State then you're probably a terrorist, a drug-head, or a corrupt greedy big-businessman.

[MrBambaLaMamba]

Of course! Should be an instant felony. Take away their weapons!

[GSlob]

"If impaired reasoning is a reason not to let someone drive, then..."
...Then there will be proper certificates of unimpaired reasoning. I'd call them "thinking permits". In case of some stupid idiocy the permit could [and ought to] be pulled. Things could get pretty interesting.

[tallhappy]

Interesting that after all these years of such "REASON" by enlightened progressive open minded libertarian thinkers to weaken drug laws and normnalize drug use as legitimate and harmless, actual Americans seem to be enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction.

Go figure.

[Know your rights]

Interesting that after all these years of such "REASON" by enlightened progressive open minded libertarian thinkers to weaken drug laws and normnalize drug use as legitimate and harmless, actual Americans seem to be enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction.

Such as? I've seen numerous articles on FR about lessened penalties for possession, and about legalization for medical use ... but nothing like what you seem to be implying.

[Know your rights]

But, i think I can break any law I don't like if I enjoy the feeeeeeellllings it gives ME.

You're wrong. But you do have the natural right to do anything that doesn't violate someone else's rights ... and that includes smoking pot (but not driving under the influence).

[TWohlford]

This is a local story here (Jackson, MI).

http://www.mlive.com/news/jacitpat/index.ssf?/base/news-17/115099236535720.xml&coll=3

---

Blackman Township police in February 2004 cited Kurts, 44, of Michigan Center, after he was stopped for driving erratically. He admitted smoking marijuana, police said. The time frame in which he smoked is unclear.

A blood test did not detect the narcotic THC, or tetrahydrrocannabinol, which is in marijuana. Instead, the test showed the presence of carboxy THC, a benign product of metabolism that can remain in the blood for a month after marijuana use.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Chad Schmucker dismissed the case in 2004 on the basis that the THC remnant was not an illegal controlled substance. Wednesday's ruling sends the case back to Schmucker's court.

---

Not only do you get the initial ticket, but you also get another $3500 in "safe driver" taxes over the next 2 years.

[LibertarianInExile]

Hey, let's take a look at the logical extension of this: what about the other false positives that come up on drug tests? Driving while under the influence of poppy seed rolls is sure to come next!

[annelizly]

Exactly! This isn't about driving safely, this is about the nanny state being able to bilk perfectly good drivers out of more money. And the fact that they have to have another good reason to pull you over before checking for this is only short termed I'm sure. Look at seat belt laws. originally they couldn't pull you over for not having one on but that didn't last long.

I don't smoke pot, never have but I certainly am against the government pulling over and running tests on anyone they please.
If I were pulled over and they wanted to run my urine or blood I'd be pissed. It would come out clean of course but I would feel as though my rights were violated if I had medical tests run because I what? didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign?

[Dosa26]

Logical extension: Why stop with a pee/blood test? That only measures up to 30 days. A hair test goes back 6 months. If some one has a past conviction for possession on their record why isn't that probable cause for a dwi arrest/conviction? It's all evidence of past use. This law is simply ridiculous.