Driving While Stoned

F Me In The Brain · February 2021

PJPOWER said:

hedonist said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

Good question. THC stays in the blood for quite awhile which is why if a person is required to take a blood test for employment it is best not to smoke for something like a month.

Gern Blansten said:

Yeah I was always way too paranoid.

One time I was driving and my two buddies in the back seat were flicking their lighters and told me a copy was pulling me over. The terror was absolutely real.

Oh those sob's

True story- I once rode with a guy who was driving while we were both stoned. He was a deputy sheriffs and we were on a freeway doing about 95 MPH. I didn't know it was legal for a sheriff to drive that fast. It was kind of scary.

Actually, THC only stays in your bloodstream for 3-4 hours after smoking so it is probably the most effective in finding out whether or not someone is currently high.
Urine and Hair will register for much longer.

Edit: After looking into it a bit more, the above is still true. If a test is specifically looking for THC, it only stays in your bloodstream for a couple hours (hence why you are only “stoned” for a couple hours). There is another metabolite, THC-COOH, that can be detected for longer (for 25 days or so), so if an employer is testing for that specifically they could bust you...but why wouldn’t they just use hair or urine at that point?

I wonder if it being in your system from the day or so before even matters. That should be okay in states where it’s legal (as with alcohol, ie, acceptable to X level).

It just seems like a negligible amount to me, given how little is still known to justify standards for impairment.

Look at edibles; at 105 lbs., I can handle 30 or 40 mg of THC during the day with no problems, where someone twice my weight might get utterly wasted on 10.

I agree, it shouldn’t matter. The only factor should be whether or not the person was actually impaired or not. Just another example of people’s freedom getting trampled on in the name of “safety”.

The subject is how you go about testing.

The first right of freedom goes to the people who are not taking foreign substances and operating vehicles on public roadways. (Or at least it should be.)

I do hope that we can find a way to make it so that only people who are impaired are subject to any consequence -- 100%.

If they don't have a way to test for it in a given state, that is accepted and responsible, I don't see how they can legalize any level to be OK.

dankind · February 2021

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

mickeyrat · February 2021

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

Good question. THC stays in the blood for quite awhile which is why if a person is required to take a blood test for employment it is best not to smoke for something like a month.

Gern Blansten said:

Yeah I was always way too paranoid.

One time I was driving and my two buddies in the back seat were flicking their lighters and told me a copy was pulling me over. The terror was absolutely real.

Oh those sob's

True story- I once rode with a guy who was driving while we were both stoned. He was a deputy sheriffs and we were on a freeway doing about 95 MPH. I didn't know it was legal for a sheriff to drive that fast. It was kind of scary.

The only employers here in Ontario that test are driving related jobs...

my ex wife drove truck and the only time she was ever tested was before she started a new job...

Most of our employers are not dicks and want people tested...

I do not agree that truckers are tested either. As long as they are not high while driving....all is good.

I am subject to random screening. refuse I am done.

PJPOWER · February 2021

F Me In The Brain said:

PJPOWER said:

hedonist said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

Good question. THC stays in the blood for quite awhile which is why if a person is required to take a blood test for employment it is best not to smoke for something like a month.

Gern Blansten said:

Yeah I was always way too paranoid.

One time I was driving and my two buddies in the back seat were flicking their lighters and told me a copy was pulling me over. The terror was absolutely real.

Oh those sob's

True story- I once rode with a guy who was driving while we were both stoned. He was a deputy sheriffs and we were on a freeway doing about 95 MPH. I didn't know it was legal for a sheriff to drive that fast. It was kind of scary.

Actually, THC only stays in your bloodstream for 3-4 hours after smoking so it is probably the most effective in finding out whether or not someone is currently high.
Urine and Hair will register for much longer.

Edit: After looking into it a bit more, the above is still true. If a test is specifically looking for THC, it only stays in your bloodstream for a couple hours (hence why you are only “stoned” for a couple hours). There is another metabolite, THC-COOH, that can be detected for longer (for 25 days or so), so if an employer is testing for that specifically they could bust you...but why wouldn’t they just use hair or urine at that point?

I wonder if it being in your system from the day or so before even matters. That should be okay in states where it’s legal (as with alcohol, ie, acceptable to X level).

It just seems like a negligible amount to me, given how little is still known to justify standards for impairment.

Look at edibles; at 105 lbs., I can handle 30 or 40 mg of THC during the day with no problems, where someone twice my weight might get utterly wasted on 10.

I agree, it shouldn’t matter. The only factor should be whether or not the person was actually impaired or not. Just another example of people’s freedom getting trampled on in the name of “safety”.

The subject is how you go about testing.
The first right of freedom goes to the people who are not taking foreign substances and operating vehicles on public roadways. (Or at least it should be.)
I do hope that we can find a way to make it so that only people who are impaired are subject to any consequence -- 100%.

If they don't have a way to test for it in a given state, that is accepted and responsible, I don't see how they can legalize any level to be OK.

I’m not 100% I follow. Are you saying Marijuana should be 100% illegal if there is no way of testing how impaired people are? If so, I think I lean on the other side of this opinion. I feel that the burden of proof should be placed on the accuser, not the accused.

Gern Blansten · February 2021

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

An attorney told me once that if you ever get pulled over when you have been drinking to get out of the car (turn it off of course) and drink in front of the officer and refuse a breathalyzer. Then when they take your blood you can argue that the alcohol in your blood was there because of what you drank after you were pulled over.

He was referring to drinking whiskey since you probably wouldn't have time to pound 3-4 beers before the cop smashed you with his baton.

I've been told that this strategy doesn't work but I don't know for sure.

Same with marijuana? Get out and start toking it up before they test you.

I'm going off some guesses and assumptions here. But I'm guessing if a cop has enough reason to pull you over for suspicion of DUI, he probably has probable cause to prevent you from going into the trunk of your car and opening a bottle of whiskey and chug it. I don't really see a cop pulling someone over who is drunk, then just allowing them to walk to the trunk, open it, reach it without stopping them. Just like if you refuse the test, he can't just let you go, he detains you until theres a court order to draw blood or something.
If you have an opened bottle within reach and just go for that, its probably going to hurt your case more than help you.
And the fact that a lawyer will tell you to just start drinking also tells you the desperation involved. Reports vary a lot, but the average DUI costs the driver is something like $20,000 when you factor in insurance going way up, legal fees, court costs, installing a breathalyzer, etc.

Yes in this example you would likely need to have the bottle handy....like in your hand drinking it....when you get pulled over.

The idea being that the dash cam shows you chugging whiskey but there is no proof that the blood test isn't registering what you drank after you turned the car off vs before you turned it off.

PJPOWER · February 2021

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

An attorney told me once that if you ever get pulled over when you have been drinking to get out of the car (turn it off of course) and drink in front of the officer and refuse a breathalyzer. Then when they take your blood you can argue that the alcohol in your blood was there because of what you drank after you were pulled over.

He was referring to drinking whiskey since you probably wouldn't have time to pound 3-4 beers before the cop smashed you with his baton.

I've been told that this strategy doesn't work but I don't know for sure.

Same with marijuana? Get out and start toking it up before they test you.

I'm going off some guesses and assumptions here. But I'm guessing if a cop has enough reason to pull you over for suspicion of DUI, he probably has probable cause to prevent you from going into the trunk of your car and opening a bottle of whiskey and chug it. I don't really see a cop pulling someone over who is drunk, then just allowing them to walk to the trunk, open it, reach it without stopping them. Just like if you refuse the test, he can't just let you go, he detains you until theres a court order to draw blood or something.
If you have an opened bottle within reach and just go for that, its probably going to hurt your case more than help you.
And the fact that a lawyer will tell you to just start drinking also tells you the desperation involved. Reports vary a lot, but the average DUI costs the driver is something like $20,000 when you factor in insurance going way up, legal fees, court costs, installing a breathalyzer, etc.

Yes in this example you would likely need to have the bottle handy....like in your hand drinking it....when you get pulled over.

The idea being that the dash cam shows you chugging whiskey but there is no proof that the blood test isn't registering what you drank after you turned the car off vs before you turned it off.

I would add that you would probably want to make it evident on camera that you broke the seal to that bottle outside of the car too, ha
But like others have said, better to just not drink and drive. If you have to prepare a bottle for in case you get pulled over drunk, then you should probably seek out an AA meeting anyways.

mace1229 · February 2021

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

An attorney told me once that if you ever get pulled over when you have been drinking to get out of the car (turn it off of course) and drink in front of the officer and refuse a breathalyzer. Then when they take your blood you can argue that the alcohol in your blood was there because of what you drank after you were pulled over.

He was referring to drinking whiskey since you probably wouldn't have time to pound 3-4 beers before the cop smashed you with his baton.

I've been told that this strategy doesn't work but I don't know for sure.

Same with marijuana? Get out and start toking it up before they test you.

I'm going off some guesses and assumptions here. But I'm guessing if a cop has enough reason to pull you over for suspicion of DUI, he probably has probable cause to prevent you from going into the trunk of your car and opening a bottle of whiskey and chug it. I don't really see a cop pulling someone over who is drunk, then just allowing them to walk to the trunk, open it, reach it without stopping them. Just like if you refuse the test, he can't just let you go, he detains you until theres a court order to draw blood or something.
If you have an opened bottle within reach and just go for that, its probably going to hurt your case more than help you.
And the fact that a lawyer will tell you to just start drinking also tells you the desperation involved. Reports vary a lot, but the average DUI costs the driver is something like $20,000 when you factor in insurance going way up, legal fees, court costs, installing a breathalyzer, etc.

Yes in this example you would likely need to have the bottle handy....like in your hand drinking it....when you get pulled over.

The idea being that the dash cam shows you chugging whiskey but there is no proof that the blood test isn't registering what you drank after you turned the car off vs before you turned it off.

But I think having an opened container on you is enough to get a DUI. If not, I would bet its enough to throw out the dumb defense of "I was only drunk after he pulled me over." I mean, if I'm a jury and his defense was he was just driving around with an opened contained, driving like he's drunk because the cop had PC to pull him over to begin with, had an opened drink ready at hand to chug. I think I'm going to vote guilty and not going to assume he was driving with an opened container but didnt drink until after he was stopped. In the end, you almost certainly made things worse for yourself. Any lawyer offering that advice to drunk drivers should be disbarred.

tbergs · February 2021

Speaking of driving while stoned, I wonder what meds Tiger was high on when he crashed today?

hedonist · February 2021

dankind said:

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

Tell that to my elderly mom 🙄

To be clear, if you’re not okay to drive due to weed, alcohol, meds, a friendly BJ by your passenger - whatever reason - don’t fucking drive! Although if someone doesn’t give enough of a shit about themselves to do so, chances are they’re fuck-you’ing to everyone else too.

F Me In The Brain · February 2021

PJPOWER said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJPOWER said:

hedonist said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

Good question. THC stays in the blood for quite awhile which is why if a person is required to take a blood test for employment it is best not to smoke for something like a month.

Gern Blansten said:

Yeah I was always way too paranoid.

One time I was driving and my two buddies in the back seat were flicking their lighters and told me a copy was pulling me over. The terror was absolutely real.

Oh those sob's

True story- I once rode with a guy who was driving while we were both stoned. He was a deputy sheriffs and we were on a freeway doing about 95 MPH. I didn't know it was legal for a sheriff to drive that fast. It was kind of scary.

Actually, THC only stays in your bloodstream for 3-4 hours after smoking so it is probably the most effective in finding out whether or not someone is currently high.
Urine and Hair will register for much longer.

Edit: After looking into it a bit more, the above is still true. If a test is specifically looking for THC, it only stays in your bloodstream for a couple hours (hence why you are only “stoned” for a couple hours). There is another metabolite, THC-COOH, that can be detected for longer (for 25 days or so), so if an employer is testing for that specifically they could bust you...but why wouldn’t they just use hair or urine at that point?

I wonder if it being in your system from the day or so before even matters. That should be okay in states where it’s legal (as with alcohol, ie, acceptable to X level).

It just seems like a negligible amount to me, given how little is still known to justify standards for impairment.

Look at edibles; at 105 lbs., I can handle 30 or 40 mg of THC during the day with no problems, where someone twice my weight might get utterly wasted on 10.

I agree, it shouldn’t matter. The only factor should be whether or not the person was actually impaired or not. Just another example of people’s freedom getting trampled on in the name of “safety”.

The subject is how you go about testing.
The first right of freedom goes to the people who are not taking foreign substances and operating vehicles on public roadways. (Or at least it should be.)
I do hope that we can find a way to make it so that only people who are impaired are subject to any consequence -- 100%.

If they don't have a way to test for it in a given state, that is accepted and responsible, I don't see how they can legalize any level to be OK.

I’m not 100% I follow. Are you saying Marijuana should be 100% illegal if there is no way of testing how impaired people are? If so, I think I lean on the other side of this opinion. I feel that the burden of proof should be placed on the accuser, not the accused.

I am saying I think that they should not make this legal if there is no way to judge how impaired people are when driving on it.

As Dankind stated, driving is a privilege and not a right.

Impaired drivers can harm anyone around them because of their choice to put a foreign substance in their body and to operate a vehicle in public. This is not the right anyone should have.

I also have not read through the links provided by folks here on how it is done elsewhere -- it seems like there is a way to do it and it is being monitored, which is encouraging.

Will read them tonight and do some searching to see if I can find anything about what they plan to do in NJ, as well.

F Me In The Brain · February 2021

hedonist said:

dankind said:

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

Tell that to my elderly mom 🙄

To be clear, if you’re not okay to drive due to weed, alcohol, meds, a friendly BJ by your passenger - whatever reason - don’t fucking drive! Although if someone doesn’t give enough of a shit about themselves to do so, chances are they’re fuck-you’ing to everyone else too.

I am always happy to pull over for this reason.

mace1229 · February 2021

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

dankind said:

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

Tell that to my elderly mom 🙄

To be clear, if you’re not okay to drive due to weed, alcohol, meds, a friendly BJ by your passenger - whatever reason - don’t fucking drive! Although if someone doesn’t give enough of a shit about themselves to do so, chances are they’re fuck-you’ing to everyone else too.

I am always happy to pull over for this reason.

Want to carpool to the next show?

Gern Blansten · February 2021

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

An attorney told me once that if you ever get pulled over when you have been drinking to get out of the car (turn it off of course) and drink in front of the officer and refuse a breathalyzer. Then when they take your blood you can argue that the alcohol in your blood was there because of what you drank after you were pulled over.

He was referring to drinking whiskey since you probably wouldn't have time to pound 3-4 beers before the cop smashed you with his baton.

I've been told that this strategy doesn't work but I don't know for sure.

Same with marijuana? Get out and start toking it up before they test you.

I'm going off some guesses and assumptions here. But I'm guessing if a cop has enough reason to pull you over for suspicion of DUI, he probably has probable cause to prevent you from going into the trunk of your car and opening a bottle of whiskey and chug it. I don't really see a cop pulling someone over who is drunk, then just allowing them to walk to the trunk, open it, reach it without stopping them. Just like if you refuse the test, he can't just let you go, he detains you until theres a court order to draw blood or something.
If you have an opened bottle within reach and just go for that, its probably going to hurt your case more than help you.
And the fact that a lawyer will tell you to just start drinking also tells you the desperation involved. Reports vary a lot, but the average DUI costs the driver is something like $20,000 when you factor in insurance going way up, legal fees, court costs, installing a breathalyzer, etc.

Yes in this example you would likely need to have the bottle handy....like in your hand drinking it....when you get pulled over.

The idea being that the dash cam shows you chugging whiskey but there is no proof that the blood test isn't registering what you drank after you turned the car off vs before you turned it off.

But I think having an opened container on you is enough to get a DUI. If not, I would bet its enough to throw out the dumb defense of "I was only drunk after he pulled me over." I mean, if I'm a jury and his defense was he was just driving around with an opened contained, driving like he's drunk because the cop had PC to pull him over to begin with, had an opened drink ready at hand to chug. I think I'm going to vote guilty and not going to assume he was driving with an opened container but didnt drink until after he was stopped. In the end, you almost certainly made things worse for yourself. Any lawyer offering that advice to drunk drivers should be disbarred.

Disbarred? Or considered the greatest attorney ever?

Gern Blansten · February 2021

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

An attorney told me once that if you ever get pulled over when you have been drinking to get out of the car (turn it off of course) and drink in front of the officer and refuse a breathalyzer. Then when they take your blood you can argue that the alcohol in your blood was there because of what you drank after you were pulled over.

He was referring to drinking whiskey since you probably wouldn't have time to pound 3-4 beers before the cop smashed you with his baton.

I've been told that this strategy doesn't work but I don't know for sure.

Same with marijuana? Get out and start toking it up before they test you.

I'm going off some guesses and assumptions here. But I'm guessing if a cop has enough reason to pull you over for suspicion of DUI, he probably has probable cause to prevent you from going into the trunk of your car and opening a bottle of whiskey and chug it. I don't really see a cop pulling someone over who is drunk, then just allowing them to walk to the trunk, open it, reach it without stopping them. Just like if you refuse the test, he can't just let you go, he detains you until theres a court order to draw blood or something.
If you have an opened bottle within reach and just go for that, its probably going to hurt your case more than help you.
And the fact that a lawyer will tell you to just start drinking also tells you the desperation involved. Reports vary a lot, but the average DUI costs the driver is something like $20,000 when you factor in insurance going way up, legal fees, court costs, installing a breathalyzer, etc.

Yes in this example you would likely need to have the bottle handy....like in your hand drinking it....when you get pulled over.

The idea being that the dash cam shows you chugging whiskey but there is no proof that the blood test isn't registering what you drank after you turned the car off vs before you turned it off.

I would add that you would probably want to make it evident on camera that you broke the seal to that bottle outside of the car too, ha
But like others have said, better to just not drink and drive. If you have to prepare a bottle for in case you get pulled over drunk, then you should probably seek out an AA meeting anyways.

To be clear I do not do this....I'm just relaying a story that I was told

F Me In The Brain · February 2021

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

dankind said:

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

Tell that to my elderly mom 🙄

To be clear, if you’re not okay to drive due to weed, alcohol, meds, a friendly BJ by your passenger - whatever reason - don’t fucking drive! Although if someone doesn’t give enough of a shit about themselves to do so, chances are they’re fuck-you’ing to everyone else too.

I am always happy to pull over for this reason.

Want to carpool to the next show?

Doh!

Sorry, I like the ladies.

Or @Amongst the Ani

Or @Empty Glass

They might get a pass. :0

hedonist · February 2021

F Me In The Brain said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

dankind said:

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

Tell that to my elderly mom 🙄

To be clear, if you’re not okay to drive due to weed, alcohol, meds, a friendly BJ by your passenger - whatever reason - don’t fucking drive! Although if someone doesn’t give enough of a shit about themselves to do so, chances are they’re fuck-you’ing to everyone else too.

I am always happy to pull over for this reason.

Want to carpool to the next show?

Doh!
Sorry, I like the ladies.
Or @Amongst the Ani
Or @Empty Glass

They might get a pass. :0

dankind · February 2021

hedonist said:

F Me In The Brain said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

dankind said:

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

Tell that to my elderly mom 🙄

To be clear, if you’re not okay to drive due to weed, alcohol, meds, a friendly BJ by your passenger - whatever reason - don’t fucking drive! Although if someone doesn’t give enough of a shit about themselves to do so, chances are they’re fuck-you’ing to everyone else too.

I am always happy to pull over for this reason.

Want to carpool to the next show?

Doh!
Sorry, I like the ladies.
Or @Amongst the Ani
Or @Empty Glass

They might get a pass. :0

F Me In The Brain · February 2021

dankind said:

hedonist said:

F Me In The Brain said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

dankind said:

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

Tell that to my elderly mom 🙄

To be clear, if you’re not okay to drive due to weed, alcohol, meds, a friendly BJ by your passenger - whatever reason - don’t fucking drive! Although if someone doesn’t give enough of a shit about themselves to do so, chances are they’re fuck-you’ing to everyone else too.

I am always happy to pull over for this reason.

Want to carpool to the next show?

Doh!
Sorry, I like the ladies.
Or @Amongst the Ani
Or @Empty Glass

They might get a pass. :0

Hahaha. You can join this list if you like!
(Was trying to draw them into the convo)

Empty Glass · February 2021

F Me In The Brain said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

dankind said:

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

Tell that to my elderly mom 🙄

To be clear, if you’re not okay to drive due to weed, alcohol, meds, a friendly BJ by your passenger - whatever reason - don’t fucking drive! Although if someone doesn’t give enough of a shit about themselves to do so, chances are they’re fuck-you’ing to everyone else too.

I am always happy to pull over for this reason.

Want to carpool to the next show?

Doh!
Sorry, I like the ladies.
Or @Amongst the Ani
Or @Empty Glass

They might get a pass. :0

Puff puff pass

I’d smoke your pipe F’Me

Stoned on the love pipe - oh yea!

F Me In The Brain · February 2021

Empty Glass said:

F Me In The Brain said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

hedonist said:

dankind said:

Driving is a privilege; it's not a right.

Tell that to my elderly mom 🙄

To be clear, if you’re not okay to drive due to weed, alcohol, meds, a friendly BJ by your passenger - whatever reason - don’t fucking drive! Although if someone doesn’t give enough of a shit about themselves to do so, chances are they’re fuck-you’ing to everyone else too.

I am always happy to pull over for this reason.

Want to carpool to the next show?

Doh!
Sorry, I like the ladies.
Or @Amongst the Ani
Or @Empty Glass

They might get a pass. :0

Puff puff pass

I’d smoke your pipe F’Me

Stoned on the love pipe - oh yea!

Hahaha.
Worked!

Driving While Stoned

Comments

Categories