Now what? You got what you asked for...

[painretreat]

oh...I like that private club idea :thumbsup: ....stoners need to group by age brackets

:thumbsup:There are already resorts in California..age not a requirement, though!:stoned:

I understand, Oregon, has a few, as well. pr

[RockyMountainHigh_CO]

:rasta:well, i just started this bb to chime in on this topic. I live in Colorado and we are all kinda looking at each other like "what now?". Our town just voted to allow the MMJ facilities back into city limits as well. Our biggest fear is a new "crackdown on 'potted-up' drivers"! Seriously, they didnt establish a scientific norm for what would be an "impaired driver", in other words, how much THC alone (minus alcohol or other drugs) would make you a DUI case? We all know that use creates tolerance and that many can drive perfectly fine moments after smoking it, while others can take one hit and hit the couch unable to move for hours! I think it would be best to just test for THC in cases of accidents and dangerous driving, but I doubt others are going to agree. They will want strict anti-drugged driving laws enforced just like they do alcohol. THC is very different from alcohol, regulating it as such is pretty risky.

[colagal]

:rasta:well, i just started this bb to chime in on this topic. I live in Colorado and we are all kinda looking at each other like "what now?". Our town just voted to allow the MMJ facilities back into city limits as well. Our biggest fear is a new "crackdown on 'potted-up' drivers"! Seriously, they didnt establish a scientific norm for what would be an "impaired driver", in other words, how much THC alone (minus alcohol or other drugs) would make you a DUI case? We all know that use creates tolerance and that many can drive perfectly fine moments after smoking it, while others can take one hit and hit the couch unable to move for hours! I think it would be best to just test for THC in cases of accidents and dangerous driving, but I doubt others are going to agree. They will want strict anti-drugged driving laws enforced just like they do alcohol. THC is very different from alcohol, regulating it as such is pretty risky.

That is certainly going to be one of those sticky wickets that will be very controversial. There will probably be more drivers who will be under the influence of both marijuana and alcohol. Kind of scary. Whatever limits they come up with will be somewhat arbitrary and tied into traffic accident records where the driver tests positive for marijuana. A blood level limit was rejected by lawmakers for the third time just this past May. Many people think that the blood standard is an unfair assessment of impairment. I would agree that it depends upon the person. The dilemma is how to "protect and serve" from a law enforcement standpoint? Those drive responsibly ads will no doubt be updated to include marijuana.

[RockyMountainHigh_CO]

That is certainly going to be one of those sticky wickets that will be very controversial. There will probably be more drivers who will be under the influence of both marijuana and alcohol. Kind of scary. Whatever limits they come up with will be somewhat arbitrary and tied into traffic accident records where the driver tests positive for marijuana. A blood level limit was rejected by lawmakers for the third time just this past May. Many people think that the blood standard is an unfair assessment of impairment. I would agree that it depends upon the person. The dilemma is how to "protect and serve" from a law enforcement standpoint? Those drive responsibly ads will no doubt be updated to include marijuana.

Exactly, the blood standard they rejected would basically make you "too high" to operate heavy machinery for 48 hours or so. Even if they relax that standard greatly, would you still drive in a state that allows mandatory stops at police checkpoints? A DUI is very profitable to the state, they will enforce it. Which basically means pot smokers cant drive if they enact such legislation. I think we just opened a huge can of "unintended consequences".

[colagal]

Exactly, the blood standard they rejected would basically make you "too high" to operate heavy machinery for 48 hours or so. Even if they relax that standard greatly, would you still drive in a state that allows mandatory stops at police checkpoints? A DUI is very profitable to the state, they will enforce it. Which basically means pot smokers cant drive if they enact such legislation. I think we just opened a huge can of "unintended consequences".

Unintended consequences indeed! However, I guess that is to be expected when blazing new frontiers, eh? :upsidedow

[painretreat]

:thumbsup:One can only hope, that it will be tolerated, as prescription drugs and tolerance.

Here in CA, when there are reports of impaired drivers, usually alcohol is involved and the primary cause. At least your law doesn't have impossible limits in the blood. Congrats to you'all.:rasta: pr

[colagal]

:thumbsup:One can only hope, that it will be tolerated, as prescription drugs and tolerance.

Here in CA, when there are reports of impaired drivers, usually alcohol is involved and the primary cause. At least your law doesn't have impossible limits in the blood. Congrats to you'all.:rasta: pr

I had a cop tell me that he made a stop on a vehicle that was going between 5 - 10 mph down a 40 mph road. When pulled over and asked why he was going so slow, the driver responded by saying , " ...but dude, those G-Forces were feeling way extreme. Could hardly control the car. Had to slow down, mon." :rasta: