And here it is...HB11-1261 - the THC Level DUI Bill

[HighPopalorum]

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.

[senorx12562]

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.

[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.

[DenverRelief]

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.

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.

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.

[DenverRelief]

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.

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.

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.

[DenverRelief]

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.

There are many reasons for this, and drunk-driving laws should not be considered the major cause.

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.

[HighPopalorum]

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.

[porone]

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

[HighPopalorum]

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.

[porone]

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 point
You may never get it