Put the bong down dude and look around. There are valid and viable tests. They are in use. People get arrested using them and they hold up in court. There is no dilemma except in your mind.
Bong? Really??
Is that all the argument you have, that and a website that leans toward 'social justice'?
Remember, a DUI stop is for IMPAIRED DRIVING meaning that the police have witnessed driving that is reckless. They are not just stopping everyone.
Wrong. Wrong, and Wrong. Ever heard of a "DUI checkpoint"? or "Safety Checks" (same thing, practiced by police nationwide, especially on holidays), where vehicles are stopped at random? For that matter, a light bulb out, too much mud on the plate, failure to use a turn signal, driving while black, (in some 'hoods', driving while white) can all get you pulled over. That is the first step in 'probable cause'. The "odor" of anything on today's list of things you aren't supposed to be using while you are on the road, can be cause for a search. In some jurisdictions, having a (tobacco) cigarette while junior is napping in the opposite corner of the car in his seat is a violation. You don't have to be driving badly at all to be pulled over.
At that point the machine goes into gear. Run the license and plates for wants or warrants, stolen vehicle, and when the screen goes up, past history will be on it, too.
If something is smelled--be it alcohol or pot, that's probable cause. Now, you get to show your prowess at standing on one foot and counting to ten, walking heel to toe, reciting the alphabet, etc. In ND, that's usually on an uneven shoulder, in winds ranging from 5 to 35 MPH, often gusting. Good luck. Nystagmus gaze test (again subjective), and a screening test for alcohol. Perform any of this with less than perfect grace, and have alcohol present, and you're on your way to a test which can quantify the amount of alcohol in your blood, and DUI or no.
Now, the killer: With alcohol, there is a screening test, an evidentiary blood/breath test to determine whether you are in violation of the law.
You say there is a standard in PA of one nanogram per milliliter, but no evidence is required aside from the subjective assessment of the officer. Smell pot, dude seems stoned. and he flunks, by the standard given in the circumstances above.
It is all up to the officer.
I don't smoke pot, but there should be a standard that is not just subjective to determine whether someone is DUI. If I was a pot smoker I would want one, and with the spread of 'medical Marijuana" there will likely have to be one. At present, the number is zero to be definitely sober. Otherwise, any distraction while driving can lead to a DUI, or even the checkpoint stop. If there is a threshold below which pot smokers can operate a vehicle 'safely', then it needs to be established, as it has for alcohol. Less than that leaves every medical user open to being busted.
Also the NHTSA found that stoned drivers are far less likely to crash than drunk ones mainly for the reason that alcohol works by shutting off your brain.
http://www.attn.com/stories/891/effects-of-marijuana-on-driving
In the cited study, the following statement is made:
Marijuana is the most frequently detected drug (other than alcohol) in crash-involved drivers as well as the general driving population (Terhune, 1982; Terhune et al., 1992; Lacey et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2005). There is evidence that marijuana use impairs psychomotor skills, divided attention, lane tracking, and cognitive functions (Robbe et al., 1993; Moskowitz, 1995; Hartman and Huestis, 2013). However, its role in contributing to the occurrence of crashes remains less clear.
Now, I left the last statement about the role of the second most frequently detected drug in crash-involved drivers being unclear for a reason.
Considering impairment of psychomotor skills, divided attention, lane tracking and cognitive functions, I'd say there just might be a connection between those and the wreck. If you knew you were going to be sharing the highway with a new crop of people who exhibit those traits, would that make you happy? Do you want your loved ones commuting in that herd? Not that there aren't people already out there who are--otherwise, pot would not have come in number two behind alcohol, but considering that pot is still illegal in a lot of places, that is pretty significant. Dump the legality barrier without the guidelines alcohol has, (for instance three beers in an hour will put most people over the limit), and risk an entire group of nOOb stoners at the wheel, emboldened by the drug now being 'legal', and without any means except their own impaired judgement to decide whether their performance as a driver will be safe, and none for LEOs but to wait for an obvious incident to be able to charge them for DUI. If someone is already driving erratically, they are literally an accident looking for a place to happen.
With alcohol, there is the means for a driver to ascertain whether they will be beyond an accepted standard of intoxication and deemed unsafe to drive, with all the criminal penalties which can apply if they are caught.
That standard will not exist, nor will the means of avoiding those levels of intoxication for pot smokers, short of recognizing they are stoned.
That article makes the statement:
Going against conventional logic, though, marijuana (as well as other drugs like antidepressants, painkillers, and stimulants), was found to cause no statistical change in the risk of a crash for a driver who had used the given substance prior to driving.
From the study, (
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alcohol_Crash_Risk.pdf )
Caution should be exercised in assuming that drug presence
implies driver impairment. Drug tests do not necessarily
indicate current impairment. Also, in some cases, drug presence can be detected for a period of days or weeks after ingestion.
and
Table 3 shows the unadjusted odds ratios for crash involvement
for selected drug classes (THC, antidepressants, narcotic
analgesics, sedatives and stimulants). It also shows the odds ratios for crash involvement for the two types of drugs: illegal drugs and legal (medicinal) drugs. From this table, it appears that THC is associated with a significantly
elevated risk of crashing (by about 1.25 times or 25%). Similarly, the use of any illegal drugs is associated with a significant increase in the risk of crashing (by 1.21 times or 21%).
This tends to not agree with the precept of the article. Current research is divided on whether Marijuana use constitutes a significant threat of dangerous operation on the highways, and to some extent, I expect the issue to be clouded by the biases of researchers, in at least some instances.
What is still missing, however, is a way to quantifiably assess the level of intoxication of a marijuana user, and a way for that user to avoid crossing the threshold from 'okay' to 'too high to drive'.
I would think everyone involved would welcome such a standard and a viable method of predicting when enough is enough, to eliminate prosecutorial gray areas, to establish technical innocence, and to increase the potential for safer driving out there.
Or is this the real reason behind the push for self-driving cars?