The entire “I tested positive because someone near me was smoking” argument has been scientifically proven to be false.
I forget the numbers, but it was some ridiculous amount of smoke for a ridiculous amount of time you had to be around to pop positive for THC.
[quote]KAS wrote:
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?
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. [/quote]
What should bother you is the billions spent on a failed “War on Drugs” that could be put to better use in society. Instead of trying to control every aspect of what people do with their own bodies, how about directing this money towards projects that can actually help someone. When it comes to a plant that is proven less harmful than legal alcohol, I fail to see the need for even more jail time being doled out when this plant isn’t going anywhere.
What about testing positive if you’re an athlete or teh like!? (eg not police related)
Friend of mine is a national standard pole vaulter and she wont sit in a room with people smoking bud for fear of drug tests etc.
Also - hilarious about the medical certification - if you have a drugs conviction you’re banned from entering the USA for life, yet they throw medical prescriptions around for weed. Maybe I’ll move over there… lol…
No, youd have to be able to show that they smoked recently and were still under the effects. People are meant to be fuckin innocent until proven guilty, but just about everything in this world suggests that the complete opposite is actaully in effect. So if you smoked 4 days ago, got pulled, and got done for it, you’d be absolutely livid, and rightly so. Yet your agreeing with this?!
And its only the law because of the government. Ban alcohol as well then. (but no, course they won’t do that, too much ??? to be made.)
[quote]KAS wrote:
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?
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. [/quote]
The law that people are breaking is a law that IMO will be over turned. I believe it is morphing as we speak. By polls the people in several states people think it should be a legal medicine. I know Arizona is doing everything they can to over turn the law the voters passed. I personally do not think it so important that we vote people out who are other wise doing a good job. I do think they need to find a test that will tell when someone is under the influence of pot. I am not condoning any one driving under the influence of any drug but, IMO pot does not seem to negatively affect motor skills the way alcohol does, I would say I do believe it could affect Judgment.
The issue is that one can be charged with a DWI when one is not under the influence of drugs.
I just think it’s kind of absurd that there people on here who do this: “Putting chemicals in your body to alter your mind for non-medical reasons is wrong! And furthermore…, oooh Spike is on sale!”
[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]
If thats the law, then people with an Rx for “medical” marijuana shoul’nt drive. My wife has been on medication that has disqualified her from driving. So why should this be any diferent?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
KAS wrote:
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?
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.
The law that people are breaking is a law that IMO will be over turned. I believe it is morphing as we speak. By polls the people in several states people think it should be a legal medicine. I know Arizona is doing everything they can to over turn the law the voters passed. I personally do not think it so important that we vote people out who are other wise doing a good job. I do think they need to find a test that will tell when someone is under the influence of pot. I am not condoning any one driving under the influence of any drug but, IMO pot does not seem to negatively affect motor skills the way alcohol does, I would say I do believe it could affect Judgment.
[/quote]
Will be overturned? Thats not the point. As the law stands now, you are most probably breaking the law.
Even if it was legal to smoke they could still make it illegal to drive while under the influence.
[quote]KAS wrote:
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?
If thats the law, then people with an Rx for “medical” marijuana shoul’nt drive. My wife has been on medication that has disqualified her from driving. So why should this be any diferent? [/quote]
Because marijuana doesn’t last long term as far as affecting the ability to function in traffic. It isn’t an anti-psychotic, narcotic or a barbituate. It’s effects last only a few hours meaning taking away someone’s driver’s license because they have a prescription for marijuana is retarded. To justify that, they would need to take away the licenses of anyone who uses Benedryl as well. Montel Williams uses marijuana on a regular basis and has a prescription for it. Just because some people refuse to look into any benefits surrounding this plant doesn’t mean the entire country should agree with every law passed on it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
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?
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.
What should bother you is the billions spent on a failed “War on Drugs” that could be put to better use in society. Instead of trying to control every aspect of what people do with their own bodies, how about directing this money towards projects that can actually help someone. When it comes to a plant that is proven less harmful than legal alcohol, I fail to see the need for even more jail time being doled out when this plant isn’t going anywhere.[/quote]
I’m not debating the validity or effectivness of the whole “War on Grugs”. Obviously they’ve lost the plot in some cases, but not on this issue.
It’s not about controling every aspect of what people do with their own bodies. It’s the potential impact that it has on other people. In this case killing someone on the roads.
Yes, there are alot of similarities between alcohol and marijuana. Even if marijuana was legal they could still do you for DUI.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
The issue is that one can be charged with a DWI when one is not under the influence of drugs.
I just think it’s kind of absurd that there people on here who do this: “Putting chemicals in your body to alter your mind for non-medical reasons is wrong! And furthermore…, oooh Spike is on sale!”[/quote]
You are under the influence if you meet the legal definition thereof, which in this case meens having THC in your system. That means you are under the influence. No false charges or “lies” there.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
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?
If thats the law, then people with an Rx for “medical” marijuana shoul’nt drive. My wife has been on medication that has disqualified her from driving. So why should this be any diferent?
Because marijuana doesn’t last long term as far as affecting the ability to function in traffic. It isn’t an anti-psychotic, narcotic or a barbituate. It’s effects last only a few hours meaning taking away someone’s driver’s license because they have a prescription for marijuana is retarded. To justify that, they would need to take away the licenses of anyone who uses Benedryl as well. Montel Williams uses marijuana on a regular basis and has a prescription for it. Just because some people refuse to look into any benefits surrounding this plant doesn’t mean the entire country should agree with every law passed on it.[/quote]
So how would you know if someone was immpaired or not? Oh, thats right. You can’t. So we’ll just give them the benefit of the doubt at the risk of everyone else on the road. Sounds good to me! Espesially when you consider the fact that it’s a recreational drug. Who cares about the losers that dont use it.
Plus this whole “medical” marijuana thing is such a joke. “What about the poor people who use it for medical reasons”. Give me a break!
[quote]KAS wrote:
I’m not debating the validity or effectivness of the whole “War on Grugs”. Obviously they’ve lost the plot in some cases, but not on this issue.
It’s not about controling every aspect of what people do with their own bodies. It’s the potential impact that it has on other people. In this case killing someone on the roads.
Yes, there are alot of similarities between alcohol and marijuana. Even if marijuana was legal they could still do you for DUI. [/quote]
And most accidents involve the use of ALCOHOL, even if other drugs are found on the scene. The glaring problem with this is THE LIE. Someone who has THC in their system doesn’t necessarily have to be driving under the influence. Since when is it ok to lie on people just to get an extra conviction? I guess “morals” only last up to a certain point, huh?
[quote]KAS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
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?
If thats the law, then people with an Rx for “medical” marijuana shoul’nt drive. My wife has been on medication that has disqualified her from driving. So why should this be any diferent?
Because marijuana doesn’t last long term as far as affecting the ability to function in traffic. It isn’t an anti-psychotic, narcotic or a barbituate. It’s effects last only a few hours meaning taking away someone’s driver’s license because they have a prescription for marijuana is retarded. To justify that, they would need to take away the licenses of anyone who uses Benedryl as well. Montel Williams uses marijuana on a regular basis and has a prescription for it. Just because some people refuse to look into any benefits surrounding this plant doesn’t mean the entire country should agree with every law passed on it.
So how would you know if someone was immpaired or not? Oh, thats right. You can’t. So we’ll just give them the benefit of the doubt at the risk of everyone else on the road. Sounds good to me! Espesially when you consider the fact that it’s a recreational drug. Who cares about the losers that dont use it.
Plus this whole “medical” marijuana thing is such a joke. “What about the poor people who use it for medical reasons”. Give me a break![/quote]
Do you suggest we ignore a Voters approved law? I am no scientist but I would be willing to bet if someone were to smoke any amount of pot that it would leave some residue in their mouth and lungs.
[quote]KAS wrote:
You are under the influence if you meet the legal definition thereof, which in this case meens having THC in your system. That means you are under the influence. No false charges or “lies” there. [/quote]
In this case it can mean having absolutely no trace of a psychoactive substance in your body.
This is like finding a receipt for beer from two weeks ago, and determining that person is drunk right now.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
KAS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
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?
If thats the law, then people with an Rx for “medical” marijuana shoul’nt drive. My wife has been on medication that has disqualified her from driving. So why should this be any diferent?
Because marijuana doesn’t last long term as far as affecting the ability to function in traffic. It isn’t an anti-psychotic, narcotic or a barbituate. It’s effects last only a few hours meaning taking away someone’s driver’s license because they have a prescription for marijuana is retarded. To justify that, they would need to take away the licenses of anyone who uses Benedryl as well. Montel Williams uses marijuana on a regular basis and has a prescription for it. Just because some people refuse to look into any benefits surrounding this plant doesn’t mean the entire country should agree with every law passed on it.
So how would you know if someone was immpaired or not? Oh, thats right. You can’t. So we’ll just give them the benefit of the doubt at the risk of everyone else on the road. Sounds good to me! Espesially when you consider the fact that it’s a recreational drug. Who cares about the losers that dont use it.
Plus this whole “medical” marijuana thing is such a joke. “What about the poor people who use it for medical reasons”. Give me a break!
Do you suggest we ignore a Voters approved law? I am no scientist but I would be willing to bet if someone were to smoke any amount of pot that it would leave some residue in their mouth and lungs. [/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up. I believe there are saliva tests for THC that only last for 24 hours.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
KAS wrote:
You are under the influence if you meet the legal definition thereof, which in this case meens having THC in your system. That means you are under the influence. No false charges or “lies” there.
In this case it can mean having absolutely no trace of a psychoactive substance in your body.
This is like finding a receipt for beer from two weeks ago, and determining that person is drunk right now.
[/quote]
Yes, it can if that was the legal definition, but it’s not. It spesifically says THC.
No, that example is just stupid. You could just give them a breath test.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
KAS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
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?
If thats the law, then people with an Rx for “medical” marijuana shoul’nt drive. My wife has been on medication that has disqualified her from driving. So why should this be any diferent?
Because marijuana doesn’t last long term as far as affecting the ability to function in traffic. It isn’t an anti-psychotic, narcotic or a barbituate. It’s effects last only a few hours meaning taking away someone’s driver’s license because they have a prescription for marijuana is retarded. To justify that, they would need to take away the licenses of anyone who uses Benedryl as well. Montel Williams uses marijuana on a regular basis and has a prescription for it. Just because some people refuse to look into any benefits surrounding this plant doesn’t mean the entire country should agree with every law passed on it.
So how would you know if someone was immpaired or not? Oh, thats right. You can’t. So we’ll just give them the benefit of the doubt at the risk of everyone else on the road. Sounds good to me! Espesially when you consider the fact that it’s a recreational drug. Who cares about the losers that dont use it.
Plus this whole “medical” marijuana thing is such a joke. “What about the poor people who use it for medical reasons”. Give me a break!
Do you suggest we ignore a Voters approved law? I am no scientist but I would be willing to bet if someone were to smoke any amount of pot that it would leave some residue in their mouth and lungs. [/quote]
Again, I’m not talking about whether or not it should be legalised. And even if it was legal it has nothing to do with DUI. Alcohol is legal bit you still can’t drink and drive.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
KAS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
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?
If thats the law, then people with an Rx for “medical” marijuana shoul’nt drive. My wife has been on medication that has disqualified her from driving. So why should this be any diferent?
Because marijuana doesn’t last long term as far as affecting the ability to function in traffic. It isn’t an anti-psychotic, narcotic or a barbituate. It’s effects last only a few hours meaning taking away someone’s driver’s license because they have a prescription for marijuana is retarded. To justify that, they would need to take away the licenses of anyone who uses Benedryl as well. Montel Williams uses marijuana on a regular basis and has a prescription for it. Just because some people refuse to look into any benefits surrounding this plant doesn’t mean the entire country should agree with every law passed on it.
So how would you know if someone was immpaired or not? Oh, thats right. You can’t. So we’ll just give them the benefit of the doubt at the risk of everyone else on the road. Sounds good to me! Espesially when you consider the fact that it’s a recreational drug. Who cares about the losers that dont use it.
Plus this whole “medical” marijuana thing is such a joke. “What about the poor people who use it for medical reasons”. Give me a break!
Do you suggest we ignore a Voters approved law? I am no scientist but I would be willing to bet if someone were to smoke any amount of pot that it would leave some residue in their mouth and lungs. [/quote]
I’d be all for such a test. But it dosnt exist yet. If it did that could/would be the legal definition of being under the influence. But until then I have no problem with the current criteria.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
I’m not debating the validity or effectivness of the whole “War on Grugs”. Obviously they’ve lost the plot in some cases, but not on this issue.
It’s not about controling every aspect of what people do with their own bodies. It’s the potential impact that it has on other people. In this case killing someone on the roads.
Yes, there are alot of similarities between alcohol and marijuana. Even if marijuana was legal they could still do you for DUI.
And most accidents involve the use of ALCOHOL, even if other drugs are found on the scene. The glaring problem with this is THE LIE. Someone who has THC in their system doesn’t necessarily have to be driving under the influence. Since when is it ok to lie on people just to get an extra conviction? I guess “morals” only last up to a certain point, huh?[/quote]
I’m not saying alcohol isnt a problem, of course it is. But why should we ignor this one.
What lie? They meet the legal definition, so there are no false charges. Just another coniquence to breaking the law. Why is it that people think they have the right to choose the consiquences of their actions? Some States are in the process of passing laws to suspend the drivers licences of high school drop outs. It’s the same sort of thing. It’s a deterant.
And you think it’s moral to to use illegal drugs?