- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,063
- 32,209
- 2,300
Then its up to government and industry to figure out a test for THC in the bloodstream, and set an intoxication point, similar to BAC.
I've been saying that since the first time I had to pee in a jar more than 20 years ago. Nothing yet
Until now there hasn't been a need to. it was illegal, and all the evidence you needed was trace amounts in your system. With legality comes the need to show someone is impaired at the time of any incident, not that "they got it in their system".
"They got it in their system" is all they have until a real test is developed. I don't want that to change until they do.
The big issue I see is that THC concentrations are probably way lower than alcohol concentrations in the blood, thus requiring a more accurate test. Also, I am not sure you can get the same correlation between blood alcohol (the actual legal measure) and a breathalyzer (a stand in field measurement with no legal backing) for THC. What that does is makes it longer for cops to prove a person may be impaired enough to ship them to the closest place for a blood test, and during that time the THC concentration decreases.
THC is stored in the fat and lasts for weeks. It won't go away after a couple of hours or days. They can check your hair follicles to see if you have smoked for the last month or more.
All well and good for seeing if someone did pot in the last month, but it does nothing for determining if someone is impaired. That requires motor-skill testing of people at various THC blood concentrations (if that can even be measured) and all that data being complied into a set that is reviewed by lawyers for various prosecuting organizations. At that point a cut off is listed, and DW-stoned is established.