cannabisnews.com: State Legislature Considers Testing Motorists State Legislature Considers Testing Motorists Posted by FoM on April 12, 2001 at 22:29:16 PT By Karin Miller, Associated Press Source: Knoxville News-Sentinel State lawmakers are considering a bill aimed at stopping people from drugging and driving. It would allow officers to perform a blood or urine test on a motorist who has passed a breathalyzer test because he wasn't drinking alcohol -- or at least not enough to be considered drunk. "So many times the police stop people who appear to be driving drunk because of their behavior, but they check out negative on their breath. The officers want the ability to test further for drugs," said Rep. Mae Beavers, R-Mount Juliet, who is sponsoring the bill. Nashville Police Officer Robert Conley told members of the House DUI subcommittee this week that many officers do not have the training to recognize drivers whose impairments are drug-related. He said passage of the bill would allow Tennessee to qualify for a federal training program for officers to become drug recognition experts. "With drug use becoming more and more prevalent, we are seeing a drastic increase in the number of drivers who are impaired by substances other than alcohol," Conley said. He said the type of drug used by motorists varies widely, but that marijuana is often the culprit -- particularly in combination with a small amount of alcohol. He said he caught a woman driving the wrong way on a one-way street Wednesday night who tested positive for marijuana, Ecstasy and alcohol. The techniques to recognize drug impairment and gather evidence for successful prosecutions were initially developed by officers in Los Angeles during the 1970s. Now, 34 states and the District of Columbia participate in the Drug Evaluation Classification Program operated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The measure is in committees in both Tennessee chambers. If Tennessee qualifies, instructors will be sent here to teach officers to do a 12-step process to identify the category of drugs used by the driver, and as a last step, to perform a blood or urine test. Conley cited a 1999 study by Vanderbilt University Medical Center that found 46 percent of drivers treated for crash injuries had drugs other than alcohol in their bodies. Studies for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have found that in 10 percent to 22 percent of fatal crashes, the drivers had drugs in their bloodstreams. The bill would amend the state's implied consent law to say that any motorist "is deemed to have given consent to a test or tests for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of that person's blood; provided, that such test or tests are administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonably to believe such person was driving under the influence of an intoxicant or drug." And it wouldn't necessarily have to be an illegal drug. Conley said he was in court Wednesday to prosecute a woman who had combined a small amount of alcohol with Benedryl, an over-the-counter antihistamine "The state does not differentiate among legal and illegal drugs. If you're impaired, it's DUI," Conley said. Complete Title: State Legislature Considers Testing Motorists for DrugsSource: Knoxville News-Sentinel (TN)Author: Karin Miller, Associated PressPublished: April 13, 2001Copyright: 2001 Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. Contact: letters knews.comWebsite: http://www.knoxnews.com/CannabisNews Drug Testing Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/drug_testing.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #9 posted by Charlie on April 13, 2001 at 19:30:13 PT Testing... This is ludicrious. We all know mj (if used on a frequent basis) remains in your blood for 20-30 days (or whatever) therefore whose to say when you smoked some last week, yesterday or right before a Sunday drive? [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by CUZN BUZZ on April 13, 2001 at 18:53:43 PT: A CORRECTION Men living in the state of Arkansas may beat their wives once a month, but must not use a stick thicker than the wifes wrist. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Tim Stone on April 13, 2001 at 17:44:44 PT A Problem With alcohol use by adults. the state draws a clear line that you may not cross. You may drink, but you may not drive drunk, beat your spouse, be a public nuisance, and so on. You may go this far and the state doesn't care. Only if you cross a clear and reasonable line does the state care. With cannabis however, the state allows no such slack. To use pot at all is to have already crossed the line of acceptable behavior. And if you've already crossed the line by just using, then there's no further line you need worry about. In for a penny, in for a pound. As an old, 70s-80s pot smoker, I think this is a real problem. Cannabis users need to learn how to use the substance responsibly, just like one learns to use alcohol responsibly, going only this far and no further. And the problem is that you _can't_ really learn how to use cannabis responsibly outside of a legal framework of regulation and control. I know that many illicit drug users do manage to learn by slipshod trial and error how to use in a manner least likely to draw the attention of any Authorities. And some even learn to use their drug of choice in what might well be called a responsible manner. But my point is that they do this in spite of the gov't policy, not, as with alcohol, because of the gov't policy. Please don't read any more into the above than what I actually said. :) [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by aocp on April 13, 2001 at 10:14:33 PT That's fine, but... Conley said he was in court Wednesday to prosecute a woman who had combined a small amount of alcohol with Benedryl, anover-the-counter antihistamine.Well, alcohol has a legal intoxication limit, as related to driving. I'm not aware of a current such limit wrt Benedryl, alone or in combo w/booze. Can anyone help?"The state does not differentiate among legal and illegal drugs. If you're impaired, it's DUI," Conley said.Ah, but what equals "impaired"? We have legal limits for booze, but i got a sneakin' suspicion that y'all ain't playin' by any other standard but yer own, when it comes to illicits. That is, any presence indicates "impairment". I think that's silly, but i also believe that is what is happening. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Cuzn Buzz on April 13, 2001 at 08:37:33 PT: REFUSAL Now then, repeat after me; "No officer, you do not have my permission to search my automobile, or my person. Since you have recieved radio confirmation that I am not wanted for any crime you have no legal right to further detain me".Upon the utterance of these words one is to get into their automobile and motor away.Marijuana is not like alcohol. No one becomes "disoriented" due to marijuana use. Why do the police seem to have such trouble understanding this?If the effects of a substance are so mild that it takes a blood or urine test to prove a person has taken it prosecution seems ludicrous.Of course the prohibitionists position always seems totaly stupid, or imoral to persons of normal reasoning ability.END THE WAR ON FREEDOM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by paul sedilko on April 13, 2001 at 08:35:14 PT: reply twice a month and have no problems with it,thanks [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by rbded on April 13, 2001 at 03:41:55 PT: DUI IN TENN. Just another way they want us to give up our privacy.If A crime has been committed then prosecute,but the idea of prosecuting for something in your body is stupid.This law should be fought with everything we have,but of course it won't. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by sm247 on April 13, 2001 at 01:05:37 PT One-way or the highway I agree Dan studies show people who use marijuana are less likely to be the cause of an accident. Indiana is considering a similar bill right now. Sooner or later someone is gonna go postal on one of those labs used for testing. I think Kentucky should test these suspected impaired drivers for incest maybe thats the cause of their woes "With drug use becoming more and more prevalent, we are seeing a drastic increase in the number of drivers who are impaired by substances other than alcohol," Conley said. He said the type of drug used by motorists varies widely, but that marijuana is often the culprit -- particularly in combination with a small amount of alcohol. He said he caught a woman driving the wrong way on a one-way street Wednesday night who tested positive for marijuana, Ecstasy and alcohol. Well no wonder she was mixing drugs together alcohol, marijuana, and ecstacy together in the same bloodstream. This is a mixture for disaster I have no problem with someone doing this an driving being punished.Besides a RESPONSIBLE marijuana user would never do such a thing. Also any idiot could end up going down the wrong way of a one-way street.I think we need to ban one-way streets they are a menace to society. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Dan B on April 12, 2001 at 23:39:23 PT: Attention Tennessee Drivers: If you drive in Tennessee and are asked by a cop to submit to a blood or urine test, go to trial and defend your Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. They cannot, with any degree of constitutional integrity, defend what basically amounts to "legalized" random drug testing. If you are tested and the test results come back negative, sue the shirts off their backs. You will win. The police are clearly overstepping their boundaries with this law.Driving down the wrong side of the street is already against the law. Driving in a manner that will put others in danger is already against the law. This drug testing is designed for one purpose: to catch people with marijuana in their systems. It is wrong, it is shameful, and it is unconstitutional.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: