PDA

View Full Version : DUmmies fight about legalizing pot.



djones520
10-27-2010, 04:30 AM
wtmusic (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-25-10 01:31 PM
Original message
Why I'm voting no on legalizing pot in CA.
Edited on Mon Oct-25-10 01:35 PM by wtmusic
"Brian O'Neill, a 20-year-old West Nantmeal man on trial for vehicular manslaughter and felony DUI, tested positive for marijuana, according to the West Chester Daily Local. But since THC (the herb's active component) remains in the system for up to a month after ingestion, the question is whether he was actually stoned at the time of the incident.

<>

"The defendant was driving his dad's pickup truck when he drove the wrong way up an exit ramp. Victims George Parker, 47, and 45-year-old Diane Parker were driving their Suzuki Sidekick in the right lane when Brian O'Neill's truck collided with their car. the head-on collision left the Suzuki crushed and the couple was killed instantly.

Motorists who stopped after the crash, as well as the ambulance crew, told police that Brian O'Neill was "dazed" and "spacey." While that may describe anyone in the aftermath of a serious accident, especially a fatal one, an officer told the jury that his blood exceeded the THC concentration level considered "intoxication" by nearly six times."

http://philadelphiaduiattorneyblog.com/2010/08/dui-tria...

I ride my bike about 5,000 miles a year, and cyclists are at the mercy of DUI drivers. Two days ago, on a road I ride frequently:

Cyclist killed in Agoura Hills hit-and-run; driver arrested on suspicion of DUI

"A motorist in Agoura Hills who allegedly struck and killed a bicyclist and fled the scene was arrested after witnesses followed her to a nearby parking lot and alerted authorities.

The collision occurred at about 3:45 p.m. Saturday on Agoura Road, just east of Liberty Canyon Road, the California Highway Patrol reported."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/cyclist-k...

Breath testing, as a form of prevention, does work - for alcohol:

"Research Performed That Gives Merit to DUI Laws:
In 2009, the results of a study performed by the Public Health Law Research organization were released. The aim of the study was to conclude whether or not the DUI laws placed for drunk driving were effective in preventing people from driving on the road drunk.

The study concluded that breath testing was an effective way of providing intervention in the time of a drunk driving incident occurring. They also contributed to the reduction of danger that comes with driving impaired. The study also concluded that reducing the blood alcohol content maximum DUI law for drivers under the age of 21 would significantly reduce the dangers of driving on the road. The study also concluded that reducing the blood alcohol content maximum DUI law in all persons would significantly reduce annual deaths in drunk driving related accidents."

http://www.govstandard.com/drunk-driving-and-dui-law.ht...

However, there is currently no way to measure THC intoxication accurately. In CA officers can provide observational testimony such as the following:

* Dilated pupils,
* Elevated pulse rate,
* Elevated blood pressure,
* Giving off the odor of marijuana,
* Eyelid and body tremors,
* Relaxed or uninhibited demeanor,
* Dry mouth, and
* Short-term memory impairment.

but California DUI lawyers have an arsenal of effective techniques to shoot this testimony down in court:

"Joe’s Long Beach DUI marijuana attorney would argue that Joe’s blood-shot eyes and stale breath may have been caused by a variety of factors: drinking, smoking cigarettes, being around other smokers, being exhausted, and still not having brushed his teeth from the night before.

Joe’s DUID attorney would argue that anyone being investigated for DUI would be nervous and likely have an elevated pulse. Joe’s DUI marijuana lawyer would also address the fact that Joe hadn’t slept the night before, because he was up the entire night 'partying' with his friends.

Joe had, in fact, eaten some 'pot brownies' and was drinking at the party, but that was over twelve hours before he was stopped by Officer Bill. The effects of marijuana would have certainly worn off hours before driving."

http://www.shouselaw.com/dui-marijuana.html

When there's an effective roadside test to measure THC intoxication I'll reconsider my position.



A very reasonable stance. Something you don't see from DUmmies quite often.


KossackRealityCheck (47 posts) Mon Oct-25-10 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Weed doesn't cause accidents. Alcohol does.
Wrong substance.


I've never smoked it. But the majority of my friends in highschool were potheads. I can attest without a doubt that their reaction times were impaired. I'd frequently fuck with them because of it.


uncommon (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-25-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
41. Bullshit. It impairs. I smoke on a fairly regular basis and I don't drive after smoking.
Edited on Mon Oct-25-10 02:33 PM by uncommon
It slows down my reaction times.

It is not appropriate to smoke and drive.

(Edited to add: I support legalization.)


And I thank you for it. I road in the car once of someone just after they smoked. Scared the piss out of me.


Chan790 (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-26-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #76
187. Would you feel better being told that study after study of non-anecdotal evidence says you're wrong.
Edited on Tue Oct-26-10 03:18 PM by Chan790
That's studies being conducted by non-partisan researchers, not people on the payroll of the DEA or NTSB or NHTSA or MADD or various anti-marijuana legalization groups or NORML. University researchers for the most part. All with similar results to the question, that not only does THC intoxication not increase accidents but that high-drivers tend to be more attentive on the road and obey more traffic signs and signals than their sober contemporaries. They tend to drive slower too, approximately 3MPH below posted speed limits as opposed to 5MPH over posted speed limits on average as well.

Chan790, non-pothead. In favor of legalization. Also supports a criminalizing cell-phone ban for drivers.


Link? Yeah... thought not.


Threedifferentones (761 posts) Mon Oct-25-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #41
136. By the OP's logic, alcohol should be TOTALLY ILLEGAL
It impairs your driving so ban it outright.

But we tried alcohol prohibition and decided it sucked. No matter how the government tried, people just kept drinking, and gangsters just kept getting richer and more powerful because of it. Sound familiar?


No dumbass. By the OP's logic, when they come up with a reliable test, then he'll support legalizing it. Apparently you didn't bother reading the whole post.


WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-25-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
108. I'm sorry; you are incorrect. All reactions are impaired by pot.
Edited on Mon Oct-25-10 06:18 PM by WinkyDink
Pleading the 5th to any replies.



LynneSin (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-26-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
199. NO ONE should be driving under the influence of ANYTHING.
That includes pot.

I support the legalization of Pot but we do need to find a way to test for those who could be driving under the influence. Just because perhaps you've been lucky to drive without incident that doesn't mean others may not have issue.

If someone wants to drive they need to pay attention and have a clear head. That means no alcohol, no pot, no drugs, no chatting on the phone, no texting, no putting on makeup or anything else that distracts you from safely driving a car.



Tons of posts like this one. They support legalization, and want a reliable test, but they'd rather have it legalized before hand. :rolleyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9384293

200+ replies, 0 Rec's. Not suprising really.

PoliCon
10-27-2010, 12:36 PM
a reliable test is easy: If you can smell it - they're impared.

Cliffordj
10-27-2010, 01:13 PM
a reliable test is easy: If you can smell it - they're impared.
I can not think of a more unreliable method of testing.

PoliCon
10-27-2010, 03:22 PM
I can not think of a more unreliable method of testing.

what's unreliable about it? That smell is distinctive.

djones520
10-27-2010, 03:28 PM
what's unreliable about it? That smell is distinctive.

And an officer would have what evidence in court then?

PoliCon
10-27-2010, 04:04 PM
And an officer would have what evidence in court then?
The blood or urine test that would be administered after smelling. I've never been drug tested so . . . .

djones520
10-27-2010, 04:23 PM
The blood or urine test that would be administered after smelling. I've never been drug tested so . . . .

As has been pointed out, THC can persist in the system for up to 30 days after it's ingestion. There would be no way to prove if that person had toked up before getting in the car, or three weeks ago.

A lawyer could easily say that the officer "claimed" he smelled marijuana, and then got lucky on the drug test. All the defendant has to do is claim that they smoked marijuana several days before hand.

PoliCon
10-27-2010, 04:35 PM
As has been pointed out, THC can persist in the system for up to 30 days after it's ingestion. There would be no way to prove if that person had toked up before getting in the car, or three weeks ago.

A lawyer could easily say that the officer "claimed" he smelled marijuana, and then got lucky on the drug test. All the defendant has to do is claim that they smoked marijuana several days before hand.

well then I guess it's gonna hafta stay illegal then. What a shame.