Hacker News Reader

Comment by aidenn0 | Hacker News Reader

I know it stays in fatty-tissue for a long time, but surely the fractional blood-content of THC is way higher 20 minutes after toking up than the next day?

View on HN

So what's the test for that? Are you ok with giving police the authority to draw blood on a whim?

Basically, we either accept an invasive test, or we can't enforce the law. Which is 100% different than what it was before.

I don't know about Colorado, but in many jurisdictions, the appearance of being impaired, plus a negative breath-test is sufficient cause for a blood draw already.

So what does the appearance of being stoned really look like?

Police already have the authority to draw blood for alcohol-impaired driving. If you refuse, your driver's license is automatically suspended and the refusal can be used against you in court.

It's a bad law, and not every state is the same on this particular issue.

They need a warrant to draw blood and really can only get one if you injured someone or destroyed their car.

http://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/can-the-police-take-my-bl...

That link does not contradict what I wrote. In many (most?) states you must voluntarily submit to a blood test or face the above consequences.

How is it different than before?

Pre-legalization, the police had no way to discern if a driver was high.

Post-legalization the police still have no way to discern if a driver is high.

The only difference is pre-legalization, they could arrest you for having some bud in your pocket. Now that can't do that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com