Alcohol (ethanol) is “well-studied “, and its intoxicating effects are quite well known (i.e. predictable). Even so, there are variations in the “level of effect” upon individuals (due to factors such as rate of consumption; a person’s body mass; effect of food upon rate of absorption).
Based on what we know (from human studies about its rate of absorption and lab tests on effects of intoxication on motor skills), the legal authorities set “legal limits and penalties” (e.g . fines, confiscation, jail) for its use when driving.
Impairment tests are simply another mechanism for road-side Police to try and determine whether a driver (seen to be driving in an irregular manner) - and who does not "fail" a standard breath alcohol test - may still be "impaired" (by other drugs) in their execution of driving a vehicle. It may not be precise, but the goal is to remove such drivers off the road while they are in that state.
This “framework” may not be “perfect”, but they are accepted by the powers-that-be and most of the general population when out driving.
What businesses do - to protect their workers safety as well as their own livelihood – is up to them. Urine test regimes are often imposed as conditions of (ongoing) employment.
The assumption of many will be that cannabis (its “intoxicating” components) behave in a very similar manner to alcohol, and that it is easy and cheap to test for and quickly determine levels. And that such levels are easily related to a level of impairment.
And herein lies the challenge for the powers-that-be.
But I would imagine that when such “hurdles” have been overcome, you could expect to see a comparable framework being rolled out for cannabis (both for drivers on the open road and for workers within businesses). Including the physical impairment test.
My expectation would also be that certain prescription drugs will also come into purview as well.
Just saying.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Katman
...
Bookmarks