Interesting read...http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol11N1/Marijuana.html

WOW.. you sure know how to evade the questions.
Come on, you're really a politician aren't you?

I Googled this too: University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents
ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 1999) — The safety hazards of smoking marijuana and driving are overrated, says University of Toronto researcher Alison Smiley.

Yes I referred to Wisconsin, Mississippi, Arizona and Illinois. I could probably Google more. My point is that with all the blood tests taken NATIONWIDE from drivers in serious injury or fatal accidents, how many were under the influence solely of marijuana compared to solely of alcohol?

:)

Two important facts about alcohol:
1. This country tried to outlaw it's production and consumption. It failed miserably then and it would if tried again.
2. This country woefully underpunishes for repeat offenses of drunk driving. Not only should the offenders be dosed with Antabuse after conviction, I'm starting to think some sitting judges should be given a dose before they enter the courtroom in the morning!

Just the facts, Ma'am!

When you say "Actually it's state law: 346.71(2)" and cite WISCONSIN State Statutes, I would say YES you are referring to WISCONSIN law. And by inference Wisconsin departments. Not Mississippi. Not Illinois. Not whatever else you want to Google.
Time to give it up.
Take up swimming.
You're doing the backstroke.

officerfriendly...I sincerely hope you are only a "wannabe" and not a real cop.
.
Again, we're in WISCONSIN, not Illinois.
.
Those who understand Wisconsin law, express it.
Those who don't, GOOGLE it.....

Did I say Wisconsin law enforcement agency's department policy? If I did I apologize. Wisconsin isn't the only state in the country. Maybe if Wisconsin followed some of the other states with tougher implied consent laws we would have less injury/fatality accidents.

Arizona Law: 28-673. Traffic accidents; implied consent; tests

A. A person who operates a motor vehicle within this state gives consent to a test or tests of the person's blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance for the purposes of determining alcohol concentration or drug content if the person is involved in a traffic accident resulting in death or serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 and a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the person caused the accident or the person is issued a citation for a violation of any provision of this article, article 2, 3 or 5 through 15 of this chapter or chapter 4 of this title.

Illinois Law: Sec. 11‑501.6. Driver involvement in personal injury or fatal motor vehicle accident ‑ chemical test.
(a) Any person who drives or is in actual control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this State and who has been involved in a personal injury or fatal motor vehicle accident, shall be deemed to have given consent to a breath test using a portable device as approved by the Department of State Police or to a chemical test or tests of blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the content of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds of such person's blood if arrested as evidenced by the issuance of a Uniform Traffic Ticket for any violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code or a similar provision of a local ordinance, with the exception of equipment violations contained in Chapter 12 of this Code, or similar provisions of local ordinances.

Officer....Two issues here...Number 1,we're in WISCONSIN, not Mississippi....
.
Number 2...refer to my last post...#2..INJURY, not death....again....PROBABLE CAUSE?

Mississipi Law: SEC. 63-11-8. Testing of motor vehicle operator involved in accident resulting in death.

(1) The operator of any motor vehicle involved in an accident that results in a death shall be tested for the purpose of determining the alcohol content or drug content of such operator's blood, breath or urine. Any blood withdrawal required by this section shall be administered by any qualified person and shall be administered within two (2) hours after such accident, if possible. The exact time of the accident, to the extent possible, and the exact time of the blood withdrawal shall be recorded.

Officer....Two issues here. Number 1, if they are deceased, they wouldn't "appear perfectly normal." In the case of the deceased, "impairment" wouldn't even be an issue. Nor would "department policy."
.
Number 2, you referenced "injury" accident and "department policy" in the same sentence as "appear perfectly normal."
One could conclude by that statement that you were referring to the SURVIVING driver involved. Thus, probable cause would be required for any blood draw.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Actually it's state law: 346.71(2)
(2) In cases of death involving a motor vehicle in which the decedent was the operator of a motor vehicle, a pedestrian 14 years of age or older or a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device operator 14 years of age or older and who died within 6 hours of the time of the accident, the coroner or medical examiner of the county where the death occurred shall require that a blood specimen of at least 10 cc. be withdrawn from the body of the decedent within 12 hours after his or her death, by the coroner or medical examiner or by a physician so designated by the coroner or medical examiner or by a qualified person at the direction of the physician.

officerfriendly1...."At an injury or fatal accident the drivers blood is tested if there is any sign of impairment and sometimes even when they appear perfectly normal depending on the law enforcement agency's department policy."
.
Please let us know which departments you are referring to that ignore "probable cause" and require a blood draw of someone who appears "perfectly normal."

At an injury or fatal accident the drivers blood is tested if there is any sign of impairment and sometimes even when they appear perfectly normal depending on the law enforcement agency's department policy. On the form that gets sent to the lab there are several boxes to check. One is for alcohol only. One is for alcohol and drugs. And one is for drugs if no alcohol is present. Show me a case of an injury or fatal accident involving only marijuana(THC). There may be a few but it's no where near the numbers of injury or fatal accidents involving alcohol. Make alcohol illegal!

Come on, everybody knows that far fewer drivers in accidents are tested for marijuana consumption even though quite a few of them have been using the substance. I ran drug treatment outpatient groups in Madison and had quite a few drivers in there that did not drink alcohol but were picked up for their driving under the influence of marijuana. Only once in my life (as a teen-ager) did I ever drive after using marijuana. I came to a stop at a stop sign and literally watched the darn sign go from right in front of my car to its real position more than a block away. So, don't tell me that marijuana does not affect one's driving ability. By the way, it was the final time I ever smoked the crap (excuse my language please).

officerfriendly yer my new BFF:)

Marijuana is illegal yet people still choose to use it. I'm sure there are many instances where people have driven under the influence of marijuana. I can't think of reading about a single incident in which the driver hurt or killed someone while solely under the influence of marijuana. Is it because less people drive under the influence of marijuana than alcohol that we hear more about alcohol related crashes? Possibly. Besides accidents, how many fights/disturbances/domestics are caused by marijuana use vs. alcohol? If there is one thing in this country that should be illegal, it's ALCOHOL!

Maybe he was stoned and had a few beers to wash away the cotton mouth.

good question officerfriendly. actually NO ONE has ever died from the direct use of marijuana. EVER. if you search marijuana on the gazette there was like 87 hits(no pun intended;) i didnt read the articles, most were the public records and they were all about marijuana possession or intent to deliver. BOTH OF WHICH WOULD NOT BE CRIMES IF UNCLE SAM REGULATED LIKE ALCOHOL. jail overcrowding anyone?? there was also the story of the 16yr old who killed that guy on the road, she admitted to smoking pot, but any sane logical reasonable person HAS to hold alcohol AT LEAST half accountable for that tragedy, plus she said she smoked it 10 hours earlier. another story i read was about a young man getting expelled for simple marijauna possession on school grounds. im ok with that, i dont promote cannabis OR alcohol use by teens. but i do wonder if this kid woulda been expelled if he was in possession of a 12 pack?? ignorance and hypocrisy people. im not the criminal.

Good point thekid3477. Almost daily we read articles of people hurt or killed due to alcohol. When was the last time there was a story about someone hurt or killed due to marijuana?

alcohol was a factor?? id have never guessed. keep yo head up yo keester uncle sam and tell em all how alcohol is ok when used by responsible adults but if you touch pot youll be come a lazy 'druggie' with no ambition in life. seems to be working now....

When will people realize that alcohol and a moving vehicle is NEVER a good idea.