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  
•       •       •

5549 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
 
2013-02-14 12:38:02 AM
Residents of the state already know that
 
2013-02-14 01:06:50 AM
Land of the FreeTM
 
2013-02-14 01:55:29 AM
I have set foot in Arizona twice in my life

/I feel no compelling need to do so again
//all y'all are crazy
 
2013-02-14 05:08:07 AM
I was born in Arizona, spent most of my first three years in Tucson. I am eternally grateful my parents had the good sense to get out of that crazy-ass state and move to Oregon. We may have the dirty hippies of Eugene, and the weirdos in Portland, not to mention lots of toothless hicks outside of the urban areas, but it is a hundred times better than the Land of Sand and Conservative Nutjobbery that is AZ.
 
DAR [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 07:06:10 AM
Arizona !!! were the defends brown people???.....
 
2013-02-14 07:24:57 AM
d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.  TMYK.  ----====*
 
2013-02-14 08:07:41 AM

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
 
2013-02-14 08:44:33 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I have set foot in Arizona twice in my life

/I feel no compelling need to do so again
//all y'all are crazy


Know how you feel. Bunch of pucker mouthed honkies.
 
2013-02-14 08:45:06 AM
Yeah let's hear it for conservative small government values in republican controlled areas WOOOOOO
 
2013-02-14 08:46:01 AM
I wonder what happens if you live in Colorado and then drove to Arizona?
 
2013-02-14 08:46:03 AM
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?
 
2013-02-14 08:46:07 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


They will slap some arbitrary number on it like they did with alcohol, even though not everyone is knee walking drunk with .08 BAC
 
2013-02-14 08:46:17 AM
One must wonder... if the THC was introduced two weeks prior to the incident, was the driving impaired due to the THC or something else?

/Two week high?
//talk about bang for the buck
 
2013-02-14 08:46:39 AM
Smaller less intrusive government as long as you play by our rules of morality.
 
2013-02-14 08:46:45 AM
We're going to put you tiny motherfarkers in charge of plant molecules in people's bloodstream.
 
2013-02-14 08:47:10 AM
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.
 
2013-02-14 08:50:05 AM
In a few years cops will have field blood analysis machines. Take a drop of blood from your finger and instant conviction. Imagine future road blocks where everyone on the road is tested.
 
2013-02-14 08:50:39 AM

DAR: Arizona !!! were the defends brown people???.....


LOL WUT
 
2013-02-14 08:50:57 AM
Wheres the line?

an hour, a day, or a general question - are you stoned? ah no man.

free to go
 
2013-02-14 08:51:04 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.


Its Maricopa county.  He was probably pulled over for not being white.
 
2013-02-14 08:52:16 AM
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?
 
2013-02-14 08:52:23 AM

cheyanne9: Wheres the line?

an hour, a day, or a general question - are you stoned? ah no man.

free to go


Give them a sobriety test.  You know, walk the line follow the pen with your eyes etc.  If they aren't impaired, they aren't impaired.
 
2013-02-14 08:53:47 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


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."
 
2013-02-14 08:54:17 AM
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.
 
2013-02-14 08:54:29 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


Most drug tests are designed to detect the long lasting metabolites of the illicit substances to indicate violation of policy, not the current level of active compounds which would more closely reveal actual intoxication (to the same extent, I guess, that BAC indicates alcohol intoxication).

It's like using a wrench as a hammer because you're too lazy to go get the right tool you need and what you have sorta kinda works.
 
2013-02-14 08:54:33 AM

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


My understanding was that it isn't THC that's in one's system, but the end-product of metabolized THC.  The waste product after the drug has been processed by one's system.  It's not THC and can't get a person high as it's "already used up", but it does stay in the system because it's soluble in fat, as you indicated.

Bullshyte laws drawn up by people who have NO idea of how science or biology work.  Putting people in prison and ruining lives by arresting people who are NOT intoxicated.

/i'm not even a smoker
 
2013-02-14 08:55:20 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?


Don't try to defend Arizona man.  They just aren't defensible.  Furthermore THC can be found in your system up to a month after you smoke.  You get high for about an hour or two.
 
2013-02-14 08:56:27 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.


Never been pulled over by the police, huh? Good for you.
I wonder if it might have less to do with your driving ability than with what you look like, which state is on your license plates, what kind of bumper stickers you have on your VW bus, etc.
 
2013-02-14 08:56:39 AM

rev. dave: In a few years cops will have field blood analysis machines. Take a drop of blood from your finger and instant conviction. Imagine future road blocks where everyone on the road is tested.


4.bp.blogspot.com

"Gattaca! Gattaca! Gattaca!
 
2013-02-14 08:56:44 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?


So if you jaywalk and get charged with assault and battery you're cool with that? I mean, you broke the law. What does it matter what the charges are?
 
2013-02-14 08:57:57 AM

rev. dave: In a few years cops will have field blood analysis machines. Take a drop of blood from your finger and instant conviction. Imagine future road blocks where everyone on the road is tested.




The blood test is administered by your automobile. If anything that the proper authorities deem unmoral, your automobile will lock you in and contact the authorities, for your safety and incarceration.
 
2013-02-14 08:58:40 AM

StoPPeRmobile: The blood test is administered by your automobile. If anything that the proper authorities deem unmoral, your automobile will lock you in and contact the authorities, for your safety and incarceration.


Hmm. Does the time you spend locked in your car count towards time served?
 
2013-02-14 08:59:03 AM

DAR: Arizona !!! were the defends brown people???.....


Have you been taking the pot?
 
2013-02-14 09:00:13 AM

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.
 
2013-02-14 09:01:58 AM
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.

And how about the guy they busted. He's not being unduly restricted?
 
2013-02-14 09:02:55 AM

sylwedydd: And how about the guy they busted. He's not being unduly restricted?


He's got a whole 10x12, that's plenty of room.
 
2013-02-14 09:03:22 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?


I am not a lawyer, but in that scenario I believe you would be charged with open container. At least in my state they have an open container law.
 
2013-02-14 09:04:06 AM

Lucidz: 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?


He wasn't charged with breaking marijuana laws, he was charged with driving under the influence.

The analogy would be if a blood test showed an alcohol derivative in your blood several weeks after drinking and they used that test as evidence that you were driving while impaired today.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 09:05:00 AM
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.
 
2013-02-14 09:05:04 AM

incendi: 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?

So if you jaywalk and get charged with assault and battery you're cool with that? I mean, you broke the law. What does it matter what the charges are?


I don't have an analogy for you as I'm not well versed enough in law to know what a proper equivilent to "having an illicit substance in the blood stream" is... I do know that when I was drinking, I could easily have a .08 BAC and drive not impaired.

Pochas: 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?

Don't try to defend Arizona man.  They just aren't defensible.  Furthermore THC can be found in your system up to a month after you smoke.  You get high for about an hour or two.


I guess my question is, would someone still be prosecuted if they had a card, or would this have been passed off?
 
2013-02-14 09:05:50 AM
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
 
2013-02-14 09:07:49 AM

incendi: StoPPeRmobile: The blood test is administered by your automobile. If anything that the proper authorities deem unmoral, your automobile will lock you in and contact the authorities, for your safety and incarceration.

Hmm. Does the time you spend locked in your car count towards time served?




No. We can't be soft on crime.
 
2013-02-14 09:08:57 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?


I guessing that the guy DID have a medical marijuana card and that the cops used THAT as "probable cause" to test him. This is about harassment and an easy bust.
 
2013-02-14 09:08:59 AM
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?
 
2013-02-14 09:09:09 AM

susler: Lucidz: 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?

He wasn't charged with breaking marijuana laws, he was charged with driving under the influence.

The analogy would be if a blood test showed an alcohol derivative in your blood several weeks after drinking and they used that test as evidence that you were driving while impaired today.


How about locking up people that test positive for liver damage? I would feel safer then.
 
2013-02-14 09:09:53 AM

StoPPeRmobile: susler: Lucidz: 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?

He wasn't charged with breaking marijuana laws, he was charged with driving under the influence.

The analogy would be if a blood test showed an alcohol derivative in your blood several weeks after drinking and they used that test as evidence that you were driving while impaired today.

How about locking up people that test positive for liver damage? I would feel safer then.


As someone who has liver damage, I'm not getting a kick...
 
2013-02-14 09:10:32 AM

NutWrench: 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?

I guessing that the guy DID have a medical marijuana card and that the cops used THAT as "probable cause" to test him. This is about harassment and an easy bust.


Then as the guy's lawyer, I'd think I'd go after entrapment, yeah?
 
2013-02-14 09:11:18 AM
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
 
2013-02-14 09:12:14 AM

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


AZ has ingeniously come up with the subtle threat meaning Go Bet Fat Somewhere Else, Hippie.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 09:16:39 AM

The question in this case was whether marijuana is legally considered to have exactly one metabolite. The answer is no.

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."
 
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.
 
2013-02-14 10:54:54 AM

Pete_T_Mann: 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!


GDISM, this is not a DUI law.
This is a last ditch effort to retain criminalization and PROFITIZATION of a safe and useful chemical family.
Bastards.
 
2013-02-14 10:56:18 AM

Bullseyed: 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.


One of these days, you might learn to think, then you will be all, WOW!
/maybe not
 
2013-02-14 11:04:38 AM
So let's see, we have judges with no medical training, licensing, or degree, making medical decisions.

Arrest the entire bunch for medical fraud and criminal negligence in the practice thereof.
 
2013-02-14 11:35:00 AM
yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea
 
2013-02-14 11:39:40 AM
This is like being arrested for a wicked hangover 32 hours after you've had a drink.
 
2013-02-14 11:42:34 AM

CheekyMonkey: 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.


Urine test. Higher thresholds.

I believe current send out urine drug screens come back positive at roughly 30-50 parts per billion. So you just have a THC focused test, with colors indicating concentration. Above a certain concentration = probable cause for DUI. Pretty much the same as alcohol. You can pee on it, or decline it, then be arrested and be forced to do a blood test at the jail.
 
2013-02-14 11:50:39 AM

justtray: CheekyMonkey: 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.

Urine test. Higher thresholds.

I believe current send out urine drug screens come back positive at roughly 30-50 parts per billion. So you just have a THC focused test, with colors indicating concentration. Above a certain concentration = probable cause for DUI. Pretty much the same as alcohol. You can pee on it, or decline it, then be arrested and be forced to do a blood test at the jail.


What about the inconvienent truth that serum/urine levels do not correlate with any sort of measurable "impairment"?
I mean, it is the "impairment" we are supposedly worried about, eh?
And not just the blind and stupid gut belief that we are dealing with Devil Weed.

when you believe in things you don't understand
then you suffer


human belief is a wacky, dangerous thing, those that can induce it are a special sort of problem
 
2013-02-14 11:55:16 AM
There is a ton of butthurt demonstrated by those inexperienced fools that believe someone else might get some enjoyment that they o so nobly deny thenselves.
So cute, if it were not causing a freakin' war.
Misinformed fools shilling for the Man are never going to give up their precious paradigms without a good solid dose of 2x4 applied directly to the forehead.
 
2013-02-14 12:02:08 PM

snocone: 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.


But pot will make teh white wimmin susceptible to teh jazz man's penis, so much worse than alcohol...
 
2013-02-14 12:26:33 PM

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?


Yes, he broke the law. So maybe he should be charged with the law that he broke. Having a trace amount of a substance in your system does not necessarily mean that you are under it's influence. If we open that door, then it's a slippery slope to the bottom my friend. You'll be the first one crying about the outrage if you're pulled over one day and charged with a DUI because you have acetaminophen or oxycodone  in your system from the Percocet you took for back pain a few days ago.
 
2013-02-14 12:30:32 PM

Ninetynine: 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?

Yes, he broke the law. So maybe he should be charged with the law that he broke. Having a trace amount of a substance in your system does not necessarily mean that you are under it's influence. If we open that door, then it's a slippery slope to the bottom my friend. You'll be the first one crying about the outrage if you're pulled over one day and charged with a DUI because you have acetaminophen or oxycodone  in your system from the Percocet you took for back pain a few days ago.


NEVER eat another poppyseed muffin!
I am warning you.
 
2013-02-14 12:53:04 PM
I'm shocked that something so profoundly unconstitutional could be considered the law in Maricopa County. SHOCKED.
 
2013-02-14 12:53:36 PM
Seems reasonable...  http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/19/foods-failed-drug-tests/

Please excuse me while I start to question the leadership that would have me imprisoned on an allegation I may used drugs or ate food.
 
2013-02-14 12:55:34 PM

SamuraiDaNinja: 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.


You're full of shiat. Mexican Cops don't have jurisdiction on US soil. Take your persecution, woe-is-me complex elsewhere.
 
2013-02-14 12:59:36 PM
Also, you can "Lieing on the Internet" to the ever growing list of things you suck at.
 
2013-02-14 01:31:29 PM

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.  There are specific laws against having open containers of alcohol in a car while driving.
 
2013-02-14 01:33:55 PM

ZAZ: The question in this case was whether marijuana is legally considered to have exactly one metabolite. The answer is no.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."


So the law really means, "possibly driving under the influence."  Great.
 
2013-02-14 01:44:04 PM
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.

You deserve an entry in Guinness for being that wrong.
 
2013-02-14 01:47:20 PM

khyberkitsune: So let's see, we have judges with no medical training, licensing, or degree, making medical decisions.


Not at all.  Judges decide what the law says.  Legislators without training make the laws.
 
2013-02-14 01:48:55 PM

snocone: 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.


Wickedly This!  The Feds continue to Fark Americans for the benefit of the For-Profit Corrections "Industry"
 
2013-02-14 01:50:11 PM

mooseyfate: SamuraiDaNinja: 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.

You're full of shiat. Mexican Cops don't have jurisdiction on US soil. Take your persecution, woe-is-me complex elsewhere.


Mexicans can't be U. S.  cops?
 
2013-02-14 01:50:14 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Legislators without training make the laws.


Clearly, what we need are some experienced people from the medical field to come and help the legislators with the topics they don't understand, perhaps over a nice dinner or ten. Of course, legislators are busy people, so these experts might end up waiting in the office lobby for a bit...
 
2013-02-14 02:17:53 PM

CheekyMonkey: 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

CheekyMonkey: 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.


That's cool, BAC does work out to different things. Alchohol, which is not fat soluble, but actually removes fat, thus doesn't attribute to a prolonged BAC. THC does and can be tested for, not only in it's 28 days in the system, but if you do grow you hair out long enough it can be found, not only, days but, month and even years later, of course that is if you grow your hair out long enough. I agree about the metabolites, it's more social stigma rather than science, the metabolites can show up in a drug test for weeks (28 days or so). They do decrease with time, but, what they are talking about is charging you with a DUI, these metabolites stay in your system and are thus, being used against you for a false charge. This will (hopefully) be shown in the courts and dropped as they are a misconstrued standard.
 
2013-02-14 02:30:13 PM
Isn't this just a precedent case? Meaning, the judge(s) involved here pretty much just look back a prior decision and say "Yeah, that's pretty f*cked up but we're going to stick with it because reversing it could create chaos"?
 
zeg
2013-02-14 02:42:27 PM

incendi: 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.


Excuse me. What I mean is aside from this contested interpretation of the law, there is no obvious evidence that any other Arizona laws were broken. I thought this would be obvious from the context, but at least two reasonable people and one troll (not you) didn't get that.

My point is that a) this interpretation of DUI is patently ridiculous, and b) other than that, this guy is not known to have committed any crimes/violations.
 
2013-02-14 03:46:38 PM
This is probably the most ridiculous ruling I have heard in a long time, and I try to keep up with them.

If everything in the article is true then the precedent is set for you to get a DUI for having a receipt for alcohol.

Hopefully the guy takes it all the way.
 
2013-02-14 05:14:58 PM

zeg: My point is that a) this interpretation of DUI is patently ridiculous, and b) other than that, this guy is not known to have committed any crimes/violations.


Yeah, disgusting, isn't it? Guess that's Arizona for ya, though.
 
2013-02-14 05:15:39 PM

mooseyfate: You're full of shiat. Mexican Cops don't have jurisdiction on US soil. Take your persecution, woe-is-me complex elsewhere.


Are you aware that there are people who call themselves Mexican but are actually US citizens? And that if a police officer is of Mexican descent, that doesn't affect his jurisdiction. You ARE aware of that, right? I mean, sure, the guy's story sounds like BS, but not because there were Mexican cops in the US. Where I live, at least half of the cops are Mexicans. But they're wearing Austin police uniforms and I bet if I told them to go back to Mexico where they have jurisdiction, I'd lose more than a few teeth. Just saying. Think a bit before you declare things.
 
2013-02-14 09:35:28 PM

untaken_name: mooseyfate: You're full of shiat. Mexican Cops don't have jurisdiction on US soil. Take your persecution, woe-is-me complex elsewhere.

Are you aware that there are people who call themselves Mexican but are actually US citizens? And that if a police officer is of Mexican descent, that doesn't affect his jurisdiction. You ARE aware of that, right? I mean, sure, the guy's story sounds like BS, but not because there were Mexican cops in the US. Where I live, at least half of the cops are Mexicans. But they're wearing Austin police uniforms and I bet if I told them to go back to Mexico where they have jurisdiction, I'd lose more than a few teeth. Just saying. Think a bit before you declare things.


I was calling him out on his bullshiat in a facetious manner.  If you thought I was being serious about that, you should recalibrate your sarcasm meter.  That being said, just because a dude is brown and his last name is Gonzales, doesn't mean he's Mexican.  It's not racist or anything, but it's just as much of an insult as calling an Australian a Brit or calling an American a Canadian.  People are often quite proud of where they're from, and if they speak Spanish, there's about 20 countries on this Earth that they could be from.  People just assume they're Mexican because Mexico is right there.  You'd be surprised how many people get called Mexicans that are from Argentina or pretty much anywhere BUT Mexico.  Just saying.  Think a bit before you declare half the Austin PD Mexicans.
 
2013-02-15 08:54:15 PM

THX 1138: xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.  TMYK.  ----====*

My understanding was that it isn't THC that's in one's system, but the end-product of metabolized THC.  The waste product after the drug has been processed by one's system.  It's not THC and can't get a person high as it's "already used up", but it does stay in the system because it's soluble in fat, as you indicated.

Bullshyte laws drawn up by people who have NO idea of how science or biology work.  Putting people in prison and ruining lives by arresting people who are NOT intoxicated.

/i'm not even a smoker


And the elite will always have a financial get out of jail free card.
 
2013-02-16 04:37:42 PM
Meanwhile, I am trying to work out whether my body and bank account could physically withstand the sheer amount of pot it would take to stand life in Arizona.
 
2013-02-17 04:38:37 AM

CapeFearCadaver: Reason #657 for never stepping foot in Arizona.


Go to Four Corners
Get baked in Colorado
Put one extremity in each of the four states.
What now, farkers?
 
Displayed 132 of 132 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report