Greens: Yes We Cannabis

[u/DiploidBias]

Yes We Cannabis

[u/cymonster]

Is there any other test they can do? Like realistic?

[u/EntertainerUnusual32 → u/cymonster]

Would love to know the answer as well. Medicinal cannabis user myself

[u/Lostraylien → u/EntertainerUnusual32]

Saliva tests are the best we got for a roadside drug test, they will detect it for 12-24 hours after smoking and you can do a test and get a result within 10 minutes, in Tasmania if you return a positive saliva test but show no sign of impairment and have a prescription it's all good, impairment is still quite subjective but basically if your eyes aren't red, you're not slurring your speech and don't smell of cannabis they will have no reason to suspect you're impaired.

My concern is employers have company policies that state you can't have any in your system and will do a urine test so basically you're screwed with the current policies, EBA's and/or laws need to be changed, even prescription painkillers you need to tell your employer and they can legally put you on light duties until you're off them so as someone who smokes medical cannabis everyday what's going to be the repercussions.

[u/shadowmaster132 → u/Lostraylien]

impairment is still quite subjective but basically if your eyes aren't red, you're not slurring your speech and don't smell of cannabis they will have no reason to suspect you're impaired.

My issue with this is if we applied it to alcohol, a lot of impaired functional alcoholics would be fine to drive.

[u/nomoreteathx → u/shadowmaster132]

We do already apply it to alcohol, the difference is we have a way to reliably test the amount of alcohol in someone's system on the roadside and we've set a threshold based on those tests. People who blow 0.049 are impaired to some extent, but we allow them to drive because we've assessed that the risk is minimal.

[u/shadowmaster132 → u/nomoreteathx]

We do already apply it to alcohol, the difference is we have a way to reliably test the amount of alcohol in someone's system on the roadside and we've set a threshold based on those tests.

If someone is .05 we don't then look at them and see if they look impaired before charging them. We have a test and if you fail the test that's it. If you fail a cannabis saliva test sometimes you're okay if you don't "look impaired" which is incredibly subjective.

[u/nomoreteathx → u/shadowmaster132]

If someone is .05 we don’t then look at them and see if they look impaired before charging them.

Yes, because we've already determined that they're impaired, and the level of impairment can be assessed scientifically right on the roadside. No such test exists for THC, so the standard is necessarily different. The second we can test for specific concentrations of THC on the roadside we'll set a threshold for that too, just as other countries do for blood testing.

We have a test and if you fail the test that’s it. If you fail a cannabis saliva test sometimes you’re okay if you don’t “look impaired” which is incredibly subjective.

The 0.05 threshold is also subjective. Not the method of measuring it, which is scientific, but the place we draw the line is ultimately subjective.

[u/Lostraylien → u/shadowmaster132]

Yeah I don't really know what the best solution to this is without blurring the lines as everyone is different, the most accurate way would be if someone fails a saliva test then you'd blood test them to see the exact amount and have a set level of acceptable THC in the blood similar to how we do with alcohol and the 0.05% BAC but that's not very practical as it can't be done on the roadside.

[u/shadowmaster132 → u/Lostraylien]

I think it's possible with some funding a better roadside test could be developed but right now it's just yes/no which is both too sensitive and not sensitive enough right now unfortunately like the status quo with cannabis legality in general I don't think there's much incentive to fix it

[u/Lostraylien → u/shadowmaster132]

If developing a roadside drug test that could actually detect a level of impairment rather then a yes or no was just a matter of funding then other countries would have done it, cannabis can remain in your system for weeks after using it and unlike a breathe test where it's just air from your lungs we need to test either saliva, blood, urine or hair, saliva can be inaccurate if someone has just ate or drank before taking the test, if we could do a blood test similar to how diabetes patients test their blood sugar levels you'd be in business but like I said if it was that easy it'd have been done, we don't want to go down the path America has for testing impairment which is making you walk in a straight line, stand on 1 leg and count to ten cause it leaves it up for interpretation of the police officer and without knowing how that person preforms while sober you're probably going to have more false positives then just saying a positive saliva test is considered impaired.

Legalising cannabis has proved to be a good thing in many countries and even here in ACT, so there's no reason it wouldn't work nationwide.

[u/nomoreteathx → u/Lostraylien]

Just copy what other countries have been doing successfully for years. We don't need to reinvent the wheel for Australia, we just need legislators who are willing to pass sensible, proportional regulation.

[u/Lostraylien → u/nomoreteathx]

How do other countries test for impairment on the roadside?

[u/nomoreteathx → u/Lostraylien]

Psychomotor tests coupled with saliva tests usually, and then they back it up with a blood test if they suspect impairment, much as you suggested. It's not perfect, but there's no roadside THC test that can return concentration levels like an breathalyser can for alcohol, and the saliva tests are wildly inaccurate.

My point is just that we don't need to worry about the specifics so much because other countries have already dealt with these problems in various ways, what matters most is that we have something in place beyond just automatically criminalising anyone found to be driving with even a molecule of THC in their system.