Reader: It's not pot paranoia if the feds are really out to get you

Thumbnail image for driving high.JPG
During the public hearing portion of yesterday's Amendment 64 task force meeting, one member of the audience asked if the group would address the issue of DUI charges related to pot, a topic that Fox31 recently took on. And then a marijuana activist took on Fox31, accusing the station of having rigged the report.

Newsmom appreciates how sticky the issue can get:

the first time i drove stoned i was so worried about speeding that i took extra care not to drive too fast. i came to full stops, looked both ways several times, and took roughly three times longer to get home than i ordinarily did in a non-stoned state. weed-based hysteria is just another way to keep us all off balance and afraid. a frightened populace is more susceptible to government propaganda. now i hate myself for even seeming to advocate paranoia...on the other hand, it's not really paranoia if the feds are out to get you...

Is there a fair way for the state to come up with a driving-under-the-influence standard for marijuana? And will it matter, if the feds are really out to get you? Post your thoughts below.

From our archives: "Videos: Fox31 denies marijuana activist's claim that THC driving story was rigged."



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
3 comments
Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

It really shouldn't matter whether someone's stoned on pot, drunk on liquor, tired from a short night's sleep, on cough syrup (screws me up worse than the pot I medicate pain with) or just plain too feeble. Testing for substances, especially when the validity of the test in the real life is in question, as with pot testing, is unfair to the consumers of specific substances, and doesn't address the dangers of others.

The fair way to address impaired driving is to test response time, cognitive ability, and so forth. In my perfect world, peace officers would have something like a children's toy in the trunk, and it would dish up random questions to validate thinking skill, and measure physical response time to stimuli. If this device says you're impaired, it will be for repeatable, objective reasons, not because someone made a judgment call or tested for a substance to which everyone responds differently.

I have faith that in a society of "modern miracles," if a group of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs earmarked a reasonable award (something like the X-Prize) for the developer of such a test tool, the market would provide it.

Short of that, law enforcement should fall back to the field sobriety test, and put little or no stock in chemical testing. The idea of a per se DUID, in particular, is unacceptable.

CoreyDonahue
CoreyDonahue

You quit being journilists correct?

¨Is there a fair way for the state to come up with a driving-under-the-influence standard for marijuana?¨

Did you not pay attention to the Westword´s reporting the last two years?  It is unconstitutional, to draw blood to prove ones guilt, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-936And unsciencetific to set a level becasue some innocent person will be convicted of a crime they are not guilty of.  But I am sure your ideas of Justice are equal to you reporting skilles, easily bought.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

For the un-initiated, per se DUI(D) says if you've got a certain amount of a certain substance in your body, it means you're legally impaired, regardless of whether you're factually impaired.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...