Court Rules Arizona Can Prosecute Sober People for Driving Under the Influence

[Triphammer]

My daughter, as a pre schooler, taught herself the alphabet - backwards. Lo & behold, 25 years later she's pulled over (guity of no more than "driving while cute) & is asked to recite the alphabet backswards. To the officer's surprise, he hears the ZYW's for the first time in his life.

[kgbsquirrel]

My daughter, as a pre schooler, taught herself the alphabet - backwards. Lo & behold, 25 years later she's pulled over (guity of no more than "driving while cute) & is asked to recite the alphabet backswards. To the officer's surprise, he hears the ZYW's for the first time in his life.

Again, obviously impaired posted. ZYX's. 

[erictank]

If you're ever pulled over and a cop starts with the SFSTs, never respond with this statement.  In the report, the cop will say something like: "Mr. Erictank admitted to me that he was intoxicated and that he couldn't perform the Standardized Field Sobriety tests."  They interpret such a statement as "I could not do that test if I were sober, which I am not now."

I'm not saying it to a cop while pulled over on the side of the road, am I? In such a case, I'd probably say something like, "I still sing the song in my head to determine letter placement - what makes you think I could do so backwards? If you have another field sobriety test you can administer, I'd be perfectly willing to try that. For that matter, why not use your breathalyzer, that ought to clear this right up in a few seconds." If I have to, I'll accompany him to the station for a test there, but I'd really prefer not to if there's any other reasonable choice, and he's giving me a ride back to my car afterward (because if he thinks I'm safe to drive my own car there, he must not actually believe I'm drunk).

That's what i would have thought, but they still seem like really random choices. If i did it, all of them would be at least 2 syllables, for one.

Only ones that aren't are Golf and Mike, both of which are pretty unequivocal. It's solely about whether you can determine what letter is being said without fear of mistake (as opposed to phonetic pronunciation of the letters, ay, bee, cee, dee, eee - so many very-similar sounds, easily mistaken). The military-"phonetic" alphabet, as I learned it in boot in 91, prevents any confusion.

[dogmush]

Conn, RADAR- Romeo three five, Range 6 5  hundred yards bearing 3 1 7, constant bearing decreasing range.

  That's not good.

Although, my LCU's are slow enough that there's usually another line on there: "Time to CPA 6 0 minutes" 

[Boomhauer]

That's what i would have thought, but they still seem like really random choices. If i did it, all of them would be at least 2 syllables, for one.

It was also chosen so non native english speakers would be more understandable on the radio with the distinct words.

Trust me when you get it down pat and actually use it a lot it works well. Hey you could always have to use the pre 1960s phonetic alphabet...

[birdman]

It might not cause reckless behavior, but a person is certainly impaired while high.  Smoke enough and you cannot drive safely. 

Chris

The point of the thread is the test is for metabolic by products, not the actual cannabinoids, and the byproducts exist for a long time after the individual is no longer "under the influence"...in other words, its NOT a time sensitive test like a breathalyzer or alcohol blood test, and you would pop DUI for potentially days to weeks after using.  And that is BAD.

[mtnbkr]

The point of the thread is the test is for metabolic by products, not the actual cannabinoids, and the byproducts exist for a long time after the individual is no longer "under the influence"...in other words, its NOT a time sensitive test like a breathalyzer or alcohol blood test, and you would pop DUI for potentially days to weeks after using.  And that is BAD.

I was responding to Zahc's assertion that "Unlike alcohol, MJ is not known for creating reckless behavior the way alcohol does.", not the validity of the test in the OP.

Chris

[MechAg94]

I was responding to Zahc's assertion that "Unlike alcohol, MJ is not known for creating reckless behavior the way alcohol does.", not the validity of the test in the OP.

Chris

Yeah, you generally don't hear about high speed car chases with the driver high on MJ.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

just a few moron afraid to get caught with stash running from cops. go to some drug rehabs etc  you might hear stories you won't like about driving stoned.

i've tested positive over 45 days after last toke

[gunsmith]

A few yrs ago, a motorcycle cop pulled out of driveway into heavy traffic, instantly getting run over.
Initially the woman who hit him wasn't charged, and she passed all field sobriety test.
She tested dirty for weed ( blood test)  but claimed she hadn't smoked any for a week.
She went to prison.
As a former heavy weed smoker I know I could pass any field sobriety test and be wasted I also know I've zoned out and went right thru red lights.
A heavy addicted weed smoker can pass your typical roadside sobriety test, really easily if cops do not make them nervous.
I would practice field sobriety test for fun while stoned...


Thank God I do not have to worry about that stuff anymore.

[Ron]

A few yrs ago, a motorcycle cop pulled out of driveway into heavy traffic, instantly getting run over.
Initially the woman who hit him wasn't charged, and she passed all field sobriety test.
She tested dirty for weed ( blood test)  but claimed she hadn't smoked any for a week.
She went to prison.
As a former heavy weed smoker I know I could pass any field sobriety test and be wasted I also know I've zoned out and went right thru red lights.
A heavy addicted weed smoker can pass your typical roadside sobriety test, really easily if cops do not make them nervous.
I would practice field sobriety test for fun while stoned...


Thank God I do not have to worry about that stuff anymore.

When I was in my 30's I smoked pot pretty much daily. I had a little "Dugout" hitter box. A couple of one hits after work just to take the edge off, not unlike having a couple beers. A field sobriety test would have been easy to pass.

Now if you are sitting around smoking bongs of the good stuff and immediately hop in the car I would say you are impaired. Not in the same way as alcohol though. The distraction and zoning out lost in thought doesn't lend itself to safely piloting a vehicle. It is more of a reaction time issue rather than motor skills like with alcohol. Usually I waited an hour two after doing bong hits before driving.

While I did buy a house and laid the financial foundation for my future; in many ways I wasted nearly whole decade of my life by being stoned half the time.

Like gunsmith, Thank God I'm done with that!

[zxcvbob]

What a bunch of hippies! 

[Northwoods]

In WA the blood test standard for MJ imparment is something like 5ug/ml of whatever the psycoactive component (or metabolic byproduct thereof) was.  That quantity's units may be off.  But the reason behind that standard was that someone who toked several hours ago probably would be under that threshold.

Regardlrss, I don't much care.  Never having even tried MJ it's just not an issue that especially bothers me.

[Ron]

Smoking dope then having a couple drinks can be very bad combo for driving. Under the legal alcohol limit but potentially pretty intoxicated.

Seen more than a few who can handle their weed then they drink a couple beers and they're wrecked.

[slingshot]

Personally, I think impaired is impaired while driving whether it be alcohol or drug related.  The problem now is trying to establish a "level" for pot use.  I suspect this will require a lot of judgement by law enforcement and that can be a problem. 

My wife got pulled over for "impaired driving" once and I had to drive about an hour to get her out of jail.  As far as I know, she was not under the influence of any drug or alcohol.  They were nice about it, but told me she was driving very erratically.  We got something to eat at a local 24 hr restaurant and I essentially proceeded to make my own evaluatin before she got back in her car.

[Balog]

I don't understand why statutory limits are even in place. If a person is not capable of safely piloting a vehicle (because they're tired or drunk or stoned or etc) then that's an issue. If someone is capable of meeting the standards we place for driving ability while being over some arbitrary limit then it's not.

[kgbsquirrel]

I don't understand why statutory limits are even in place. If a person is not capable of safely piloting a vehicle (because they're tired or drunk or stoned or etc) then that's an issue. If someone is capable of meeting the standards we place for driving ability while being over some arbitrary limit then it's not.

I suspect it came about due to the arbitrary and capricious nature of vaguely defined field "impairment" examinations. You can't quantify a decrease in reflex speed and accuracy in the same way you can a chemical compound's concentration in the blood. The idiocy in question here is that the particular chemical compounds they are testing for are metabolites of the impairing chemicals, not the impairing chemicals themselves. They are good for telling you "person A consumed chemical X sometime up to Z time ago" but they do not tell you if said person A is presently impaired now due to consuming chemical X.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how about a test for things like lsd

[MicroBalrog]

I don't understand why statutory limits are even in place. If a person is not capable of safely piloting a vehicle (because they're tired or drunk or stoned or etc) then that's an issue. If someone is capable of meeting the standards we place for driving ability while being over some arbitrary limit then it's not.

1. Because the standards were invented before we had traffic cameras. At this time any discussion of the ticket in court would rest on the officer's analysis of the suspect's driving. "I saw him swerving! I did!"

2. Because the eventual goal of these measures is to discourage drinking qua drinking and drug use qua drug use. If you lower the treshold enough that even someone who only had one or two drinks cannot drive (already law in some Western countries), then naturally - this is the thought process - less people will drink.

Think of that as the drinking equivalent of bans on guns in certain workplaces and schools, or mass transit. If I cannot carry a gun at work, nor have it stored somewhere while at work, then I cannot be armed on my way home from work or to work either. If I cannot carry a gun on mass transit, then anyone who uses mass transit is effectively disarmed throghout the day.

[Tallpine]

1. Because the standards were invented before we had traffic cameras. At this time any discussion of the ticket in court would rest on the officer's analysis of the suspect's driving. "I saw him swerving! I did!"

2. Because the eventual goal of these measures is to discourage drinking qua drinking and drug use qua drug use. If you lower the treshold enough that even someone who only had one or two drinks cannot drive (already law in some Western countries), then naturally - this is the thought process - less people will drink.

Think of that as the drinking equivalent of bans on guns in certain workplaces and schools, or mass transit. If I cannot carry a gun at work, nor have it stored somewhere while at work, then I cannot be armed on my way home from work or to work either. If I cannot carry a gun on mass transit, then anyone who uses mass transit is effectively disarmed throghout the day.

Not only that, but the way some jurisdictions apply the law, it is a crime to drink and own a car