Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brad
And there's a problem with this? 
I don't think there's any problem with random drug/alcohol checks on the road. Like Barto said, as long as the test is fairly accurate, it can help to save lives and money.
In 2003 in the US, 14,630 traffic fatalities were linked to alcohol consumption. As far as I can tell, drug use hasn't been tracked like alcohol, but who is to say that some of those or a few more weren't involved with marijuana or some other mood/mind-altering drug? |
No, I don't have a problem with the tests - as long as they are accurate. Anything that saves lives on the road is good for all.
I find it odd, though, that the police are willing to do random drug tests on a substance that is deemed illegal. If they're so gung-ho to ensure we are not driving stoned or pissed - it seems inconsistent to me to have one drug legal and the other illegal, yet impose penalites of equal measure.
Furthermore, I share the same concern as
thuh Freak:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thuh Freak
from what i've read, they haven't yet created a test that can tell the difference between if you've smoked pot 30 days ago and if you've smoked 30 seconds ago. these type of pot tests (idk about meth and other drugs they test for) don't judge impairment, only monthly-or-more-recent use.
|
What is the measure for impairment? (This now makes me question the appropriateness of .05% BAC limits in Victoria and differing amounts in other states.) I know that people react differently to alcohol and other substances, but how can the cops tell that you are incapable of being in charge of the vehicle if traces of marijuana are present in your blood stream - especially if it is from a joint you shared a couple of weeks ago?