What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Not so dope: Police test first marijuana breathalyzer on Cali drivers

R

Robrites

Police in the US have gotten their hands on a marijuana breathalyzer and drivers in California were among the first to be tested –with nationwide distribution planned for next year.


As part of an initial field test, several erratic drivers were pulled over and asked to voluntarily blow into the breathalyzer. Two of the drivers who took part in the test admitted to smoking marijuana in the previous 30 minutes, and delivered a positive reading on the handheld device.
Other drivers who confessed to smoking pot within the previous two to three hours also tested positive – none of whom were arrested, although those who tested positive were not allowed to continue driving.


“Basically everyone agreed because they were curious,” said Mike Lynn, CEO of Hound Labs, the Oakland-based company who developed the device with some help from the University of California’s chemistry department.
Lynn, who also works as an emergency room doctor in Oakland, California, and a reserve officer with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, tagged along with officers to assist in the pullovers and testing.
“We were not trying to arrest people. ... Sure, we could arrest people and people are arrested every day for driving stoned, but the objective was not to put people in jail but to educate them and use the device if they volunteered so we could get the data," Lynn added.


One driver was arrested during the testing, however, but for being under the influence of alcohol.
The “groundbreaking” device can detect THC (the main ingredient in pot) on a person’s breath when they have eaten food like gummy bears or brownies, as well as alcohol.
Following some more tests to validate the technology’s results, Hound Labs hopes to widely distribute the device to law enforcement in the first half of next year.


Until now, police had to rely on an imperfect system of testing saliva, urine and blood samples to measure marijuana in the system, which can show the presence of the drug days after the user is actually under the influence.
Chief of Police in Lompoc, California, Patrick Walsh, has already thrown his support behind the innovative device which he plans on issuing to at least six of his departments over the next six months.
“We are looking for the least invasive way to obtain information that indicates impairment, which is why we are participating in roadside tests,” said Walsh in the company's press release.
“We don't want to arrest people who are not impaired, and yet we don't want marijuana users driving if they are high from recent use," he added.


https://www.rt.com/usa/359242-marijuana-breathalyzer-california-police/
 
armedoldhippy

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
"IF" it actually works, and "IF" they can figure out just how much THC in your breath truly indicates an unsafe level of impairment ( i figure that it is impossible to find a one-size fits all number) then i have no problem with it. if they are going to use a level that a first-time edibles stoner cannot tolerate & bust long-time smokers that can do 10 times that, then "Houston, we have a problem..." cops will tell you that physical impairment testing like for alcohol DOES NOT WORK for cannabis users. (close your eyes, lean back & touch your nose etc) the trick is to NOT drive erratically so as to give them a reason to stop you to begin with. we do not need folks so stoned that they cannot drive safely out there causing wrecks & giving prohibitionist types ammunition to use against us. common sense, folks...:)
 
G

geneva_sativa

Well-known member
After I first mentioned about the wonderfull grey area, (that engenders the easing of enforcement of laws) a few weeks ago in AUMA thread, many people came out trying to bash this observation.

Prior to rec being voted on, I heard a sheriff in WA state saying at a town hall meeting that he was not even concerned about cannabis, that it was a non-issue. In essence that, herb smokers are not trouble makers or much of a danger.

What I actually said in that thread, was this. . . No More Grey Area = Laws Will Have To Be Enforced.

Herb was such a pervasive part of life in that county that, even if a sheriff or deputy smelled herb on a driver, it wasn't a concern. Unless if obviously hammered and a danger.

Now, there are laws that need enforcing cause everything is LEGAL. Where before an officers better judgement had a role to play.
 
Last edited:
resin_lung

resin_lung

I cough up honey oil
Veteran
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=327113&highlight=Automobile

AAA seems to have come to a different conclusion.

Also what does the presence of THC prove? It's presence is detectable much longer than the "intoxication" last. What about second hand smoke? Couldn't I take a huge rip as the cop pulls me over, hold it in (like I would anyway lol) and blow a huge cloud in his/her face then gun it! Haha the presence of THC would make it illegal for them to give chase.lol
 
MJPassion

MJPassion

Observer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
geneva_sativa said:
After I first mentioned about the wonderfull grey area, (that engenders the easing of enforcement of laws) a few weeks ago in AUMA thread, many people came out trying to bash this observation.

Prior to rec being voted on, I heard a sheriff in WA state saying at a town hall meeting that he was not even concerned about cannabis, that it was a non-issue. In essence that, herb smokers are not trouble makers or much of a danger.

What I actually said in that thread, was this. . . No More Grey Area = Laws Will Have To Be Enforced.

Herb was such a pervasive part of life in that county that, even if a sheriff or deputy smelled herb on a driver, it wasn't a concern. Unless if obviously hammered and a danger.

Now, there are laws that need enforcing cause everything is LEGAL. Where before an officers better judgement had a role to play.
Click to expand...

^^THIS!^^
Perfectly illustrates why:
REGULATIONS = PROHIBITIONS
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
I recall how often I read the phrase " tax and regulate".

The world will be so much safer when there are only self driven cars. etc etc etc
 
Last edited:
armedoldhippy

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
geneva_sativa said:
After I first mentioned about the wonderfull grey area, (that engenders the easing of enforcement of laws) a few weeks ago in AUMA thread, many people came out trying to bash this observation.

Prior to rec being voted on, I heard a sheriff in WA state saying at a town hall meeting that he was not even concerned about cannabis, that it was a non-issue. In essence that, herb smokers are not trouble makers or much of a danger.

What I actually said in that thread, was this. . . No More Grey Area = Laws Will Have To Be Enforced.

Herb was such a pervasive part of life in that county that, even if a sheriff or deputy smelled herb on a driver, it wasn't a concern. Unless if obviously hammered and a danger.

Now, there are laws that need enforcing cause everything is LEGAL. Where before an officers better judgement had a role to play.
Click to expand...

police officers have always had wide latitude on which laws to enforce. i have watched them pour kids(and adults) beers/weed out & tell them to get their ass home. this is in the dirty south, where weed is much less tolerated than ...well, EVERYWHERE else. a cop that does not think weed is a problem (most of them) is probably not going to pop you unless you run your yap at him like a fool (or drive like one). life is FULL of grey areas, a new law cannot change that.
 
G

geneva_sativa

Well-known member
Greetings, ArmedOldHippy.

I also witnessed police that used to have a mind of their own. However, as time goes by, everything it now seems is done by the book.

With Sheriff depts. it has been somewhat better ( usually ) because these guys got voted in, but what I am seeing is more pressure on these depts. to do the state, town or city's bidding such as issuing citations and generating revenue, often under threat of not renewing Sheriff contract and establishing their own police departments.
 
Last edited:
armedoldhippy

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
geneva_sativa said:
Greetings, ArmedOldHippy.

I also witnessed police that used to have a mind of their own. However, as time goes by, everything it now seems is done by the book.

With Sheriff depts. it has been somewhat better ( usually ) because these guys got voted in, but what I am seeing is more pressure on these depts. to do the state, town or city's bidding such as issuing citations and generating revenue, often under threat of not renewing Sheriff contract and establishing their own police departments.
Click to expand...

it depends on the officer you get. (luck of the draw) in my experience, the older the officer, the better. they know weed aint a problem, really don't give a fuck, & just want to go home, hammer the old lady & go to sleep. i've had them tell me "why don't you keep this shit at home & quit trying to complicate my life?":biggrin: i told them "hell, i didn't call you, that SOB over there did!" when they smile at you, you are home free...:woohoo:
 
Tynehead Tom

Tynehead Tom

Well-known member
are they gonna come up with roadside test kits for ALL the pharmaceuticals they are feeding people? Seems only appropriate I would think. LOTS of high drivers out there and I think weed is one of the least influential on someones driving ability. 30 years smoking weed and driving in one of Canada's largest urban areas.... and the last bunch of years in the country dodging deer, moose, and drunk drivers..... in "real" winter conditions and not one single car accident in 30 years...... 2 speeding tickets and a seatbelt fine. My driving record is so clean it's not even funny. I average 20,000 kilometers a year bare minimum on city, highway and dirt/4x4 roads in my truck, car and motorcycle. They are just making another measure of control that is not needed in society.
 
bluntmassa

bluntmassa

Member
I'm sure it's coming with or without legalization if it actually works that OP said if it had been eaten I didn't see anything about smoking I can live with that as long as they can't find edibles the next day.
 
mittensmitten

mittensmitten

Member
Yeah, they got a hard on for it here too in the mitten state. But, that is no surprise. Any way to take the fun out of the movement will be mobilized.
 
L

Limeygreen

Well-known member
Veteran
I learned to drive in winter in back roads, curvy, not paved and loose in the mountains of BC. These roads were 'cleared' by farmers we had nothing but maybe sand on these roads. Driving these roads high as a fucking kite with no issues, everyone I past was high as a kite too, I knew them.
 
G

geneva_sativa

Well-known member
armedoldhippy said:
it depends on the officer you get. (luck of the draw) in my experience, the older the officer, the better. they know weed aint a problem, really don't give a fuck, & just want to go home, hammer the old lady & go to sleep. i've had them tell me "why don't you keep this shit at home & quit trying to complicate my life?":biggrin: i told them "hell, i didn't call you, that SOB over there did!" when they smile at you, you are home free...:woohoo:
Click to expand...

Glad you are so lucky with your local constabularies and on such friendly terms. Truly.

I don't think there are many here that enjoy such a charmed life as far as leniency from the law. Luck of the draw could easily mean prison or even getting blasted to hell courtesy of officer friendly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top