What gives you the idea there wouldn’t be a test to see how high you are at the time of the accident? You’re taken to the station, they call a doctor who comes over at any time of the day, draws blood and they determine the amount of THC in ng per mL of blood serum or plasma. Legal thresholds are based on that measure as well.
Belgium has a threshold of 1ng/mL of plasma. If you’ve been a heavy, daily user and your blood shows detectable levels of THC (which it totally does, yes) 7 days after, you can’t drive, simple as that - that’s how the law works and the fault is on you.
What gives you the idea there wouldn’t be a test to see how high you are at the time of the accident?
I dunno, maybe the part where
If you’ve been a heavy, daily user and your blood shows detectable levels of THC (which it totally does, yes) 7 days after, you can’t drive, simple as that - that’s how the law works and the fault is on you.
If I can be stone cold sober for 7 days and fail the test, your test has absolutely no fucking clue if I’m actually high.
Well that’s simply insane. Imagine getting a dui because of a glass of wine you had a week ago. Sounds like you argued his point for him. It isn’t a reliable test.
That you don’t know that they can’t tell if you are high right now, shows that you have lived a sheltered and blessed life for one thing, and also that you speak confidently of things you know nothing about.
It’s common knowledge, I’m not trading sources to argue objective fact, I get enough of that in politics.
As to the process, yeah no shit that’s how everyone does it, US included, except we send it to state police crime labs that then further lie about it. You must be taking their testimony and not that of objective fact.
No, the law is not ideal, and yes, I do find the implications questionable as well. Some people could end up not being able to drive for multiple weeks.
However, that was the trade off that had to be made. People want weed to be legal, which it absolutely should be. Let’s not forget this thread started out with outrage about a guy whon ran over a kid. Now, there are no tests that offer insights into a shorter, more recent time window of consumption, so how are we going to resolve the question if that driver was driving under the influence?
The law made a compromise, that, according to studies, mostly affects heavy users that consume THC daily, and yes, for those people, the law currently does not represent an ideal resolution. But that doesn’t even apply to all people who smoke or otherwise consume weed, and it can be resolved by the introduction of better tests without rewriting the law while providing the necessary framework for legalization.
I’d prefer for weed to be legal and not being able to drive for a week than to be arrested, treated like a rapist by cops and then to be dragged to court for the possession of miniscule amounts of THC, which was the previous state.
The issue is that smoking marijuana does impair driving, meaning you shouldn’t drive. The law needs some kind of proof that doesn’t rely on a time machine, so they test your body. Your body can’t really tell you when the thc entered your body, so you get two options:
The test can still prove you were under the influence at some recent-ish moment, so any sufficient amount in your blood means you can’t drive.
The test can’t prove it’s recent enough for you to have been impaired while driving, so it can’t be used as proof, which effectively means you could never be convicted of being under the influence (meaning it’s unenforceable).
The former negatively impacts marijuana users who won’t be able to drive for some time. The latter means people under the influence could drive and due to their impairment hit and kill someone.
Somewhat obviously, the lawmakers have decided that blocking some people from driving is better than letting someone under the influence drive a speedy death machine. So the law doesn’t care whether you were actually impaired; it was in your system, so you’re not allowed to drive.
It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, where the fuck have you been? You didn’t know that there are no tests that show if you are high on thc now?
You never got accused of this crime clearly or you would know it. I didn’t read past your first sentence yet, as the falsehood you led with disqualifies everything else, I will get to it later though.
I’m not trading sources to argue for objective reality as it’s common knowledge amongst people that don’t live with their heads up the ass of law enforcement and their allies.
What gives you the idea there wouldn’t be a test to see how high you are at the time of the accident? You’re taken to the station, they call a doctor who comes over at any time of the day, draws blood and they determine the amount of THC in ng per mL of blood serum or plasma. Legal thresholds are based on that measure as well.
Belgium has a threshold of 1ng/mL of plasma. If you’ve been a heavy, daily user and your blood shows detectable levels of THC (which it totally does, yes) 7 days after, you can’t drive, simple as that - that’s how the law works and the fault is on you.
I dunno, maybe the part where
If I can be stone cold sober for 7 days and fail the test, your test has absolutely no fucking clue if I’m actually high.
Well that’s simply insane. Imagine getting a dui because of a glass of wine you had a week ago. Sounds like you argued his point for him. It isn’t a reliable test.
If alcohol still influences your driving after a week, the yes, you should absolutely be getting a dui
Bro, you aren’t high a week after smoking a joint. Please stop.
And if a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its ass on the ground. Neither “ifs” are actually real, though.
That you don’t know that they can’t tell if you are high right now, shows that you have lived a sheltered and blessed life for one thing, and also that you speak confidently of things you know nothing about.
It’s common knowledge, I’m not trading sources to argue objective fact, I get enough of that in politics.
As to the process, yeah no shit that’s how everyone does it, US included, except we send it to state police crime labs that then further lie about it. You must be taking their testimony and not that of objective fact.
Ah yes, you smoke and then can’t drive at all for a week. That’s totally a well written law. /s
That “proof” should be laughed out of any court. It doesn’t prove you were under the influence at the time. At all.
No, the law is not ideal, and yes, I do find the implications questionable as well. Some people could end up not being able to drive for multiple weeks.
However, that was the trade off that had to be made. People want weed to be legal, which it absolutely should be. Let’s not forget this thread started out with outrage about a guy whon ran over a kid. Now, there are no tests that offer insights into a shorter, more recent time window of consumption, so how are we going to resolve the question if that driver was driving under the influence?
The law made a compromise, that, according to studies, mostly affects heavy users that consume THC daily, and yes, for those people, the law currently does not represent an ideal resolution. But that doesn’t even apply to all people who smoke or otherwise consume weed, and it can be resolved by the introduction of better tests without rewriting the law while providing the necessary framework for legalization.
I’d prefer for weed to be legal and not being able to drive for a week than to be arrested, treated like a rapist by cops and then to be dragged to court for the possession of miniscule amounts of THC, which was the previous state.
The issue is that smoking marijuana does impair driving, meaning you shouldn’t drive. The law needs some kind of proof that doesn’t rely on a time machine, so they test your body. Your body can’t really tell you when the thc entered your body, so you get two options:
The former negatively impacts marijuana users who won’t be able to drive for some time. The latter means people under the influence could drive and due to their impairment hit and kill someone.
Somewhat obviously, the lawmakers have decided that blocking some people from driving is better than letting someone under the influence drive a speedy death machine. So the law doesn’t care whether you were actually impaired; it was in your system, so you’re not allowed to drive.
It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, where the fuck have you been? You didn’t know that there are no tests that show if you are high on thc now?
You never got accused of this crime clearly or you would know it. I didn’t read past your first sentence yet, as the falsehood you led with disqualifies everything else, I will get to it later though.
I’m not trading sources to argue for objective reality as it’s common knowledge amongst people that don’t live with their heads up the ass of law enforcement and their allies.