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, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:22PM (22 children)
http://www.nbc29.com/story/23957865/passing-a-field-sobriety-test-difficult-drunk-or-sober [nbc29.com]
Field sobriety tests are bullshit. Why would anyone volunteer to help validate them?
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:24PM
The article doesn't say who bought the pot.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:06PM (6 children)
I wouldn't say they are total bullshit, they measure reaction and coordination times and if someone is sober yet can't pass then maybe their license should be revoked.
Why volunteer for this? Because people can be pro-choice with regards to drugs yet still not want people DUI.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:38PM (5 children)
Dangerous driving should be illegal. We shouldn't add on extra penalties just because someone is drunk and/or high. If, theoretically, someone can drive just fine while drunk or high, then they are not hurting anyone and they should not be punished if they are pulled over for an unrelated reason (like a license plate issue). We can still recommend against driving while drunk or high, but I see no reason to punish people if it doesn't cause them to drive dangerously, especially considering how ridiculously low most BAC limits are. Different people can handle drugs differently; it's not just or rational to have a one-size-fits-all standard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:15PM (2 children)
There are limits. Weed definitely has more wiggle room as it has different effects, but alcohol has a very real measurable effect on reaction times. Someone with .2 BAC is going to be slower and less attentive and a danger on the road. There is no simple way to have a more "just" system, so we get the current limits.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:42AM
alcohol has a very real measurable effect on reaction times
In the WKRP episode "A Fish Story", [youtube.com] DJs "Doctor" Johnny Fever and Venus Rising^W^W Venus Flytrap offer to get drunk on the air while a cop measures the effect it has on them.
Hilarity ensues. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Friday February 16 2018, @03:33AM
So why alcohol is olympics doping? Because it helps some https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Olympic_Games [wikipedia.org]
Should driving laws help some irresponsible drunks (by discouraging them) while hurting others? Perhaps. But they should not say that alcohol is bad for everybody because it is a lie and as such reduces the effects of laws.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 16 2018, @01:36AM (1 child)
To a large degree we already have that system, de-facto if not in law. Aside from DUI checkpoints at least. If you're driving well - firmly in control of the vehicle and obeying all traffic laws, then you're very unlikely to be pulled over in the first place.
Of course it would be nice if somebody was driving dangerously, maybe failed a field sobriety test despite being free of restricted drugs, they would still face the same penalties as the drunkard they resembled.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday February 16 2018, @03:38AM
That's until you are stopped for something else say burned out light bulb. Than all bets are off and one would get it all which is bad. Whatever folks think, it is way way worse nowadays.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(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?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:30PM (6 children)
I'm in an exercise 3 days a week, one thing we always do is what we call DUI 101. We do the heel-toe walk for a minute, and stand on each leg for 15 seconds each. Even stone cold sober, freshly rested, and 2 years of practice, I'd still fail at least half the tie. Add the stress of a cop telling me to do these and I'm sure it would shoot up to 100%
When I was younger I could do these with ease and didn't understand why they were so hard. I still wonder why they're so hard....
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:39PM (5 children)
... maybe you shouldn't be driving :)
(Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:48PM (3 children)
Why? because he's not nimble enough to toe walk or agile enough to stand on one leg? I agree on the principle that folks that have bad reaction and awareness shouldn't be driving whether DUI or not, but the tests they do doesn't necessarily prove that. They need better tests than those circus exercise.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:56PM (2 children)
Not being able to walk heel-to-toe would make me suspicious of a coordination problem; not definitely, but I did say "maybe". Driving tests should evaluate actual skill, vision, reaction times, awareness, and decision making. Some people are much better drivers quite drunk that others are sober.
Really, I think licence testing, and even roadside testing should be done with VR/simulators.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:45AM
I knew a dance instructor[1] who claimed that he was pulled over by a cop and told to walk the white line.
The story he told said that he danced the line.
The cop asked "What are you doing?"
"Texas Two-Step. It's the only way I can travel in a straight line."
(I'm inclined to believe the story was a fabrication.)
[1] Cheers, Tom Mattox.
You enjoyed your short life, indulging yourself at every opportunity.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 16 2018, @08:27AM
I have very good balance (I can run along railroad tracks) and while I can stand on one leg indefinitely... I note that the walk-heel-to-toe thing is actually designed to fail. Try it with arms outstretched vs arms at your sides, and you'll feel the difference. If you want people to reliably fail on the first attempt, make 'em do it with their arms down at their sides and at a normal walking pace.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @01:17AM
You kidding, right?
Without driving, how do you want me do get home after my sixth bottle of wine in the past 3 hours, when I'm no longer able to walk?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:25PM (4 children)
That would be a blast. I've actually volunteered a few times for the local police to help train officers in using breathalyzers. Drink as much as you feel like for an hour (it's tracked) and then go around to each station at least once and get tested. Pretty cool to see your BAC go up, then start coming back down. Pretty fun way to spend an afternoon, and you get to see what your tolerance really is. Doing it with Cannabis would be great as well. Perhaps a proposal locally ...
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:35PM (3 children)
What happens if there's an accident? Did you have to sign waivers?
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:01PM
I don't think so. They do make sure you're not driving, and ensure that you get into a vehicle as a passenger when you leave. They also even escort you to the washroom. They've covered their asses reasonable well (for Canada).
(Score: 5, Funny) by Bot on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:02PM (1 child)
no, you have to keep the baby.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:14PM
Gotta work on your heuristic algorithms.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:18PM (7 children)
How about whether we scientifically determine whether weed-impaired driving is more dangerous before we criminalize it?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:55PM (2 children)
No.
Authoritarians are not interested in science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:48AM (1 child)
determine whether weed-impaired driving is more dangerous
Authoritarians are not interested in science
...but it does seem likely that they would be interested in finding out any -negative- effects[1] long before they would be interested in any studies that prove weed has positive medicinal qualities.
[1] ...and would likely bury any results that supported the opposite finding.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 16 2018, @03:13PM
Why?
To an authoritarian, weed is bad because it's illegal - no other evidence needed. Any research results would be at best superfluous, and at worst undermine faith in the authoritarian regime.
(Score: 3, Informative) by vux984 on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:57PM
They've done quite a bit of the science bit.
https://www.livescience.com/51450-driving-on-marijuana-alcohol-dangerous.html [livescience.com]
Yes, I cherry picked a quote that highlights the dangerous part; and it directly answers the question you raised.
But do read the linked article. Its not pushing an agenda - it notes that at low levels of impairment marijuana users can compensate for the impairment, and it suggests current marijuana limits are too low. But there is pretty good science behind prohibiting it past a certain threshold.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:55PM (1 child)
It's the same problem with alcohol: it affects people differently. Two different people drinking three beers can exhibit completely opposite effects. One may be vomiting drunk while the other is stone cold sober asking for more. Many variables come into play such as hydration levels, stomach contents and hunger, as well as tolerance. I've drank near lethal amounts with a stomach full of Domino's pizza (oh to be 25 again) and walked out the bar like nothing happened. Then there was that time I had a stomach bug, had bad diarrhea and went out only to drink five drinks, vomited on myself and blacked out. Same with weed. A veteran smoker might burn through a joint and be a little tipsy while a n00b would pass out cold. And there are n00bs who have natural tolerances for marijuana as well. I once smoked wax with a friend who didn't smoke at all (wax is highly concentrated marijuana extract). I passed out while he was laughing his ass off. Different strokes for different folks. So the best answer to policing is take an average and say at this level, most people are impaired and that's that. Sucks but the law of averages applies. And I'm fine with that as there are too many people out there who can't make proper decisions.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Friday February 16 2018, @11:37PM
So maybe it's best to just forget about the substances, and just punish those who are not driving safely?
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:57PM
Legalization is only going to change prevalence a bit. People drive high right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @01:38AM (1 child)
In a state where people can get away with shitting in the street I seriously doubt the police give a shit.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @10:57AM
is this the Shitty Windows theory?