Talk:DUID

Not representing a world view?

The comment on the DUID page states that the page may not represent a worldwide view. I'm not sure there is any other conflicting views on the subject. The subject is treated rather objectively. There is admittedly, a lack of specific information about the laws of every country or region and the article focuses on the United States. This is because when I wrote it I didn't have any other info that that which I put in. The article speaks generally about the US and "several European countries" because finding the details for specific countries is rather difficult unless you have legal research experience with the various countries. The statement of "several European countries" comes from a few reputable studies that make the claims with accompanying citation. It would seem that a more accurate criticism of the article would be that it is incomplete for lack of worldwide, detailed coverage; not that it has a viewpoint bias. The issue is simple: driving with drugs in system = crime in many places. An objective, value-judgment analysis is in there: trade off of the potential to convict persons innocent of impaired driving, for ease of prosecutions to promote road safety. I'm unaware of any other "viewpoint" on the topic.

Note on a sentence that was added to the first paragraph and which I removed: "However testing equipment is generally calibrated to only pick up recent typically impairing usage and to not detect more historic drug use." - This is not accurate. The testing equipment is capable of detecting the presence of drugs or metabolites at quantities present at the levels used to discover drug use generally--not impairment. The establishment of these quantities has its roots in the levels set by the U.S. government in the 1980s after the Executive Order signed by President Regan that was meant to reduce drug use in the federal workforce. The testing equipment is exquisitely sensitive, the problem is that there is evidence which shows that one is not impaired when one has these minuscule quantities present in the body. I point you to a law review article that makes the point, which cites several scientific papers confirming this fact. Note, DWI and Drugs: A Look at Per Se Laws for Marijuana, 7 Nev. L.J. 170 (2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.39.43 (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Saliva Test

I have added back in reference to levels of saliva test equipment being tied to Samhsa standards and that this relates to impairment. Much recent case law (as well as independent scientific tests they are based on) shows that most cut offs being used do correlate to impairment, with similar evidence strength as blood alcohol limits (dependent on risk drug discussed). I direct you to the most recent of these cases - Shell Refining (Australia) Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2009] AIRCFB (Arbitration Court) 428 (15 May 2009) which found that saliva tests are a reliable enough measure of impairment because they show recent use, so they should be use in the workplace whilst urine tests which can show historic non impairing use can not be justified. Saliva tests don't detect miniscule traces of traffic risk drugs - ample literature shows they detect recent impairing use, with about the same level of (in)accuracy or accuracy as alcohol level tests. Some with alcohol tolerance and women have significantly lower impairment and crash risks than others do at given BAC levels, which is why some US States require impairment tests for drink drivers, and people over normal limits could get off and in some places those under can face charges. Blood tests on the other hand can detect lower drug levels than would impair as they're more sensitive, but Prosecutors generally take levels into account. Urine and sweat are poor indicators - more like liquor store or rather drug dealer receipts that could be from today or from a month ago.

Also the presentation was rather general. I have tried to add nuances, because what is being attempted in different countries to address drug driving is not a blanket solution - there are a confusing array of widely varying approaches being tried. To call them either zero tolerance or impairment based is a gross simplification - the legal requirements for offences are complex and varied, with Countries having many safety mechanisms right down to just a few or none being inserted in revisions of legislation, that aim to prevent shakey convictions. It would not be exaggerating to say that 40 very different approaches are in place - which may look similar but are not in effect, due to legal intricacies. Whereas the approaches to drink driving can probably be put into only about 5 categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.117.232 (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

All states and DUID laws

"All US states . . . have 'per se' DUID laws" - baloney. Mbstone (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC) See Cal. Veh. Code § 23152(a) (prohibits driving "while under the influence" of a drug, or a combination of alcohol and any drug. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was "under the influence.") Some states have adopted limits for THC metabolites in blood, see, e.g. Nev. Rev. Stat. 484C.110 (driver presumed intoxicated with 5 ng of THC metabolites in blood), also Wash. Initiative I-502 (on ballot in Nov. 2012) The 5 ng presumption has been widely criticized as too low since one can exceed this threshold long after any impairment has abated, see Findings of Colo. Marijuana DUID Working Group (2012) which recommended 15 ng limit and noted that only 15 US states have an objective limit.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DUID. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415193004/http://www.candor.org.nz/ to http://www.candor.org.nz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)