Addressing the issue of driving under the influence of marijuana has always been a complex challenge, primarily due to the difficulty in detecting the drug’s presence and level of impairment without a reliable test. For law enforcement and regulators, this has been an ongoing concern, especially as marijuana laws evolve and become more lenient in many parts of the United States. However, a recent development has the potential to change the landscape of marijuana impairment detection – the creation of a prototype marijuana breathalyzer by Kal Malhi, President of Cannabix Technologies and a retired member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The need for such a device has become increasingly apparent as marijuana laws have loosened and the prevalence of drugged driving has risen. Traditional field sobriety tests are often insufficient to determine marijuana impairment accurately, leading to a demand for innovative solutions like the marijuana breathalyzer. However, the introduction of this technology raises critical questions about its effectiveness and potential implications for individuals who may not be impaired while testing positive for marijuana use.

One of the primary concerns surrounding the marijuana breathalyzer is its accuracy in measuring impairment in real time. Unlike alcohol, where a breathalyzer can provide a relatively precise measurement of blood alcohol content (BAC), marijuana’s effects on an individual can vary significantly based on factors such as tolerance and frequency of use. The lingering presence of marijuana metabolites in the bloodstream long after impairment has subsided adds complexity to the issue.

Critics argue that relying solely on a marijuana breathalyzer could lead to false positives and unjust legal consequences. For instance, in states with zero tolerance or, drugged driving laws, individuals who have used marijuana days or even weeks before being pulled over could face criminal charges despite not being impaired at the time of the traffic stop. This raises ethical and legal concerns about the potential for unjust arrests and convictions.

To illustrate this point, consider the case of a cancer patient who uses marijuana for its medicinal properties. Suppose this patient were to encounter a traffic violation, such as missing a stop sign or making an illegal turn, and law enforcement administered a marijuana breathalyzer test. In that case, the results might indicate marijuana use without necessarily reflecting impairment. In a zero-tolerance or per se state, this scenario could result in the patient facing legal consequences despite complying with state laws regarding medical marijuana use.

The introduction of a marijuana breathalyzer undoubtedly has the potential to improve law enforcement’s ability to detect recent marijuana use in drivers. Still, its practical application and alignment with existing legal frameworks remain subjects of debate and scrutiny.