Breath Test For Pot Being Developed At WSU

[the cac mamba]

OP is a fakkit who never drove SLOW and high

edit: nah idk if ur cosigning this

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Marijuana DOES impair you. Numerous field tests have shown this to be true.



If the question is adjusting the test so that it compares something like the half-life or the intensity of weed presence and how to do that, then we can discuss that.

But saying there should be NO test for it is downright insanity.

Not "everything" just goes free and without consequence out here.

This guy drove fine while stoned.

and many of the people in the video you linked drove at acceptable levels

"So back to our drivers, and the issue many mothers are now concerned about: children having a new intoxicant to afflict their driving skills. How did the 'impaired' volunteers actually do? Well at a certain point, the substance had an undeniable effect on their ability to navigate a vehicle sensibly. But they all maintained surprising control, even at incredibly excessive levels of marijuana consumption. Moreover, unlike drunk drivers, they were very much aware of their state and agreed they were not on top of their game. Without over-indulging, it seems people's critical thinking can be trusted more with a few hits than a couple of drinks."

It effects people differently. Again, perform field sobriety tests and if they fail, feel free to arrest someone who is driving stoned. Most people don't smoke incredible amounts of weed and then immediately jump into a vehicle, most people smoke with a friend, hangout for a few hours and then head home, the peak of a marijuana high only lasts for like 45 minutes, but even after 2 hours you could test positive for this breath test but that doesn't really reflect how high you are.

Most of the impairment were drivers driving SLOWER, Alcohol increases risk taking, speeding, etc. Marijuana makes drivers more cautious. My problem is DON'T equate driving stoned with driving drunk, they are two VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY different things.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

This guy drove fine while stoned.

and many of the people in the video you linked drove at acceptable levels

"So back to our drivers, and the issue many mothers are now concerned about: children having a new intoxicant to afflict their driving skills. How did the 'impaired' volunteers actually do? Well at a certain point, the substance had an undeniable effect on their ability to navigate a vehicle sensibly. But they all maintained surprising control, even at incredibly excessive levels of marijuana consumption. Moreover, unlike drunk drivers, they were very much aware of their state and agreed they were not on top of their game. Without over-indulging, it seems people's critical thinking can be trusted more with a few hits than a couple of drinks."

It effects people differently. Again, perform field sobriety tests and if they fail, feel free to arrest someone who is driving stoned. Most people don't smoke incredible amounts of weed and then immediately jump into a vehicle, most people smoke with a friend, hangout for a few hours and then head home, the peak of a marijuana high only lasts for like 45 minutes, but even after 2 hours you could test positive for this breath test but that doesn't really reflect how high you are.

Most of the impairment were drivers driving SLOWER, Alcohol increases risk taking, speeding, etc. Marijuana makes drivers more cautious. My problem is DON'T equate driving stoned with driving drunk, they are two VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY different things.

All this proves is that WITH ENOUGH consumption, you can be impaired.

I don't know why you're so against accountability.

Its incredibly reckless of you and shows utter disregard for society that has to put up with your lack of respect for other drivers and their safety.

If you're fukked up, you shouldn't be operating heavy machinery...including a motor vehicle.

Driving is a privilege. Don't forget that.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

how refreshing another way to target minorities and the poor.

Is this your same answer to drunk drivers?

or other individuals under the influence of other items?

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

All this proves is that WITH ENOUGH consumption, you can be impaired.

I don't know why you're so against accountability.

Its incredibly reckless of you and shows utter disregard for society that has to put up with your lack of respect for other drivers and their safety.

If you're fukked up, you shouldn't be operating heavy machinery...including a motor vehicle.

Driving is a privilege. Don't forget that.

I'm not against accountability, what did I say?

I said, PERFORM FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND IF THEY FAIL IT ARREST THEM. This breath test isn't fukking accurate enough to take away someone's freedom and charge them with DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED which is JUST AS BAD in the eyes of the law as driving drunk, when they aren't the same degree of crime.

And again, do you agree with testing people for how tired they are?

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/about-this-show/tired-vs-drunk-driving/

"Although both situations - downing a couple of shots and staying up all night - clearly impaired Tory and Kari's driving skills, causing them to make mistakes and veer out of their lanes, the lack of sleep had more dangerous effects. Compared with cruising around while tipsy, sleep deprivation caused Tory to drive 10 times worse; sleepy Kari's driving was three times more erratic.

Although getting behind the wheel while groggy isn't illegal, the confirmed myth is a wake-up call that driving tired equals driving impaired."

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm not against accountability, what did I say?

I said, PERFORM FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND IF THEY FAIL IT ARREST THEM. This breath test isn't fukking accurate enough to take away someone's freedom and charge them with DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED which is JUST AS BAD in the eyes of the law as driving drunk, when they aren't the same degree of crime.

And again, do you agree with testing people for how tired they are?

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/about-this-show/tired-vs-drunk-driving/

"Although both situations - downing a couple of shots and staying up all night - clearly impaired Tory and Kari's driving skills, causing them to make mistakes and veer out of their lanes, the lack of sleep had more dangerous effects. Compared with cruising around while tipsy, sleep deprivation caused Tory to drive 10 times worse; sleepy Kari's driving was three times more erratic.

Although getting behind the wheel while groggy isn't illegal, the confirmed myth is a wake-up call that driving tired equals driving impaired."

Not yet.

And this is the point.

and do I agree for testing people based on how tired they are? No. Don't be fukking stupid. You wouldn't say this with respect to alcohol or any other drug. If you're too tired to drive, you'll already be reckless and run the higher chance of:

1. avoiding driving
2. be pulled over for recklessly driving.

Its all the same thing to me.

If you're impaired in ANY matter, then you don't deserve the PRIVILEGE of operating a motor vehicle.

Take all this bytching elsewhere.

Be happy you can smoke, but don't ruin it for the rest of us

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Not yet.

And this is the point.

and do I agree for testing people based on how tired they are? No. Don't be fukking stupid. You wouldn't say this with respect to alcohol or any other drug. If you're too tired to drive, you'll already be reckless and run the higher chance of:

1. avoiding driving
2. be pulled over for recklessly driving.

Its all the same thing to me.

If you're impaired in ANY matter, then you don't deserve the PRIVILEGE of operating a motor vehicle.

Take all this bytching elsewhere.

Be happy you can smoke, but don't ruin it for the rest of us

perform field sobriety tests, if they fail, take them to jail for driving impaired

we have tests to tell if drivers are impaired

we don't need a breath test to determine if you've smoked sometime in the past 6 hours, a blood test can determine the exact same thing

I hate drunk drivers, I've almost been hit MULTIPLE times by drunk drivers. Never been almost hit by a marijuana user. Marijuana isn't going to make you swerve through multiple lanes across the road. I'm just saying they aren't the same thing and this needs to be a nuanced discussion before we start charging people with some pretty serious crimes because they test positive for thc metabolites in your breath.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

perform field sobriety tests, if they fail, take them to jail for driving impaired

we have tests to tell if drivers are impaired

we don't need a breath test to determine if you've smoked sometime in the past 6 hours, a blood test can determine the exact same thing

I hate drunk drivers, I've almost been hit MULTIPLE times by drunk drivers. Never been almost hit by a marijuana user. Marijuana isn't going to make you swerve through multiple lanes across the road. I'm just saying they aren't the same thing and this needs to be a nuanced discussion before we start charging people with some pretty serious crimes because they test positive for thc metabolites in your breath.

are you against breathalyzers?

and marijuana breathalyzers don't exist...yet, so theres no way to know if you have or have not or will never be hit by a weed-impaired driver.

Keep up dummy

 

[88m3]

Is this your same answer to drunk drivers?

or other individuals under the influence of other items?

If they're profiled based on physical appearance, and taken advantage of based on their education or economic background, yes.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

are you against breathalyzers?

and marijuana breathalyzers don't exist...yet, so theres no way to know if you have or have not or will never be hit by a weed-impaired driver.

Keep up dummy

Why would I be against breathalyzers? They accurately test the degree of impairment of a dangerous motor skills, central nervous depressant substance. The difference is tests of marijuana don't accomplish the same degree of accuracy or accuracy of impairment. That's why I said, perform field sobriety tests and if they fail take them to jail. How many times have you been driving and noticed someoen was driving drunk? It's pretty fukking easy to spot people swerving in and our of lanes, alcohol impairs driving on a WHOLE different level then marijuana.

There's no need for the ad-hominems dude, I swear you can't have a civil discussion with you, you're acting like I'm completely off base here when I'm not.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/sfst/appendix_a.htm

There are a huge number of field sobriety tests cops can run. But guess what, Marijuana users will pass all of these because marijuana doesn't GREATLY impair motor skills...thats why they have to come up with these tests that try to detect if you have or haven't smoked, even though it probably won't affect your ability to pass field sobriety tests...

"Score well on all three of these Olympic events, and there’s a very good chance that you are not drunk. This so-called standard field sobriety test has been shown to catch 88 percent of drivers under the influence of alcohol.

But it is nowhere near as good at spotting a stoned driver.

In a 2012 study published in the journal Psychopharmacology, only 30 percent of people under the influence of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, failed the field test. And its ability to identify a stoned driver seems to depend heavily on whether the driver is accustomed to being stoned.

A 21-year-old on his first bender and a hardened alcoholic will both wobble on one foot. But the same is not necessarily true of a driver who just smoked his first joint and the stoner who is high five days a week. In another study, 50 percent of the less frequent smokers failed the field test."

Again..this has to be a nuanced discussion because Marijuana effects people differently depending on tolerance, and whether they're a regular user or not...

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Why would I be against breathalyzers? They accurately test the degree of impairment of a dangerous motor skills, central nervous depressant substance. The difference is tests of marijuana don't accomplish the same degree of accuracy or accuracy of impairment. That's why I said, perform field sobriety tests and if they fail take them to jail. How many times have you been driving and noticed someoen was driving drunk? It's pretty fukking easy to spot people swerving in and our of lanes, alcohol impairs driving on a WHOLE different level then marijuana.

There's no need for the ad-hominems dude, I swear you can't have a civil discussion with you, you're acting like I'm completely off base here when I'm not.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/sfst/appendix_a.htm

There are a huge number of field sobriety tests cops can run. But guess what, Marijuana users will pass all of these because marijuana doesn't GREATLY impair motor skills...thats why they have to come up with these tests that try to detect if you have or haven't smoked, even though it probably won't affect your ability to pass field sobriety tests...

"Score well on all three of these Olympic events, and there’s a very good chance that you are not drunk. This so-called standard field sobriety test has been shown to catch 88 percent of drivers under the influence of alcohol.

But it is nowhere near as good at spotting a stoned driver.

In a 2012 study published in the journal Psychopharmacology, only 30 percent of people under the influence of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, failed the field test. And its ability to identify a stoned driver seems to depend heavily on whether the driver is accustomed to being stoned.

A 21-year-old on his first bender and a hardened alcoholic will both wobble on one foot. But the same is not necessarily true of a driver who just smoked his first joint and the stoner who is high five days a week. In another study, 50 percent of the less frequent smokers failed the field test."

Again..this has to be a nuanced discussion because Marijuana effects people differently depending on tolerance, and whether they're a regular user or not...

you're mad about a machine not working in a manner that it hasn't even been invented to exist yet.

WTF are you bytching about?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

If they're profiled based on physical appearance, and taken advantage of based on their education or economic background, yes.

then they better hope weed can't be used against them.

I don't see your argument here.

 

[ThaRealness]

how refreshing another way to target minorities and the poor.

Another way for lawmakers to be out of touch with reality

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

you're mad about a machine not working in a manner that it hasn't even been invented to exist yet.

WTF are you bytching about?

There won't ever be an instrument that is accurate enough to test the degree of stonedness...thats my point...they can tell if you've smoked in the last 6 hours but that says nothing about the degree of impairment.. I'm not bytching, I'm arguing a point. I agree with you a lot of the time but you're fukking annoying as shyt to converse with when there is a disagreement

 

[88m3]

then they better hope weed can't be used against them.

I don't see your argument here.

you're making a nonsensical argument.


You clearly live in an entirely different world than I do so I don't care what your opinion is on the subject either.