Canada has not seen a rise in cannabis related DUIs since it legalized the drug.

Which is weird because I see people smoking weed while driving pretty frequently (especially in stopped traffic on the Lion's gate). Last I heard, we don't have a reliable test for cannabis intoxication -- which makes recorded DUI rates questionable as evidence.

If someone can pass a field sobriety test what is the problem if we don't have a chemical test?

I wish we had a system of simulators people could be put into to assess their driving ability before criminally charging them.

While it won’t capture everything related to driving, it’s gotta be better than existing sobriety tests. And I say that as a terrible video game player but good driver (or so I believe), with a relative that’s a great video game player but meh driver.

Dunno how well correlated a field sobriety test is, but the subjective element of it leaves a lot to be desired.

> I wish we had a system of simulators people could be put into to assess their driving ability before criminally charging them.

That it would cause an uproar when "safe drivers" who are really just "safe to insure" because they follow the letter of the law fail miserably in droves because they have the context processing ability of a 2017 "driverless" car.

The field sobriety test is merely a way for police to make up signs of intoxication. It is a subjective test. If you're there you've already lost. At least in my state you can refuse it without losing your license.

I'm not a lawyer, but I view it as akin to speaking to police without a lawyer. It has no upside for me, therefore I refuse to do it. I do submit to chemical testing due to that being a requirement of my license (in my state the portable breathalyzer is not admissible in court so I'm fine with taking that too).

This. The entire test is fine tuned to let the officer pen a police report that makes you look drunk without having to actually lie in an observable way vs the dashcam/body cam.

They'll tell you to stand on the line, you'll pass, they'll make small-talk, they'll tell you to say the ABCs backwards, you'll pass, and they'll write "suspect was unable to remain on white line while saying ABCs backwards" in the police report and in the court the prosecutor will ask "did the officer ever instruct you to stop standing on the white line?".

Where I live they just test your urine for metabolites. If you pop hot and have smoked anytime in the last month, DUI. No fucks are given whether you are currently intoxicated, as that's too hard to figure out. In theory this yields a result of higher DUIs than actually intoxicated drivers.

You're responding to a different claim than I'm articulating. I'm just tired of people handwaving away high driving as "high drivers are harmless and slow." I am not making the claim that legalization increased rates of high driving; and personally, I support legalization.