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 52
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-14 08:51:04 AM
4 votes:

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 08:54:29 AM
3 votes:

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 11:39:40 AM
2 votes:
This is like being arrested for a wicked hangover 32 hours after you've had a drink.
2013-02-14 09:47:55 AM
2 votes:
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 09:42:02 AM
2 votes:

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 09:30:55 AM
2 votes:
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 09:21:22 AM
2 votes:

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 09:17:11 AM
2 votes:
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 09:04:06 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-14 09:00:13 AM
2 votes:

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 08:56:44 AM
2 votes:

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 08:56:27 AM
2 votes:

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 08:55:20 AM
2 votes:

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 08:53:47 AM
2 votes:

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 08:52:23 AM
2 votes:

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 08:47:10 AM
2 votes:
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 08:46:39 AM
2 votes:
Smaller less intrusive government as long as you play by our rules of morality.
2013-02-14 08:45:06 AM
2 votes:
Yeah let's hear it for conservative small government values in republican controlled areas WOOOOOO
2013-02-14 11:42:34 AM
1 votes:

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 11:04:38 AM
1 votes:
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 10:56:18 AM
1 votes:

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 10:52:13 AM
1 votes:
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 10:38:28 AM
1 votes:

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 10:37:51 AM
1 votes:

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 10:24:05 AM
1 votes:

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.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 10:10:31 AM
1 votes:
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 10:06:54 AM
1 votes:

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 10:05:08 AM
1 votes:

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.
zeg
2013-02-14 09:58:41 AM
1 votes:

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 09:54:26 AM
1 votes:
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 09:53:09 AM
1 votes:

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 09:51:14 AM
1 votes:
 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 09:31:21 AM
1 votes:

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 09:31:05 AM
1 votes:

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 09:30:41 AM
1 votes:
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 09:29:47 AM
1 votes:
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 09:21:17 AM
1 votes:

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 09:20:46 AM
1 votes:
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 09:20:24 AM
1 votes:

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 09:17:49 AM
1 votes:

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 09:11:18 AM
1 votes:
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
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 09:05:00 AM
1 votes:
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 09:03:22 AM
1 votes:

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 09:01:58 AM
1 votes:
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 08:54:33 AM
1 votes:

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 08:54:17 AM
1 votes:
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 08:50:39 AM
1 votes:

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


LOL WUT
2013-02-14 08:46:45 AM
1 votes:
We're going to put you tiny motherfarkers in charge of plant molecules in people's bloodstream.
2013-02-14 08:46:17 AM
1 votes:
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 05:08:07 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-02-14 01:55:29 AM
1 votes:
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 01:06:50 AM
1 votes:
Land of the FreeTM
 
Displayed 52 of 52 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report