[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-mariju...fornia-police/

[armedoldhippy]

"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...

[geneva_sativa]

Yep, this followed quick on the heels of the passing of "wreck-reational marijuwana " in WA state also.

[geneva_sativa]

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.

[resin_lung]

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread....ght=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]

Originally Posted by geneva_sativa

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.

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

[Gry]

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

[armedoldhippy]

Originally Posted by geneva_sativa

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.

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.

[geneva_sativa]

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.

[Betterhaff]

And MASD is formed (Mothers Against Stoned Drivers).