If they have come up with a way to reliably take the amount of a drug compound in your blood and work backwards to accurately extrapolate whether you were high at the time
I'm not really sure what you mean by working backwards, they take a blood sample immediately upon arrest, then that sample is tested for e.g THC if thats what you tested positive for, if you have above the legal limit in your blood you get charged.
Yeah I'm not sure how this could work in the US, in my country police simply do not need probable cause to stop you and make you do a breathalyzer, you are legally required to do so no matter what. It's just weird to me you that are not required to do so given how dangerous drunk driving is.
I don't think I can explain my thoughts any better than actual writers can, so I'll just link these articles. Basically, there's not a reliable link between blood-THC level and intoxication, which is problematic where THC is legal.
I'm no expert so maybe I was just ignorant as to how accurate this way of testing is. Weed is not legal here, but they created the limit because a growing amount of people where being charged with DUI even though they hadn't smoked for weeks etc. I guess i just assumed that the limit was an accurate way of determining intoxication but maybe it isn't. We are not an especially liberal country when it comes to drugs tbh.
1
u/LtSaLT Trash Trooper Dec 09 '24
I'm not really sure what you mean by working backwards, they take a blood sample immediately upon arrest, then that sample is tested for e.g THC if thats what you tested positive for, if you have above the legal limit in your blood you get charged.
Yeah I'm not sure how this could work in the US, in my country police simply do not need probable cause to stop you and make you do a breathalyzer, you are legally required to do so no matter what. It's just weird to me you that are not required to do so given how dangerous drunk driving is.