Editorial: Science before law in measuring marijuana | TribLIVE.com

Editorial: Science before law in measuring marijuana


Sometimes you need a good scientist to figure out the law.

The law can tell you not to speed. It takes science to figure out how fast you are going.

The law can tell you not to drink and drive. It takes science to figure out how many beers you had.

And while governors and legislators and lawyers around the country and here in Pennsylvania are trying to figure out how to bend the law around the concepts of medical marijuana and recreational marijuana and the over-the-counter iterations of CBD oil, science is now stepping up with a measuring stick.

University of Pittsburgh researchers have developed a Breathalyzer-type test to measure THC, the chemical in marijuana that makes the weed so wacky.

It’s a smart move. But it’s hard to believe that it has taken this long for someone to get it done.

Humans have used cannabis for at least 2,500 years. It was once a common addition to bottled medication before being outlawed during the Great Depression.

But over the last 20 years or so, marijuana has gained traction and popularity, with states rolling back prohibitions while the federal government has yet to budge. We now have marijuana simultaneously legally available in Pennsylvania as medicine and the primary illegal drug seized by weight and volume.

It seems like something we should have had years ago — a fast, efficient way to determine whether someone has used marijuana. The alcohol version has been around for more than 60 years.

As the Wolf administration continues to test waters regarding recreational use, and as more people utilize medical permission, it only makes sense to get a better way to precisely determine whether someone has used cannabis products.

Until now, state police might use a breath test for alcohol but would rely on drug recognition training of certain officers to see a subject’s eyes or physical behavior suggested marijuana use. A blood or urine test could then be ordered.

But how many people with other physical or medical conditions — or just people undergoing the stress of a police stop — could end up subjected to an invasive or degrading hospital test because they “appeared” under the influence?

A Breathalyzer might not be a simple device. The Pitt project uses nanotechnology and took both chemistry and engineering researchers to accomplish.

The idea, though, is simply obvious. Sometimes the law has to take a backseat to science.

Categories: Opinion | Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.