Volunteers get high to help California police spot pot users
Even though recreational marijuana is legal in California, most people probably wouldn't be comfortable smoking around police officers. But that's exactly what Edson Villegas volunteered to do, CBS Los Angeles reports.
Villegas took part in a "green lab" to help officers, prosecutors and toxicologists identify signs of impairment as drugged driving becomes a growing problem on roads.
"Approximately 75 percent of the DUI arrests that I make nowadays are drug impaired -- more specifically to cannabis than alcohol," said Glendale Police Officer Bryan Duncan.
The volunteer users took field sobriety tests at the beginning of the evening, then went into a tent and smoked marijuana. When they went back and took the same field sobriety tests, officers could see if there were any changes in their mental or physical abilities.
See also: Girl Scout sells more than 300 boxes of cookies at San Diego marijuana dispensary
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:12PM (6 children)
I'd like to see him prove that. There is no valid test for usage, let alone impairment.
The accident rate for cannabis-only users is actually way lower than even one drink with dinner drivers.
There's a check boxes on the accident investigation forms, and FHWA statistics submissions, for hot button items, such as cell phone present, alcohol use, pot use, and helmets worn by bicyclists. If a bicyclist is killed in a cross walk while walking a bike across the street, the one thing that will make news reports and the official forms is that the bicyclist was not wearing a helmet.
Its the same for cannabis these days. Cops check that box with the slightest suspicion.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:22PM (1 child)
He doesn't need to test to get DUI arrests. All he needs to do is get the driver to incriminate themselves. People talk way too much to the police, making their jobs extra easy. "I only had two beers", "I only had one joint", etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:59PM
You are correct, sir. And if there's anyone here who doesn't buy into that, they should check this stuff out:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvkgnp/law-professor-police-interrogation-law-constitution-survival [vice.com]
http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/advice-from-cops-dont-talk-to-cops/ [learnliberty.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE [youtube.com]
And this too:
https://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/why-you-should-never-talk-to-the-police-period [larryformanlaw.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:10PM (1 child)
He didn't say that those 75% of DUIs were all cannabis, just that cannabis was more than alcohol. It could be 50% of the drug impairment is something else entirely.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 16 2018, @01:46AM
He also didn't say ANY of the DUIs were due to impairment. He might just station himself by a dispensary and arrest any leaving customers he doesn't like the look of. Easy way to make quota, seeing how as marijuana metabolites dissipate slowly enough that a regular smoker is pretty much guaranteed to fail a blood test regardless of actual intoxication level.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday February 16 2018, @03:44AM
And once that box is checked the prospected employer HR will know - for ever ever till the end of the days.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:50AM
Where is your data?