victorix58 OP t1_je78nug wrote

A blood test will show significantly higher levels if you just smoked a month ago vs. just smoked an hour ago. Like 50nanograms per ml vs. 5ng/ml.

Blood tests are absolutely standard in DUI investigations. They just don't care the level of the results in marijuana right now. They should, if we are seeking to punish actual impairment.


victorix58 OP t1_je316ug wrote

Alcohol effects people differently too though. If you're taking that tack, you would be suggesting get rid of the blood alcohol content laws as well. They are also generalizations based upon non-specific data.

I mean, we could do that, but it doesn't have as great of a logic or fairness justification. And I personally do not know that I would want to.


victorix58 OP t1_je2yiaw wrote

> Does this require a blood test?

Yes. It is pretty standard to do blood tests in both alcohol and drug DUIs.

Alcohol also has the option, which isn't available for drug, to do a more reliable breath test on a machine that can be maintained at the police station. The breathalyzers or "preliminary breath tests" that they have on the side of the road are not admissible at trial and do not detect drugs, so they are just used as a guidepost on whether there is enough reason to send it for a more reliable test.


victorix58 OP t1_je2urne wrote

Edit: Please do not downvote u/SeptasLate for this legitimate concern.

Nothing suggests that there wouldn't be deterrents in place for impaired driving. I'm a criminal defense lawyer; allow me to explain for those who might not know.

Two types of DUI laws exist in PA, each with two sub-varieties. Those are alcohol-based DUI laws and drug based DUI laws.

Alcohol is subdivided into alcohol impairment DUIs and having a certain level of alcohol in your blood. You can be prosecuted in either circumstance.

Drug is differently subdivided into drug impairment and having ANY level of an illegal, non-prescription drug in your blood. Medical marijuana is not by prescription, only legally authorized, and so can still be prosecuted for any level.

All we have to do to make it fair, is to change marijuana from the ANY level DUI into a certain high level of THC which has been shown by study to cause impairment (like alcohol does). Right now, it's unfair because we KNOW it doesn't impair you at certain levels and yet it is still against the law and you WILL be prosecuted regardless of your lack of impairment.


victorix58 t1_jbe89rn wrote

The science of capitalism. How wonderful that we are perfecting our knowledge of how best to lie to "consumers" with advertising. What a wonderful world. A little bit closer to true satire every day. Like living in the movie Idiocracy.


victorix58 t1_j2u8las wrote

Nice in theory.

Would require constant court proceedings to enforce. Will the victims' family want to be reminded of it so often? Will they enjoy being reminded by having money from their parents' killer or the killer's name coming up for contempt via nonpayment?

Better to do a lump sum as part of restitution in sentencing. Leave it to the criminal court, you don't need a civil court handling child support involved.