@Brain – 20 years of driving. To and from Seattle (from Tacoma) every day for the past 6. 0 tickets. 0 wrecks. I’ve been pulled over while very high (tail light once, headlight just the other day)… The cops have had no idea, because it doesn’t impair you (especially after you are familiar with the effects).

When I have a drink, I avoid driving for the rest of the day.

Cannabis does NOT impair you. Comparing vicodin to cannabis is out of line.

By the way, Brian, I don’t know a single pot smoker who doesn’t drive liberally while stoned. I never hear about them getting popped for DUI, either. My drinking friends? They constantly screw up their lives and endanger others by getting on the streets under the influence of alcohol.

Not great, but there you go – that’s the only field test which would prove impairment absolutely.

Are you saying that because the impairment resulting from marijuana use does not last as long as alcohol, it should shouldn’t be included in DUI laws? Even if a high only lasts 30 minutes, you’re still impaired and should be driving during that time. And what about people who use while they drive?

There are more than two sides to this. I’m on the side that says “You should have the right to use marijuana, but that right ends where your use endangers my safety.” I don’t care if you get high, just don’t do it in a way that poses a threat to me or others; and until we have a way to scientifically determine on the spot if you’re body is metabolizing marijuana, it should be illegal.

Also Brian , I believe you should care. With the amount of life being lost (3 way, Enforcement, Criminal, and most important the Innocent), the war on drugs is the real cause. When we try to prohibit no violent behavior, we create Violence & Crime. This one of the reasons that Barney Frank and Ron Paul have introduced H.R. 2306, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, would remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act and limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or interstate smuggling. States would be able to legalize and regulate marijuana, or to continue to prohibit it, as they individually choose.

There are only 2 real sides; For Prohibition (with all the Refer Madness) and Against Prohibition (with all the new science and studies).

Biggest problem with all of this, is that the Fed has to eat Crow on all the nonsense the made us eat for 70 + years!!!!!

I know about the DRE, but it relies on the opinion of the observing officer. Unlike a breathalyzer, it is subject to the interpretation of the person performing the test. In fact, the 11th step is “the opinion of the evaluator.” Also, in a big city it shouldn’t be a problem finding a qualified officer to administer it, but in rural communities where there isn’t the budget or manpower to train an officer or keep him/her available all the time, the DRE is useless when marijuana is a legal but controlled substance.

Assuming a qualified officer administers the DRE and determines a person is using marijuana, that only lets you arrest him and perform further tests. But the only test available to determine the chemical presence of marijuana in the body is still only able to narrow it down to 30 days. You may still be able to charge the driver, but they’ll deny being under the influence at the time and they can claim that several of the determining factors of the DRE are symptoms of the condition they have the medical marijuana prescription for, such as: muscular dystrophy, MS, Tourettes, epilepsy, arhythmia, equilibrium impairment, etc. I know of several attorneys in CA who have used those defenses, and they have been successful at times.

Add to that, with the kind of information pro-legalization groups are putting out, how much longer do you think it will be before every medical and recreational marijuana user knows that all he has to do is refuse the third part of the first step and the DRE is over without coming to any conclusion? Sure, they might be arrested at that point, but it still only gets you to point where you can give them a UA or hair follicle test and establish use within the past 30 days.

What I’m saying is that there needs to be some device that can test for instant presence of marijuana, just like a breathalyzer can test for alcohol. Until then marijuana should remain illegal, at least for recreational use.

There actually is a field test available to check for marijuana, as well as other prescription and non-prescription narcotics. It is called the Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE), a twelve step process performed only by those officers trained in the procedure, and it can be conducted on the street following a stop for DUI.

And et2kah,

In regards to the notion that driving under the influence of marijuana is not prohibited in CA, I will simply state that is incorrect. DUI laws cover impairment, whether the source is alcohol, legal or illegal drugs. For example, if you forgot to read the prescription when you downed your Vicadin, you can be stopped and arrested for DUI. The point is that anything you choose to put in your body should not be the cause for a decrease in your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

I’m not talking about about the officer’s impression of whether a person is high. There needs to be some sort of test available in the field to determine with some level of scientific certainty that the person has marijuana in their system at that particular time. Otherwise, if ther person is arrested, the only tests available can determine if they’ve used it in the past 30 days (with urine) or 90 days (with hair). That won’t meet the evidentiary standard to charge for a DUI.

I don’t know about CA, but in AZ the subject of driving while using medical marijuana is not addressed. The consensus among law enforcement is that if a person is driving while high on marijuana (medical or otherwise), they are driving under the influence of a controlled substance. Same as with alcohol, and same as with any other prescription drug. The difference between marijuana and alcohol or most other prescription drugs that affect judgment and motor skills, is that the timeframe for usage of marijuana cannot be narrowed down to less than 30 days with current technology.

Without a more accurate test, police are left to depend on motor skills tests and the smell or presence of marijuana in the vehicle to establish use. But when those drivers get their day in court, every one of them will say: “Of course I smelled of marijuana and had it in my car — I have a prescription for it. And of course I failed the motor skills test in the field — I have an equilibrium disorder that can only be managed with marijuana, so the fact that I couldn’t balance myself is proof that I wasn’t high.” Case dismissed.

Look, I don’t have a problem with people who need medical marijuana using it. I don’t even have a problem with an adult using it recreationally in a responsible manner. But driving while high is no more responsible than driving drunk. There’s a reason we have laws against that, and why DUI laws generally include more controlled substances than just alcohol.