Driving under the influence is an offence here regardless of whether it is dope or alcohol.
We have random drug testing as well as random breath testing.
Zero THC limit for drivers. Period.
Do you mean more than there already are? Failing an intoxication test is failing an acute motor/sensory test and if pot caused it--yank 'em like a drunk. A road side analysis (or whatever it would be) that simply shows a person has THC in their blood could mean that THC is 4 hours to 30 days old, i.e. yeah they got stoned, but awhile ago.
Honestly my whole personal perspective on this mindset changed from living in Las Vegas. Horrible place to drive aside, it also has no "open container" law because of something to do with limo services (IRRC and this was 2000-2004). The sky didn't open up and rain death because Clark County's open container law was different than most every other place in America. (which doesn't mean I think rolling with a 40 in your lap is a cool think to do).
People drive stoned now. Driving impaired because you huff the gas at the service station isn't a good idea even though I doubt there's a specific law against that.
I doubt life will change little, if at at all, for people in WA or CO other than jail/court/legal costs softening up.
But that's just off the top of my head at 5 in the morning when I should be doing homework ;->
That a little more what you had in mind ;->?
No. Not really. A time and place for dope humour. Which I have had many a laugh to.
As for the amount in the blood. That is why for example, our laws aren't about walking lines and touching your nose, it's about concentration. Because everyone is different, that isn't a defence, it's just evidence for a benchmark that can't be crossed.
I don't care when you pulled your bong. If it is in your blood, you're nicked. Your driving behaviour has nothing to do with it.
If it can't be established what you have taken, but your ARE driving in without care or in a manner dangerous, your behaviour gets you pinged.
Yeah, we must be posting at cross purposes, or in the same general vein (I think) but from slightly different angles.
IMPAIRED driving should get you pinged. Be it beer be it vodka be it texting be it iPod scanning or be it pot.
Taken from that point of view (and using your own video as a sort of faux example) that could also include some bad ADD or a lazy diabetic with hypoglycemia.
I was just expressing some doubt that WA and CO will now suddenly find themselves in a fire storm of metal twisted death that only could have been prevented if we'd stopped more adults from enjoying Captain Crunch cereal and Scooby Doo reruns after work a little too much.
That general belief is not advocacy for impaired driving--just so we're clear.
Though no, (if I read what you said correctly, which I might well have not) I don't think some random population member having smoked whatever 2-3 weeks ago and thus having THC in their blood is now automatically beyond the pale and that it ='s DUI. You have to show they're legally impaired.
It just isn't reasonable on a blue collar, street level, common sense paradigm to do it any other way--though philosophically it might work as an absolutist argument.
Come on, EMTs, Cops, ER nurses and every college student in America knows when they're dealing with someone stoned. And if hypothetical person is stoned and you can't tell then they're probably no more dangerous than the neurotic housewife with a firefighter husband and a xanx prescription (which isn't the same as safe, but is the same as legal and not an automatic ping for just having it in your blood.)
Also, I'm trying to be tongue in cheek a bit so you don't think I'm calling for massive narcotic legalization or cheerleading MVA deaths in some kind of serious manner.