Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Marijuana Breathalyzer?
equities.com ^

Posted on 12/04/2014 5:37:59 AM PST by DBCJR

With marijuana legal in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington; decriminalized in 13 more states; and available by prescription in 6 more; there is a growing concern about driving and other activities while under the influence. Several companies are rushing to provide a breathalyzer to accommodate these concerns. The device is timely, since there is currently no way to verify recent marijuana use without taking spit or urine samples – a practice that would involve the collection of DNA and potentially run afoul of sections 7 and 8 of the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

(Excerpt) Read more at us1.campaign-archive1.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: breathalyzer; buzzeddriving; cannabis; dopersrights; doublestandard; dui; dwi; impaireddriving; legalization; legalizeit; marijuana; pot; taxthehelloutofit; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

1 posted on 12/04/2014 5:38:00 AM PST by DBCJR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Should be pretty easy to make a portable machine that sniffs for Dorito-breath and checks for stoopid.


2 posted on 12/04/2014 5:44:35 AM PST by Nervous Tick (There is no "allah" but satan, and mohammed is his demon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

It would be ridiculously intrusive.

I hang out with friends who smoke the stuff, while I don’t. Not my cup of tea.

So a cop pulls me over and smells weed on me and suddenly they are searching my car?

Maybe they begin using computer sniffers and they are nkw searching my car?


3 posted on 12/04/2014 5:48:18 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

I wonder if it measures active blood levels, and indicates intoxication, or is like the near worthless/ethically questionable urine/hair follicle screen that employers typically use just indicates usage within the past few weeks or months(in the case of hair), not necessarily active intoxication.

Surely it would have to show active intoxication, or how could one be charged with driving under the influence/while intoxicated?


4 posted on 12/04/2014 5:48:33 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Since marijuana is legalized or decriminalized in several states, will a federal judge now deem all state marijuana laws “unconstitutional” based on “equal protection?”


5 posted on 12/04/2014 5:53:55 AM PST by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Probably cause should be based on something physical that a LEO can prove that he saw, rather something that he “smelled” or because you had an expression on your face he happens to not care for(”he was acting suspicious”). Both are either HIGHLY subjective, or they can simply just make it up. Perhaps a middle ground can be found, and they should need to have another officer come and reach the same conclusion. Preferably a supervising officer.


6 posted on 12/04/2014 5:56:24 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

What if I’m typically sarcastic or skeptical?

/S


7 posted on 12/04/2014 5:58:52 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

PS:

****”Probably Cause” = Probable Cause (LOL)

(I believe some of them may use “Probably Cause” though)


8 posted on 12/04/2014 5:58:57 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

If you’re checking for stoopid, you’re gonna need a bigger jail.

Love, Chief Brody


9 posted on 12/04/2014 6:06:51 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Pointing out dereliction of duty is NOT fear mongering, especially in a panDEMic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

I’m all for a test. But I wonder if it can distinguish between a THC level of intoxicated vs. residual traces. I am pretty sure that level has not been medically determined.


10 posted on 12/04/2014 6:17:10 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Good Muslims, like good Nazis or good liberals, are terrible human beings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“I hang out with friends who smoke the stuff, while I don’t.”

Second-hand smoke kills...or at least, might get you busted.


11 posted on 12/04/2014 6:18:08 AM PST by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Just offer the suspect a slice of pizza and study the reaction...


12 posted on 12/04/2014 6:18:12 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

0.08 BAC headed down to 0.03 BAC (on it’s way down to Sweden’s 0.01 BAC) federally imposed (via highway gas tax monies) sailed by without dope smokers giving a damn.

Demonizing alcohol does nothing to make society more perfect for smokers (same with the lack of concern as tobacco use was restricted and grounds for employment termination).

“impaired” accidents are not occurring at the low BAC levels either (and it was never the goal of the founder of MADD).

“active” intoxication is not the standard. A driver can still be charged with DWI below the BAC standard, it’s just more difficult to convict. Blowing over the number becomes its own procedural crime.


13 posted on 12/04/2014 6:26:47 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Shickl-Gruber's Big Lie gave us Hussein's Un-Affordable Care act (HUAC).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR
this became the "new" standard (NONE for the road).

Makes money for the state, the county, the courts, the insurance companies, the politicians...


14 posted on 12/04/2014 6:30:21 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Shickl-Gruber's Big Lie gave us Hussein's Un-Affordable Care act (HUAC).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moovova

That’s why I smoke Benson & Hedges 100 Menthol.

I get cancer with a breath freshner.

It also helps with busy bodies and statistics. ..


15 posted on 12/04/2014 6:32:37 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

That will be a very valuable patent.

Currently the DOT treats marijuana as a Schedule I drug, if the feds legalize it, they will need to treat THC like alcohol. In addition to every LEO in the country, every medical facility that does DOT testing will need a unit.

I’m not much of an investor but there is definitely an opportunity here.


16 posted on 12/04/2014 6:48:29 AM PST by dangerdoc ((this space for rent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Prolly cause...

Hey, my new joke:

Q
How do you find Will Smith in a pile of snow?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
A
Look for Fresh Prince


17 posted on 12/04/2014 7:07:11 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Easier to just look for candy wrappers in the backseats.


18 posted on 12/04/2014 7:26:45 AM PST by vietvet67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Since marijuana is legalized or decriminalized in several states, will a federal judge now deem all state marijuana laws “unconstitutional” based on “equal protection?”

Since fireworks are legalized in several states, has a federal judge deemed all state fireworks laws “unconstitutional” based on “equal protection?”

19 posted on 12/04/2014 11:35:32 AM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
0.08 BAC headed down to 0.03 BAC (on it’s way down to Sweden’s 0.01 BAC) federally imposed (via highway gas tax monies) sailed by without dope smokers giving a damn.

I'm opposed - but then, I'm not a dope smoker but just a defender of dope smokers' liberty.

Demonizing alcohol does nothing to make society more perfect for smokers

I've never demonized alcohol - I have pointed out that many anti-dope arguments apply as well or better to alcohol.

(same with the lack of concern as tobacco use was restricted

Requiring restaurant, bar, and club owners to ban smoking was and remains immoral.

and grounds for employment termination).

I think employers should be free to hire and fire for any reason they deem fit. I haven't heard that anyone has been fired for smoking tobacco.

20 posted on 12/04/2014 11:44:29 AM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson