If people want to smoke pot and drive, they should consent to having their blood drawn if they are suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana. If someone wants to force the police to obtain a warrant to draw their blood, the process is practically a rubber stamp anyway, and I’m fine with that.
People should not be driving impaired, and too many do. The police have a tough enough job as it is, and streamlining the process to get drunk/stoned drivers off the road will help reduce accidents and injuries, save lives and encourage responsible people to think twice before getting behind the wheel.
Point well taken, KP. I’d be good with mandatory license suspension for test refusal provided the suspension period is equal to what an impaired driving conviction would bring.
Yes, in states where you refuse a breathalizer and have your license suspended, the same should go for anyone who drives high and refuses a blood draw. There has to be a system in place to catch drivers who have used any impairment.
Blood drawn is a small inconvenience relative to spilled blood of innocent drivers and pedestrians. As Wayne said, driving is a privilege, not a right – similar to health care and health insurance.
I support the legalization of marijuana and I also drink alcohol. I do not, however, operate a vehicle or show up to work intoxicated or high. If you do, then you should be penalized to the full extent of the law. Kudos to taking the next steps to make sure someone does not take away my civil rights.
Agreed. Your clients have drug and alcohol policy in place, signed by all employees and reviewed annually. At a minimum, the agreement should include, where allowed by law, an acknowledgement of mandatory drug testing in the event of a claim as well as termination of employment. Not doing so will simply tee up a employment liability claim.
I don’t consent to driving impaired at all. Although you can test positive for Marijuana up to a month and a half after using or even being around someone using. So tired drivers watch out.
While I can see how that might be perceived as an issue, it’s not. A blood test will measure current levels of THC and metabolites in the blood. Any lab tech worth their salt would be able to tell the difference between the levels in an impaired driver (even within a day or two) versus someone who is tired and had used Marijuana a week ago. The positive tests up to a month are drug use screens not real-time impairment tests.
I also would not be surprised to see a “breathalyzer” version of this test come out similar to a diabetic blood sugar test.
We are all for keeping impaired drivers off of the roads, and it paints a good picture that they used an example of a clearly impaired driver who indeed tested positive. The reality is that there will be plenty of examples of non-impaired drivers who get caught up in this system. Not sure how everyone would feel if they or their relative gets dragged into the back of a van against their will to be poked and prodded because the officer “smelled something”. Test negative, and then off you go, have a nice day!
Personally I feel if you refuse a breathalyzer or blood draw after being stopped for suspicion of DUI and you fail the field sobriety test that should automatically allow the officer to arrest you for DUI and proceed as though you did fail the breathalyzer or blood draw. Why refuse if you are not under the influence?
A bad cop will pull over anyone unreasonably for whatever they want whether this is allowed or not. I am not talking about bad cops. I use to work at a bar and on the way home late one evening I was pulled over on suspicion of DUI…….It was late after bar close and I had a cold and was sneezing which caused me to swerve a bit as I was driving. I was stopped, the police officer spoke with me then did a few quick sobriety tests and determined I was not under the influence and no breathalyzer was needed. I was then allowed to proceed on my way. I totally understood why he felt the need to test me and had no issue with it due to the situation. I also had not been under the influence so had no issue with complying with his tests. My personal feeling is if one has nothing to hide why wouldn’t they comply or be honest that they are possibly under the influence and then proceed with testing from there. As someone else stated previously driving is a privilege not a right…….if you are not willing to comply with rules and requests from law enforcement when there is a reasonable suspicion then that privilege should be taken from you. I would rather have someone be slightly inconvenienced by a few tests then have someone killed because they chose to be stupid and drive under the influence.
If people want to smoke pot and drive, they should consent to having their blood drawn if they are suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana. If someone wants to force the police to obtain a warrant to draw their blood, the process is practically a rubber stamp anyway, and I’m fine with that.
People should not be driving impaired, and too many do. The police have a tough enough job as it is, and streamlining the process to get drunk/stoned drivers off the road will help reduce accidents and injuries, save lives and encourage responsible people to think twice before getting behind the wheel.
The stoners won’t like this. I wonder how many they can catch in the Denver area.
I don’t like this. The driver refused the blood draw. Should have his licensed suspended.
We’re slowly losing our civil rights.
Point well taken, KP. I’d be good with mandatory license suspension for test refusal provided the suspension period is equal to what an impaired driving conviction would bring.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Yes, in states where you refuse a breathalizer and have your license suspended, the same should go for anyone who drives high and refuses a blood draw. There has to be a system in place to catch drivers who have used any impairment.
Blood drawn is a small inconvenience relative to spilled blood of innocent drivers and pedestrians. As Wayne said, driving is a privilege, not a right – similar to health care and health insurance.
Simple – if you want to smoke a joint, stay home. But make sure you picked up the Doritos and Cap’n Crunch on the way home.
I support the legalization of marijuana and I also drink alcohol. I do not, however, operate a vehicle or show up to work intoxicated or high. If you do, then you should be penalized to the full extent of the law. Kudos to taking the next steps to make sure someone does not take away my civil rights.
You should lose your job if you do pot or drink and show up for work intoxicated.
Agreed. Your clients have drug and alcohol policy in place, signed by all employees and reviewed annually. At a minimum, the agreement should include, where allowed by law, an acknowledgement of mandatory drug testing in the event of a claim as well as termination of employment. Not doing so will simply tee up a employment liability claim.
I don’t consent to driving impaired at all. Although you can test positive for Marijuana up to a month and a half after using or even being around someone using. So tired drivers watch out.
While I can see how that might be perceived as an issue, it’s not. A blood test will measure current levels of THC and metabolites in the blood. Any lab tech worth their salt would be able to tell the difference between the levels in an impaired driver (even within a day or two) versus someone who is tired and had used Marijuana a week ago. The positive tests up to a month are drug use screens not real-time impairment tests.
I also would not be surprised to see a “breathalyzer” version of this test come out similar to a diabetic blood sugar test.
Simple answer, don’t do it and don’t be around people who do it.
We are all for keeping impaired drivers off of the roads, and it paints a good picture that they used an example of a clearly impaired driver who indeed tested positive. The reality is that there will be plenty of examples of non-impaired drivers who get caught up in this system. Not sure how everyone would feel if they or their relative gets dragged into the back of a van against their will to be poked and prodded because the officer “smelled something”. Test negative, and then off you go, have a nice day!
Personally I feel if you refuse a breathalyzer or blood draw after being stopped for suspicion of DUI and you fail the field sobriety test that should automatically allow the officer to arrest you for DUI and proceed as though you did fail the breathalyzer or blood draw. Why refuse if you are not under the influence?
What stops a bad cop from pulling over anyone and doing this?
Wouldn’t this be unreasonable search ?
A bad cop will pull over anyone unreasonably for whatever they want whether this is allowed or not. I am not talking about bad cops. I use to work at a bar and on the way home late one evening I was pulled over on suspicion of DUI…….It was late after bar close and I had a cold and was sneezing which caused me to swerve a bit as I was driving. I was stopped, the police officer spoke with me then did a few quick sobriety tests and determined I was not under the influence and no breathalyzer was needed. I was then allowed to proceed on my way. I totally understood why he felt the need to test me and had no issue with it due to the situation. I also had not been under the influence so had no issue with complying with his tests. My personal feeling is if one has nothing to hide why wouldn’t they comply or be honest that they are possibly under the influence and then proceed with testing from there. As someone else stated previously driving is a privilege not a right…….if you are not willing to comply with rules and requests from law enforcement when there is a reasonable suspicion then that privilege should be taken from you. I would rather have someone be slightly inconvenienced by a few tests then have someone killed because they chose to be stupid and drive under the influence.
It’s all a mistake; I went to a Catholic funeral and there was heavy incense used — it followed e into the vehicle, officer.