Tests to detect marijuana-impaired driving are based on ‘pseudoscience,’ argue researchers

For years now, American police have employed officers trained to be experts in the detection of “drug addicts”. The problem is however that the methods that these officers use are not based on science, according to a new editorial of the Alcohol and Drugs Studies Journal (JSAD).

With marijuana now legal in many American states, the need for reliable tests for marijuana disability is more urgent than ever. Police can assess alcohol intoxicated drivers using an objective measurement of the results of breath. But there is no “blood” equivalent for marijuana. The drug is metabolized differently from alcohol and the blood levels of a person of THC (the main chemical product intoxicating in marijuana) are not correlated with alteration.

Thus, the application of the law is based on subjective tactics: tests on the way and additional evaluations by police officers specially trained to be so-called experts in drug recognition (DRES). These officers follow a standardized protocol which would detect drug disability and even determine the type of specific medication, including marijuana.

The process implies many steps, including physical coordination tests; Check the driver’s blood pressure and pulse; Tighten the driver’s members to determine whether the muscular tone is “normal” or not; And examine the size of the students and the eye movements.

But although the protocol has the external signs of a scientific approach, it is not based on evidence it works, the said author of perspective William J. McNichol, JD, auxiliary professor at the Rutgers University Camden School of Law.

Instead, said McNichol, the DRE process is the product of “police science” – technologies created by police officers to use in their work. Few scientific studies have tried to determine the frequency in which DRES succeed. But existing evidence suggest that they “are not much better than a draw,” said McNichol.

Despite this, DRE programs and training are funded by the federal government, and more than 8,000 DRES work in the country’s police services, according to the International Police Association. In addition, McNichol underlines, a “spin-off” of the DRE recently made its way in employment sites: experts in the recognition of deficiency in the workplace, or son, which are certified to detect and prevent the disorders of the drug during the job.

Not long ago, when marijuana was uniformly illegal in the United States, people would land in hot water for simple possession or use of drugs. Now that it is legal in many states, said McNichol, there is an urgent need for scientifically valid and reliable methods to detect marijuana disorders. This, he added, will demand that scientists in the field of drug addiction are involved.

A related comment published in the same issue of Jsad echoes this last feeling. The collaborations between the police and the scientists who are not invested in the support or refutation of the status quo are the best way to follow, write Thomas D. Marcotte, Ph.D., and Robert L. Fitzgerald, Ph.D., of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California San Diego.

“Developing more robust tools to identify drivers with faculty weakened by cannabis in a impartial manner is essential to ensure the safety of our roads,” they write. These authors also provide recommendations to improve driving detection with drugs.

As for how to finance this type of research, McNichol said that a source already exists: taxes from legal sales in marijuana.

“The money is there,” he said, “if only it can be assigned correctly.”