Recent comments in /f/Pennsylvania

victorix58 OP t1_je316ug wrote

Alcohol effects people differently too though. If you're taking that tack, you would be suggesting get rid of the blood alcohol content laws as well. They are also generalizations based upon non-specific data.

I mean, we could do that, but it doesn't have as great of a logic or fairness justification. And I personally do not know that I would want to.

26

SeptasLate t1_je30xm1 wrote

Are you sure youre not mixing up the research that focused on CBD? It seems their research conflicts with your point.

I don't think thr Colorado Department of Transportation would make a statement like "There are many misconceptions about marijuana use, including rumors that it can’t impair your ability to drive or that it can actually make you a safer driver. Several scientific studies indicate that this is false" if their scientific studies said otherwise. https://www.codot.gov/safety/impaired-driving/druggeddriving/data

4

victorix58 OP t1_je2yiaw wrote

> Does this require a blood test?

Yes. It is pretty standard to do blood tests in both alcohol and drug DUIs.

Alcohol also has the option, which isn't available for drug, to do a more reliable breath test on a machine that can be maintained at the police station. The breathalyzers or "preliminary breath tests" that they have on the side of the road are not admissible at trial and do not detect drugs, so they are just used as a guidepost on whether there is enough reason to send it for a more reliable test.

6

Asikar_Tehjan t1_je2xu2k wrote

Well, that pic was only like four years after the oil crisis of 1979. So big gas guzzling cars/trucks probably weren't on everyone's list of desirable vehicles.

6

WingedChimera t1_je2xqdb wrote

Colorado Department of Transportation did a study on the effects of cannabis on driving and found the standard of deviation was higher than the impairment.

Folks out here doing studies with government money proving smoking reasonable amounts of pot doesn’t impair driving and yet folks still want to listen to 89 years of propaganda.

16

SeptasLate t1_je2vxc7 wrote

Yeah and I agree with that, but the article mentions NJ as an alternative despite its system currently under review by their state courts.

I suppose what I was trying to say is that I commend that rep for pushing to change the laws but I'm confused why they didn't mention what the effective/acceptable alternative would be which appears to be raising the baseline for the in the system. Does this require a blood test?

1

victorix58 OP t1_je2urne wrote

Edit: Please do not downvote u/SeptasLate for this legitimate concern.

Nothing suggests that there wouldn't be deterrents in place for impaired driving. I'm a criminal defense lawyer; allow me to explain for those who might not know.

Two types of DUI laws exist in PA, each with two sub-varieties. Those are alcohol-based DUI laws and drug based DUI laws.

Alcohol is subdivided into alcohol impairment DUIs and having a certain level of alcohol in your blood. You can be prosecuted in either circumstance.

Drug is differently subdivided into drug impairment and having ANY level of an illegal, non-prescription drug in your blood. Medical marijuana is not by prescription, only legally authorized, and so can still be prosecuted for any level.

All we have to do to make it fair, is to change marijuana from the ANY level DUI into a certain high level of THC which has been shown by study to cause impairment (like alcohol does). Right now, it's unfair because we KNOW it doesn't impair you at certain levels and yet it is still against the law and you WILL be prosecuted regardless of your lack of impairment.

48