Smoke A Joint, Get Arrested For Drugged Driving A week Later

Obama's New Drug Control Strategy

Over at The Huffington Post, Russ Belville notes that the Obama administration's new drug control strategy urges states to adopt "per se" laws for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID):

Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver's body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP [the Office of National Drug Control Policy] will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.

Under these laws, a driver who has marijuana metabolites in his urine is automatically considered impaired, even though he probably isn't. Because marijuana metabolites can be detected in urine long after the drug's effects have worn off (up to two weeks for occasional users, months for frequent users), a "zero tolerance" DUID standard punishes pot smokers who have not harmed or endangered anyone. It is a way of imposing an extra punishment for marijuana use under the guise of traffic safety, sending unimpaired drivers to jail as public menaces because they smoked pot days or weeks before getting behind the wheel. It's like arresting someone for drunk driving on a Wednesday because he drank a few beers the previous Saturday. And it is completely unnecessary, since a standard based on THC in the blood (analogous to the standard for DUI) would be a much better indicator of impairment. In fact, since "the presence of metabolites for THC tells you the body has already broken down the THC," Belville says, "you could actually call a urine screening for metabolites a non-impairment test!" This is exactly the sort of mindlessly draconian policy that a president with any interest in dialing back the war in drugs would avoid.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Completely absurd.

It is a way of imposing an extra punishment for marijuana use under the guise of traffic safety, sending unimpaired drivers to jail as public menaces because they smoked pot days or weeks before getting behind the wheel.

I understand the law only involves illegal substances but this is still very odd. The individuals aren't being arrested for the drug use- they're being arrested for being a danger due to the drug use... when they're no longer a danger.

It's like busting someone for firing an illegal gun weeks later instead of being concerned with them having access to said illegal gun. And then claiming it is a present danger to society as if that bullet is still flying around.

Totally nuts. I REALLY wish it was time to chunk laws where there is no victim.

This is utter outrageous.

This can't be constitutional. Or SANE.

I mean I smoked quite a lot back when I was younger but I NEVER DROVE stoned... BECAUSE IT'S FREAKING DANGEROUS FOR YOU AND OTHERS.

I don't know what I would do if I would have been arrested with this BS. I think I would have blown a fuse.

No way in hell I would have accepted to go to jail for that scam of a law.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Vitchilo]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Jury Nullification folks.

Spread the knowledge.

Over at The Huffington Post, Russ Belville notes that the Obama administration's new drug control strategy urges states to adopt "per se" laws for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID)....

Hmm. You can be busted if you have smoked a joint in the past and it's detectable. You aren't high then but you could still be busted. I wonder if they will be doing pee tests for those that are actually driving under the influence of, say, prozac or something else mind altering.

It is patently absurd but this isn't exactly the first we've heard of this. The private sector has been doing this for years with employee drug testing. If you smoke marijuana on a whim at a party and a month later you test positive for marijuana metabolites, you can be fired immediately even though the effects of the marijuana have long since passed.

Prohibition needs to end, along with the prosecution of consensual "crimes".

Originally posted by intrepid

Over at The Huffington Post, Russ Belville notes that the Obama administration's new drug control strategy urges states to adopt "per se" laws for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID)....

Hmm. You can be busted if you have smoked a joint in the past and it's detectable. You aren't high then but you could still be busted. I wonder if they will be doing pee tests for those that are actually driving under the influence of, say, prozac or something else mind altering.

I wonder what kind of invasive test they will devise to enforce the law?

Can law enforcement in the US demand a urine sample?

I would think not, how else would they figure it out?

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


They don't have to demand a test. They can "dry cell" you. No water in the cell. You're going to have to go sometime. That said, I don't know about the constitutionality of any of this.

I have some first hand experience with this. A few years ago I went to visit my parents in their small town. I had made a right turn on a red, with no cars at all coming. Two blocks (!) later I was pulled over, then asked to step out of the car.

The officer said I had pulled out in front of HIM, although I know I didn't because I saw his patrol car sitting in the parking lot facing the intersection earlier when I turned.

After not finding anything after running my drivers license, he asked me if I had drank anything. I hadn't and replied "NO".

He said my tongue had a brown tinge and that indicated I had smoked pot.(?!?)
I told him I hadn't, but it was probably from the coffee and cigarettes I had on the drive to the town. (I had smoked a couple of weeks ago while hiking with a friend but didn't say that, of course. I didn't even think about it at the time.)
He then arrested me(!!) and took me to the station for a urine sample. I was held for 10 hours(!!).

I was then released with no tickets or charges but a different officer told me I would hear from them about the urine test results.

2 months later I got a summons to appear in court for DUI. After $2000 in lawyers fees it was finally dropped without even an "oops" on their part.

Needless to say I drive like a paranoid nut when I visit my parents anymore.

Just this year in that town, an officer was fired for going to a TV station saying that the police in that town were encouraged to make as many arrests as possible to bring in money for the city and county through fees.
BTW he won a $100,000 in a suit he filed against the town.

[edit on 22/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]

reply to post by intrepid


That's interesting. Do they collect the pee in the toilets now?

*sigh* some things about law enforcement really make me cringe.

~Keeper

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

He then arrested me(!!) and took me to the station for a urine sample. I was held for 10 hours(!!).

I am nearly certain you could have refused to supply a urine sample under your Fifth Amendment rights. You still would have gone to trial and this would be brought up but you cannot be forced to act as witness against yourself.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


They said if I refused I would be automatically charged, so I went ahead and gave it to them.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


But they can use what you excrete. If I was in that position I wouldn't use the toilet. I'd piss all over the walls. Good luck getting a viable sample off of that dudes.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
They said if I refused I would be automatically charged, so I went ahead and gave it to them.

Lovely ploy, too bad it isn't true. They had nothing so they lied. Which is legal btw.

Originally posted by AshleyD
I understand the law only involves illegal substances but this is still very odd.

Personally I feel they should focus more on those "legal" (prescribed) drugs which carry a Clear Warning of,
"do not drive or operate heavy machinery while taking this medication"

Then again, of course, that might find them detaining or arresting the "wrong" people.

Nothing says "safe driver" better than going to "get a script filled" after having taken your last two oxycontins. :shk:


Absurd is an understatement.

reply to post by intrepid


I am the first to admit that I don't know as much about the law as I should. It seems pretty dirty to me to have a cop say something like that though.
I am just glad the lawyer, though expensive for my means, was experienced with this sort of case.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


I ALWAYS wondered about that, too. I've read several news stories of drivers being detained because the officers thought they were drunk. The charges were later dropped because the person was on prescription medication.

What's the difference? A danger on the road is a danger on the road. Whether it be alcohol, alternative substances, or prescription medication.

I guess the difference is there is no war on pharmaceuticals. And we can't even compare it to substances that are illegal because alcohol is legal. I don't think those on prescription medications should be excused if the the effects resemble being under the influence of alcohol.

If safety REALLY was the main concern (instead of revenue), then there shouldn't be much of a difference.

Edit because I totally botched the grammar of this post.

[edit on 5/22/2010 by AshleyD]

ive always been an advocate of using substances that were closer to nature and not as processed as many of the drugs out there.....but this kind of retarded and totally backward law practically begs ppl to learn how to work the system so they dont get caught...and guess what that means? meth, coke, amphetemines, heroine...i mean you name it, almost every drug out there can pass through your system in less than a week......but weed? sorry, once again the gov tips their hand and shows that the so called 'drug war' is really only about ONE drug.......

not that i was surprised about that part tho.

reply to post by intrepid

I wonder if they will be doing pee tests for those that are actually driving under the influence of, say, prozac or something else mind altering.

Although the actual risk is probably higher driving under those than under pot, its not likely to be tested for, is it, considering that this would be a detriment to the ability of the prescription drug industry/doctors to make money.

That is the bottom line of most discussions -- who's making money off of whatever it is being discussed.

Under what circumstances would probable cause apply so that a urine sample could be obtained with this new policy? Would the police not require sufficient cause to pull you over for impaired driving to begin with? It's not like the cop is going to pull you over on a standard traffic stop and demand a urine sample.

This seems more like a policy that is intended to tack on extra charges against someone who is already submitting urine/blood for a legitimate DUI.