Legalize it...

[*Tina*]

kinda hard for the gov't to make money off pot when its so damn easy to grow and there's no processing involved.

People still make home brews eventhough alcohol is legal. People will still grow, but I can see them selling different seeds so you can grow your own, therefore the gov't still making profit on those that grow at home much like the way you buy the kits for homebrews.

 

[doosty]

genetics will be fucked just like us. great

 

[SteelerFanatic]

People still make home brews eventhough alcohol is legal. People will still grow, but I can see them selling different seeds so you can grow your own, therefore the gov't still making profit on those that grow at home much like the way you buy the kits for homebrews.

I totally wish it was legal to grow at my house. I have the perfect setup. :thumdup

 

[macadamizer]

I agree with a lot of the posts and think it would be a good idear for the bill-proposers to take a good look at the issues/concerns being raised by some BARFers. I totally wouldn't have thought about the means for determining if somebody is driving under the influence of MJ -- great question -- and one which I think some enterprising bastids will help solve.

It's already against the law to drive while under the influence of pot. Making pot legal won't change that.

 

[Anti-Hero]

It's already against the law to drive while under the influence of pot. Making pot legal won't change that.

Define under the influence of pot.

Is it:

A) got high 10 min. ago?
B) got high 2 hours ago?
C) Got high 4 hours ago?
D) Got high this morning / yesterday / lastnight?

 

[macadamizer]

Define under the influence of pot.

Is it:

A) got high 10 min. ago?
B) got high 2 hours ago?
C) Got high 4 hours ago?
D) Got high this morning / yesterday / lastnight?

Why do you need to define it? How do the cops do it now? Why would you need to change anything?

EDIT: Forgot this part -- driving under the influence of pot is covered under the general DUI law, which requires impairment. Presumably if you get stopped, and you appear "imparied" via a field sobriety test or whatever, you get a ticket or arrested for DUI. This is what happens now anyway.

My point is simply this -- it's already illegal, we already cite and arrest people for it. What specifically would need to change to alleviate the concerns of those who think that this would usher in a new era of enforcement challenges?

 

[Anti-Hero]

Why do you need to define it? How do the cops do it now? Why would you need to change anything?

EDIT: Forgot this part -- driving under the influence of pot is covered under the general DUI law, which requires impairment. Presumably if you get stopped, and you appear "imparied" via a field sobriety test or whatever, you get a ticket or arrested for DUI. This is what happens now anyway.

My point is simply this -- it's already illegal, we already cite and arrest people for it. What specifically would need to change to alleviate the concerns of those who think that this would usher in a new era of enforcement challenges?

Because the substance is illegal, so any amount of high is therefor a DUI. When you legalize something you have to have accepted boundaries for acceptable use. How long after someone smokes a joint before they can legally drive?

This *is* an issue.

 

[*Tina*]

Why do you need to define it? How do the cops do it now? Why would you need to change anything?

EDIT: Forgot this part -- driving under the influence of pot is covered under the general DUI law, which requires impairment. Presumably if you get stopped, and you appear "imparied" via a field sobriety test or whatever, you get a ticket or arrested for DUI. This is what happens now anyway.

My point is simply this -- it's already illegal, we already cite and arrest people for it. What specifically would need to change to alleviate the concerns of those who think that this would usher in a new era of enforcement challenges?

The thing with pot is there is no way to find out your level of impairment like you can with alcohol which will make it a lot more difficult to make arrests/convictions stick, thus making the legalization process way more difficult.

The only way to test for THC levels is with a blood test and we all know that thee is zero convenience to doing a blood test on everyone the cops think are driving high.

Just because someone may "look" high doesnt mean they are. I suffer from allergies and regularly look like I'm lit up like a Christmas tree eventhough I havent smoked that day.

If we had a way to test someone on the spot for their level of imapairment I would see the legalization passing tn years ago, but until then, I dont think it'll happen because of this aspect.

 

[SteelerFanatic]

Pupil Dialation (sp?)

The fact that you are laughing the entire time?

When you ask the cop if he is done with his donuts?

All clues the person might be too high to drive.

 

[mosquito]

Maybe someone could devise a THC field sobriety tester? Dunno...

 

[macadamizer]

Because the substance is illegal, so any amount of high is therefor a DUI. When you legalize something you have to have accepted boundaries for acceptable use. How long after someone smokes a joint before they can legally drive?

This *is* an issue.

This isn't correct, though -- DUI isn't "zero tolerance" unless you are a minor -- even for pot. Without impaired driving, you have no DUI -- whether it be for alcohol or pot or cold medicine or lack of sleep. If you are impaired, DUI. If not, no DUI. The 0.08 BAC level just provides a presumption of impairment -- if you are 0.08 BAC or above, the cops don't have to prove you were impaired. If you are below 0.08, they have to prove impairment to get a conviction for DUI. But you can get a conviction for DUI, even at 0.001 BAC, if you could show the requisite impaired driving.

In other words, 0.08 isn't some magical number or test -- and you don't even need it, it just makes it easier to obtain convictions.

Which is why I don't think that the enforcement issue is a real issue. It can already be enforced.

 

[Cygnus]

I've been saying "Legalize" for years

 

[*Tina*]

Pupil Dialation (sp?)

The fact that you are laughing the entire time?

When you ask the cop if he is done with his donuts?

All clues the person might be too high to drive.

Too broad.

There has to be a way to determine you have actually consumed too much and that can only be done with hair and blood tests. If there was some sort of swab test done, giving a level of thc, done with the quickness of a breathalizer then it would be much easier.

Plus, there has to be a pre-determined level of thc saturation deemed unsafe just like a BAC.

 

[macadamizer]

Plus, there has to be a pre-determined level of thc saturation deemed unsafe just like a BAC.

That's not how the DUI laws are written. In order to get a DUI, you have to have impaired driving. If you fail a field sobriety test, that can be enough to show impairment. The 0.08 BAC just means that impairment is presumed. You can be impaired below 0.08 BAC and get a DUI.

 

[macadamizer]

Because the substance is illegal, so any amount of high is therefor a DUI. When you legalize something you have to have accepted boundaries for acceptable use. How long after someone smokes a joint before they can legally drive?

This *is* an issue.

Let me put this another way -- how long after you have a drink can you legally drive?

 

[Jakemate]

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Of6PCVk9qA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Of6PCVk9qA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> [/youtube]


Hope I embedded that right....


I can't find the link, but there is a US company that has a weed breathalyzer. There is also saliva tests that are used, IIRC, in Europe.

 

[*Tina*]

That's not how the DUI laws are written. In order to get a DUI, you have to have impaired driving. If you fail a field sobriety test, that can be enough to show impairment. The 0.08 BAC just means that impairment is presumed. You can be impaired below 0.08 BAC and get a DUI.

Yes, I realize this but how, once legal, do they determine whether there is anything is someones system other than with some kind of test and at what level do they determine, no matter how well you prove your not impaired, youre too high to drive ??

 

[macadamizer]

Yes, I realize this but how, once legal, do they determine whether there is anything is someones system other than with some kind of test and at what level do they determine, no matter how well you prove your not impaired, youre too high to drive ??

If you are not impaired, you are not too high to drive. Legal or not has absolutely nothing to do with this. You can be charged with DUI if you drive after taking perfectly legal OTC cold medicines.

Put another way -- the legality or illegality of pot has nothing to do with getting a DUI.

As long as pot is illegal, you can get charged with other stuff -- but DUI is based on impairment. If you are worried about people smoking pot while they are driving, well, we already have a mechanism for alcohol -- it's already illegal to drink while driving, regardless of BAC, or even to have an open container in the car. Seems like it would be relatively simple to have similar rules with pot.

 

[*Tina*]

"once legal"? I think you're still missing the point. Alcohol is legal, and once you've failed the "stand on one leg and walk a straight line" test, there's no requirement for anything to be in your blood in any specified quantity.

Get baked, fail the test, you're done.

So because someone has poor balance theyre drunk or stoned ?? What if they draw blood and there is nothing there ?? Still applies ??

I'd fight it in a heartbeat if its that easy to determine impairment.

 

[Holeshot]

As if dealing with second hand smokers isn't bad enough, now 2nd hand pot smoking...and the problems there that exist are worse than just regular smoking. Given they can deal with that, I see no issues...but that makes an interesting issue.