It’s still a DUI if you drive on it. The week after it was legalized in my state, a person managed to put their car through the second story of a home. The toxicology report showed the only thing in their system was cannabis.
I’m not saying this to say no accidents has been caused by cannibis, but that there’s currently no way to tell current level of cannabis intoxication. Authorities will use the lack of nuance in their favor.
Perhaps a car embedded in the second floor of a house?
> Cannibis can be in your system for weeks or months
and the levels of active compounds[1] in somebody recently using, vs someone months away from use look very different, and their nature will generally work to the benefit of the defendant when reviewed by a competent forensic toxicologist.
[1] - not a yes/no from shitty screening methods; that kind of information comes off of quarter-million dollar mass spectrometers. they should be able to separate all of the inactive and active compounds from each other, enumerate them and list their exact concentrations in the blood.
No.
You are confusing the tests for cannabis metabolites (that can tell if you smoked weeks ago) to tests for THC, the substance that gets you stoned and leaves the bloodstream as you sober up.
A driving impairment test will test for THC, not metabolites. Nobody cares if you smoked last week, only if you are under the influence when driving.
In the UK, having 2ug / litre of THC in the blood is a drug-driving offence. At a minimum you will loose your licence for 1 year.
So I can have up to 8ug of THC in my blood? If I took 0.1mg (100ug) of THC (and would be very NOT high in this case, as it is 1/100th of a "normal" dose) I would probably be over the limit in that case, so sure they may be able to test for THC in the blood, but the limit is so laughably low as to effectively ban cannabis users from driving.
This smells like teetotaling more than evidence-based discourse.
Somewhat related, but I'm still curious how they test marijuana intoxication level in drivers. Is there an equivalent BAC-type test, especially considering how long weed stays in the system?
No, "equivalent" here is general-purpose intoxication, not something calibrated to driving. Since the effects are so different, we should expect significantly different levels of driving impairment to be likely.
For where I say we're looking at general purpose vs. driving-specific, that just seems to me like the most reasonable statement they would have been making.