the impaired driving bill
Governor Charlie Baker filed a bill Wednesday to adopt a state panel’s recommendations to combat impaired driving, as Massachusetts’ recreational marijuana industry takes off.
Under the proposals, some of which were opposed by civil liberties advocates, suspected stoned drivers who refuse police demands for a biological test would lose their driver’s licenses for at least six months, the same penalty for alleged drunk drivers who refuse a breathalyzer. The bill also calls for increasing police training to recognize drug impairment and easing the process for state troopers to cite drivers for open containers of marijuana.
“Today’s proposal includes important changes that will make Massachusetts safer,” Baker said in a news release. He added the measures will “improve how police officers train for detecting the influence of intoxicating substances like marijuana, how they interact with motorists who show signs of impairment, and eventually how these cases are tried in a courtroom.”
posted by Jim Pillsbury @ 1:24 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
question jim. how do the currently test for opioids and what kind of training do they get on that
you never heard anything about impaired drivers during the entire opioid crisis. You never heard anything about impaired drivers when we passed decriminalization in 2010 and medical marijuana use in 2012. They've made anther mountain out of a mole hill. This is another prime example of misguided elected officials creating a solution to a problem that does not exist. Gov Baker and his anti pot zealots are creating an entire new class of law enforcement specialty, "drug recognition experts" who will spend months in training, demand higher wages and create anther system of OT scamming. There are no tests for opioids or any other pharmaceutical's cops have to determine impairment. It's all about what the officer observes, which makes sense to me.
This is just more reefer madness. But I am concerned about how they will determine if someone is actually impaired by pot. Is there any testing mechanism available to do that where you are not penalizing someone for smoking pot a week ago?
WERE IS THE ACLU ON THIS? I HOPE THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE A POSITION TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF DRIVERS HERE. THIS IS GETTING COMPLETELY OUT OF HAND
nothing scientifically approved yet.... but you can bet someone is working hard to be the first one out of the gate.
The level of impairment verses how much THC is in your system at the time of the traffic stop is the big question anyone has to answer with a potalizer type machine. So the person who dabbles over the weekend, come Monday morning, in a urine test, will still test positive, but the effects of THC are long gone in terms of observable impairment.
Look for countless legal challenges based on science and facts.
The ACLU was at the table and did NOT vote in favor of this bill. One reason was that this bill will target people of color. Another was forcing drivers to submit to a search, without a search warrant. And they objected to more...
Search without a warrant? How can we stand by an allow this to happen, whether we support the legalization of pot or not, this is an infringement on the rights of the driver and this slippery slope is going to lead to more and more issues with our rights when it comes to police searches. We need to be vocal about this. It is a much bigger deal than most people realize. Don't tie this just to pot heads. This could lead to all of us having less rights.
WHAT ARE NEXT STEPS WE CAN TAKE TO MAKE SURE THIS DOES NOT PASS? GIVE US A HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT JIM
Is this a done deal Jim?
Not to much we can do at this point I'm afraid. The administration will stop at nothing to placate the cops and use fear and propaganda to get the votes. This proposed legislation will have to work it's way through the House and Senate. If I had to guess... the language will be changed to better protect us from unreasonable searches.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home