Mary Jane may not be able to ride

[brewer]

Oral fluid testing for marijuana intoxication/DUI. 91% accuracy rate. 

I could be late to the show.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/...016-042264

[Foxaèr]

I don't smoke anyway.

[Jackalope]

Oral fluid testing for marijuana intoxication/DUI. 91% accuracy rate. 

I could be late to the show.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/...016-042264

91% accuracy is a lot of room for error, though it is substantially better than the completely unscientific blood tests used in WA state today.

[brewer]

Oral fluid testing for marijuana intoxication/DUI. 91% accuracy rate. 

I could be late to the show.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/...016-042264

91% accuracy is a lot of room for error, though it is substantially better than the completely unscientific blood tests used in WA state today.

Yeah, but 91% is enough to fuck up your day(s).

[vorlon13]

I believe the test George Carlin proposed is the gold standard.

The cop pulls you over, walks up to your vehicle, and pulls out a bag of Cheetos . .

[Alex K]

Does the test have 8% false positive? For a rare condition such a false positive rate makes a test entirely useless to show a person is positive. If say one out of 10 tested people is on average expected to be positive, a test with an 8% false positive rate means a positive result is as likely due to false alarm as it is a true positive result. So it really hinges on prior probability whether such a test is of any use to show a person is positive. Excluding the condition can still be more reliable which can have its uses, but the person using the test must be aware that this only goes one way...

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that police depts will use it for as long as people put up with it...but there really does need to be a better a field sobriety test for weed, to determine whether or not someone's currently incapacitated.  Otherwise, they're fishing for an extra charge, for example.  The test doesn't show that you are impaired, only that you're a toker. 

Ultimately, i'd say that they already provide enough accuracy to detain a person on suspicion (provided that they actually were driving suspisciously, lol..fucking cops).  I'd draw the line at field sobriety checkpoints that take blanket swabs and write down the license plate number- which is where it would go.  A revenue dragnet.

But.,,,,how do we implement the one without facilitating the other?

[Jackalope]

I think that police depts will use it for as long as people put up with it...but there really does need to be a better a field sobriety test for weed, to determine whether or not someone's currently incapacitated.  Otherwise, they're fishing for an extra charge, for example.  The test doesn't show that you are impaired, only that you're a toker. 

Currently, Washington state uses a blood test to measure blood levels of THC. Maybe you know this already. Problem with that is, there's actually no science to indicate what level is impairing, and perhaps even worse, regular users have a high tolerance and can have a positive result after not imbibing for weeks or longer. Obviously that would not be impairing in the least. I expect that if I were tested to that I'd test positive regardless of whether I'm impaired.

The state is no doubt aware of this but persists in the charade.

Personally, I think we need a workable standard to serve both the interests of justice and safety. The one we have isn't it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Me too, I'm token all day eryday.  As it stands, that puts a person between a rock and a hard place - where, if forced to defend themselves, a person would have to implicate themselves in some other crime.  

It's convenient for the state from any angle.