Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive. Critics call it ‘utter nonsense’
Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive. Critics call it ‘utter nonsense’
Archived at https://archive.is/89dmG
I totally believe police sincerely think they can tell based on experience, but it's false confidence.
Story time: One night on my way home I was pulled over for a broken taillight, which I truthfully told the officer I wasn't aware of. After taking another look she gave me a warning but said, with a little lilt in her voice, "Lotta dust in there, looks like it's been broken for a while... surprised you haven't noticed it." As if she "knew" I was lying, because cops have heard it all before.
I really wanted to unload on her that I was on my way home from working at my job and then taking my shift sitting in the hospital room keeping my 10-year-old daughter company until she fell asleep. She had been undergoing cancer treatments for the last 2 months. So excuse the hell outta me but there were a lot of things I'd missed lately. Like Thanksgiving. And Christmas. And apparently a broken taillight. I'll get to it when I get to it but I can't make any promises.
That smirky little accusing tone of voice still sticks with me after 20 years. So fuck your smug-ass attitude, Officer I Know What I Know, because no you sure as fucking hell didn't.
Officer threatened to slam my dad on the ground in front of us all for telling him politely to have a nice day.
Officer screamed at us in high school when we called for help because someone was beating up our friend then did nothing.
Officer pulled me out of my car, threw me over the his, wrenched my hands up behind my back... Because my registration was out of date.
Bad people shouldn't be in positions of power. Why aren't we protected from this? We're being abused and no one is stopping it. I want to send a message somehow.
Not sure what send a message means, but for people who want do more than just complain online many communities have citizen oversight committees. There's a National Association for Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement that provides guidance - https://www.nacole.org/
Field sobriety tests are about as accurate as Tarot readings.
In most jurisdictions, the police can arrest you for refusing. Some experts say that if you're sober, it's better to refuse and be arrested, and then find it in court.
It's 100% what to do.
Let them arrest you on suspicion. The cost of the lawyer will be less than the DUI fines and lost income due to all of it.
"No thank you, officer. If that means I am under arrest then I am under arrest and would like to invoke my 5th amendment right at this time. I will not be answering any further questions this evening."
🤐
Refusing a breathalyzer is expensive though thanks to implied consent. The ticket for that is a ton of points.
If I refuse a field sobriety test and request s breathalyzer or blood test instead, would I still be arrested?
Yep. Defy a cop in any way and you'll likely be arrested. You might even be charged with resisting arrest.
I mean, so can I in a sense -- guys passed out on my couch. "Yup, he's too high to drive."
In seriousness, I wish they'd just bust people driving recklessly. It's almost every day now that I'm almost side swiped by an aggressive muscle car driver; it's driving me crazy. I don't care what they're on, alcohol, cocaine, meth, or just pure uncut Machismo, I need those people fucking jailed before it's my kid on the news about getting hit and run'd.
We as a society must have a solution which is not the police solving every fucking inconvenience. They are literally killing us in our own homes. Please do the difficult mental work of figuring out a better solution than "call the cops". I know it's convenient but our overreliance on it has resulted in one the greatest incarceration crisis of our lifetime. I know you're angry but please start thinking of other ways to solve problems.
Odd for you to call vehicular manslaughter an inconvenience, but let's be clear: you can both reduce police involvement where it is not needed (such as mental health crisis) while still maintaining some order for actual dangerous offenders. You can also approach a problem from multiple angles, such as making prisons more about rehabilitation than punishment, or addressing future crime by investing in education and family welfare.
None of that means you also can't address a very local problem of 40,000 annual hit and runs with 8,000 deaths. Living in South LA, you literally see street take overs at least once a week usually with stolen cars. Doing two things at once- that is, addressing the current problems while also preventing future ones- shouldn't be difficult for someone "doing the mental work" like yourself.
Get rid of stops for small shit like expired tabs or dim taillights so traffic cops can focus on unsafe driving. John Oliver did a pretty good piece on this recently.
You aren’t wrong but the overincarceration is largely sentence lengths not arrest rates
Actual reckless driving needs to be enforced though. It needs to be something you go to jail for, your car gets towed, and you can't drive again until the fine is paid, and you take Driver's Ed. There are people out here doing 20+ mph faster than everyone else and weaving through the merge lane and shoulder because the HOV lane and farthest travel lane are flowing at 80 and that's just too slow for them. This is not, "every fucking inconvenience". These people are driving like they're the object of a police chase already and police aren't allowed to do it anymore because it's so dangerous to other people on the road.
So while I get you don't like the police, I'm not sure how else you're going to stop McFuckStick from swiping that family of four into the back of a semi truck.
Drunk driving is a legitimate concern. High driving, despite the vilifying by police, simply doesn't have even a modest fraction of the stats to back it up. And anecdotally is not remotely the same as alcohol.
Elderly driving is the conversation we don't apparently want to have. Just because Gamgam can still get around on her own, in the house she's lived in for 40 years, does NOT make her capable of driving a two ton piece of metal.
Their reaction speed is like a drunk person. Their decision making skills, also akin to drunk people. Elderly drivers injure and/or kill pedestrians and drivers every year, and we're supposed to be OK with it because they're old? Fuck no. They should be tested every year if they still want to drive, and losing their license means losing their vehicle too.
Because the auto industry paid lobbyists for decades to prevent the spread of local and national rail and tram lines?
Sorry, that's kind of an oblique answer, the direct answer is money. A few extraordinarily wealthy people made a few more people rich by sacrificing what is right and good for America, with what is convenient and enriching for them. And now all our urban areas are designed for cars instead of people, which makes them shitty and inhospitable.
As a society, we would understand better, if more of us had the ability and desire to see how other industrialized nations live, but instead we just ramrod "American exceptionalism" until lil Johnny thinks his patch of Iowa, or Alabama, or Texas or wherever is equal to, or superior to anywhere else. All without ever having to leave the state, at all. I mean, what if they don't have FOOD there?
Everyone should be tested periodically for reaction time and situational awareness. Every two years if you want to keep your license.
“Boo hoo! That means people won’t be able to drive if they don’t pass!”
GOOD.
It blows my mind how easy it is for drunk drivers to get back behind the wheel. Once someone has proven how overwhelmingly selfish and foolish they are, it's unfair to everyone else to put us in that danger.
So our solution is simply to weaken civil liberties for everyone with unreasonable searches.
Ummm, if it can fuck with your perceptions when you're high enough you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a chunk of metal going a speed. Not enough data is no justification, even if it's "not as bad". I have, and I'm sure others also, personal experiences of being high as fuck and barely being able to experience the passage of time in a coherent way, feeling like your forgetting what happened 30 seconds earlier.
Field sobriety shenanigans aside, I really hope we're not pretending like driving high is okay. Cars can kill, and you had better not be under the influence of anything that is a detriment to you driving safely.
Please, please, tell me you meant to write: "Drunk driving is a legitimate concern. High driving, despite the vilifying by police, simply doesn't have even a modest fraction of the stats to back it up. And anecdotally is not remotely the same as alcohol. But you still shouldn't drive under the influence of that either. Police should be required to administer scientifically accurate tests and acceptable blood contents be determined. Not field sobriety tests based on nothing."
Because else, yikes.
So, by the logic in your argument, police should stop and perform snap cognitive tests anytime they see someone who looks over the age of 70? Or even 60- as the medical community seems broadly in consensus that cognitive decline kicks off around that point.
So perhaps the bigger question is:
Why are you OK with having elderly drivers on the road, when we know it's only a matter of time before they aren't capable of the necessary tasks required to safely operate a vehicle, at speed, and in dynamic environments, and yet your focus is on the hypothetical potential of marijuana impaired driving?
Per my original comment: elderly driving is the conversation we are refusing to have- and to add on, it's because elderly drivers are not capable of self-regulating their behavior, and yet if elderly motor vehicle laws come to pass, the entire Baby Boomer generation would fall under the auspices of an elderly driver mandate for annual cognitive testing/licensure.
Here’s my anicdotal account:
I have driven high more hours than I have driven sober. I have only ever gotten a ticket or gotten in an accident when completely sober. Despite the assumptions, so far the data points towards me being a safer driver while high on a normal amount of weed.
What do you think of this?
https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536
Results We selected nine studies in the review and meta-analysis. Driving under the influence of cannabis was associated with a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle collisions compared with unimpaired driving (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003); we noted heterogeneity among the individual study effects (I2=81). Collision risk estimates were higher in case-control studies (2.79 (1.23 to 6.33); P=0.01) and studies of fatal collisions (2.10 (1.31 to 3.36); P=0.002) than in culpability studies (1.65 (1.11 to 2.46); P=0.07) and studies of non-fatal collisions (1.74 (0.88 to 3.46); P=0.11).
Conclusions Acute cannabis consumption is associated with an increased risk of a motor vehicle crash, especially for fatal collisions. This information could be used as the basis for campaigns against drug impaired driving, developing regional or national policies to control acute drug use while driving, and raising public awareness.
Sci-hub link: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e536
Per your source, it states ACUTE cannabis consumption is dangerous. But the OP is using cannabis chronically which greatly impacts its effects on them.
Just like someone using an acute dose of tramadol will likely be impaired, but a person chronically on tramadol won't be impaired. We have studies on neurons that back this up - for opioids/opiates, that's orexin neurons, and for cannabis, it's endocannabinoid receptors.
I've nearly been mowed down by elderly drivers on numerous occasions. It's a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
First anecdote:
I'm convinced driving stoned is still a problem (though I understand my experiences may be an outlier);
My friend used to drive stoned regularly, and while in the car with him he failed to notice traffic lights and stop signs. These are mistakes he didn't make while sober.
Caveat: he was an inexperienced driver at the time, so he probably hadn't developed intuitive driving habits, so being stoned meant he needed to manually assess every action.
Second anecdote:
I feel that driving drunk is so bad, not necessarily because of distraction or motor control (though once sufficiently drunk, these are absolutely an issue)
I feel the most dangerous part about driving drunk is the overconfidence which comes with it. People are much more likely to take risks while drunk. Conversely, people who are stoned are paranoid, so they're locked in and focused on not looking like they're driving inebriated.
I understand, because it's so dependent on the person. I wouldn't get in a car with my mother, for instance, if she got stoned. But I'm a huge stoner, and I do it every day.
I hope when I'm too old to drive I have the good sense to quit.
ah yes, the police. the people with a reputation for always properly assessing every situation
Nobody (especially pharmaceutical corporations) ever wants to talk about prescription mind altering medications and how normalized its become to be heavily medicated and still drive a vehicle on the highway. I've run into people in public at grocery stores and restaurants who obviously have had way too much medication and are literal zombies or wide eyed freaks then get into a car and drive away.
This isn't shaming anyone for taking medication. It's a good thing in the right circumstances but if someone has taken so much that it affects their ability to react to things quickly while operating a vehicle, it's definitely something to worry about. It's something I think about all the time when I'm driving down a public highway anywhere.
Mfers put me on gabapentin for my then undiagnosed scoliosis, the plan was to ramp me up to "hopefully" null my pain. I went into a irrational panic that I had rabies, among other things, and certainly shouldn't drive when my eyes wouldn't stay still. I got myself into physical therapy and that turned out to be all I needed.
This is a big reason why I don't want to be put on anti-anxiety medications (e.g. SSRIs), because I'm concerned about how they would affect my driving. I drive in fairly taxing conditions, so alertness is very important.
The problem is there is no legal threshold for marijuana like there is for alcohol. If they think you are at all intoxicated they will take you in. Never admit to a cop that you have ingested marijuana in any capacity if you are pulled over.
Also, don't lie about it. Just respectfully refuse to answer any questions about it.
reminds me of STFU Friday!
Or just don't drive high
I got maybe a third of the way through the article and had to stop due to rage at the police. Again.
The police are legally allowed to lie about everything not under oath or not to another public servant. It is one reason to never bother with their polygraph. They lie about the results, and then act like their lie is proof.
They lie to the press all the time about officers names, ages, and whereabouts. It is their reflex to just lie and worry about it later.
Even breathalyzer are less reliable than the police would dare admit.
I really wonder what a rebooted from scratch ethical police force would look like. A force with honor and integrity and all those words they print on the side of the cars. A respected, well-paid job.
You know, something like what they show on every TV program airing on CBS, but real.
It's tricky, since you have inherent power imbalances and the jobs dangerous on top of that. I think you can look at Japans older model where they basically just have a pen and paper and chill out in kobans (corner police boxes) to just help people with directions and any disorders. Less heroic TV types and more glorified public assistants.
Would never fly here, but police are adorable in Japan.
The UK is a lot closer to that (though still has its issues). One of the main differences is the base mentality. America is "police by force", the UK is "police by consent". Our normal police don't even carry guns. The mentality change this creates is huge. They default to trying to deescalate things, and dealing with things calmly. This makes people a lot more responsive to their orders, when required.
Though to note, our officers aren't push overs. Most are fully capable of controlling someone aggressive. We also have armed response. Any mention of a gun involved, and they come in armed and trained to the teeth. We also have a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for an illegal firearm.
It would be full of women, not men. The police have helped domestic abusers and rapists and murderers of women for decades. In fact, a lot of the police force is made of men who have done those exact crimes.
Just like if the medical system were just, doctors would have disabilities. As it is, almost no person with a disability can really make it through med school and residency to become a doctor.
This is the essence of why representation matters, and why one big powerful group shouldn't have total power over another group.
Except if you refuse a breathalyzer, you are presumed guilty, not innocent.
Sir, your skin is too dark to drive
One of the biggest culture shocks as a Danish person visiting California, was seeing how normalised driving high was. I smoke pretty regularly, but I would never even think about getting behind the wheel after a single puff.
These the same cops that mag dump because of an acorn? The same cops that "OD" if fentanyl is in the same hemisphere as themselves? The cops that lost a rifle while "raiding" an "illegal" "grow op"? Those cops?
(X)
I've only been too high to drive once. And you know what? I didn't drive. I was too high.
Cobb County Police in Georgia got some bad press for this a few years back. An officer took a weekend course to certify he could tell when people were drunk or high, and then he ruined a bunch of innocent people’s lives.
100% nonsense.
We've already got plenty of peer reviewed science.
Tolerance is everything, and there's no empirical way to measure it.
Well perhaps we'd better come up with something. Perhaps something along the lines of those "are you really awake?" alarm apps that require you to solve some puzzles, but specifically testing driving skills/reactions, before the vehicle will start.
We give someone with a high school diploma a few weeks of training a badge and a gun. They don't even have to fully understand the law.
And now they can tell if you're high or not from first sight.
You don't think cops cant tell what's white or wrong?
TIL police have a big enough god complex they think they are doctors with no training.
You just learned that today?
Cops can't even tell the difference between a cellphone and a gun
if a police is saying something, that police is lying
Sir you are too blacough high to drive.
As virtually anyone who has ever been to college knows: they can't.
wait, are you implying that cops are filthy fucking liars???
Even with body cams The Police still can't tell the truth. I'm sure this will be abused.
Stoned folks will drive straighter than an arrow at slower speeds. They are safer than an asswipe glued to their Galaxy or iPhone.
They are safer than an asswipe glued to their Galaxy or iPhone.
The amount of people I see visibly fucking with their phones while driving (often at high speed) is really unsettling. In my day to day driving, I'm far more concerned about people on their phones than I am people stoned. They represent different hazards, but stoned drivers tend to be much more predictable.
Cops. The ones who can’t do drugs as a rule of their employment.
Yeah, I’m sure they have all kinds of useful insights about drugs. I’ll tune into their podcast as soon as I finished the one from the Catholic priests talking about how sex and marriage work.
Oh then they can come back with a fucking warrant like any other “we can tell you committed a crime”
Does it slow your response time or impare your decisions? A question from someone with zero experience.
I once was a passenger in a clown car squeezed full of people who were all high as kites, including the driver. We were bowling merrily along, when someone said, "How fast are we going? I feel like we're going really fast." There was a bit of discussion about how fast we should be going, and whether it felt faster than that, and then the driver thought to check the speedo. 25mph, in a 30mph area. I haven't laughed so hard since.
So yes, it can impair your judgement when driving.
that wouldn't hold up in court. there had to be valid evidence of it, or there's no case.
An officers word is absolutely used as evidence.
or video recording possibly? depends hugely on the judge/corruptness of the court/state. some courts throw out cases based on pure testimony because of the lack of documented evidence in situations like this one. this is usually why cops will make you do sobriety tests, it is used to validate and document the fact that someone is too intoxicated to drive. these actions are usually also recorded, and presented as evidence to the district attorney. a good lawyer can get you out of this situation, especially if its just speculation from the officer. the more evidence they have on you, the harder it is to prove your innocence, and vise-versa. either way, lawyer up!
Fuck driving. You'd be lucky to get me off the couch. 😆
Obviously ACAB, but...I have known a few jackasses who thought nothing of driving while high. Just don't. And don't reply to me about how you "know your tolerance" or that you can "handle it". Fuck you, you're impaired. Don't do it.
While in principle, I don't disagree. If you're impaired, you shouldn't drive. I lost a parent after they were hit by a drunk driver.
However, there are monstrously different amounts of impairment. You have reaction times and motor skills, decision making and judgement, awareness and attention.
Implying any type of impairment to be an unequivocal "no" to driving is short sighted, in my opinion. It's the easy argument to point at any mind-altering substance: caffeine, tobacco, or antidepressants could be classified an impaired driver.
It's also worth pointing out that even different emotions could dramatically alter driving performance. Not that we would ever think about restrictions on crying while driving.
I think a DRE with a doctorate can tell for sure.
And everyone is a critic
Trust the experts!
i have witnessed 100% sober drivers, blowing zero on a breathalyzer being arrested because the cops felt like it. anyone else failing so hard at their jobs would be fired, and these people are supposed to be trusted with extra responsibilities and human killing devices.
acab
Were those people black by chance?
nope, not in my case. they were butt-hurt because a bunch of designated drivers were picking up drunk people
Portable breathalyzers are notoriously unreliable and it's definitely possible for them to indicate zero on someone that is drunk. And also the other way around, which is why the tests always have to repeated with a stationary breathalyzer or a blood sample to be used as evidence in court.
That being said, it's still not acceptable for cops to arrest people without probable cause
Dogs are also as accurate as a coin toss. Essentially, it all comes down to what the officer thinks and their personal motivations, which is terrifying.
Man I hope you show this comment when you’re in need of help.
'just wait til you need a bully with a human killing device' shouldnt be something anyone has to say
Dude for real - if this dude ends up being the victim of a home invasion who the hell is he going to call to show up 8 hours later to interrogate him like he was the culprit and probably shoot his dog for some reason?
Man I'm sure they'll be really sad when no one shows up to shoot their dog