If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZ Family)   Arizona court rules that you can be busted for DUI if you're caught driving with marijuana in your system even if the last time you smoked was two weeks ago. Yea, freedom   (azfamily.com) divider line 132
    More: Asinine, Arizona's DUI, Arizona Supreme Court, regulations, marijuana  
•       •       •

5547 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Feb 2013 at 8:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-14 09:17:11 AM
Waste of taxpayers money. This will get overturned. The ruling seems to be based on the idea that there is undue burden being placed on the state to prove impairment ... Boggles the mind that such a ruling can be made. This will not only be overturned, it should be slapped down HARD! You don't take shortcuts with citizens/agents rights and liberties just because it's difficult to be accurate. The state cannot err on the side of prosecuting the innocent just because "hey, it's tough to be sure ya know"
 
2013-02-14 09:17:24 AM

cubic_spleen: Further proof that Sheriff Joe and his ilk* are in the pockets of the for-profit prison industry. Slavery is illegal, so they* invent new reasons to arrest people and call it being "tough on crime". Well, technically you could say that the plantation owners* were tough on crime too. If everyone is already in prison, the arrest rates drop to zero.

* All Republicans


Your tinfoil is showing.... along with your ass
 
2013-02-14 09:17:49 AM

The Angry Hand of God: If you are sober and your driving is so bad that the police insist on drug testing you, maybe you shouldn't have your license in the first place.


While driving through Utah a few years back I had to stop at a random DUI checkpoint. I was completely sober, but the officer said he smelled alcohol on my breath. He went to get the EMT person they had there to perform a blood test. While he was gone I talked to the other officer there who was much nicer, and he could clearly see I was sober and sent me on my way.
 
2013-02-14 09:17:50 AM
A MJ dui ruined my life. I went through some serious shiat growing up, I had ptsd because of it. I used to want to die, I had it all planned out at 17, fortunately for me trains don't really move on holidays. I really really suck at suicide I had a concussion from falling off my bike subsequently bbroke my phone it was 3:43 in the a.m. I tried looking for help but no one was around as i was walking I ran into a semi truck with the doors and hood opened up running. I figured if I waited long enough I could get help or a phone. I crawled up into the truck and cranked the heat up . I waited long enough and the operator came back I asked him to call 911 and the cops came, they refused me a doctor, insisted despite the fact that I blew .00 that I had to be drunk. After 5 hours of Hell the EMTs came by I had a heart rate of 127, a concussion, broken teeth from the cops, they were Mexican cops that hate white people if you're curious why this happened. They only took me to the hospital to give me A catheder(?) So they could charge me with some thing.
 
2013-02-14 09:18:03 AM
In WI, it's called operating with a restricted controlled substance and an officer doesn't even need to prove any kind of impairment, just probable cause the substance is in your blood.  I'd imagine every state has a similar law.
 
2013-02-14 09:18:41 AM
Reason #2,394 To Never Visit Arizona (if at all possible)......and I don't even smoke pot (or drink).

AZ is basically Florida minus the male genitalia shaped land mass with gratuitous dribble at the end ((the Keys).
 
2013-02-14 09:18:50 AM

Lucidz: Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?


MI has a zero tolerance stance on marijuana use and driving, as well.  The medical marijuana card matters none, since it does makes sense if you are going to charge people for using strong prescription pain killers and driving.  Many people here are thinking, 'I have the card so the cops can bite me'.  That isn't how it works, people are still getting arrested for growing and possession(card only allows a certain amount).  One guy got busted with a grow house and tried to get out of it by presenting his card.  People are still being fired for testing positive at work and yes they have the card.  Two factors for that, nationwide company stills has to adhere to federal laws and MI is a state that if it has been established by your employer they can fire you for testing positive for nicotine.

Nickninja: So does this mean that they will revoke the licenses of everyone who is prescribed marijuana? Technically, it is now illegal for them to drive if they follow their doctors advice.


I have wondered this as well.
 
2013-02-14 09:20:02 AM

ZAZ: Here is the court decision: http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2013/1%20CA-SA%2012-0 2 11.pdf (PDF). What people are getting outraged over is settled law from the 1990s. The section of law charged in this case does not require proof of impairment or potential impairment.

Quoting from the court's discussion of precedent (citations omitted):

¶13 On appeal, we rejected the defendant's equal protection argument. We reiterated the broad statement in Phillips that the "statute created a flat ban on driving with any proscribed substance in the body, whether capable of causing impairment or not." We also found other "cogent reasons" for broadly interpreting the ban on drug use while driving. For example, we noted metabolic rates differ from drug to drug and that the "presence of an illicit drug's metabolite [whether active or inactive] establishes the possibility of the presence of the active, impairing component of the drug." This fact, we concluded, "justifies the legislature banning entirely the right to drive when the metabolite is present."


Welp, there we go. The law is farked up.
 
2013-02-14 09:20:24 AM

abfalter: Isn't this the same as alcohol?  Can't you get a DUI if you have an open bottle even if you didn't take a sip and have not had a drink?


No, you can't, BAC, is extremely more precise than determining TCH levels in the human body. Alcohol is metabolized at a known rate, THC on the other hand is metabolized slowly and also depends on the individuals metabolic rate(given that Alcohol is subject to that also). I guess what I'm trying to say is that, BAC is readily and easily determined and you're only given a ticket for Transporting an Open Container, rather than DUI. With THC, it's not as clear cut and it's not right. Plain and simple, if you've been to a party and someone was smoking pot, you inhaled THC, like it or not and these guys can charge you for DUI, even if you haven't even smoked it. This is the brilliance of the people that we voted into office to "take care of us".
 
2013-02-14 09:20:46 AM
Do they plan to change the name of the offense to "driving or not driving under the influence or under no influence at all"? Because that's what it stands for now.
 
2013-02-14 09:21:17 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.

That is going to be a big issue with legalization. I'm admittedly not up to speed on how levels of the substance are measured and how that can affect investigations into workplace accidents or impaired driving incidents.

Anyone?

/in favor of legalization


As I understand it, the piss test that is currently used by companies who drug-test their employees, detects THC metabolites, which can continue to be excreted from the body weeks after someone has used MJ, due to the fat-solubility of THC.  I've heard that there is also a blood test for THC which indicates that MJ has been used recently (within the last 24 hours?).  Don't have any more specifics for you.
 
2013-02-14 09:21:22 AM

ZAZ: The law prohibits driving "While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body." Section 13-3401 does not define "drug." It does define "dangerous drug" "narcotic drug" and "prescription drug" which together ought to count as "drug." So if you're on antibiotics you can't drive in Arizona because there is a drug in your system.


Holy shiat.  "While there is any drug... or its metabolite in the person's body"

I just looked up that statute.  Alcohol is on the list.  Alcohol metabolites can be detected in the body two or three days after drinking.  Long after the buzz has worn off and there's zero impairment, this law means someone who drank in the past few days can be charged with impaired driving in Arizona.
 
2013-02-14 09:22:16 AM
Maybe the court ruled this way to force the legislature to deal with the consequences of a poorly written law. Some judges don't believe in cleaning up the legislature's mess for them.
 
2013-02-14 09:22:38 AM

traylor: Do they plan to change the name of the offense to "driving or not driving under the influence or under no influence at all"? Because that's what it stands for now.


I humbly suggest "Fark you, shouldn't have been out tonight", or FYSHBOT for short.
 
2013-02-14 09:24:59 AM
Reason #657 for never stepping foot in Arizona.
 
2013-02-14 09:29:47 AM
Onkel Buck: et al They will slap some arbitrary number on it like they did with alcohol, even though not everyone is knee walking drunk with .08 BAC

There's the problem. You may be a .08 at 9 pm and .02 by midnight where the THC stays in your system for weeks. There are some serious issues at hand here especially when you take in account that the left hander in the 767 that you happen to be riding in tested positive...but did he blow a bowl 3 days ago during his off time or while he was sitting in traffic on his way to the airport? Even as big of a proponent of legalization as I am, I want to make sure that the innocent stay so...on all sides of the equation.
 
2013-02-14 09:30:41 AM
Dear Arizona,

 You suck. I'd rather have a wart on my ass than to ever visit you .

I hope you step on a Lego,fall down a flight of stairs, eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire

 Have a nice day ,
 The People of Earth
 
2013-02-14 09:30:55 AM
Yes, in Arizona, we fight for your right to bring an AK-47 to watch the President speak, but if you smoke a joint, you can't drive for the next month, and if you're not white, you'll be pulled over by the cops for driving while brown.

The conservatives in this state confuse the holy living hell out of me.
 
2013-02-14 09:31:05 AM

CutBoard: abfalter: Isn't this the same as alcohol?  Can't you get a DUI if you have an open bottle even if you didn't take a sip and have not had a drink?

No, you can't, BAC, is extremely more precise than determining TCH levels in the human body. Alcohol is metabolized at a known rate, THC on the other hand is metabolized slowly and also depends on the individuals metabolic rate(given that Alcohol is subject to that also). I guess what I'm trying to say is that, BAC is readily and easily determined and you're only given a ticket for Transporting an Open Container, rather than DUI. With THC, it's not as clear cut and it's not right. Plain and simple, if you've been to a party and someone was smoking pot, you inhaled THC, like it or not and these guys can charge you for DUI, even if you haven't even smoked it. This is the brilliance of the people that we voted into office to "take care of us".


First of all, you CAN get a DUI even if you haven't had a drink, depending on the state you're in.  Here in NJ, if ANYONE IN THE CAR has an open container, the DRIVER OF THE CAR can be charged with DUI.

Second, the rate that alcohol is metabolized varies from person to person, it isn't a flat, across-the-board rate.  Also, the rate at which it's metabolized had nothing to do with how BAC is measured.  Perhaps what you mean to say is that BAC may be a better indicator of when most people are impaired by alcohol, than blood THC level is for pot.
 
2013-02-14 09:31:21 AM

NutWrench: Dancin_In_Anson: xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.

That is going to be a big issue with legalization. I'm admittedly not up to speed on how levels of the substance are measured and how that can affect investigations into workplace accidents or impaired driving incidents.

Anyone?

/in favor of legalization

I think states that want to prosecute people for being "impaired" have an obligation under the law to define exactly what "impaired" is. We already have a national standard of 0.08 BAC for alcohol (with some local areas being even more strict than this). Also, given the rather vast number of prescription medications that test false-positive for THC, I think the onus is definitely on the State to prove that cannabis was recently consumed beyond "well, he smoked it at SOME undefined point in the past, so he's guilty."


Arizona has a driving while "impaired to the slightest degree" law.  Which means you can blow less than the legal 0.08 and still get a DUI.  You swerve, you're impaired.
 
2013-02-14 09:34:26 AM

shtychkn: Arizona has a driving while "impaired to the slightest degree" law. Which means you can blow less than the legal 0.08 and still get a DUI. You swerve, you're impaired.


Good to know.
 
2013-02-14 09:35:17 AM

Joe Blowme: FTA:  and that the state's medical marijuana law gives cardholders immunity from DUI convictions based solely on the presence of metabolites in a person's system that don't appear to be enough to cause impairment.

So it does not apply to legal users.... so time to make it legal for all


Oh, well, that clears things right up, then. Wait, what? Who determines this? The cops? Hahahahahahahaahahah. Might as well not even have an exemption.
 
2013-02-14 09:42:02 AM

THX 1138: However, the Court of Appeals sided with prosecutors who appealed, saying that allowing the testing for marijuana's active compound would unduly restrict law enforcement

WTF?

If testing for the metabolized, waste product of THC is currently being done and is NOT considered unduly restrictive, then why would switching to a test for active THC (a different but similar substance which would give an ACCURATE indication of impairment) be considered unreasonably difficult for them?


It restricts the ability of the "justice" system to obtain a BS conviction.  Duh.
 
2013-02-14 09:43:28 AM
Wanna hear something SCARY?

Got a friend who was an instructor for a CDL program (semi truck driving school).   She said you'd get busted for having THC in your system a month after the fact.  But alcohol?

You can be drop-dead stoned drunk....you can be .30.....

Two hours (yes, 2hrs) after your blood alcohol level reaches .08 you can legally get behind the wheel of a semi.

Nice, huh?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 09:46:26 AM
Cereal Fetish

My state does not have a per se limit for substances other than alcohol. Expert testimony would be required if a pot test said so many nanograms per liter.
 
2013-02-14 09:47:55 AM
Oh this. Over here in Europe the Police in Germany do this too, and some other countries too I think.
It brings the law into disrepute: Here in UK driving licences are taken for safety reasons or speeding and if you meet a Brit whose licence has been taken away you can be fairly sure that there are proven safety reasons for that. Driving bans are about driving - not crude forms of social control.
Someone from Germany or Arizona? No idea, he might be a good and conscientious driver who smoked a joint in the two weeks before he took the wheel, the taking away of their licence might have been entirely unconnected with the quality or lack thereof of their driving.
 
2013-02-14 09:51:14 AM
 Just another example of republican totalitrinaism like we havn't seen enough over the last few forevers in this country.

Just be sure to remind everyone that when republicans claim they want small government, this is what they really mean.

Hypnozombie
 
2013-02-14 09:53:09 AM

CheekyMonkey: CutBoard: abfalter: Isn't this the same as alcohol?  Can't you get a DUI if you have an open bottle even if you didn't take a sip and have not had a drink?

No, you can't, BAC, is extremely more precise than determining TCH levels in the human body. Alcohol is metabolized at a known rate, THC on the other hand is metabolized slowly and also depends on the individuals metabolic rate(given that Alcohol is subject to that also). I guess what I'm trying to say is that, BAC is readily and easily determined and you're only given a ticket for Transporting an Open Container, rather than DUI. With THC, it's not as clear cut and it's not right. Plain and simple, if you've been to a party and someone was smoking pot, you inhaled THC, like it or not and these guys can charge you for DUI, even if you haven't even smoked it. This is the brilliance of the people that we voted into office to "take care of us".

First of all, you CAN get a DUI even if you haven't had a drink, depending on the state you're in.  Here in NJ, if ANYONE IN THE CAR has an open container, the DRIVER OF THE CAR can be charged with DUI.

Second, the rate that alcohol is metabolized varies from person to person, it isn't a flat, across-the-board rate.  Also, the rate at which it's metabolized had nothing to do with how BAC is measured.  Perhaps what you mean to say is that BAC may be a better indicator of when most people are impaired by alcohol, than blood THC level is for pot.


Nice job of attempted trolling. IF you would have paid attention and actually read what I posted is that even metabolic rates for alcohol depends on the individual. Size, weight, consumption, moblility all are contributing factors to a true BAC. However, I don't know your state laws, thus what you say may be true, but it's the Federal Government that regulates the .08 BAC, only the individual state makes amendments to the that particular regulation.
 
2013-02-14 09:54:26 AM
That's fine, Arizona. Make marijuana laws so draconian that all the high school kids switch to meth. Lemme know how that works out for ya.
 
2013-02-14 09:56:18 AM

incendi: Ecobuckeye: Have you been taking the pot?

I had a friend who died after shooting up three whole marijuanas. Stay away from the devil's lettuce, friends.


That's nothing. I once saw a dude who met a guy that saw this chick who dated this guy that had a cousin that knew another dude that went on a murder spree after being in the same room with a guy that smoked a joint five years prior to their meeting. That's how bad pit is, and something must be done to combat the horrors of marijauna. For the children.
 
zeg
2013-02-14 09:58:41 AM

Lucidz: Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the THC is in his system because he consumed it in the state of Arizona? Because, you know, unless you can prove that, he is not guilty of breaking any Arizona laws.

The DUI is completely unreasonable under these circumstances. Not surprising, but that doesn't make it reasonable.
 
2013-02-14 10:01:59 AM

Lucidz: Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?


Breaking the law for smoking weed is much different than breaking the law by driving under the influence.  Much much much different. 

THC can stay in your system for up to 45 days depending on how much you smoke, exercise, your metabolism rate, how much body fat you have, and your sex.  The effects of smoking marijuana go away after 4 hours, they certainly are completely gone by the next day.  You're not affected by the THC in your system, certainly not enough to impair your driving.

This is a joke of a charge/conviction.
 
2013-02-14 10:04:24 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.

That is going to be a big issue with legalization. I'm admittedly not up to speed on how levels of the substance are measured and how that can affect investigations into workplace accidents or impaired driving incidents.

Anyone?

/in favor of legalization

It should have no effect.  There are plenty. Of chemicals and OTC drugs that. There is no feasible. Way to test your level. That's why god invented the roadside sobriety test.
 
2013-02-14 10:05:08 AM

zeg: Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the THC is in his system because he consumed it in the state of Arizona? Because, you know, unless you can prove that, he is not guilty of breaking any Arizona laws.


Well, except for the bit where the Arizona DUI law may be so utterly farktarded that he did actually break it merely by having inactive metabolites of a drug forbidden in Arizona in his bloodstream, even if it was completely legal for him to consume it and he was in no way intoxicated at the time he was driving.
 
2013-02-14 10:06:54 AM

Joe Blowme: cubic_spleen: Further proof that Sheriff Joe and his ilk* are in the pockets of the for-profit prison industry. Slavery is illegal, so they* invent new reasons to arrest people and call it being "tough on crime". Well, technically you could say that the plantation owners* were tough on crime too. If everyone is already in prison, the arrest rates drop to zero.

* All Republicans

Your tinfoil is showing.... along with your ass


Let's see... you didn't refute anything I said, and you are looking at my ass. You must be a Republican too!
 
2013-02-14 10:07:14 AM

ristst: Wanna hear something SCARY?

Got a friend who was an instructor for a CDL program (semi truck driving school). She said you'd get busted for having THC in your system a month after the fact. But alcohol?

You can be drop-dead stoned drunk....you can be .30.....

Two hours (yes, 2hrs) after your blood alcohol level reaches .08 you can legally get behind the wheel of a semi.

Nice, huh?


I'd take that over a BS DUI law that can lock you up for something that you did over a month ago.

-------------------

But that's all this is, another BS DUI law so the state can wrench more money out of people. And since everyone seems to love the draconian DUI laws now, I'm not really surprised at it. Its for your safety!
 
2013-02-14 10:08:50 AM
Arizona? This! Is! (Reefer) Madness!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 10:10:31 AM
zeg

Unlawful use of a drug is not an element the state must prove in this case.

The law says

1. "Drug" means marijuana and a bunch of other stuff.

2. It is a crime to use or possess a drug in Arizona.

3. It is a crime to drive in Arizona with a drug or drug metabolite in the system.

If he smokes in California and drives into Arizona he did not violate 2 (smoking was out of jurisdiction) but he did violate 3 (driving was in state).
 
2013-02-14 10:11:03 AM

halB: There are plenty. Of chemicals and OTC drugs that. There is no feasible. Way to test your level. That's why god invented the roadside sobriety test.


Is that Bill Shatner over there?
 
2013-02-14 10:18:15 AM

cubic_spleen: Further proof that Sheriff Joe and his ilk* are in the pockets of the for-profit prison industry. Slavery is illegal, so they* invent new reasons to arrest people and call it being "tough on crime". Well, technically you could say that the plantation owners* were tough on crime too. If everyone is already in prison, the arrest rates drop to zero.

* All Republicans


When it's drugs it's "All Republicans", when it's guns it's "All liberals". Shut up.

/seriously, gtfo
 
2013-02-14 10:24:05 AM

CutBoard: CheekyMonkey: CutBoard: abfalter: Isn't this the same as alcohol?  Can't you get a DUI if you have an open bottle even if you didn't take a sip and have not had a drink?

No, you can't, BAC, is extremely more precise than determining TCH levels in the human body. Alcohol is metabolized at a known rate, THC on the other hand is metabolized slowly and also depends on the individuals metabolic rate(given that Alcohol is subject to that also). I guess what I'm trying to say is that, BAC is readily and easily determined and you're only given a ticket for Transporting an Open Container, rather than DUI. With THC, it's not as clear cut and it's not right. Plain and simple, if you've been to a party and someone was smoking pot, you inhaled THC, like it or not and these guys can charge you for DUI, even if you haven't even smoked it. This is the brilliance of the people that we voted into office to "take care of us".

First of all, you CAN get a DUI even if you haven't had a drink, depending on the state you're in.  Here in NJ, if ANYONE IN THE CAR has an open container, the DRIVER OF THE CAR can be charged with DUI.

Second, the rate that alcohol is metabolized varies from person to person, it isn't a flat, across-the-board rate.  Also, the rate at which it's metabolized had nothing to do with how BAC is measured.  Perhaps what you mean to say is that BAC may be a better indicator of when most people are impaired by alcohol, than blood THC level is for pot.

Nice job of attempted trolling. IF you would have paid attention and actually read what I posted is that even metabolic rates for alcohol depends on the individual. Size, weight, consumption, moblility all are contributing factors to a true BAC. However, I don't know your state laws, thus what you say may be true, but it's the Federal Government that regulates the .08 BAC, only the individual state makes amendments to the that particular regulation.


Not trolling.  Yes, I did miss what you put in parentheses.  Skimmed your post, definitely my bad.  However, BAC is BAC, and the factors you list don't have an effect on BAC, but rather rate of change of BAC (i.e. how quickly the alcohol is metabolized).

I also missed what you said about THC being metabolized more slowly than alcohol.  This may be true (I don't know for sure) but not in the way that you think.  Blood test for TCH is a pretty accurate indicator of current level of THC in the body, but the most common drug tests (piss test) does not measure THC, but rather it's metabolites, which have no incapacitating effect, but stay in the body for weeks, because they are fat-soluble.

Given that the country seems to be moving toward decriminalization or legalization, we need some standards for intoxication which, IMHO, should start with field sobriety tests.  If a driver fails these, a breathalizer test for alcohol is given.  If the driver passes this, blood is taken, screening for THC (not it's metabolites) and other intoxicants.  None of this Arizona BS testing for non-impairing metabolites.
 
2013-02-14 10:32:05 AM

The Fifth Dentist: Dear Arizona,

 You suck. I'd rather have a wart on my ass than to ever visit you .

I hope you step on a Lego,fall down a flight of stairs, eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire

 Have a nice day ,
 The People of Earth


GFYS

Sincerely,

Arizona

/Coming up on 1 year anniversary. Though not without faults, Arizona is awesome.  Probably not for moonbats
 
2013-02-14 10:34:51 AM
Relax, Francis, this won't last long.

But, for right now, don't be the test case.

Are you sure these judges are not stoned oxycontined out of their minds trying to run with this chit?
 
2013-02-14 10:37:37 AM

cubic_spleen: Joe Blowme: cubic_spleen: Further proof that Sheriff Joe and his ilk* are in the pockets of the for-profit prison industry. Slavery is illegal, so they* invent new reasons to arrest people and call it being "tough on crime". Well, technically you could say that the plantation owners* were tough on crime too. If everyone is already in prison, the arrest rates drop to zero.

* All Republicans

Your tinfoil is showing.... along with your ass

Let's see... you didn't refute anything I said, and you are looking at my ass. You must be a Republican too!


Are you this stupid on purpose of just bored?
 
2013-02-14 10:37:51 AM

halB: Dancin_In_Anson: xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.

That is going to be a big issue with legalization. I'm admittedly not up to speed on how levels of the substance are measured and how that can affect investigations into workplace accidents or impaired driving incidents.

Anyone?

/in favor of legalization
It should have no effect.  There are plenty. Of chemicals and OTC drugs that. There is no feasible. Way to test your level. That's why god invented the roadside sobriety test.


And since most any stoner can pass the roadside test, we have the bullchit mode activated.

Pay close attention to who is on what side of marijuana.
I sense a complete history rewrite in the offing.
 
2013-02-14 10:38:28 AM

Joe Blowme: cubic_spleen: Joe Blowme: cubic_spleen: Further proof that Sheriff Joe and his ilk* are in the pockets of the for-profit prison industry. Slavery is illegal, so they* invent new reasons to arrest people and call it being "tough on crime". Well, technically you could say that the plantation owners* were tough on crime too. If everyone is already in prison, the arrest rates drop to zero.

* All Republicans

Your tinfoil is showing.... along with your ass

Let's see... you didn't refute anything I said, and you are looking at my ass. You must be a Republican too!

Are you this stupid on purpose of just bored?


Are you lost?
 
2013-02-14 10:49:03 AM
Subby is also in favor of drinking and driving and removing all weapons bans too then, right?
 
2013-02-14 10:50:42 AM
Made this for a PS contest a while back. Seems fitting.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-14 10:52:13 AM
You do know that you have paid for THREE, count 'em 3, federal scientific studies of the intoxicating and impairing effects of marijuana over the past 50 years. All recommended decriminalization and were, of course, ignored, discarded and villified after the fact.
The results indicate a failure of the concept of "impairment" comparing alcohol and marijuana.
The chemicals are not the same, don't work anythink alike. The effects cannot be compared.
Alcohol is a Central Nervous System Depressant, pot is not.
Alcohol is a neurotoxin, pot is not.
Alcohol has a lethal dose, easily attained, pot does not.
And so on,,,

After paying $millions, your nannys have chosen to ignor, refute and bury the science.

The current situation is based on lies and will eventually bite the liers' ass.
And I emphasize, LIES, not misconception, not misunderstanding, LIES!
The best you can do now is make sure history is not rewritten as the truth finally comes out, inch by painful inch.
 
2013-02-14 10:52:49 AM

Nickninja: So does this mean that they will revoke the licenses of everyone who is prescribed marijuana? Technically, it is now illegal for them to drive if they follow their doctors advice.


If you're in such bad shape that you need to smoke up to stop the pain you shouldn't be driving at all anyway.
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report