I don't believe that for a second. I drive 200 plus miles a week around the Chicago area, in a legal state and I never, ever see people smoking in their cars. Then again, I'm not nosy enough to be checking other people out while they're driving. I guess you are. What I do see is a lot of people drinking in their cars. Regarding older people, I go into dispensaries every two or three weeks and I see plenty of older people. I vividly remember standing in line on new years day, 2020 when recreational weed became legal. I saw neighbors, some of my kids' former teachers and members of my synagogue. And I saw older people. A lot of them. Legal weed is the best thing that's happened to Illinois since the Cubs won it all in 2016. Outdoor festivals are so much more fun now that we can imbibe openly. It's not legal to do it in public, but nobody cares anymore. The cops are more relieved than anyone. The state of Florida is so 'effed up now. Legalization would do wonders for the vibe down there, probably even help tourism. I don't think you know a thing about cannabis use beyond your own biased research. You're just another curmudgeon who wants keep taking Florida back to the 50s.
Dispute the research I posted then. Biased research from places like the Lancet among others. Otherwise your quips about outdoor festivals being so fun because you can smoke outside are pretty childish. “Hurrah I can smoke weed in public” life is complete now. As far a seeing drivers smoking it’s pretty easy you’re sitting at a light with your windows down and someone pulls up next you smoking it. You would have to be oblivious to not notice, or high and maybe that’s why you say you never see anyone doing it. Maybe there are just more idiots in Florida who do it. Are you nosy seeing people drinking in their cars?
If that's the case, lets say you smoked a week ago and had an accident where someone got injured. Cops find you at fault and do a blood test and you test positive even though you haven't smoked for a week. They will probably charge you with a DUI. Or are there levels like BAC for alcohol?
I can count on one hand how many times this has happened to me in FL. Ever. And I don’t think any of them jumped out as inebriated as far as driving. Although I would still say driving under influence of any substance should be illegal and marijuana is no different. You seem very passionately against it. Like you think if we pass this bill we’ll be dodging wacked out potheads Mad Max style! It’s just wild to me how over the top your opposition is. The people who would do this are already doing it regardless of illegality. The main difference I anticipate from legalization is police can stop wasting time and money selectively prosecuting the huge # of people who smoke. Maybe narrow it to just the bad drivers. For people who want to cut govt spending, this is the lowest of the low hanging fruit. This broader “war on drugs” issue has always been useful to identify phony fiscal conservatives. It’s the most wasteful thing our govt has done other than maybe the Iraq war, and maybe it’s worse since it keeps going and going and going…
My understanding is that there is no BAC-style equivalent for marijuana. Even with alcohol, though, your BAC can be under the legal limit (say, 0.06), and you can still be charged with a DUI because BAC isn't the sole method of establishing impairment. I think that's also true with prescription drugs; you can have a legal prescription for pain killers, but it's still illegal to drive while impaired even if you took them consistent with the label. I think law enforcement in Florida, for example, have to have special training to become a Drug Recognition Expert, but I don't know all the ends and outs of that. Hopefully someone will correct me if I've gotten any of this wrong.
I’ll disagree on your point about the numbers of people already doing it legally. Once “legalized for sale” it becomes far more accessible use will increase. That’s already been proven where it is available legally. Hell the “medicinal” use in Florida has increased use in “non medical” areas. My teenagers can verify once a friend gets their medical card it’s super easier to pass out vape pens and flower because the amount you are allowed to buy. My main point of contention is that it is being portrayed as some totally safe natural plant. It’s not plenty of studies I posted show this. Furthermore the vapes and dab pens are hardly “natural” they have a lot of processing to concentrate the THC to the levels found in those devices. I think potency should at minimum be strictly limited. You can decriminalize it also. Doesn’t have be all or nothing wide open.
There are some very sensitive tests but it’s not clear as to when it was ingested. Perhaps a road side test similar to concussion protocol tests could be used. Ya get a baseline one every year. Not fool proof just spot balling ideas.
Drug tests that quantify the amount of THC in the sample generally report in terms of nanograms (1 billionth of a gram) per milliliter. There are no specified amounts of THC mentioned in Florida's DUI statutes such as an unlawful level. Again, the state lab doesn't report in those terms...it only indicates positive or negative. The defendant would have to arrange for an independent test to learn the actual quantity of THC in the sample. There is another issue that complicates the testing. Alcohol is soluble in water and remains in the blood until metabolized and eliminated by the body. THC is soluble in fat and oils and is stored in the fatty tissue. THC will peak in the blood relatively quickly after smoking weed, but as the blood is pumped through the body it gets stored in the fat and blood levels of THC will drop accordingly. At some point the legislature is going to have to seriously revamp our DUI statutes.
Would that be the best test though? I understand there are impacts on reaction time, for example, but I'm thinking that marijuana impairment might be more cognitive than physical. We know there have been pro athletes admit to competing after using marijuana.
Addressing your points in order, sort of: It is illegal to operate a vehicle while "impaired." Impairment can occur with illegal drugs, alcohol, etc. The 0.8 BAC creates a presumption of impairment, but you do not need a BAC over 0.8 to be charged. As you mentioned, you don't need a BAC at all. You can be charged and convicted even if you only have legally prescribed meds in your system. So an officer could pull you over, note an odor of MJ, glassy eyes, or whatever, give you the field sobriety tests, and if you "failed" could arrest you for DUI irrespective of what your BAC is. They can also ask you to take a blood test although (if memory serves) you do not have to unless you are involved in an accident involving serious bodily injury (I may be wrong on that, it's been a while). I think they can also demand a urine test though I don't recall when that can happen. MJ sticks around in the body a long time, so urine tests that are positive for MJ are not all that useful if the DUI defendant has a competent attorney Drug Recognition training, and even the Field Sobriety Tests, are the worst kind of pseudo-scientific claptrap. The "special training" is middle school level stuff that would make you laugh. Most officers just look at nystagmus - that's when they shine a light in your eye and look to see if your eye jumps around or tracks smoothly when trying to follow an object. However, they can't really testify to that since it requires scientific expertise. But if you exhibit significant Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus you are probably getting arrested no matter how you do on everything else. Marijuana doesn't cause HGN though, so they would look for something else they can't testify to, Lack of Convergence, if they smell MJ. This is a little trickier, which is why - practically speaking - people rarely get arrested for marijuana-based DUI
I was taught how to test horizontal gaze nystagmus in the police academy in 1977. Wasn’t very long afterwards that the test was eliminated due to a certain population having it naturally from birth. It’s about as accurate as a polygraph.
HGN is alive and well. It is invariably the first test/exercise cops administer during a DUI investigation. The DUI specialists well tell you they can project a suspect's BAL from administering HGN.
Close. At 0.8 the driver wouldn't be impaired, he'd be dead. .08 or higher BAL is prima facie evidence of impairment, but that BAL is also pre se DUI under the unlawful blood alcohol theory of prosecution. That is true regardless of impairment. The State can prove a DUI under two theories: unlawful BAL or impairment. Relevant portion of F.S. 316.193 follows: 316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.— (1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and: (a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired; (b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or (c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Relevant portion of F.S. 316.1934 follows: (c) If there was at that time a blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher, that fact is prima facie evidence that the person was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. Moreover, such person who has a blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher is guilty of driving, or being in actual physical control of, a motor vehicle, with an unlawful blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level. As to the blood test, the cops can always ask for it with sufficient cause. They can use reasonable force to obtain the blood sample in a wreck with death or serious bodily injury. See F.S. 316.1933.
It seems that as usual, there is more to the story. Apparently, one of the big opponents is the hemp industry, which doesn't want legal weed cutting into its delta eight sales There’s a Funny Reason Ron DeSantis Is Opposed to Legalizing Weed in Florida
