I do wonder how she justifies this as being representative of what her Boulder constituency wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
Printable View
I do wonder how she justifies this as being representative of what her Boulder constituency wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
Maintain perspective, people. Claire is an ally in the effort to liberalize marijuana laws. She isn't the enemy.
One toke of a couple of my strains will lay you down so the 5ng limit must be low.Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRelief
Just got home from the testimony portion. They released a chart that says an edible will never put you over the 5ng level. I believe it was from 1984. Should be circulating on the net tomorrow.
We killed them on a lot of their statistics. The only person who had to be "removed" was already on his way out. Really anxious to hear how it went, I felt like there were some Reps asking the right questions.
thanks Releaf. I didn't get to listen today so I'm anxious.
I don't believe Levy's numbers for a second. It's pre-medical, drug-war science.
THC/DUL Bill Moves Forward with a 6-2 Vote
I was pleased with the turnout and the well thought out testimony... at least on the side against the bill, on the other side of the coin, all the stops were pulled and ridicules lies thrown around but the quote of the year has to be from a lady who after hearing what she said i would have caught her name
"ONE WAY TO TELL IF SOMEONE IS HIGH. YOU CAN LOOK AT THEIR TONGUE, IT MAY BE GREEN'
Denver Post
Colo. pot DUIs bill gets first OK at Capitol - The Denver Post
I'm glad Dr Shackelford addressed that directly. Sgt Simpson also testified that you can't cross your eyes if you're high, which lead to a lot of eye crossing in the gallery. Great moment.
I agree with you that Levy has been a proponent of medical marijuana, yet this is not a "liberalization" of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
Levy is not an enemy, but this bill simply cannot be considered "pro marijuana". At its face, it is an overreaction to the supposed dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana that do not exist. That is not liberal, it's fearful and reactionary.
Coffee can make someone a dangerous driver, or a cell phone, or prescriptions drugs, or a person's simple inability to pay attention to what they are doing.
There is no public safety issue here, there is no rash of high drivers running over children...the problem with bad drivers is people not marijuana.
*shrug*
I only object to the Copobo's firing squad mentality. As you say, she's a proponent of medical marijuana. She also supports decriminalization and alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders. Even if she's wrong about this bill, she's right about most other marijuana-related issues. If Claire Levy fails the acid test, what Representative could possibly pass?
I would rather have someone in there NOT interested in MMJ legislation at all. This is a pretty major fuck up. It is going to ruin lives. The lives of good people.
She is presenting lies as truth. I think that's unforgivable.
She should kill the bill and stick to patient rights if she has any interest in MMJ.
Couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
I simply do not understand why the law as it stands now is insufficient to protect people from impaired drivers, at least insofar as any law can do so. Exactly what additional danger is posed now that wasn't posed before to justify a change in the law? If, in a given instance, the state cannot prove that a driver was impaired without a presumption to that effect, that driver obviously wasn't very impaired, were they? This is just another case of law and order authoritarianism versus liberty, which proponents of the former hate with all their being. Prima facie evidence of impaired driving should be EVIDENCE OF HOW THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING. Duh.
Five months ago you were singing her praises, starting threads urging us to vote for her, but now she's an unforgivable life-destroying menace? You can't tell friend from foe, Copobo, but your mercurial temperament livens up the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
Come on. You know that its a red herring whether or not copobo supported her before or not. It has no bearing on whether or not he judges her actions now to be good. A policitian can lose supporters for any number of reasons: she's making a genuine mistake, she genuiningly believes this bill to be beneficial to her constituants and supporters, perhaps she is showing her true colors now and was never to be trusted? Whatever the case may be, I feel that your opinion on a bill that could negatively effect the lives of MMJ patients is too strongly influenced by your personal lack of concern for the issue, because as you've stated you don't mind restricting yourself to a no-driving policy on days that you smoke--an impractical rule for many patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
This argument boils down to a single issue for me at this point. Setting a (what many consider to be low) limit disproportionately benefits law enforcement over citizens, because the citizens in this case have no real, practical means for judging their THC limit before leaving the house! Most patients can judge their impairment level in order to drive, which currently works decently. But with a limit in place, it doesn't matter if you can drive well or not--all that matters is the damn number which no patient has the means to personally test for before driving. Unless you want to send them to a police station or hospital to test themselves everytime they want to go to the store. Or perhaps patients should be required to purchase home blood test kits or have nurses on standby in their homes?
The limit, the number, without regard for practical impairment level, only benefits law enforcement in the form of a political and financial campaign.
yea, you're trolling hipop.
my opinion of a particular politician can most certainly change. pushing patients into the DUI money machine is evil.
she seems to have bought a lie and doesn't want to admit she's mistaken. people are going to be being pulled over for out headlights and end up getting stuck with a needle and tested. just wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
Thats what I see happening. Cops will pull people over and if their hair is to long, or if their eyes are red from hay fever, or if the cop simply wants to harass and make the dubious smell claim they will haul your ass to the hospital to stick a needle in your arm. And guess what happens to your car? They will tow it and you will have to pay the tow and impound fees, not to mention its a free pass to search the vehicle. I bet the cops are foaming at the mouth waiting for this to pass.
Everyone changes their mind. After all, when circumstances change it's the prudent choice! However, we shouldn't vote out every pot-friendly politician with whom we have any disagreement. We'll be left with no one! Claire is right on a preponderance of issues that relate to marijuana and her background gives her a good grasp of the technical details of land use, permitting and planning as they relate to centers and growing operations. I really don't give a hoot about Levy's retention- my Boulder days are in the past- but I think it would be a a net negative to lose her contributions, not only w/r/t pot but to broader civil liberty issues. She's very liberal on all the issues so there are innumerable reasons why a person might not vote for her, but she has been receptive to retail medical marijuana, and also to lowering and removing penalties for recreational smokers. Replace her if you like, but it's a virtual certainty that we'll find more bones to pick with her successor than with Levy.
This law could actually do a lot of good. It gives you a level that you can be exonerated at. Currently, any MMJ in your system is a DUID if you're driving impaired. I think the level is too low, but that's where we're starting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
Ummm No!We already have laws against driving while impaired.It alows cops to charge you without any other evidence no matter where the limit is set.
And those laws currently say any MMJ use is impairment. Same goes for any amount of say... ambien. Anything that is a drug that affects how you drive is illegal currently. This bill would allow you some D9 THC in your system while you drive. Current law doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by porone
It also doesn't allow cops to charge you, you still have to show signs of impairment. The per se portion is written awkwardly and will be cleaned up as this continues to move through the legislature. Levy wants it to be a DUI per se (where simply hitting 5ng is a DUI, no evidence can help) but that has no support.
As it stands now there are 2 eliments to the crime.One being intoxicated.The other is driving in a manner that is a danger to others.I know I beet a duid without a lawyer and the judge said he beleived I was High as a kite but the state did not provide evidence that I was driving in any manner other than safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
Did they do a blood draw?Quote:
Originally Posted by porone
That isn't completey true. If I was hopped up on my third cup of coffee and tailgating and driving aggressively and a cop pulled me over, she would likely charge me with reckless driving, or careless driving, but she wouldn't look at my coffee cup and ask me to step out of the car so that she could determine if I had enough caffeine in my blood through a blood test to be considered impaired.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
She would just write the ticket.
In this case the coffee isn't illegal or the caffeine in my blood, it's the driving. So should it be for marijuana.
Yes They knew I was High but being pulled over for tail lights was not enough.It was alot more than Mj too.Glad that part of my life is overQuote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
I should have been more clear. There are DUID's written for prescription drugs. In your example, an officer would probably still give you a roadside, suspecting the presence of some drug.Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRelief
Well, glad you didn't get found guilty. Getting pulled over for a tail light wouldn't be enough under the new law unless they determined you were impaired.Quote:
Originally Posted by porone
My point is this, the coffee can make someone a dangerous driver as can numerous other factors. Some of those are "illegal" because there is language explicitly stating such written in law. Even if the officer issued a roadside, though the coffee may have contributed to my bad driving, there is nothing the law can do about it, because it isn't illegal to drink coffee and drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
Becoming litigious about every single factor that could possible lead to bad driving to the point of drawing blood does not provide the benefit that is intended. The roads are no safer and wouldn't be if this THC DUI bill were to pass.
We should just punish bad drivers...
I don't know, I personally support things like bans on cell phone use while driving. There is overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence that driving under the influence of certain levels of D9 THC can be dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRelief
[QUOTE= There is overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence that driving under the influence of certain levels of D9 THC can be dangerous.[/QUOTE]
SO WHAT
I know why dont we right a law that says, At the age 18 you take a test.You should discribe a repulic, a dimocracy, monarcy and so on.Then ask what type of government is the united states is and if you get any of it wrong you get a oneway ticket to anywhere outside the US and never let your ass back in!
{spelling well not required } LOL
We have to many laws now.We have laws that are against the law.For example proabition is against the US constitusion.If you say its not then why did it take an amendment to alcohal illeagle and anouther to make it leagle again?
And it is up to the individual to make good choices when it comes to driving, and if they feel impaired they shouldn't drive. People should hang up the cell phone while they are driving, and stop texting, but they don't. That's a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
Making it illegal to be on a cell phone doesn't stop people from making phone calls. Making it illegal to be under the influence of THC over 5ng/ml will not stop people from smoking and driving.
We should exercise common-sense and see that we already have laws to deal with dangerous drivers and we do not need to put more people through the judicial system and subject them to DUI's.
Alcohol is proven to be a different animal when it comes to intoxication.
What data do you have to support those statements? For the most part, the laws we have that restrict or require behavior in our cars do have the desired effect. For example DUI laws have lowered the incidence of drunk driving. Seatbelt and child safety laws have very high compliance rates. I think it's too early to say how efficacious our cell-phone bans will be, but the sales of hands-free devices like bluetooth headsets and expensive in-dash communications systems indicate to me that people are becoming more aware of the dangers of driving while using a phone. There's every reason to believe fewer people would drive high if we enforced DUID laws more rigorously.
If anyone was at the Judiciary meeting, was there any discussion of making driving high a DWAI and not a DUID? That would mean first-offenders with clean driving records would not lose their license automatically, and if no one was hurt there would be no felony.
What data do you have to support your statements? In the first place, whether "DUI laws have lowered the incidence of drunk driving" is not the question to be asked(although I'd be interested in your source for such an assertion). The question is whether changing the previous law requiring the state to adduce evidence at trial of SOME level of impairment of driving due to the consumption of alcohol to giving the prosecution the benefit of a PRESUMPTION that a certain alcohol content in one's blood constituted impairment per se(as Ms. Levy has proposed for marijuana) lowered the incidence of drunk driving or not. I doubt both the existence of conclusive evidence either way and the effect you imply for such a change in the law. Also keep in mind that increased arrest and/or conviction rates are certain to result when it is made easier by statute to obtain a conviction, however that says nothing about whether the behavior happens less often. An increase in the number of people who go to jail for something without a concomitant reduction in the incidence of the underlying behavior is a negative, not a positive, at least to anyone for anyone who values liberty ( which leaves you out I guess). As for cell phones, although anecdotal, I see no evidence of a reduction in the amount of cell-phone-impaired driving. The fact that people buy hands-free devices is actually an example of the law of unintended consequences, as the impairment to driving from phone use is not primarily due to using one's hands, but rather the distraction that comes from trying to carry on a conversation remotely, which a hands-free device does nothing about. I sure am glad those people with their bluetooth headsets are complying with the law though. I feel much safer.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
*shrug*
My data on seat belt compliance, drunk driving incidence are from the NHTSA. Per se laws have been around about forty years and alcohol-related traffic fatalities have been plummeting ever since. How much of that decline is attributable to the increased ease of prosecution provided by per se laws? I couldn't say. Over the same time period, police have devoted increased resources to the problem and public perceptions of drunk drivers have changed - drunk driving bears a higher social stigma now than it once did. Still, it's reasonable to conclude per se limits have decreased drunk driving.
There are many reasons for this, and drunk driving laws should not constitute the major percentage. Cars are A LOT safer than they were 40 years ago. Guardrails have been built along all major highways.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
It is a fallacy to mistake a correlation for a cause.
It may be safe to conclude that drunk driving laws are sufficient motivation for some not to drive drunk. This is not sufficient to conclude that drunk driving laws have reduced instances of drunk driving.
There are many reasons for this, and drunk driving laws should not constitute the major percentage. Cars are A LOT safer than they were 40 years ago. Guardrails have been built along all major highways, ambulances are faster, emergency health care is better, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
It is a fallacy to mistake a correlation for a cause.
It may be safe to conclude that drunk driving laws are sufficient motivation for some not to drive drunk. This is not sufficient to conclude that drunk driving laws have reduced instances of drunk driving.
There are many reasons for this, and drunk-driving laws should not be considered the major cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
Cars are A LOT safer than they were 40 years ago. Guardrails have been built along all major highways, ambulances are faster, emergency health care is better, etc.
It is a fallacy to mistake a correlation for a cause.
It may be safe to conclude that drunk driving laws are sufficient motivation for some not to drive drunk. This is not sufficient to conclude that drunk driving laws have reduced instances of drunk driving.
That's exactly the same objection I raised, but it turns out that alcohol-related fatalities are falling at a much greater rate than overall traffic fatalities. That indicated to me that improvements in car safety, emergency response, medical care alone don't account for the drop. I believe people drive drunk less because there are increased negative consequences when they get caught. It's a reasonable conclusion to leap to.
I'm sick of this, though. The comparison between alcohol and marijuana can only be taken so far and we're far beyond the point of usefulness. For example, the number of corpses that test positive for marijuana is not useful because THC persists so long in the system. How would we even know if the law was working to reduce deaths? I'm on the fence about this law. I'm not convinced it's the best way we can reduce the number of high drivers on Colorado roads, and I'm entirely agnostic on what the limit should be. 5, 50 or 500ng are equally opaque to me.
Im sure now that most people under 45 are so brain washed by our government that they truly beleive the shit Highpop and Releaf spout.
I dont mean this as a put you down guys.You are both quite smart and mean well.
You nead to stand up for the republic and true freedom.Not a Mob rules Democracy in witch you seem to think you live.I think, you think that progresive means progress and thats good.Well its not.We are all liberal in a way.
You may vote Dems becouse they are for leagal cannabis but they are killing our country.(most Repubicans are just as bad)(and not all Dems are bad)Almost everyone most people vote for though should be hung for treason.
Fight the whole fight people.
Fight for the Republic.
Fight for our constitution
I like the both of you though, like I said your both sharp.(Highpop & Releaf)
Makes for good debait
Someday we should:jointsmile:
Its not just about cannabis its about freedom
Dude, smoking pot is not a civil liberty. It isn't capital-F Freedom. It's a liberty, to be sure, but a political liberty - the same as voting or buying booze or driving a car. So.... it's not really about freedom; it's about cannabis. There are ways this law could be drafted that are consistent with our constitutional and human rights and there are variants that would lead to great violations of our civil liberties.
See? You just proved my pointQuote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
You may never get it