[quote]lumbernac wrote:
I dont think that you people see the point. Hey i smoke all the time, love it.
But I want it legalized as much as anybody and the best way to get it legitimized would be to treat it like alchohol. IF you are too messed up to drive you get a similar citation.[/quote]
The would probably need a better test ,so they wouldn?t have to do a blood test.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
As an experienced police officer who has seen my share of impaired drivers, I dont have any idea how one would discover that someone had used marijuana within 30 days after a motor vehicle stop. If there are no signs of impairment, we cant go any further. [/quote]
In Az. If you refuse a breathalyzer test they get a warrant and take blood.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
i can’t imagine NOT driving and smoking. how do you guys do it?[/quote]
no shit, i never make trips longer than 10 minutes without my pal
[quote]lumbernac wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
You are the one that’s missing the point. This is not treating it anything like alcohol. THC can remain in your body for up to a month but the active effects are long gone [probably by the next morning after smoking] and you are no longer physically or mentally impaired WHATSOEVER. Yet, you can be considered so under this law.
You are assuming that the bar for intoxication would be placed so low that the test itself would be unreasonable. Do you think that the bar for alchohol ( 0.08 in texas ) is too low? Why would it be different for marijuana? And yes, it can remain in your body for a while, but at a certain level, usually just after you hit the joint, it will impair your driving abilities. I just looked at a psychology textbook ( the author seems pretty pro-drug ) which said that it has been shown to impair driving even if the stoned individual does not realize it. Anyway, unless you have a reason to think that the laws would be unreasonable for marijuana, I don’t think that you really have a point at alll.
Practically, it is going to be
" tested " one way or another. If not by a urine test at the station or hospital then a field sobriety test w/r/t that separate charge that you mentioned.[/quote]
In my Humble opinion .08 is too low
My issue here is that I do not smoke weed. Never have. Never will. But I have gone to an occasional concert. Ever been to a concert? The last one I went to was System of a Down. There was so much weed being smoked in that auditorium that I’m 100% sure I got some second hand but never got “high”
If I could get a DUI up to a month after the concert that I did not smoke weed, just for being around it by default this is completely wrong.
with an x-ray, and $150.00 i got my medical marijuana card. now i grow hydroponic chronic, and can carry it where ever i go. i can smoke weed anywhere smoking is permitted, it’s great. i walk down the street with a fat joint in my mouth and the cops can’t do shit. i love california.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
My issue here is that I do not smoke weed. Never have. Never will. But I have gone to an occasional concert. Ever been to a concert? The last one I went to was System of a Down. There was so much weed being smoked in that auditorium that I’m 100% sure I got some second hand but never got “high”
If I could get a DUI up to a month after the concert that I did not smoke weed, just for being around it by default this is completely wrong. [/quote]
I’m all for marijuana legalization, but that was a dubious claim in the article. First of all, if you only smoke once a month, it will only stay in your system for about a week, probably less, maybe a bit more. Only a chronic smoker will have measurable THC in their urine for a month. Secondly, unless you were baking for hours with friends in a VW Beetle, you will probably never get enough THC in your system to trigger a positive on a urine test.
You have to understand, these tests aren’t all that sensitive. Some people have actually passed by drinking a ton of water before the test to dilute their urine, taking a few B vitamins to color their urine yellow, and taking creatine in the case that the creatinine levels are looked at to check for dilution.
Now, I believe this law will be repealed in the very near future, and for good reason. I have a feeling the ACLU will be on this the first chance they can get.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
lumbernac wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
You are the one that’s missing the point. This is not treating it anything like alcohol. THC can remain in your body for up to a month but the active effects are long gone [probably by the next morning after smoking] and you are no longer physically or mentally impaired WHATSOEVER. Yet, you can be considered so under this law.
You are assuming that the bar for intoxication would be placed so low that the test itself would be unreasonable. Do you think that the bar for alchohol ( 0.08 in texas ) is too low? Why would it be different for marijuana? And yes, it can remain in your body for a while, but at a certain level, usually just after you hit the joint, it will impair your driving abilities. I just looked at a psychology textbook ( the author seems pretty pro-drug ) which said that it has been shown to impair driving even if the stoned individual does not realize it. Anyway, unless you have a reason to think that the laws would be unreasonable for marijuana, I don’t think that you really have a point at alll.
Practically, it is going to be
" tested " one way or another. If not by a urine test at the station or hospital then a field sobriety test w/r/t that separate charge that you mentioned.
In my Humble opinion .08 is too low
[/quote]
.08 is ridiculously low.
I was pulled over a month ago and blew a .07. I had exactly 2 beers in about an hours worth of time, in my system.
Its all a money making sham.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
with an x-ray, and $150.00 i got my medical marijuana card. now i grow hydroponic chronic, and can carry it where ever i go. i can smoke weed anywhere smoking is permitted, it’s great. i walk down the street with a fat joint in my mouth and the cops can’t do shit. i love california.[/quote]
What was the reason they gave you a scipt? Thanks
Two things,
First, Michigan is by-far a democrat state. They just have alot of really stupid people in government. I know it is hard for alot of people to believe but not everything that you don’t agree with that happens in this country is the fault of a republican.
Second, the police aren’t going to test someone for marijuana usage if they have no reason to suspect that the person has been using. Do you honestly think that the cop is going to walk up to the side of every car he stops and make the driver piss in a cup? The police are only going to get a test from the people that obviously seem to be impaired.
Note: I do not call myself a republican or a democrat. I do not really agree fully with the views of either side.
[quote]bigscarymonster wrote:
Two things,
First, Michigan is by-far a democrat state. They just have alot of really stupid people in government. I know it is hard for alot of people to believe but not everything that you don’t agree with that happens in this country is the fault of a republican.
Second, the police aren’t going to test someone for marijuana usage if they have no reason to suspect that the person has been using. Do you honestly think that the cop is going to walk up to the side of every car he stops and make the driver piss in a cup? The police are only going to get a test from the people that obviously seem to be impaired.
Note: I do not call myself a republican or a democrat. I do not really agree fully with the views of either side.[/quote]
I don’t fully agree with the views of either side as well. It doesn’t matter why they police pull you over. They could pull you over for a legitimate reason such as speeding. The law itself is still bogus if this can happen and you can also get a DWI even though you haven’t smoked in a few days and are in no way impaired.
Don’t smoke-up and drive!
Has this ever been tried in a real court case? I’m not sure it would stand-up if it ever did simply because one can have THC metabolites in ones system and not be intoxicated. What about people with a Rx for medical marijuana? Are they never allowed to drive?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Don’t smoke-up and drive!
Has this ever been tried in a real court case? I’m not sure it would stand-up if it ever did simply because one can have THC metabolites in ones system and not be intoxicated. What about people with a Rx for medical marijuana? Are they never allowed to drive?[/quote]
Arizona voted to allow Medical Marijuana, but our fearless leaders know better than the voters. The Attorney General say?s he will prosecute any Doctor that gives a Script. I was thinking of getting one from Mexico. Just incase I were ever to get caught.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
mazilla wrote:
with an x-ray, and $150.00 i got my medical marijuana card. now i grow hydroponic chronic, and can carry it where ever i go. i can smoke weed anywhere smoking is permitted, it’s great. i walk down the street with a fat joint in my mouth and the cops can’t do shit. i love california.
What was the reason they gave you a scipt? Thanks
[/quote]
chronic pain in my shoulder. coughcoughbullshitcoughcough. they want to give these cards away, then it’s harder to make it illegal again. my friend had a tumor in his shoulder years ago, it was benign(spelling), he told them it hurt to move his shoulder in different directions and they gave him one on the spot. i had my x-ray,luckily it showed some scar tissue from an old shoulder injury. but you don’t even need an x-ray. you can say your depressed, suffer from insomnia, panic attacks, etc. basically anything you can get a prescription for can be used to get med. marijuana. you have to see the dispensary, it’s a heaven on earth. they have all kinds of chronic, bud brownies, cookies, candies, all kinds of hash, honey oil, etc. the first time i went in there i felt like dave chappelle in half baked when he broke into the weed room.
wont fly… i bet my testicals…
[quote]bigscarymonster wrote:
The police are only going to get a test from the people that obviously seem to be impaired.
[/quote]
No, the cops will be fucking with
I’ll bet my nuttz on that any day.
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
bigscarymonster wrote:
The police are only going to get a test from the people that obviously seem to be impaired.
No, the cops will be fucking with
I’ll bet my nuttz on that any day.
[/quote]
If they pull over some poor innocent minority, young person, or person who looks lower class, what diference does it make? They either smoked or they didnt. It’s that simple. So what if they’re targeted. If they’re innocent then there’s nothing to worry about.
[quote]KAS wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:
bigscarymonster wrote:
The police are only going to get a test from the people that obviously seem to be impaired.
No, the cops will be fucking with
I’ll bet my nuttz on that any day.
If they pull over some poor innocent minority, young person, or person who looks lower class, what diference does it make? They either smoked or they didnt. It’s that simple. So what if they’re targeted. If they’re innocent then there’s nothing to worry about.
[/quote]
This type of thinking bothers me. Apparently, it is ok to lie and add charges to someone’s arrest. If they are not DUI, why charge them as DUI?
Fine with me. It’s a step in the right direction at least.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:
bigscarymonster wrote:
The police are only going to get a test from the people that obviously seem to be impaired.
No, the cops will be fucking with
I’ll bet my nuttz on that any day.
If they pull over some poor innocent minority, young person, or person who looks lower class, what diference does it make? They either smoked or they didnt. It’s that simple. So what if they’re targeted. If they’re innocent then there’s nothing to worry about.
This type of thinking bothers me. Apparently, it is ok to lie and add charges to someone’s arrest. If they are not DUI, why charge them as DUI? [/quote]
Because, as you have stated, you can’t tell if someone is immpaired by just testing for THC. They could very well be DUI. Why give them the benefit if the doubt at the cost of public safety? They chooses to break the law and we must give them the benefit of the doubt? This type of thinking bothers me a hell of a lot more.