• aelwero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This could, conceivably, be the hold up at federal level tbh. We have no current means by which we can objectively test for active impairment caused by THC…

    Testing for alcohol is rare, and incident specific, because it’s a measure of actual impairment. You aren’t tested for alcohol to see if you’ve had a beer in the last 30 days, you’re being tested to see if it’s dangerous for you to be operating a vehicle, provide healthcare, carry a gun…

    The basic principle behind alcohol testing is to determine actual impairment. The premise is that an agency is protecting others from dangers inherent in your being impaired.

    The basic principle of drug testing is that the same danger from impairment is prevented by preventing impairment, but the premise is that any use is illegal. It’s a “just in case” premise vs an actual matter of being presently impaired.

    That fundamental difference is hugely notable in the case of DUI. How exactly do you mitigate the risk of DUI with THC? The current arguments in favor of legalization trend towards “it doesn’t impair people as much”, but that’s a total cop out that doesn’t address the issue, exactly the same way prohibition is.

    We seriously need a solution to that, and I suspect it could very well be the “mystery cause” of federal legislators on the liberal side dragging their feet. They don’t want to open the floodgates and make it unprosecutable to get in your car impaired, because even with an easy means to prosecute that if alcohol is the cause, it’s still a huge issue… How bad will it be if it’s effectively undetectable?

    You want cops deciding based on how well you perform the little monkey dance? I fucking don’t. I can’t dance for shit perfectly sober…

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That does make sense. I wonder if we can figure out a way to test if people are currently under the influence of THC rather than having possibly done it days before?

      It sucks here in Indiana- if you have more than a nanogram THC in your system and you get in a serious auto accident, it counts as an OWI. I use medically, so I’m basically fucked if I ever get in a serious accident. Thankfully, I’m a good driver who has never been in more than a very low-speed fender bender when I was at fault and I wait until I’m not high anymore before I drive, but it really scares me. I refuse to drive at night unless it’s a real emergency because I’m really scared of getting into a serious accident because my vision is impaired.

    • RedditReject@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly I’ve been saying this for years. I’m okay with legalization, but we don’t have a test that isn’t subjective to determine if someone is currently impaired. That would be a really good thing to have in place beforehand