you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 6 months ago (11 children)

You can easily test if they're in someone's system with a saliva test, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Blood test is better for weed. It's only detectable for 12h vs 24h with saliva.

    But levels of THC aren't really correlated with impairment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    12 to 24h seems good (maybe even too long imho) in the context of driving a car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Not when the levels have no bearing on intoxication.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    The same applies to alcohol to some degree. We as a society need to set some limits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    No, it doesn't. BAC is directly related to impairment, even with chronic drinkers.

    The problem is that THC tests check for the metabolite that THC is broken down into, not actual THC. Alcohol tests check for actual alcohol.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    I hear you. The saliva test isn't perfect, but it's something.

    Where I live only a doctor is allowed to draw and test your blood, which is tough to do at the side of the road during a traffic stop. They need a lab for that. So a saliva test is much more viable in that context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Can you hook a saliva test to a car's ignition system to only allow sober people to start the car?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments