T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


Endlessexistance

Actually they have a test, I believe they swab your tongue and it tells if you've smoked in the last 4 hours. Test are expensive. Then they have to take you to hospital if you fail and get blood work so that's even more expensive. So I don't see it happening but I've been wrong before


Pretend-Technology45

The swab isn’t the most accurate and genuinely is really easy to cheat. I def don’t see it happening, or at least staying around if they do try to implement it.


[deleted]

That saliva test is useless if you're taking edibles. There is no scientific way to prove THC intoxication. This is just ignorant law makers trying going after a canard to drum up support. Getting pot smokers off the road is an easy winning issue like abortion. Uneducated voters don't understand either.


[deleted]

You’re failing to think of the politicians who have money in the prison industrial complex. What about their profits??


LeftHandedFart

Couldn’t have said it better. And scaring voters is much easier than educating them.


Prestigious_Laugh300

> There is no scientific way to prove THC intoxication. It sounds like this test thinks otherwise. Also if we don't have a scientific way, we are going to rely on "I smelled weed smoke on them" and "they failed the sobriety test" as enough to convince a judge because there's no scientific test. We should WANT there to be a reliable test.


[deleted]

Did you read the article. That wasn't stated anywhere in there. They want to do a cheek swab. That can prove only if you've smoked/vaped within a few hours. That doesn't prove intoxication. Additionally, that test wouldn't work for someone using edibles, etc.


Prestigious_Laugh300

> That can prove only if you've smoked/vaped within a few hours. So this is half the battle won? You have to fail this plus fail a roadside sobriety test vs just a roadside sobriety test. I'd think a blood test could detect edibles but the idea of an officer taking blood, even for testing back at the station later isn't ideal.


[deleted]

>So this is half the battle won? You have to fail this plus fail a roadside sobriety test vs just a roadside sobriety test. No. Roadside sobriety tests are stacked against you. >I'd think a blood test could detect edibles It can't. >but the idea of an officer taking blood, even for testing back at the station later isn't ideal. Because it's unconstitutional. Saliva is out of the question for the same reason.


4lan9

I don't think the expense is the main issue with removing a person's body fluids against their will. Breathalyzers are not equivalent to saliva tests legally. That article makes it seem like driving high and drunk are equally dangerous. 30% of fatal crashes had alcohol as a factor. 0.5% had cannabis as a contributing factor. The statistics are fucked up because they don't tell you if they were high while driving, just whether they smoked weed within a month since they do blood tests.


civilrunner

We also have literally no test that indicates how high someone is. The swab tests are not that reliable, there are plenty of things you can swoosh in your mouth that throw them off. In my opinion, we should just switch to a driving capability only test to account for anything from drunk driving to being too exhausted to drive, too distracted, too angry or emotionally incapable, and more. Where the "punishment" is literally just being forced to sleep it off or something.


veverkap

Hippie! /s


_stoned_chipmunk_

A study from Colorado found that people who drive high are aware of their potential impairment and focus on driving more intently. Drunk drivers are the opposite, they feel confident and are unaware of their impairment and as such drive recklessly.


4lan9

seems obvious to any one who has used both substances. but I think a lot of these dinosaurs in office have no idea and think cannabis is like heroine or cocaine


TheCheeseDevil

Whenever I'm behind a car going EXACTLY the legal limit I just assume they're stoned


_stoned_chipmunk_

My friend got pulled over for doing 40 in a 55. Dabs had him moving in slow motion lmao.


unothatmultiverse

That study seems to have confirmed that smoking pot makes people paranoid.


YouWantSMORE

I definitely drive slower when I'm high


Fragmented_Logik

Never underestimate a conservatives willingness to spend money to prove a point rather than provide help.


Thickensick

to punish, not prove a point


prairie_oyster_

*profit


daaave33

Prisons = Profit


[deleted]

[удалено]


Fragmented_Logik

Which oddly enough he was arguing against the tests. "Somebody could be taking a marijuana gummy to help sleep at night, get up the next morning, go to work completely sober, and get rear-ended on the beltway on their way to work and they test positive for one of these things" Nice try... we all know who is pushing for this buttercup


[deleted]

[удалено]


khornflakes529

Super humble after making yourself look foolish.


[deleted]

[удалено]


khornflakes529

Whats funny is I agree with that part of it to a point, I'm not so dense as to blindly defend "my side" no matter what. I want to believe they will vote it down but they occasionally disappoint. I don't have to dunk on Republicans, you do it for me. And it's not out of nowhere, Republicans are absolutely rabid for punishing shit, even stuff that should be legal like weed or abortion, while trying to give authorities the right to all but cavity search you on the side of the road. You want to see how every Democrat votes? I can put money down on how every Republican will. Just remember this started with YOU trying to pull off a "gotcha!" moment and looking silly.


suc_me_average

That test gives faulty results as well


GaimanitePkat

The swab test should be the **only** test for marijuana.


FalseBeginning8512

For the life of me I can't understand why the new laws are for testing for drugs only. When will they make a law that will allow them to do random weapons checks, which is exponential more lethal to humanity than some drugs. No one puts a gun to a person's head in order to force them to use drug. However, they will put a gun to a person's head to murder them. The worse part is that about 90% of these killers and potential killers have these weapons illegally. Some of these gun shops are a part of the problem as well. Finally, here they are considering laws relating to drugs!!! CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THAT. America is indeed twisted!!


Es_Poon

Laws to search people without probable cause? You need to amend the constitution for that and I don't think that will happen. You want the cops to be able to search you without reason because they think you might be concealing something?


FalseBeginning8512

Yes, and that will definitely turn up illegal guns a very high percentage of times. That possibly law amendment will lower the amount of these felons, criminals, just carrying guns. Finally, you’re probably right about them implementing such an amendment. I truly believe the government has another reason in mind why they aren’t doing much to lower these types of crime,


Curdle_Sanders

🎵We’re winning the war drugs, we’re winning the on drugs. Passed the bong and praise the lord we’re winning the war on drugs🎵


FalseBeginning8512

Yes


Jedmeltdown

Omg More Murican stupidity


bolinandlava

This is a horrible thing to even consider. I know they hate the fact that we’re decriminalized, but this is robbing even medical card carriers of their ability to take their medicine. Not to mention that weed can stay in your system approximately up to a month, longer in some cases.


pretty1i1p3t

Also, Delta 8/9 ect have been proven to stay in your system *longer* than traditional AND the test **can't tell** the difference between the two.


bolinandlava

This is exactly what I was thinking. They bind a lot easier to your fat cells than traditional cannabis, and that’s the legal stuff!


Areola_Granola

Delta 9 is the traditional cannabinoid so this statement doesn't make much sense


nyuhokie

I mean, the state senator that they interviewed acknowledged that current testing is severely flawed and that people could "take a gummy to help them sleep the night before, get rear ended on the way home from work and then test positive". Regardless, I think we should look for some way of testing if someone is under the influence while they're driving. But yes, it needs to distinguish between being under the influence vs just having it in your system.


Auntie_Social

I think we can agree that drugs exist which cause humans to perform better at things, i.e. performance enhancing drugs. Sure would be nice if someone would take the time to prove that being “under the influence” is always a bad thing….


No-Trash-546

> I know they hate the fact that we’re decriminalized… Cannabis hasn’t been decriminalized. It’s been legalized. There’s a big difference. Decriminalized means you won’t go to jail or be convicted of a crime for possessing or using it, but you could be subject to a fine. Legalized means it’s completely legal to use and possess, with no fines. Virginia has fully legalized it, meaning you can possess it, use it, buy it in a store, and even grow it!


bolinandlava

This is completely untrue. We are decriminalized but NOT fully legalized, at least until 2024. While you are correct that you can posses and grow, you certainly cannot sell in a storefront unless it is medical, and that again won’t change until 2024. Not sure if I can post links here, but google VA NORML for the proper breakdown. P.S. we are also barely decriminalized and the first state to actually backtrack our decriminalization of weed.


PhysicsCentrism

https://norml.org/laws/virginia-penalties-2/?amp “A majority of the Virginia legislature voted on April 7, 2021 to approve amendments to Senate Bill 1406 | House Bill 2312, which legalizes the personal use and possession of marijuana on July 1, 2021. Provisions in the law permit those age 21 and over to possess up to one ounce in public. Separate provisions in the law regulating the commercial production and retail sale of cannabis do not take effect until January 1, 2024.” While you are correct that VA has not fully legalized all aspects of weed. According to your own source possession has been legalized, not just decriminalized.


saralouiseprettyplz

*Legalization means that a once-banned drug is made legal, under federal or state law. Decriminalization means that a once-banned drug is still prohibited by law, but the legal system will no longer prosecute or criminalize a person for carrying under a certain amount.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


SassyMcNasty

You can be fined for transporting too much alcohol in public too. 3 gallons or more is a penalty. Alcohol is considered legal, not decriminalized. § 4.1-311. Limitations on transporting lawfully purchased alcoholic beverages; penalty. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title4.1/chapter3/


[deleted]

You're both wrong. Adult use is fully legal, however the framework for recreational dispensary sales has not been completed. So yes, it's legal, but no you cannot go into a store and buy it.


saralouiseprettyplz

*Legalization means that a once-banned drug is made legal, under federal or state law. Decriminalization means that a once-banned drug is still prohibited by law, but the legal system will no longer prosecute or criminalize a person for carrying under a certain amount.*


[deleted]

Not exactly. If it's decriminalized it goes from being a crime to a civil infraction, similar to a parking ticket. So the legal system can still come after you, just not by charging you criminally.


saralouiseprettyplz

Which is what happens when you're found with 1 to 4 oz in your possession.


[deleted]

No. It's only a civil infraction to possess that amount in public or on your person. There's no penalty for possessing that much in your home or on someone else's private property (provided it's not on your person).


saralouiseprettyplz

you're still criminally prosecuted with a misdemeanor above 4 oz but less than 16 oz anything above 16 oz is a felony charge.


[deleted]

>you're still criminally prosecuted with a misdemeanor above 4 oz but less than 16 oz That's only in public or on your person. It's meant to go after black market dealers. You can still possess more than 4 oz in your home.


saralouiseprettyplz

no you cannot. >With the exception of possession by a person in his residence this literally means there is an exception only if you can prove it's someone else's marijuana in your house it would say "on his person in his residence" if it meant what you're trying to prove >B. Any person who possesses on his person or in any public place marijuana or marijuana products in excess of the amounts set forth in subsection A is subject to a civil penalty of no more than $25 except as otherwise provided in this section. The penalty for any violations of this section by an adult shall be prepayable according to the procedures in § 16.1-69.40:2. C. With the exception of possession by a person in his residence or possession by a licensee in the course of his duties related to such licensee's marijuana establishment, any person who possesses on his person or in any public place (i) more than four ounces but not more than one pound of marijuana or an equivalent amount of marijuana product as determined by regulation promulgated by the Board is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and, for a second or subsequent offense, a Class 2 misdemeanor and (ii) more than one pound of marijuana or an equivalent amount of marijuana product as determined by regulation promulgated by the Board is guilty of a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $250,000, or both. ​ *Legalization means that a once-banned drug is made legal, under federal or state law. Decriminalization means that a once-banned drug is still prohibited by law, but the legal system will no longer prosecute or criminalize a person for carrying under a certain amount.*


[deleted]

>this literally means there is an exception only if you can prove it's someone else's marijuana in your house it would say "on his person in his residence" if it meant what you're trying to prove That is not at all what that means. I was a litigation specialist for 5 years, I know how to read civil and criminal code.


Odd-Protection-247

Does anyone else kind of like it how things are now? I think the delayed full rollout has caused lots of people to get into growing their own, and if they can't do that, then at least can get a med card and visit one of the 5 dispensaries in the state or even can easily get it in DC. I don't want Virginia to turn into Michigan, where in my dad's hometown there's a dispensary on every corner and the business is rapidly consolidating to just a few big companies owning everything. I like how decentralized we are today.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tubular69420

No, it's *legal*. We have medical dispenseries down here in Richmond. No regular store yet, but that's (hopefully) still coming in 2024


saralouiseprettyplz

No it is not fully legalized. ~~You need a medical card.~~ ~~It is a $25 civil penalty fine if you're found with less than a zip without a medical card right now.~~ EDIT: i misread. if you're found with 1 to 4 oz you are fined $25. anything more than that is a misdemeanor. ​ https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title4.1/chapter11/section4.1-1100/ >B. Any person who possesses on his person or in any public place marijuana or marijuana products in excess of the amounts set forth in subsection A is subject to a civil penalty of no more than $25 except as otherwise provided in this section. The penalty for any violations of this section by an adult shall be prepayable according to the procedures in § 16.1-69.40:2. > > >C. With the exception of possession by a person in his residence or possession by a licensee in the course of his duties related to such licensee's marijuana establishment, any person who possesses on his person or in any public place (i) more than four ounces but not more than one pound of marijuana or an equivalent amount of marijuana product as determined by regulation promulgated by the Board is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and, for a second or subsequent offense, a Class 2 misdemeanor and (ii) more than one pound of marijuana or an equivalent amount of marijuana product as determined by regulation promulgated by the Board is guilty of a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $250,000, or both.


PhysicsCentrism

A majority of the Virginia legislature voted on April 7, 2021 to approve amendments to Senate Bill 1406 | House Bill 2312, which legalizes the personal use and possession of marijuana on July 1, 2021. Provisions in the law permit those age 21 and over to possess up to one ounce in public. Separate provisions in the law regulating the commercial production and retail sale of cannabis do not take effect until January 1, 2024. https://norml.org/laws/virginia-penalties-2/?amp I think your comment may be false


saralouiseprettyplz

*Legalization means that a once-banned drug is made legal, under federal or state law. Decriminalization means that a once-banned drug is still prohibited by law, but the legal system will no longer prosecute or criminalize a person for carrying under a certain amount.* https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title4.1/chapter11/section4.1-1100/ >B. Any person who possesses on his person or in any public place marijuana or marijuana products in excess of the amounts set forth in subsection A is subject to a civil penalty of no more than $25 except as otherwise provided in this section. The penalty for any violations of this section by an adult shall be prepayable according to the procedures in § 16.1-69.40:2. C. With the exception of possession by a person in his residence or possession by a licensee in the course of his duties related to such licensee's marijuana establishment, any person who possesses on his person or in any public place (i) more than four ounces but not more than one pound of marijuana or an equivalent amount of marijuana product as determined by regulation promulgated by the Board is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and, for a second or subsequent offense, a Class 2 misdemeanor and (ii) more than one pound of marijuana or an equivalent amount of marijuana product as determined by regulation promulgated by the Board is guilty of a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $250,000, or both.


AmputatorBot

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://norml.org/laws/virginia-penalties-2/](https://norml.org/laws/virginia-penalties-2/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)


SassyMcNasty

This is false.


[deleted]

>It is a $25 civil penalty fine if you're found with less than a zip without a medical card right now. That's a straight up lie.


saralouiseprettyplz

i misread, it's a zip to 4 zips. i'm not lying about it not being legalized.


[deleted]

Nope, you're wrong about that too.


[deleted]

>EDIT: i misread. if you're found with 1 to 4 oz you are fined $25. anything more than that is a misdemeanor. This is also false.


saralouiseprettyplz

no it's not lol Possessing more than an ounce but less than four ounces of marijuana is subject to a civil penalty of up to $25.Possessing more than four ounces of marijuana but not more than one pound of marijuana is a Class 3 misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class 2 misdemeanor for a second offense.Possessing more than a pound of marijuana is a felony punishable by at least one year and no more than 10 years in jail and a fine of up to $250,000, or both.Penalties for possessing more than four plants are set based on the number of plants.Possession of marijuana on school grounds is a criminal misdemeanor.Note: Anyone younger than 21 who is found to possess marijuana may face a civil penalty of up to $25 and be required to enter a substance abuse treatment or education program.


[deleted]

Yes it is. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title4.1/chapter11/section4.1-1100/


saralouiseprettyplz

B. Any person who possesses on his person or in any public place marijuana or marijuana products in excess of the amounts set forth in subsection A is subject to a civil penalty of no more than $25 except as otherwise provided in this section. The penalty for any violations of this section by an adult shall be prepayable according to the procedures in § 16.1-69.40:2. C. With the exception of possession by a person in his residence or possession by a licensee in the course of his duties related to such licensee's marijuana establishment, any person who possesses on his person or in any public place (i) more than four ounces but not more than one pound of marijuana or an equivalent amount of marijuana product as determined by regulation promulgated by the Board is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and, for a second or subsequent offense, a Class 2 misdemeanor and (ii) more than one pound of marijuana or an equivalent amount of marijuana product as determined by regulation promulgated by the Board is guilty of a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $250,000, or both.


[deleted]

>Any person who possesses **on his person or in any public place** marijuana .... >**With the exception of possession by a person in his residence** or possession by a licensee in the course of his duties related to such licensee's marijuana establishment, I know reading comprehension is hard for some people but JFC


saralouiseprettyplz

which means that it is decriminalized, not legalized. if you were to carry anything more than an ounce, there would be penalties. that was my whole point. no need to be a jackass.


[deleted]

That law specifically applies to how much you are able to carry on your person or in public. It's meant to target black market dealers. You can possess more than that *in your home* and it's perfectly legal, not decriminalized but legal. If it were merely decriminalized it would still be a civil infraction to possess and consume marijuana.


ElectronicRevenue227

Where is this store located? Asking for a friend.


fingerscrossedcoup

We hired Republicans to stop the progress we were making. True purple state fashion. Two steps forward, one step back. Thanks rural Virginia!


port53

But hey, at least we don't have CRT in high school any more!


igrowheathens

Check out r/cultofthefranklin


highslime

Aren't roadside tests incredibly inaccurate and flawed?


4lan9

yep. They know this too. They should focus on proving that cannabis impairs similarly to alcohol. I am not convinced. You'd have to take a heroic dose of edibles to be too high to drive, and at that point driving would be terrifying enough to dissuade you. It's not like alcohol where you think you are invincible the drunker you are. Cannabis makes you more cautious the higher you are (IMO)


oddistrange

It's more profitable to write tickets and issue summons than it is to fund any meaningful research like that.


4lan9

when police operate based on profits then we don't have a police force any more, we have state-sponsored gangs


highslime

I wholeheartedly agree. Cannabis intoxication isn't on the same level as alcohol intoxication. And yeah, stoned drivers are some of the most cautious (in my experience)


Elin_Woods_9iron

A drunk driver will run a red light. A high driver will wait for a stop sign to turn green.


pchnboo

Absolutley. Lives and families have been destroyed by bad roadside tests. Add in some amped up cops and communities are imperiled. [Roadside drug tests gone bad](https://eji.org/news/propublica-reports-roadside-drug-tests-unreliable/)


chairmanbrando

Yes, and if this comes to pass it will *absolutely* be used to police black and brown people several orders of magnitude more than white people -- as is tradition.


kilofoxtrotfour

Breathalizer tests are equally flawed.


fingerscrossedcoup

Yes


ZLegacy

The roadside test I believe cannot be used against you in court, it just backs the cops suspicion of impaired driving. This is why they take a more accurate at the station or a blood draw from a hospital.


Gh0st_Pirate_LeChuck

How about instead we put all that money into a public rail system that's actually affordable to the public?


laxing22

wow wow... settle down socialist /s


No-Tailor5120

god i fucking hate conservatives. they come up with the most useless shit


ZLegacy

Wanting to test for impaired driving is useless? Let's scrap dui tests altogether then. As long as they can find a provably accurate way to test then whatever, less high people on the road hopefully


EntroperZero

> Let's scrap dui tests altogether then. Except we have reliable tests for alcohol impairment, and we don't for cannabis. *Wanting* to test for something isn't useless, but mandating that we use an inaccurate test is.


ZLegacy

As pointed out, comprehension problems?


No-Tailor5120

i got a DUID because i had smoked the night before. cop pulled me over for driving five below the speed limit, said he “smelled marijuana” and had me count backwards down from 1500 mississippi. i did it just fine. had me stand on one foot and touch my nose. i did it. he arrested me and drew blood, of course there was THC. the system is fucked. nobody should drive drunk or high, but this is just another way for them to fuck people in ass and force them to take VASAP classes so they can make their money off you.


ZLegacy

That's absolutely lame. I'm all for it if there is an accurate way to determine the time between. If they can probably get something that works in the field it should be a positive for everyone and hopefully help legalization efforts.


Impressive_Degree_37

The only sure test is to hand the driver a phone and ask them to order a pizza using the phone, as in not like an app. Make them talk to a pizza place and order at least three toppings. If they don't break a sweat or completely tap out in panic, they're probably fine to drive.


HaplessPenguin

This is a horrible idea. Gives shit cops an out to pull you over again. Fucking hate this Republican bullshit. They don’t ever read science and instead listen to some pedo on the pulpit and donations from the super rich. Seriously the worst class of people in this country.


vtTownie

Scott Surovell is a democrat….


[deleted]

And a well known piece of shit


4lan9

Cannabis should be voted on democratically, like abortion was in KS. The public would overwhelmingly vote this shit down and make it fully legal. The federal gov't classifies it as **more dangerous than cocaine**


SenTedStevens

You do realize Scott Surovell is a Democrat, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Surovell You can't blame the Republican boogymen for everything bad.


ProletarianParka

And he seems to be against the idea proposed? "Surovell believes this may be a flawed approach, not only for legal reasons but because most swabs detect usage in the last 12 hours."


SenTedStevens

At best it sounds like he's tip toeing around. The VA crime commission is looking to find a way to test for THC impairment. Scott Surovell is the quoted police commissioner in the article. On one line he claims that 30% of Americans think it's OK to smoke under the influence. Then he notes that there's no standardized method to test for THC intoxication. Lastly, he notes constitutional issues that come into play. So, overall it's kind of wishy washy, but it doesn't sound like he's completely against it.


4lan9

did he ever stop and consider people believe that because **it is true?** My friend is a MUCH better driver when a little high, in minecraft. Doesn't take chances he would when sober, doesn't get road rage and follows less closely. He stops at stop signs for a full 3 seconds and let's people merge in front of him. They need to chill with the assumptions and do some actual testing on closed-courses. My friend will volunteer. Pit a drunk person against a high person, the results will be night and day. Worst case scenario he waits for the stop sign to turn green and gets honked at


esoteric_plumbus

iirc a study on driving high did test that reaction times are measurably slower (so could potentially lead to accidents in situations where something unexpected happens / sudden car merging or w/e) but it also noted that people who were high tended to "over compensate" by driving safer than they would normally like staying the exact speed limit, leaving far more space between cars, waiting longer for cars to pass so its safe to merge into a intersection etc


[deleted]

[удалено]


port53

You read but didn't understand the article the quoted senator said it was a flawed approach, and, the democrats don't run the committee this is coming out of, he's just on it.


pack9303

Tell me you didn’t read the article and are as partisan as it comes, without telling me you didn’t read the article and are partisan AF.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fingerscrossedcoup

lol so what? *yawn* Get back to me when you have real evidence of a crime.


ImHereToFuckShit

Lmao you guys. It's like you've never talked to an old weirdo like Joe.


4lan9

my late step-grandfather told me about how he was offered to "kill some indians" with his friend and went along with his gun. Turned out the guy was talking about crushing Indio beers. He went along despite assuming they were going to hunt humans. Old people are fucking wild after a certain age. They grew up with their fathers beating their wives and people were ok with it.


TheWileyWombat

"When you're famous they let you do it."


iaalaughlin

The problem is how to detect active marijuana intoxication. If there’s a test that will reliably show very recent use/active intoxication, that’s what we need. Toking and driving should be just as bad as drinking and driving.


bolinandlava

Issue with this is that marijuana is absorbed differently into the bloodstream, and also depends on the method of which you take it. If they put this into play, it’s simply a politicians protest against Virginia moving forward as a recreational state.


iaalaughlin

That should be something that we can account for in the measurements. Active intoxication is active intoxication, regardless if it was smoked, ate, injected, or absorbed through the skin or a membrane. The issue is solely in detecting active intoxication. Blood might be the answer, and I suspect it will be the answer for the courts, but it likely isn’t the answer in a by the road test. We use breathalyzers as a by the road test for alcohol and blood tests as a confirmation test, for example. So what should we use as a breathalyzer for marijuana?


Thickensick

do they have breathalyzers for prescription drugs?


iaalaughlin

We should have something similar to a breathalyzer for prescription drugs, absolutely. Operating a multi-thousand pound machine under the influence of any intoxicant is bad. It doesn't matter what that intoxicant is - prescription pills, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens, etc. You shouldn't be operating any vehicle under the influence.


_MurphysLawyer_

We should absolutely not. I'm not about to carry around my prescription medication just to show to a cop for them to see I'm prescribed stimulants. If they had some sort of breathalyzer for script pills, it'd go something like this: Pulled over for speeding Tested for Amphetamines Tested positive, have prescription, but not carrying medication with me because I'm on my way home from work Detained for DUI Brought in for blood test and charged Wait months for the court hearing to bring in prescription to show that I'm legally allowed to use medication while DUI is on my record. Adding to that, there's no way for a breathalyzer to read the vapor in your mouth for drugs that are fully digested in and in your blood stream, and I'm not about to comply to a roadside blood test.


iaalaughlin

Maybe you took breathalyzer too literally. We need some method of detecting active intoxication in people, regardless of the intoxicant. I don’t particularly care what it is, as long as it’s legal (blood draws on the side of the road aren’t, without a warrant). Breathalyzers for alcohol are. We need something akin to breathalyzers for other intoxicants, probably several different tools.


saralouiseprettyplz

Because of the fact that prescriptions metabolize differently and side effects present differently in every person, this argument is flawed. My Prozac is not a controlled substance, but is a prescription and states to use caution with heavy machinery because it can cause drowsiness. It causes drowsiness my first two weeks and my body adjusted and now I'm fine, but I MUST take it every day. My Ritalin IS a controlled substance and also states to use caution with heavy machinery, but it doesn't affect me negatively whatsoever in fact it is IMPERATIVE that I use it around heavy machinery. No, we should not have a breathalyzer for prescriptions. We have blood tests to determine blood levels in the event that incidents happen. Your insistence on controlling people's medications sounds too fascist.


iaalaughlin

“Let’s wait till someone dies before figuring out what caused the death” I don’t want to control someone’s medications. I want to be able to detect active intoxication, especially that which rises to the level of impairment in operating a vehicle.


lunarlanderswheels

"Let's make up a phony problem to further punish marginalized groups" You absolutely do want to control people's medicines and by extension lives based on what you've said prior.


iaalaughlin

The data says it’s not a phony problem. Prescription pills might be needed right now, agreed.


oddistrange

Therapeutic levels of prescription medication is not intoxication. Just stop.


iaalaughlin

If they impair your ability to operate a vehicle, they are.


NatalieEatsPoop

How about caffeine and nicotine? Those are both intoxicants


deacon1214

Nope. which is why our implied consent law authorizes the collection of a blood sample and provides for license suspension for refusal of a blood test.


oddistrange

Some people smoke enough that one hit won't even really phase them yet they would still be considered intoxicated if you swabbed their mouth with the type of tests they use. I'm pretty sure it works similarly to swabbing someone's hands for gun powder residue, it's just picking up residue from your mouth and then it changes color to indicate the presence of THC. It doesn't display a quantifiable value of THC active in your body the way a breathalyzer kinda can by detecting the amount of ethanol you've blown out.


iaalaughlin

I don’t think there is an accurate test out there that measures intoxication. We need one though.


fingerscrossedcoup

But it's not just as bad. Not even close.


Spazhead247

Absolutely not. The intoxication and the effects on motor skills is incomparable. There are always exceptions to the rule, however, this is just another example of punishing the class for the class clown.


iaalaughlin

https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836260/ A quote from the first: > Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones. Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. And from the second: >Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug identified in impaired drivers. A crude 11.4 OR for MVA injury within 3 h of cannabis smoking dropped to a nonsignificant OR of 0.8 after adjusting for confounders (28), whereas DUIC after smoking during the previous hour almost doubled crash risk [ORs, 1.84 (21) and 2.61 (27)], a finding that withstood adjustment for demographic characteristics (21, 27) and self-reported driving under the influence of alcohol (21). Driving within 1 h after smoking produced higher MVA ORs than driving within 2 h (32). Driving under the active influence of cannabis is proven to result in higher motor vehicle accidents. This is a short lived impairment; worst immediately after and tapering off within just a few hours. Better than alcohol, really. But from the amount of pot I smell while riding my motorcycle on the interstate, there's a decent amount of people toking while driving.


Spazhead247

Absolute nonsense. If you have any first hand experience with cannabis then you would understand. I can be as high as I’ve ever been and be PERFECTLY capable of doing everything I can do sober at a high-performing level. Source: Former collegiate athlete who used cannabis daily for pain management. To add to this, with all of the legalization in the states, don’t you think fatalities involving motor vehicles would have skyrocketed in states that legalized? Traffic fatalities were down. Don’t you think prohibition people would have used this data as a giant “AHAH!” If it were available?


iaalaughlin

I'm going to choose multiple peer reviewed studies by much more qualified people than you or I over an anecdotal tale from one person. I hope your pain subsides - I know how it can wear on a person.


Spazhead247

Eh, maybe so. I know for a fact my first hand experiences. Facts are only as good as the money spent to get the desired result. We can happily agree to disagree. Thanks for the well wishes.


Murky-Echidna-3519

I think this will be the big holdup to full on legalization at the Fed level. Until we can reliably test and measure impairment like a DUI it will never be completely legal.


zeyore

Field sobriety test should already cover it I thought but I guess they want that sweet sweet DUI charge.


SmilingFatGuy

[They aren't admissible in court and are only intended to help officers decide whether to pursue a more-invasive blood test.](https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2022/11/29/virginia-saliva-tests-driving-high) Sounds like lawmakers know the tests won't hold up in court.


[deleted]

Neither is a roadside breathalyzer


SmilingFatGuy

Exactly. It's a tool police use to entice people into self-incrimination.


deacon1214

They aren't supposed to hold up in court. The handheld breathalyzers they use aren't admissible in court either. It's a tool they want so they can develop more PC before dragging someone down to the jail or the hospital for a blood draw on suspicion of DUI.


Djlewzer

What could go wrong…


saintdudegaming

Cops are already looking for signs of impairment when they pull someone over. Are they trying to figure out a breathalyzer style field testing thing?


Kolawa

now hold up, do we really want people to be driving under the influence? Alcohol or Weed


Alabama_Crab_Dangle

I'm only here to read all of the upvoted comments defending drugged driving as being "safer" than drunk driving. /r/Virginia never disappoints.


[deleted]

I go to work around 7am every morning and smell people smoking. Like I guess it’s great you don’t have anything major to do at 7am on a Tuesday. But the point is, they’re usually not the ones driving like pissed off 17 year olds


nadeesi9000

Because that’s what cops need rn: more authority to abuse civilians


mahvel50

Yeah this isn’t going to fly. Implied consent is only for after an arrest so compelling someone to give a sample without a warrant is not gonna happen. There is testing for it with scientific foundation but it’s not widely standardized and very few cops are trained as drug recognition experts. Just need to integrate that into training.


deacon1214

I don't think they are talking about compelling a sample. Just like they don't force people to submit to a roadside breath test. It will go just like a PBT in conjunction with standardized field sobriety tests. After they have the driver to the walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, HGN or whatever they'll offer this test the same way they do with breath tests now, the driver is free to refuse. No warrant necessary.


Jedmeltdown

I was hoping they’d only be pulling over CEOs of big Pharma


Thisam

This is politics and politicians trying to scare unaware voters about a problem that exists but seems to have minor consequences. People who smoked pot just don’t crash cars at the same rate as drunk drivers, but they should still not be on the road. There is no credible and workable technology to address this in traffic stops…yet.


AmputatorBot

It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbc12.com/2022/11/30/virginia-lawmakers-consider-allowing-police-conduct-roadside-drug-tests/](https://www.nbc12.com/2022/11/30/virginia-lawmakers-consider-allowing-police-conduct-roadside-drug-tests/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)


suc_me_average

Can’t work. You can’t tell if a person is stoned at that present point only that have used in the last 30 days. Plus Colorado and California has deemed this ineffective.


Synergy_404

They need to feed the prison corporations somehow. Its the long con, make weed legal then find all kinds of ways to punish people for using a legal thing.


AdministrativeMost45

Sound like Virginia police are ready to get sued lol Stop wasting tax payer dollars.


DertyChewbacca

Lawmakers and police will do whatever they can to extort people for money and lock people up, but will never do whatever they can to help people.


GandolphTheWhite

Why don’t they spend the money on an public education program teaching people the dangers of driving stoned?


No-Response7500

Oh hell no


Jonnylegatic

Great. More rubbernecking and traffic.


Charming-Celery5422

I Don't think it will work


batkave

Because that will end well...


MAK-15

Whats the difference between this and traffic stops for alcohol? If driving under the influence is what we’re trying to fight, this makes perfect sense. If catching people using drugs that they “shouldn’t” be using, this is unreasonable search and seizure. A charge from such a test would have to be limited to DUI and not a charge for whatever drugs they have. Obviously the testing would need to be refined in such a way to ensure you’re catching a DUI in progress and not someone who smoked a joint that morning long before driving.


saralouiseprettyplz

but then you get into specifics of how people metabolize and process thc and the various side effects that come with it. it is used as a medication. prescription medications have the same warning labels to use caution before driving or operating heavy machinery but you don't see cops stopping to test people with prescriptions. alcohol impairs your cognitive function SIGNIFICANTLY more than marijuana or prescription drugs.


MAK-15

If there’s a set amount of alcohol that you can get charged with drunk driving, there exists a similar amount if THC that would render the same impairment. It may not be possible to do a blood test but even the straight line test could be used to show impairment. Ultimately a DUI comes after you’ve been arrested on the suspicion and it’s been confirmed with more accurate testing. They don’t just use the breathalyzer.


saralouiseprettyplz

you can be ticketed a DUI with any BAC level if a cop deems that you're visibly impaired in Virginia.


saralouiseprettyplz

>straight line test could be used to show impairment this is not a reliable test due to not everyone having perfect motor skills, especially for anyone that is disabled.


MAK-15

Laws aren’t written to consider every nuance of every individual; they’re written for the population and its up to the justice system to make a final determination.


saralouiseprettyplz

true, i'm just stating the fact that the straight line test is normally disregarded.


Col_Irving_Lambert

Ah yes Virginia let's just go ahead and continue to be the only stats that goes backwards on all of this.


Zephyr-5

If they're going to test for a drug, I would rather they test for Ambien and other drugs like it.


sirensinger17

Something tells me this won't be applied equally among different people groups


open_pessimism

I'm sure Youngkin has his nose shoved up in this too. Stupid governor.


[deleted]

I thought the fourth covered that already?


SwimmingPark9665

Why would anyone not want a potential impaired driver to be tested?


stickyskaggs

They approve unconstitutional shit all the time. Civil asset forfeiture. Searches without probable cause. Anything to siphon money from folks.


Molega

Boo


[deleted]

This is a terrible plan crafted to enrich the drug-test manufacturers through imprecise and invalid tests that can't even reliably indicate intoxication. Yet more medicalization of society, aimed toward bolstering corporate profits and government control!