Should medical marijuana patients be disqualified for a CHP?

[jgreco15]

The problem is alcohol is black and white. Their are scientific limits to what you can drink, and cut and dry impairment tests. How do you know define when someone is too stoned? Regardless of why you use marijuana (recreationally or medically), the effects are the same. Just because someone has cancer or whatever doesn't mean weed won't get them high.

It's definitely a tricky situation. I could personally convince myself of going either way with my opinion. Same with prescription pain killers and other mood altering pharmaceuticals.

I would have to imagine that if the gov't is looking to leagalize and regulate marijuana (which I support), then jobs can be created. There will be a demand for scientist to do studies and determine a way to help LEO with impairment tests, etc. When the legislative branch of gov't decided to put a BAC level restriction on those who are driving, someone had to figure out a way to determine the BAC of said drivers. Why can't someone come up with a way to determine the level of "B'THC'C" with a simple device just like the officers' breathalizer tests for alcohol? Obviously, it would be a different system all together but the same principal would apply. You get pulled over and the officer suspects you have been ingesting THC, you get your finger pricked with the device and your level is displayed right then and there. Someone has to invent the hypothetical "finger prick tester", someone has to mass produce it, someone else has to come up with a better unit........

 

[TomTerrific]

The current CHP application asks if you take antidepressants.

If you do, list them and the physician that prescribed them.

 

[03protege]

The current CHP application asks if you take antidepressants.

If you do, list them and the physician that prescribed them.

Does it ask about anti depressants because it wants to know if your suicidal?

I think that would be the underlying issue there.

Pot has more uses than being antidepressant, or at least that's what they say.

 

[Emperor]

I would have to imagine that if the gov't is looking to leagalize and regulate marijuana (which I support), then jobs can be created. There will be a demand for scientist to do studies and determine a way to help LEO with impairment tests, etc. When the legislative branch of gov't decided to put a BAC level restriction on those who are driving, someone had to figure out a way to determine the BAC of said drivers. Why can't someone come up with a way to determine the level of "B'THC'C" with a simple device just like the officers' breathalizer tests for alcohol? Obviously, it would be a different system all together but the same principal would apply. You get pulled over and the officer suspects you have been ingesting THC, you get your finger pricked with the device and your level is displayed right then and there. Someone has to invent the hypothetical "finger prick tester", someone has to mass produce it, someone else has to come up with a better unit........

Going to be the same problem as alcohol BAL's. THC affects the brain differently on different people. If you had two test subjects and one smoked weed all his life everyday, and the other never smoked before, but you gave both subjects the exact same amount of THC via inhalation, and you believe that the lifelong stoner is going to be any where as high as the first timer, you are "dreaming" of the "pipe" variety.

This LE dilemma is not going to be solved with CCUI (Carrying Concealed Under the Influence), tests.

 

[Golden-Eagle]

This thought in no way is intended to take over this thread. My position on medical marijuana is cloudy. Are people with Diabetes denied a CHP due to the possibility of a need for insulin?

 

[general mills]

How about "make pot legal"?

now your talking! honestly, in relation to pot and firearms, I have a lot of trouble seeing stoned people becoming aggressive with a firearm or more likely to commit a crime with a firearm because they are stoned. I also have a hard time beliving that a stoned person is more likely to misjudge when their life is threatened and inappropriatly use that firearm. More AD's are possible, though.

 

[jgreco15]

Going to be the same problem as alcohol BAL's. THC affects the brain differently on different people. If you had two test subjects and one smoked weed all his life everyday, and the other never smoked before, but you gave both subjects the exact same amount of THC via inhalation, and you believe that the lifelong stoner is going to be any where as high as the first timer, you are "dreaming" of the "pipe" variety.

This LE dilemma is not going to be solved with CCUI (Carrying Concealed Under the Influence), tests.

I never said anything about 2 people having the same effect from the same amount of booze/pot. Not sure where that came from. It doesn't matter what physical state the subject is in. With alcohol, .08 is .08 weather or not you are stumbling out of the car or passing the field sobriety test and walking a perfect line. Why would THC be any different?

As for the carrying under the influence, there are laws for drinking and carrying which lower the acceptable BAC level. Why couldn't there be laws that lower the level of acceptance for the THC level in a subjects blood?

 

[bronzdragon]

Maybe I'm seeing it on too basic of terms, but like several others I view it as drinking. If it's legal in that state, allow them to have their permit ... just don't carry while high ... which is the same as not carrying while drinking to me. I don't think that someone should be denied their right to protect themselves just because they see the need to smoke weed for some medical reason.

~rc~

 

[parallel]

so you hurt your foot and the doctor prescribes painkillers

if someone breaks into your home, you should just let the intruder kill you and your family because you're on painkillers?

the same goes if you're at a convenience store and someone tries to rob it and puts your life in danger. you're on medication so your judgement might be impaired same as if you were on medical marijuana. do you still not get the right to defend yourself?

This is pretty much where I was going.

 

[Emperor]

I never said anything about 2 people having the same effect from the same amount of booze/pot. Not sure where that came from. It doesn't matter what physical state the subject is in. With alcohol, .08 is .08 weather or not you are stumbling out of the car or passing the field sobriety test and walking a perfect line. Why would THC be any different?

As for the carrying under the influence, there are laws for drinking and carrying which lower the acceptable BAC level. Why couldn't there be laws that lower the level of acceptance for the THC level in a subjects blood?

I know the law needs a line. My point was that line might be fine for court prosecutors, but it does not represent reality across the board. Let's say the THC blood level has to be no more than 10ppm (I don't know what that means but I need a referrence point), so one person is almost hallucinating and the other is thinking he has bunk weed. And though I couldn't care less what the standard would be if they had one, I just know it would be flawed.

Someone should take my permit when I take Nyquil. That stuff is brutal if you are not going right to bed.

 

[tim9lives]

As far as the driving under the influence goes,,,I would think that the LEO could easily test the driver,,,,just like they did years ago before the world had breathalysers. If someone is stoned, drunk, or impaired in any way,,,a video of the driver being tested should do just fine in the court room. You know the tests I am talking about,,,walking with hands out,,,bend backwards and touch you nose,,,abc's,,ect.
I am sure there is a way to test to see if someone is too impaired to drive a vehicle.

 

[LongGoneDays]

She's got 2 powerful groups against her. Anti gun and anti "drugs". I support her posistion and legalization of marijuana, but it's going to be awhile.

 

[Tim67]

How about this- you aren't denied your permit because you're >= 21, just because you now have the right to drink. In the same respect, should you be denied your permit just because with that card, you have the right to smoke weed?

I've never tried the stuff, but my understanding is that pot just makes you want to chill. I doubt someone who's high would even feel like using a weapon. But with impaired judgment/intoxication, no, they shouldn't be carrying. This is an interesting test case.

In Louisiana, just being issued the card wouldn't disqualify you from getting a CHP; however, actually being under the influence of any "controlled substance" while carrying is still illegal.

 

[Tim67]

As far as the driving under the influence goes,,,I would think that the LEO could easily test the driver,,,,just like they did years ago before the world had breathalysers. If someone is stoned, drunk, or impaired in any way,,,a video of the driver being tested should do just fine in the court room. You know the tests I am talking about,,,walking with hands out,,,bend backwards and touch you nose,,,abc's,,ect.
I am sure there is a way to test to see if someone is too impaired to drive a vehicle.

I know plenty of people who can fail those test while totally sober

 

[Tim67]

If the sheriffs are basing this on GCA's provision against drug addicts, I think they're going to lose. Marijuana smoking may be an addictive behavior, but the drug itself is widely considered to not be addictive. People prescribed with addictive, prescription painkillers are generally not considered addicts unless their behavior shows that they're abusing their meds.