The Futility and Illogic of DUI Pot Laws

[ace99]

The case you cited aint relevant, this isn't about employment for a transit system

and



Makes no mention of race or groups, suspect or not

a law that says pot smokers are criminals for driving cars because they're "impaired" while legally allowing drinkers to drive around even more impaired constitutes unequal treatment. Thats obvious

Ugh....I don't know what to say to you man. Believe what you want. That's not how it works. Yes it's unequal treatment, the court doesn't care about that. It's unequal treatment of non-suspect classes where the government has a rational interest in treating them differently. The case is sufficiently relevant because it shows that equally protection analysis doesn't treat drug users as a suspect class that warrants protection. Hell gays only get rational basis (albeit with a bite), you think they're going to give a higher level of scrutiny to potheads?

All equal protection analysis begins at suspect classes and levels of scrutiny. Race, being the intended target of the 14th A warrants strict scrutiny for race based classification. Gender, warrants intermediate scrutiny, everyone else warrants mere rational basis.

All the government has to show to pass rational basis review, is the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. It is more than sufficient for the government to say that the difficulty in measuring impairment of smokers and THC levels warrants them to have a zero-tolerance approach to users driving impaired by THC whereas its easier to measure and quantify impairment under alcohol. And I guarantee you that the court will uphold it, as being a law rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting people on the road. Because courts defer to the government under rational basis analysis.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ace, I don't often extend sympathy of logic to those whom I suspect may have made the poor life decision of entering law school, but you have it here.

a law that says pot smokers are criminals for driving cars because they're "impaired" while legally allowing drinkers to drive around even more impaired constitutes unequal treatment. Thats obvious

Well, I know it isn't much, but I'm glad to see at least one person who agrees with me on prison time and homicide charges for phone users on the road.

 

[ace99]

Ace, I don't often extend sympathy of logic to those whom I suspect may have made the poor life decision of entering law school, but you have it here.

I believe I've found the title of my next soapbox thread.

 

[MobBoss]

But you excuse driving impaired by booze

No I dont. I've said several times that I dont think DUI laws are harsh enough. Too many people get killed by drunk drivers as it is.

That doesnt refute what I said, yer just pissing in the wind.

Actually, it does refute what you said. And you're just tossing at windmills if you think otherwise.

You support a BAC of 0? And would you ban people under 21 from driving?

Now you are just getting stupid 'cause i've never alleged or implied anything along these lines. It seems you are losing your ability to discuss this topic in any appreciable manner 'cause you are losing the argument and you're frustration is coming through with comments like this.

Guess what else nearly doubles your chance of a fatal accident - being a young male. Yup, Now, wanna bet those pot stats are skewed by young male drivers? Did you know that Mobby? Those stats you guys posted practically match the stats for single car fatalities for males 16-20. But mixing in booze paints a really nasty picture:

www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/809-050pdf.pdf

For 16-20 year olds and a BAC of .05-.079 the risk of a single car crash is over 17 times the "norm" - and you guys are complaining about less than 2?

Again, recognizing the need for laws against driving while drunk does not eliminate the need for them driving while stone as well.

Whats race got to do with it? Equal protection belongs to us all, and a law that calls you a criminal for pot while others are driving around more impaired treats you differently.

Wow. Are you really unable to see why equal protection doesnt apply here?

Thats my logic? No, I'll make my own arguments, thank you kindly If drunk murderers were being let off and pot smoking murderers were being punished, then you'd have a proper analogy.

Please realize that equal protection wouldnt apply in this situation either. And no one is letting 'drunk' people off the hook. Thats just false on its face.

We get the fact that you are a pot advocate. Yahoo. Rah, rah, rah. But you simply arent going to win this argument that is a great idea and totally harmless for people to drive stoned. Neither science nor public opinion is behind you on this one.

 

[Berzerker]

Ugh....I don't know what to say to you man. Believe what you want. That's not how it works. Yes it's unequal treatment, the court doesn't care about that. It's unequal treatment of non-suspect classes where the government has a rational interest in treating them differently. The case is sufficiently relevant because it shows that equally protection analysis doesn't treat drug users as a suspect class that warrants protection. Hell gays only get rational basis (albeit with a bite), you think they're going to give a higher level of scrutiny to potheads?

But they are a "suspect class" or just one that doesn't warrant protection? Does the TA hire alcoholics and let them drink on the job? If the TA doesn't, then other addicts refused employment aint being treated differently. Thats not the case with booze and pot and driving a car - the law will allow alcohol users a greater legal impairment than pot smokers who will be criminals based on that double standard. You said it yourself, "yes, its unequal treatment". Thats what I said. The rest of your post explains that the courts will ignore the unequal treatment, probably. But they'll have to ignore the science too. PC trumps logic...

All the government has to show to pass rational basis review, is the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. It is more than sufficient for the government to say that the difficulty in measuring impairment of smokers and THC levels warrants them to have a zero-tolerance approach to users driving impaired by THC whereas its easier to measure and quantify impairment under alcohol. And I guarantee you that the court will uphold it, as being a law rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting people on the road. Because courts defer to the government under rational basis analysis.

The same people responsible for the courts write the laws, but did you just say a BAC of .08 and a zero tolerance policy for pot smokers are rational because the state knows booze causes more impairment than pot and can prove it easier?

Well, I know it isn't much, but I'm glad to see at least one person who agrees with me on prison time and homicide charges for phone users on the road.

yikes

No I dont. I've said several times that I dont think DUI laws are harsh enough. Too many people get killed by drunk drivers as it is.

The penalties or the BAC limit? Do you want a zero tolerance policy for drinking and driving? No? Then you're excusing alcohol impairment while holding pot smokers to a different standard.

Actually, it does refute what you said. And you're just tossing at windmills if you think otherwise.

You decided people using medicinal pot are too sick to drive and I pointed to people who are not too sick, so you pointed to people who are too sick - how does the fact someone is too sick to drive mean everyone else is too sick to drive?

Now you are just getting stupid 'cause i've never alleged or implied anything along these lines. It seems you are losing your ability to discuss this topic in any appreciable manner 'cause you are losing the argument and you're frustration is coming through with comments like this.

They weren't comments, they were questions so you could clarify your position. If you want zero tolerance for pot, do you want the same for booze?

Again, recognizing the need for laws against driving while drunk does not eliminate the need for them driving while stone as well.

If stoned drivers are less impaired than the legal limit for booze, then there is no need for a law.

Please realize that equal protection wouldnt apply in this situation either. And no one is letting 'drunk' people off the hook. Thats just false on its face.

Okay, drinking murderers. You'd let drinking murderers off while punishing smoking murderers. It was your analogy, you dragged murder into this.

We get the fact that you are a pot advocate. Yahoo. Rah, rah, rah. But you simply arent going to win this argument that is a great idea and totally harmless for people to drive stoned. Neither science nor public opinion is behind you on this one.

I never said anything was totally harmless, but my point still stands. Pot smokers are less impaired than people with the legal blood alcohol limit.

You guys posted a study claiming pot smokers were nearly twice as likely to crash and then made all sorts of ridiculous assertions that ignore the statistical context (2x a tiny number is still a tiny number and does not make one far more likely to have an accident). I posted NHTSA data showing young male drivers 16-20 are 1.75 x more likely to crash. If these drivers are more likely to crash, and they make up a disproportionate bulk of pot smoking drivers, then the numbers are skewed and pot smokers are even less of a risk than the 1.75 (or 1.92). But with booze? For younger adult males and a BAC of .05-.08, the risk went up ~6 times the norm. Thats about 4 times more likely to crash than pot smokers, still a small number - but one large enough to expose the double standard and unequal treatment.

 

[MobBoss]

The penalties or the BAC limit? Do you want a zero tolerance policy for drinking and driving? No? Then you're excusing alcohol impairment while holding pot smokers to a different standard.

How about a zero tolerance policy for both then? If any THC is in your system at all, then its the clink for you. Ditto for alcohol. You good with that? That would be treating both substances equally wouldnt it?

But of course there are going to be different standards involved - they are different drugs after all and affect the brain differently. No one argued otherwise, nor does that disprove the fact of having laws preventing driving while stoned.

If stoned drivers are less impaired than the legal limit for booze, then there is no need for a law.

You keep on missing the fact that less impaired doesnt mean not impaired. Of course there is a need for a law. I dont see how you could argue that ones not needed.

Okay, drinking murderers. You'd let drinking murderers off while punishing smoking murderers. It was your analogy, you dragged murder into this.

I wouldnt let either one of them off. You're the one wanting to let the smokers off the hook.

I never said anything was totally harmless, but my point still stands. Pot smokers are less impaired than people with the legal blood alcohol limit.

No, they arent less impaired. It is far more accurate to say they are impaired differently.

 

[Berzerker]

How about a zero tolerance policy for both then? If any THC is in your system at all, then its the clink for you. Ditto for alcohol. You good with that? That would be treating both substances equally wouldnt it?

No, I dont believe in zero tolerance because everyone drives impaired. But if you support zero tolerance for pot then you should be advocating the same for booze and every other impairment.

You keep on missing the fact that less impaired doesnt mean not impaired. Of course there is a need for a law. I dont see how you could argue that ones not needed.

Because the level of impairment is less than that for the already legal impairment by booze.

I wouldnt let either one of them off. You're the one wanting to let the smokers off the hook.

Yes you would, you'd let the drinker off while punishing the pot smoker - cant drive high because you're impaired but you can drink and drive in spite of the greater impairment. I'd let them both off.

No, they arent less impaired. It is far more accurate to say they are impaired differently.

You posted a study claiming pot smokers are 2 times more likely to crash - you said that was proof pot smokers are more impaired than sober drivers. But a study showing drinkers are 6 times more likely to crash than sober drivers and ~4 times more likely to crash than pot smokers is not proof of greater impairment?

 

[MobBoss]

No, I dont believe in zero tolerance because everyone drives impaired. But if you support zero tolerance for pot then you should be advocating the same for booze and every other impairment.

Everyone doesnt drive impaired, so please stop spreading such fallacy in order to try and justify your point.

I dont advocate a zero tolerance for pot (if legal) any more than I support one for alcohol. I see nothing wrong with setting limits based upon scientific data to draw an arbitarary line in the sand for vehicle safety.

Because the level of impairment is less than that for the already legal impairment by booze.

Hasnt mattered. Doesnt matter, and wont matter even when you bring it up again for the simple reason marijuana is different than alcohol.

Yes you would, you'd let the drinker off while punishing the pot smoker - cant drive high because you're impaired but you can drink and drive in spite of the greater impairment. I'd let them both off.

Nope, I support limits on both based upon their specific affects on the brain. At least you've backed off that equal protection silliness.

 

[Berzerker]

Everyone doesnt drive impaired, so please stop spreading such fallacy in order to try and justify your point.

Of course they do, nobody is always %100 - people drive impaired all the time...

I dont advocate a zero tolerance for pot (if legal) any more than I support one for alcohol. I see nothing wrong with setting limits based upon scientific data to draw an arbitarary line in the sand for vehicle safety.

Wouldn't really be arbitrary if its based on the science, but I'll ask again: what law would you want? A law based on BAC? And if one cannot reach that level of impairment with THC, whats the point of the law?

Nope, I support limits on both based upon their specific affects on the brain. At least you've backed off that equal protection silliness.

I didn't back off, your last rebuttal was:

"Wow. Are you really unable to see why equal protection doesnt apply here?"

You backed off

 

[MobBoss]

Of course they do, nobody is always %100 - people drive impaired all the time...

This is simply wild speculation on your part with no proof offered. You simply 'think' this is the truth, and offer it as fact, when it simply isnt. While you may not be able t imagine it, of course there are people who dont drive impaired at all. Why wouldnt there be?

Wouldn't really be arbitrary if its based on the science, but I'll ask again: what law would you want? A law based on BAC? And if one cannot reach that level of impairment with THC, whats the point of the law?

Because we can still measure the amount of THC in our system. It was done all the time in the military, and in fact we had a level that was used there as well to ensure no one was removed from service from secondhand exposure. Knowing that this can be determined, it shouldnt be all that difficult to measure how much THC in one systems affects their driving performance to the point where it would be illegal to be driving that stoned.

Bottom line, the point of the law would be to save lives. How can you object to that?

And you know what? The hole in your argument is this: if pot users drive so well even while stoned, then how are they going to be caught in the first place?

I didn't back off, your last rebuttal was:

"Wow. Are you really unable to see why equal protection doesnt apply here?"

You backed off

Rofl, thats not me backing off. That's me recognizing that you appear to be unable to grasp why you are wrong despite several people trying to explain it to you in simple terms.

 

[Berzerker]

This is simply wild speculation on your part with no proof offered. You simply 'think' this is the truth, and offer it as fact, when it simply isnt. While you may not be able t imagine it, of course there are people who dont drive impaired at all. Why wouldnt there be?

Because humans aint perfect, we drive impaired all the time. Lack of sleep, irritation, a lead foot, bad driving, physical discomfort, diseases and medical conditions and the accompanying medicines, age, etc...

The studies posted in this thread showed pot smokers are about the same risk as males 16-20 (1.75x), and that group undoubtedly accounts for a disproportionally large number of pot smokers having accidents. That means pot smokers 21 and older (the law out west) are even closer to sober drivers whereas adult drinkers at a BAC of .05-.08 are ~6x more likely to crash (and even more closer to .08) - thats about 4x the risk posed by pot smokers. And that impairment is legal, so what law would you have for pot smokers if not a zero tolerance policy?

Because we can still measure the amount of THC in our system. It was done all the time in the military, and in fact we had a level that was used there as well to ensure no one was removed from service from secondhand exposure. Knowing that this can be determined, it shouldnt be all that difficult to measure how much THC in one systems affects their driving performance to the point where it would be illegal to be driving that stoned.

You'd know this better than me, but wasn't that testing for detection and not to determine impairment at any point in time. THC stays in the system a long time, days, weeks, even months maybe. But that THC is stored in the body, its not active in the brain. The impairment lasts 2-4 hours and wears off, kinda like drinking booze without the hangover. If alcohol stayed in the system weeks after drinking would you test people knowing you could be detecting booze from 2 weeks ago? Only if you had a zero tolerance policy, otherwise the test will "convict" innocent people who weren't drinking and driving.

Bottom line, the point of the law would be to save lives. How can you object to that?

So will a 40 mph speed limit and banning football, guns and apple pie... But that aint the bottom line, they're doing studies in Colorado that show the legalization of pot has resulted in a drop in alcohol consumption - and a drop in traffic fatalities they're attributing to pot. In Colorado they've replaced more impaired drivers with less impaired drivers. Making it illegal to drive high will mean more drinking and driving and more injuries and deaths. Why would you support that?

And you know what? The hole in your argument is this: if pot users drive so well even while stoned, then how are they going to be caught in the first place?

Same way other people get pulled over? I dont recognize that argument, where did I make it?

Rofl, thats not me backing off. That's me recognizing that you appear to be unable to grasp why you are wrong despite several people trying to explain it to you in simple terms.

I made my argument and you offered that non-rebuttal and accused me of backing off. And now you're backing off again by citing others, pointing is not an argument. Several people? I've been arguing with Ace and even he agreed it was unequal treatment, he just argued the courts dont care because the transit authority doesn't have to hire addicts. Or something like that... Point being the TA didn't have to hire alcoholics either and let them drink on the job.

To my knowledge there's never been a case about pot DUI getting thru the courts because it aint legal to use, driving or not. Now it is in some places and driving under the influence will enter the courts when sick people challenge newly created laws to restrict their use of a car. So I dont know how I can be so obviously wrong about my equal protection argument if the courts haven't dealt with the matter yet. See a hole in your argument? I do...

 

[ace99]

UNEQUAL TREATMENT DOES NOT MEAN THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE HAS BEEN VIOLATED OR IS IN ANY WAY RELEVANT. ONLY UNEQUAL PROTECTION BASED ON CLASSIFICATIONS OF A SUSPECT CLASS THAT HAS FACED HISTORIC DISCRIMINATION SUCH AS RACE, GENDER AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DID NOT WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN APPLY TO ANYTHING ASIDE FROM RACE BASED CLASSIFICATION (ORIGINAL INTENT). IT DOES NOT, DID NOT, AND WILL NOT EVER APPLY TO POT SMOKERS.

Alright son, and that's my last post on this matter.

 

[MobBoss]

Because humans aint perfect, we drive impaired all the time. Lack of sleep, irritation, a lead foot, bad driving, physical discomfort, diseases and medical conditions and the accompanying medicines, age, etc...

Except, of course, 'we' doesnt mean 'all of us'. Nor are all that you list what i'd actually quantify as 'impairments'.

You'd know this better than me, but wasn't that testing for detection and not to determine impairment at any point in time.

Not exactly, as there was an established metabolite level that would rule out second hand exposure. In other words, the test would only pick up levels of the drug that resulted in impairment which meant they were actually high (to varying extent) during the actual test.

THC stays in the system a long time, days, weeks, even months maybe.

Not months. The metabolite level we used indicated drug use usually within the last 2 to 3 weeks for THC. But THC certainly stayed in your system far longer than other drugs that were tested for.

But that THC is stored in the body, its not active in the brain.

THC is always active in the brain via the THC receptors in the brain as long as it is in the system.

The impairment lasts 2-4 hours and wears off, kinda like drinking booze without the hangover.

It actually lasts a lot longer than that, but is generally unoticable to the average user. You might think the high only lasts that long, but your brain continues to metabolize it for a significant period of time depending on the amount smoked.

If alcohol stayed in the system weeks after drinking would you test people knowing you could be detecting booze from 2 weeks ago?

You may not know this but some states will still charge a person with a DUI even if their BAC is less than .08 if the test were given long after their arrest. They are allowed to estimate their BAC level at the time of the arrest via established science on how to do that. Granted that is only a several hours example of your reference, but it is similar to what you are referring to.

So will a 40 mph speed limit and banning football, guns and apple pie... But that aint the bottom line, they're doing studies in Colorado that show the legalization of pot has resulted in a drop in alcohol consumption - and a drop in traffic fatalities they're attributing to pot. In Colorado they've replaced more impaired drivers with less impaired drivers. Making it illegal to drive high will mean more drinking and driving and more injuries and deaths. Why would you support that?

This is simply false logic. If driving while high is safe then people will still obviously do so without getting caught for the simple reason the cops need a probable cause to pull you over for a traffic infraction. In other words, if you are right (I dont think you are) then the laws will only be a concern to those so hugely messed up that they should obviously not be driving at all. Which would still make those laws effective albeit to a lesser extent that DUI laws for alcohol.

Same way other people get pulled over? I dont recognize that argument, where did I make it?

Drunk people get pulled over for driving irregularly. Your premise is that pot smokers wont do this. Ergo, pot smokers have nothing to worry about these laws. That is the hole in your argument.

 

[El_Machinae]

I really think there're some really good points in Berzerker's points. There's some parts that I disagree with, but I won't focus too much on them.

So, Berzerker, the main weakness I see with your gist is the insistence on the risk ratio and of the level of impairment. Here's what I mean: I think more extensive studies are warranted and if they continue to show that the impairment (i.e., driving handicap) levels are significantly lower than a BAC of 0.08 at most to all doses of MJ, then having a separate 'cap' on MJ usage doesn't make reasonable sense. That said, holding too hard to the current numbers isn't required for this point to be true. It's going to be tough to convince people that MJ-induced impairment is non-trivial. Without real study, it's hard to get good statistics.

The other really good point is that there's just no real way to test for MJ dosing. Like you say, the metabolite is detectable, even when it's not causing much of an issue. The analogy to alcohol is reasonable. Alcohol's metabolites last a bit longer than the actual impairment, but they (themselves) are metabolised so quickly that it's a non-issue for detection.

In my country, you can have an additional punishment for driving while impaired. Too little sleep, weird drug interactions, whatever. This catch-all very well could be a reasonable way of preventing people from driving while too influenced by MJ. If the driver is driving unsafely, then they can get ticketed and prosecuted without resorting to anti-drug laws.

 

[MobBoss]

El_Mac, many state laws were re-labled from DWI - driving while intoxicated to DUI - driving under the influence, for that very reason.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Punishing someone for driving while impaired no matter the reason makes perfect sense, while zero tolerance for alcohol or marijuana consumption clearly does not. Canada again shows its laws are far more rational and far less draconian.

Besides, I doubt very few stoned people would fail the impairment tests that cops use under most circumstances.

 

[MobBoss]

Except its not 'zero tolerance' as limits are involved. Sigh.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I have no idea what precise impairments pot creates, but assuming it is a significant inhibition I really see no reason we should have it on the road. Just don't drive while you're using it. I see nothing inconsistent about supporting the legality of pot, and everything else, and yet saying that you shouldn't endanger other people by driving under the influence.

On the other hand, we should absolutely never EVER "Randomly check" anybody for alcohol or drugs. IF they are actually driving safely, the justice system never ought to know.

 

[MobBoss]

On the other hand, we should absolutely never EVER "Randomly check" anybody for alcohol or drugs. IF they are actually driving safely, the justice system never ought to know.

Now this is just stupid. If you let people belief a false belief that they can drive responsibly while stoned or drunk then all you are going to be rewarded with is more innocent people killed by these impaired drivers. I have no problem what-so-ever with such random checks, and in fact think its a great idea to help remind people that driving drunk (or high) will not be tolerated.

And that's a good thing.

 

[Farm Boy]

You've got nothing to worry about if you've got nothing to hide, eh?

Yessa, my papers sah.