No more stoned driving -- Colorado is passing THC limits for DUI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ds0110

You do a lot of "thinking" with no stats, research, or figures. Only speculation. How about this one? Since 20 years ago when they first made DUI laws, accidents nationwide have gone UP. Both DUI and DUID are both the same thing...they are just made to make leo money and do not make the roads any safer, despite what the brainwashing from MADD 10 years ago or some random hollywood scene has you think...society did not crumble with people driving buzzed. There was a time when police would be your friend and help you instead of taking you away from your friends and family for something that is completely normal. There was a time when you didnt go to jail until you actually harmed someone or cost someone money. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Next theyll be saying "if it saves one child, then it was worth it to take every smokers rights away..." and the sad thing is no one is going to do anything about it.

Truth be known, if there were no DUI, DUID, and mj were legal....there would be a LOT (like over 50% maybe) of LEO without a job....They depend on our suffering.

---

I didn't speculate about anything in my post or make any statements that required statistical backup. You quoted some percentages but for all we know they could be made up, as you didnt cite your source.

I am also speaking from the viewpoint of a non american. Law enforcement in my country doesn't profit from DUI convictions and prisons are non profit.

Seeing as you are fond of stats here are some government compiled stats for my country showing that DUI accidents have decreased as convictions for drink driving have increased over a 29 year period.

Drink Driving Statistics | Statistics On Drinking & Driving

There are also statistics showing that the percentage of people involved in accidents who have drugs in their system other than alcohol has increased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhatJay

I am also speaking from the viewpoint of a non american. Law enforcement in my country doesn't profit from DUI convictions and prisons are non profit.

---

So you really have no idea what youre talking about? Do you know anyone who has had blood forcibly removed due to DUI suspicion? Have you even been to America or met an american police officer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denvertoad

Somewhat skewed in your logic process here. Argument by scenario applies.

---

I gave a stat, then applied an opinion to it. What he did was "I think....I think.....I think......" with no stats/facts...and it turns out, with no reasoning or actual real life experience on why they feel this way. And the statement about LEO losing over 50% if there were no DUID, DUI, and mj is legal is only partially opinion. The point is a massive part of law enforcement is extortion targeted at average activities from average citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ds0110

So you really have no idea what youre talking about? Do you know anyone who has had blood forcibly removed due to DUI suspicion? Have you even been to America or met an american police officer?

---

I don't know about Colorado but in Wisconsin that's more/less common practice. Your choice, either let them take the blood or have it done via restraints.

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

There is a trend among police departments across the U.S. to force DUI suspects to have their blood alcohol content (BAC) measured. Since BAC evidence is generally the most powerful evidence to support a DUI conviction, many jurisdictions are going the extra mile to get it.

During "No Refusal" campaigns, drivers who are suspected of DUI are given an ultimatum. They may submit to a breath test to measure their blood alcohol content, or they will be forced to give a blood sample for testing. After a motorist is given the choice and still refuses to take a breath test, a warrant to obtain a blood sample is immediately obtained. Judges are on standby to sign the blood draw warrants.

In some jurisdictions that allow forced blood draws on DUI suspects, the officers do the blood draws themselves, rather than taking suspects to the hospital for blood draws by trained medical professionals. Although there has been at least one lawsuit filed because of this practice, it has become more common to allow officers without adequate medical training to draw blood from DUI suspects.
The Facts About Forced Blood Tests During a DUI Stop

Welcome to America......:wtf:

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

I can't believe people are just fine with the fact that a cop can pull you over, say you were "swerving" or whatever, and then stick a needle into you. :wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MtnLionCO

More to the point, any sobriety test should be based on IMPAIRMENT, not some arbitrary limit set by the government.

---

exactly, well said

this is a simple fu to mason tvert in colorado SAFER
for his position the "safer alternative" most likely

the government will not admit that weed is 100 times safer than alcohol
is all it boils down to

It's the Feds that are behind it...

"White House Drug Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said the research was a "good first attempt" to understand the role that drug use plays in automobile fatalities.

Many drugs can affect a driver's judgment and reaction time but researchers are still trying to determine the level of drug use that can impair a driver's ability to drive safely. A blood alcohol level of 0.08 is the legal limit for all 50 states but a similar level of impairment is uncertain for many drugs.

"It's very clear that we've got a significant problem," Kerlikowske said. "We've made great progress on alcohol-impaired driving through education and enforcement. There's just no reason we won't be able to make progress in this area once we start bringing it to people's attention and we start doing the enforcement that's needed."



Drugs found in the system of about 1 in 5 drivers killed in car crashes in 2009, gov't says - 11/30/2010 10:58:47 AM | Newser

Bunch of BS, MJ should not be treated in the same light as alcohol, they could not be more opposite. There is little to no impairment on regular MJ users when driving.:smokin:

Look how many people die every year to bad medicine... time to get rid of doctors and hospitals too...


Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists

"America was rudely awakened to a new kind of danger on September 11, 2001: Terrorism. The attacks that day left 2,996 people dead, including the passengers on the four commercial airliners that were used as weapons. Many feel it was the most tragic day in U.S. history.
Four commercial jets crashed that day. But what if six jumbo jets crashed every day in the United States, claiming the lives of 783,936 people every year? That would certainly qualify as a massive tragedy, wouldn't it?

Well, forget "what if." The tragedy is happening right now. Over 750,000 people actually do die in the United States every year, although not from plane crashes. They die from something far more common and rarely perceived by the public as dangerous: modern medicine. "



Learn more: Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ds0110

I gave a stat, then applied an opinion to it.

---

A stat with no source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ds0110

What he did was "I think....I think.....I think......" with no stats/facts...and it turns out, with no reasoning or actual real life experience on why they feel this way.

---

You seem to have a problem with me saying "I think" so let's address each one indiviually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhatJay

I think a lot of the people in this thread are letting their love for the beautiful weed, cloud their judgement.

---

Statistics on the amount of cloud in front of cannabis.com forum users judgement were not available, so I expressed my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhatJay

I believe the positive effects of cannabis outweigh the negative.

---

This opinion is based on observations made during the 20+ years I have smoked cannabis. Do you disagree with me on this point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhatJay

I think we need to be as aware of the negatives as the postives so we can minimise any harmful impact and enjoy the benefits of this wonderful plant.

---

I don't need statistics to back this up. It is common sense, an axiom.

People keep claiming marijuana does not impair driving ability... as if I haven't been smoking pot for 20 years! No candid self-assessment of mine could reach that conclusion. When I drive high, I drive distracted. My reaction and decision times are slower, and I'm often more concerned with music, climate or food than I am with the demands of driving. Anecdotally, my observations of other high drivers match my own experience.

As marijuana policy is further liberalized, limits are going to be set on cannabis purchase and use. We cannabis users are going to have to accept the same kinds of time/place/manner restrictions that govern smoking and alcohol use. I don't believe pot should be treated exactly like alcohol, but I do believe people who drive high are behaving irresponsibly. How to test, what limits should be set, and what the punishment should be, I leave to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

People keep claiming marijuana does not impair driving ability... as if I haven't been smoking pot for 20 years!

---

The problem is, it's a personal reaction. Some people with brain chemistry issues like bipolar II and ADD are probably better off driving high. When I'm not high, I'm likely to drive faster and more aggressively.

There is also the issue that it has not been proven that mj impairs to the extent the law needs to be involved, in fact I posted information proving the opposite.

I believe cell phones are far more dangerous then mj on the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorje113

The problem is, it's a personal reaction. Some people with brain chemistry issues like bipolar II and ADD are probably better off driving high. When I'm not high, I'm likely to drive faster and more aggressively.

There is also the issue that it has not been proven that mj impairs to the extent the law needs to be involved, in fact I posted information proving the opposite.

I believe cell phones are far more dangerous then mj on the road.

---

this is spot on. I am a tame, speed limit driving good citizen on weed. I'm a left-lane driving lead foot grump otherwise.

ADD for sure. Cell phones are certainly a much bigger safety issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorje113

I believe cell phones are far more dangerous then mj on the road.

---

..duh? Which is why their use is restricted in cars! Exactly the same principle applies.

(I am receptive to the argument that, like the penalties for texting, the penalty for driving high should be lower than, say, the penalty incurred for a DUI with bodily injury.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorje113

I believe cell phones are far more dangerous then mj on the road.

---

I agree, also dangerous while driving: eating!
I've seen and I'm guilty of near accidents due to eating.

Texting is bad too - yes we have a law in CO that bans it, but unfortunately it's had a reverse effect. Accident rates due to texting has increased - the theory is people are still texting but are going to great lengths to hide it, taking their eyes off the road even longer than before.

Love this BBC Stoned Driving YouTube video
YouTube - Stoned Driving Experiment.flv

This is already happening in CA. A friend was drinking and smoking with some growers in the hills. One of the guys does not drink and was just smoking weed. He leaves the group and heads down to civilization. He gets off the side roads and gets pulled over on the state highway. The cops say they think he has been drinking so he says he has not but that they can go ahead and test him. They do their field breathalizer test and he registers zero. They say that he still looks loaded to them and they are going to perform an additional test. They come back and say that he has tested positive for marijuana and they arrest him for driving under the influence of narcotics.

I have not heard anything about what happened after that and have not heard of any other person getting busted for being under the influence of marijuana. So this is second hand information but from a very trusted friend.

Since this happened to this other person I have been stopped by profiling in Santa Rosa. We had weed in back of the truck and some in the cab for smoking. The cop followed us for several miles after profiling us (dirty off road pick up with large load under cheap tarp) then pulled us over. He said we were speeding though we were the slowest car on the road in the slow lane at the time. He also said he smelled pot. He had a dog in the car and spoke with my daughter who was driving first. She figured the dog smelled the weed so she told the cop we had 1/8 in the cab. He asked if he could search the back and she said yes and started to open the tailgate but the cop said that was OK. He asked if we had 215 licenses and if we could provide them. She said she had one and that I had one and could produce them. So the cop has her tell me to get out of the truck while she gets in. I tell the cop that we have 1/8 too. He asks if he can search the back and I start to untie the tarp. He then says thats OK. We are too willing to let him search and he believes that we don't have weed there (though we had about a pound) and that we can go.

He does not give us a ticket. He does not search the cab even though we told him we have 1/8 there (really about 3/4 oz). We just go.

He had to know we were high but did not perform any sobriety or drug tests. I am not sure how it will work but I am hoping field pot tests will not ecome the norm here.

Anyone heard of anyone in CA getting field tested for pot.

We can argue all day about whether it's a bad idea for people to drive high. I never said it wasn't.

The point is that you can't really determine impairment by testing alkaloid levels or THC levels in the blood. IT IS NOT A RELIABLE INDICATOR!!!

So, yeah it may be a good idea to outlaw stoned driving, but there is no practical way to get a quantitative idea of how stoned someone is by looking at their blood alkaloid levels.

As was stated a few times already in this thread you could smoke on Monday and still have arrestable alkaloid levels on Wednesday. That is the point of this thread!!

I want to know what advocates of this law think about that!!!

A field sobriety test is really the only fair and rational way to do it without jeopardizing the rights of a all medical users!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lampost

A field sobriety test is really the only fair and rational way to do it without jeopardizing the rights of a all medical users!

---

This is what we have in my country, I have seen one performed. It is similar to an alcohol sobriety test, testing co-ordination, the ability of the eyes to focus etc..

I'm not an advocate of the law, but I'll certainly give my opinion: people who smoke several times a day shouldn't drive. I don't have much experience with drug testing and am not able to evaluate different methods of testing or to comment on specific blood levels. Whatever standard they choose, I will likely abide by it because I do not wish to get a DUI.

I hope a field sobriety test is too difficult to nail down and never gets perfected. I would never pass a test even when I wake up in the morning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy2010

I hope a field sobriety test is too difficult to nail down and never gets perfected. I would never pass a test even when I wake up in the morning.

---

I had to explain to a cop that I couldn't recite the alphabet backwards. Sober, drunk, high - it doesn't matter. I can provide a lively overview of tripartite government, a thoughtful analysis of the causes of the Civil War, a succinct but humorous recap of the election of 1800. Ask me high school algebra, or to diagram a sentence, or about the relative merits of the wildcat and the wishbone. Unfortunately, sequences of letters and numbers have always been beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

..duh? Which is why their use is restricted in cars! Exactly the same principle applies.

(I am receptive to the argument that, like the penalties for texting, the penalty for driving high should be lower than, say, the penalty incurred for a DUI with bodily injury.)

---

I've seen on multiple occasions where someone is driving like a massive retard right in front of a cop while yapping away on their cellphone, just to watch the cop brush it off. Cops in this state are great with selective law enforcement!!

Also it's amusing how it's acceptable to be all jacked up on prescription drugs and drive, yet now pot is just as dangerous as alcohol.... that is complete and utter horse shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dnutz

wow... if this bullshit law passes, im packing my bags and moving elsewhere... since when has it ever been a problem to drive high? people have been doing this for a few DECADES now and its never been a problem, why all of the sudden is this becoming an issue? I can answer that pretty easily, $$$$$$$$$ is the bottom line to the assholes in politics... its never going to be enough!

---

MONEY, they cant arrest us for posession anymore, grower have found a safety net from these greedy bastards. so guess what...theyre going to fill their jails this way. mo money, mo money, mo money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

I had to explain to a cop that I couldn't recite the alphabet backwards. Sober, drunk, high - it doesn't matter. I can provide a lively overview of tripartite government, a thoughtful analysis of the causes of the Civil War, a succinct but humorous recap of the election of 1800. Ask me high school algebra, or to diagram a sentence, or about the relative merits of the wildcat and the wishbone. Unfortunately, sequences of letters and numbers have always been beyond me.

---

Just so you know, I asked a cop about this once when they had me do some ridiculous field sobriety test. It was multiple things at once, like rub your belly in a circle while counting backwards standing on one foot. When it was done and he was satisfied that I was sober I asked him point blank if he was just messing with me when he made me do all that stuff. He said that drunks practice things like saying the alphabet backwards, but the cops don't really care if you can do it, just how you react. Do you giggle, slur, speed up and slow down, etc?

I'd be all for actual skills based testing, reflex response times, etc. but as others have said, the presence of metabolites or even THC in the blood does not indicate impairment one way or the other.

Maybe it should be illegal to drive after you fight with your S.O. I have been hit twice by idiots arguing with their wives. One ran a stop sign and destroyed the car I was in and injured himself badly. And I see some pinhead or another almost cause a wreck almost daily because they are on the phone.

Maybe all cars should have a little test that you have to perform before it will start. Bad reflexes? Who cares if it's because you're drunk or because you can't stop thinking about your problems. No driving for you. Conversely, if you can pass the tests the car will let you drive. Drunk, stoned, ripped on Viagra and Prozac, or just sleepy. Impairment is impairment is impairment.

This isn't about safety. All of it, 1290, the new regs they are proposing, videos and databases, this nonsense about blood levels and driving, and whatever comes next is a knee jerk reactionary blow against social change that some people don't like. It is the equivalent of the woman on The Simpsons who always freaks out and screams "Think of the children!"

They just don't want to admit that pot is basically harmless when placed next to so many commonly accepted risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhatJay

I never mentioned zero tolerance.



You are someone who puts words into other peoples mouths and makes rash assumptions about peoples behaviour in a given situation. I don't see how these comments are related to the discussion or add any weight to your argument. For all you know, HighPopalorum if being tailgated, might pull over at the next junction/laybay and let the idiot tailgater pass.

---

"Zero Tolerance" came from the article, I didn't say YOU said it.

Either you believe in freedom, or you believe in control. You have stated that you believe in control, that is your opinion, you are entitled to it, that's all it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

*shrug*

If a reliable test can be devised and sensible limits set which do not penalize responsible marijuana users, I'm all for it. People should not drive when high. When they do so, they put the public at risk and deserve to face a penalty. Sobriety is the proper standard for operating a vehicle.

---

A Michigan State Trooper told me once, "alcohol affects different people differently." Then he let me drive away after blowing a .12. No citation.

Even more so for marijuana. Most people who actually leave their houses understand this. Otherwise stay home (asshat). Probably why you have so much time to piss off decent folk on forums.

:stoned::stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MtnLionCO

A Michigan State Trooper told me once, "alcohol affects different people differently." Then he let me drive away after blowing a .12. No citation.

Even more so for marijuana. Most people who actually leave their houses understand this. Otherwise stay home (asshat). Probably why you have so much time to piss off decent folk on forums.

---

This. Being from Wisconsin I don't know a single person besides my mom and myself that don't have a drunk driving. Most have many. Luckily in Wisco drunk driving isn't a criminal offense (the first few anyway), its just a six months suspension of your license and a fine(you get your occupational immediately, even if you don't have a job).

Between 1 and 3am all of the cops disappear and let all of the drunk people get home (in the rural areas anyways). Drinking is big business and the Tavern League controls many a municipal government. Bars are some of the only businesses still around in small towns.

You can walk into any tavern and ask for "one with wheels" and walk out with a can of beer for your drive home.

The small town I am from, our municipal court judge has 5 DUI's and everybody knows it. He still gets elected like clockwork and will likely be the judge until he dies.

If you get pulled over smoking a joint you will get a ticket (for possession) but you will get to drive away right then and there.

As for the safety of driving while stoned, I really honestly dont think it makes a difference. Quite frankly there is no such thing as being stoned for me. Only being normal.

Everybody who made the point about cell phones, I agree totally. Every time some moron almost kills me he is fucking around with his phone. They often give me a dirty look like I am the dipshit.

I wish we could just undo cell phones. I fucking hate the god damned things.

Sounds great, asscore. Please try and keep your drunk driving friends and your drunk driving judge out of Colorado. Drunk drivers kill hundreds of Coloradans every year, so we don't need any more. If Wisconsin has such a laudably lax policy toward driving drunk and high, I suggest you stay there. If I see you driving drunk here, I call the cops with absolutely no exceptions.

And biketripper.... I've got 6.3k this year on my road bike, and drunks are my nemesis! I got run over by one last year to the tune of three ribs, both collar bones, concussion, and various lacerations. It's dangerous out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

And biketripper.... I've got 6.3k this year on my road bike, and drunks are my nemesis! I got run over by one last year to the tune of three ribs, both collar bones, concussion, and various lacerations. It's dangerous out there.

---

Switch to mountain biking :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorje113

Switch to mountain biking :thumbsup:

---

no shit. Road cyclists are nuts. no wonder you're so tightly wound hipop!
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

And biketripper.... I've got 6.3k this year on my road bike, and drunks are my nemesis! I got run over by one last year to the tune of three ribs, both collar bones, concussion, and various lacerations. It's dangerous out there.

---

Oh believe me, I know. I bicycle too. I've worked as a driver, and as a bike courier in DC and Denver. Spend all day every day in traffic and you see it all. People are nuts in cars. But really, I think it is a mistake to lump pot in with alcohol as an equivalent danger.

Back when the first rounds of decriminalization went around the country (mid to late 70s) the same sort of things were said. After DC's decrim I heard an interview with an ex prosecutor for the city. He was asked about the dangers of pot and driving and what he said was that he would not want to ride in a car with a driver who was stoned for the first time, but that he would rather have an experienced pot smoker at the wheel with any amount of pot in his system than a driver with even one beer. I've always remembered his answer because it sums things up so well.

Most people are bad drivers, period. Aggression and distraction are the big dangers. Basically, people need to chill the fuck out, slow the fuck down and pay attention. I'd argue that pot is less of a danger than cell phones, texting, web browsing, speeding, jumping lanes, eating breakfast cereal, putting on makeup and most of the other crazy shit people do every day behind the wheel.

If there is a test that can measure actual impairment of abilities to drive then lets use it. But to set arbitrary blood levels with no scientific backing at all to say that this actually represents some threshold of danger? Has anyone seen any science behind this at all? But really, this is just one more way to demonize marijuana completely out of proportion with reality.

Did you know it also makes white girls want to have sex with Mexicans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

no shit. Road cyclists are nuts. no wonder you're so tightly wound hipop!
;)

---

heh... I have a few mtbs as well but I didn't include their mileage because I don't know it. I ride everywhere 24/7/365.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

Sounds great, asscore. Please try and keep your drunk driving friends and your drunk driving judge out of Colorado. Drunk drivers kill hundreds of Coloradans every year, so we don't need any more. If Wisconsin has such a laudably lax policy toward driving drunk and high, I suggest you stay there. If I see you driving drunk here, I call the cops with absolutely no exceptions.

And biketripper.... I've got 6.3k this year on my road bike, and drunks are my nemesis! I got run over by one last year to the tune of three ribs, both collar bones, concussion, and various lacerations. It's dangerous out there.

---

Sorry to hear that, did the driver go to jail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

People keep claiming marijuana does not impair driving ability... as if I haven't been smoking pot for 20 years! No candid self-assessment of mine could reach that conclusion. When I drive high, I drive distracted. My reaction and decision times are slower, and I'm often more concerned with music, climate or food than I am with the demands of driving. Anecdotally, my observations of other high drivers match my own experience.

As marijuana policy is further liberalized, limits are going to be set on cannabis purchase and use. We cannabis users are going to have to accept the same kinds of time/place/manner restrictions that govern smoking and alcohol use. I don't believe pot should be treated exactly like alcohol, but I do believe people who drive high are behaving irresponsibly. How to test, what limits should be set, and what the punishment should be, I leave to others.

---

Not sure what you guys are smoking up your way, but I will say (type) it again. In my opinion, and the studies I've seen, there is little to no impairment after smoking MJ.

I have been smoking for 30 yrs and in just the last year increased my smoking to 1.5 grams a day and taking a tincture which amounts to another 3.5 grams a day orally. I can perform any task, including work, driving, what ever it be with no impairment. I feel the best I ever have and even lost weight.

Why is it so hard for some of you to understand that some folks will have no impairment after smoking? There are credible studies to back this up, one from Hartford Hospital. :jointsmile:

Hartford Hospital Study Finds Marijuana Use Has Little Effect On Driving Skills - Courant.com
:smokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lampost

We can argue all day about whether it's a bad idea for people to drive high. I never said it wasn't.

The point is that you can't really determine impairment by testing alkaloid levels or THC levels in the blood. IT IS NOT A RELIABLE INDICATOR!!!

So, yeah it may be a good idea to outlaw stoned driving, but there is no practical way to get a quantitative idea of how stoned someone is by looking at their blood alkaloid levels.

As was stated a few times already in this thread you could smoke on Monday and still have arrestable alkaloid levels on Wednesday. That is the point of this thread!!

I want to know what advocates of this law think about that!!!

A field sobriety test is really the only fair and rational way to do it without jeopardizing the rights of a all medical users!

---

Agreed, if they based it off of actual impairment, I'd ace any test, lol. I personally injest a lot of MJ, no impairment at all. :D:D:D

My wife has never interfered with my driving while under the influence of MJ, but after only 3 beers and no smoking MJ she won't let me drive. I have since quit drinking altogether, don't want to no more, ha, ha.:stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

reasonable skills based testing is the only way. levels of cannabis in someone's system are no marker for sobriety.

---

there is a test already that is determined by the number of nanograms in your system, but it can really only be used to count those nanograms and can show if you have just been burning or smoking for you regular folk. it is faulty though since heavy smokers and edible users we have numbers of the charts compared to light weights that are most likely far more dangerous. :thumbsup:;):mad::stoned::stoned::jointsmile:

Until someone is hurt or property is damaged, no crime has been committed.

Any attempt at crime "prevention" is an attempt into reading the future - fortune telling at best, stealing your freedom at worst.

They havent even done enough credible studies on the effects of mj on the brain, much less its effects on driving.

Until they actually study what it does, should they really be telling me that I cant do it?

Because someone else cant handle it, does that mean I should lose the right/freedom? Someone could go to the liquor store with $50, buy a ~gallon of everclear and drink it then die....yet everclear is still legal..bleach for that matter...

(full time delivery driver for 3 years of the past 10 that ive been smoking - no wrecks)

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ds0110

Until someone is hurt or property is damaged, no crime has been committed.

Any attempt at crime "prevention" is an attempt into reading the future - fortune telling at best, stealing your freedom at worst.

They havent even done enough credible studies on the effects of mj on the brain, much less its effects on driving.

Until they actually study what it does, should they really be telling me that I cant do it?

Because someone else cant handle it, does that mean I should lose the right/freedom? Someone could go to the liquor store with $50, buy a ~gallon of everclear and drink it then die....yet everclear is still legal..bleach for that matter...

(full time delivery driver for 3 years of the past 10 that ive been smoking - no wrecks)

---

:thumbsup: you can say that again ;)

no wrecks in 20 years here. as a matter of fact, I've only had 1 traffic ticket in the last 20 years, and it was BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bikeTripper

...Did you know it also makes white girls want to have sex with Mexicans?

---

WHAT!?!?! Did no one else read this! Hahaha! That's some funny sh!t there.
:D

this is excerpted from Rep Levy's newsletter sent 1/1/11. Be sure she hears from you!

Keep that hair short and the phish stickers off the bumpers kids!

State Representative
CLAIRE LEVY
200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol: 303-866-2578
[email protected]

"I will be sponsoring a bill that was developed by the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, which created quite a flood of phone calls and e-mail when the Denver Post and Westword ran stories on it. That bill will create a maximum permissible level of THC (the psycho-active component in marijuana) in the blood that is allowed while driving. It would create an objective standard for determining whether a person is driving under the influence of marijuana. The level I will propose, which is supported by a lot of research, is 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. There has been concern about whether that level will include people who have THC in their systems but whose driving is not impaired. Many people have expressed concern that this kind of law will simply allow law enforcement officials to target medical marijuana patients. The literature indicates that the 5 ng level is sufficiently high that anyone with that amount in their blood by the time testing occurs has ingested a significant amount of marijuana recently. (In contrast, urine testing detects various metabolites, which do stay in the system fairly long.) The officer must have probable cause for stopping the motorist based on their observable driving behavior and a reasonable suspicion that the impaired driving is from marijuana in order to request a blood test. As marijuana use becomes more prevalent and as criminal penalties decrease, I strongly believe the public needs confidence their safety on the roads is not being jeopardized."

well i guess hipopularum is happy now. ive been looking for his bike so i can run him over (just kidding)