Arizona court upholds DUI blood draw for marijuana ingested weeks earlier

[rambone]

An Arizona Court of Appeals has taken the position that it is legal to give drivers a DUI if they ingested marijuana weeks earlier. Police can use blood tests to test for marijuana and 'its metabolite,' which can remain detectable in the body for around 4 weeks, and holds no bearing on intoxication.

Arizona court ruling upholds DUI blood test for marijuana and 'its metabolite' | OregonLive.com

 

[HenryWallace]

'Drug addiction is a consensual crime, it's a “crime against oneself.”' - Jesse Ventura. Can I commit a crime against myself?... I'd say that about half of the laws are pertaining to just that. Some one out here the other day asked 'When did the laws go from protecting us, to controlling us?' Rep inbound.

 

[HiRoller]

I had heard states that had legalized MJ were looking at booking toxicity levels to inforce DUI laws.

 

[netsecurity]

#### that.

 

[rgrimm01]

So then, they could demand a blood draw on any driver? If you are coming home from a double shift, a worst case scenario is LE saying you are stoned and demand a blood draw or lose your license for a year? This kind of reeks of "false positives" by chompy.

I tend to look at situations like this on how they could be abused. Seems like there is potential for abuse. As a none user myself, I would be furious if I was drug in for testing...

 

[Classic]

That ruling shows a great lack of knowledge on the subject. The judges need to go to school.

 

[rambone]

So then, they could demand a blood draw on any driver? If you are coming home from a double shift, a worst case scenario is LE saying you are stoned and demand a blood draw or lose your license for a year? This kind of reeks of "false positives" by chompy.

I tend to look at situations like this on how they could be abused. Seems like there is potential for abuse. As a none user myself, I would be furious if I was drug in for testing...

Blood-draw checkpoints are gaining popularity. They'll draw your blood on the spot if you don't submit to a search and a blow.

 

[hoosierdoc]

We have to get a warrant from a judge for a blood draw in Morgan County if people don't. Consent to BAC testing on the scene. They come to the ER and we get to do it. Really fun when the people really don't want it done.

How do they know it wasn't ingested while in Colorado???

 

[level.eleven]

Psssst. Drug testing should be renamed cannabis testing. There is too much at stake - jobs, salaries, funding, moral crusades - to allow this to happen. Police and municipalities make too much money to rule any other way. It should get tossed, based on the science alone. Good luck convincing a 60+ year old, born on third base, anything different. In their minds, they are wining the war if they get to dine on scallops and steak tonight. After the meal, time to pop some Ambien and go to bed.

 

[j706]

I don't have a problem with the ruling. I do question the four weeks in the blood thing. In all the training I have had on the subject if anything drug like is found in your blood than you are under the influence of it at the time. I know marijuana use is detectable for weeks by urine,hair and other methods but I am really questioning the blood part.

Also worth noting, in Indiana you won't be getting a blood draw unless you are showing signs of impairment or are involved in a serous or fatal crash. People don't just get pulled over and get taken in for a BD. And don't even tell me that most people are unable to pass SFST's when they are not impaired. Because that is BS.

 

[Degtyaryov]

This is an absurd and abhorrent infringement on civil liberties. The war on drugs has got to go.

 

[wally05]

I don't have a problem with the ruling. I do question the four weeks in the blood thing. In all the training I have had on the subject if anything drug like is found in your blood than you are under the influence of it at the time. I know marijuana use is detectable for weeks by urine,hair and other methods but I am really questioning the blood part.

Also worth noting, in Indiana you won't be getting a blood draw unless you are showing signs of impairment or are involved in a serous or fatal crash. People don't just get pulled over and get taken in for a BD. And don't even tell me that most people are unable to pass SFST's when they are not impaired. Because that is BS.

I would rep you if I could... dead on. Wait for the articles to come out stating that people on a fresh high can operate a motor vehicle just fine with no ill effects. A student told me this once and I laughed.

 

[j706]

I would rep you if I could... dead on. Wait for the articles to come out stating that people on a fresh high can operate a motor vehicle just fine with no ill effects. A student told me this once and I laughed.

I have been to more than a few serious injury and fatal crashes that made believers out of people that though that they could drive just fine when they were all hopped up on stuff. A few of them are going to have a whole lot of down time in idoc to consider the error of their ways.

 

[lucky4034]

So then, they could demand a blood draw on any driver? If you are coming home from a double shift, a worst case scenario is LE saying you are stoned and demand a blood draw or lose your license for a year?

We have Police Officer (Elkhart County) who would do just that... EVERY CHANCE HE COULD GET.

 

[Glockowner]

I don't have a problem with the ruling. I do question the four weeks in the blood thing. In all the training I have had on the subject if anything drug like is found in your blood than you are under the influence of it at the time. I know marijuana use is detectable for weeks by urine,hair and other methods but I am really questioning the blood part.

Also worth noting, in Indiana you won't be getting a blood draw unless you are showing signs of impairment or are involved in a serous or fatal crash. People don't just get pulled over and get taken in for a BD. And don't even tell me that most people are unable to pass SFST's when they are not impaired. Because that is BS.

Well said. 4 weeks in the blood is false. 4 weeks is actually a rare length of time for urine. A person would have to be obese, smoke high quantities daily and for an extended period of time and it is still unlikely to be in urine for more than a couple weeks. It does not stay in the blood that long...

Marijuana users get lots of misinformation.

 

[lowriderjim]

I will start by saying that i do not use drugs but I used to drink, sometimes to much.

As a retired manufacturing manager I have written and enforced drug and alcohol policies. The object of these policies is to eliminate personnel that are impaired and a danger to themselves and others.

I believe that if alcohol is in the bloodstream their is impairment. A body can oxidize 1 to 1 1/2 oz of alcohol per hour so if you drink a twelve pack the night before you could be impaired when you report to work the next morning.

On the the other hand, MJ is stored in your fat cells and can be detectable for two to four weeks. In my mind if these people have used it is detectable but they are not impaired.

For this reason drug testing should only take place if the employees use is causing impairment.

The policies that I developed used observable behavior. I use Attitude, Attendance and accidents. Two of these and the employee could be tested and terminated.

These policies worked foe me for over 30 years and seem to be reasonable
in that it weeds out impared employees not a person who smoked a joint at a
week end party. I do not believei that this person is impaired.

I

 

[j706]

I will start by saying that i do not use drugs but I used to drink, sometimes to much.

As a retired manufacturing manager I have written and enforced drug and alcohol policies. The object of these policies is to eliminate personnel that are impaired and a danger to themselves and others.

I believe that if alcohol is in the bloodstream their is impairment. A body can oxidize 1 to 1 1/2 oz of alcohol per hour so if you drink a twelve pack the night before you could be impaired when you report to work the next morning.

On the the other hand, MJ is stored in your fat cells and can be detectable for two to four weeks. In my mind if these people have used it is detectable but they are not impaired.

For this reason drug testing should only take place if the employees use is causing impairment.

The policies that I developed used observable behavior. I use Attitude, Attendance and accidents. Two of these and the employee could be tested and terminated.

These policies worked foe me for over 30 years and seem to be reasonable
in that it weeds out impared employees not a person who smoked a joint at a
week end party. I do not believei that this person is impaired.

I

In short just how the owi driving laws work. Probable cause to believe a driver is impaired followed up with verfication by datamaster, blood draw or both.

 

[gunsisgood]

The policies that I developed used observable behavior. I use Attitude, Attendance and accidents. Two of these and the employee could be tested and terminated.

These policies worked foe me for over 30 years and seem to be reasonable
in that it weeds out impared employees not a person who smoked a joint at a week end party. I do not believei that this person is impaired.

+1 This is wise.