jpd80 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) Well I'll be damned, there it is. Impressive too, how he missed all the flashing lights and stop signs. The point he was making was forensic evidence for the court, the chemical test only verifies TCH in the body but not whether the person is actually impaired, but the real gotcha for this fool is that no level of TCH is acceptable when driving. the sheer presence of it in his system after a crash is enough to get him in deep doo doo. Edited March 20, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) Well I'll be damned, there it is. Impressive too, how he missed all the flashing lights and stop signs. And here's the problem with legalized pot: - if you have a BAC of .08% you are legally incapable of driving. It's a statute. Possibly you can drive acceptably at such a level, but the law criminalizes the BAC, not your reduced abilities. - if you have been consuming marijuana, up to this point in time, that alone was sufficient to establish a DUI, as the substance was illegal. It was a matter of statute that driving after having ingested an illegal drug was, on its face, DUI. Now that marijuana is legal in Mass., they need a statutory standard for DUI and a statutory means of testing for it. That's a problem. Edited March 21, 2017 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 How is it different than driving under the influence of prescription narcotics or over the counter sleeping pills? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.