What is going to happen in Washington and Colorado with the legalization of marijuana?

[skinsgirl26]

The tests can determine a timespan

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

Numbers 1-3 will be introduced through testimony from the arresting officer and the Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE). Number four will be presented through the testimony of a criminalist from your local law enforcement agency’s crime lab.

Thanks, that was extremely helpful...guess I coulda googled it but I just hadn't heard much discussion on it.

The website does go on to say that the drug tests are "basically meaningless."

It is virtually impossible to detect when you actually used marijuana. Current chemical tests can only detect that marijuana was used, not when it was used, or whether it was still producing an intoxicating effect when you got pulled over. All that matters is whether you were under the influence of marijuana at the time you drove.

And the site gives pretty simple arguments against 1-3 as well. So basically, they have a system, but it is easy to get around. Most likely you failing to stop at a stop sign or something...it's just so much "easier" with alcohol because of the set limit...

This is basically what I thought, I just didn't know if there was some secret special way to prove if you were actually under the influence or if it was just in your system.

[twa]

they can determine under the influence,but level of impairment is uncertain(much like alcohol)...different places set arbitrary limits

and the tests are advancing

[skinsgirl26]

they can determine under the influence,but level of impairment is uncertain(much like alcohol)...different places set arbitrary limits

and the tests are advancing

I understand the system and how they can determine it, it's just that the website basically gives loopholes for everything and makes it seem almost easy to escape conviction even if it the person is "obviously" guilty.

Maybe it's just the website or my lack of faith in the justice system. Or that it's almost 1 and I'm supposed to be writing a paper that has nothing to do with the legalization of marijuana.

I'm not trying to argue with you (or for or against legalization), by the way, I'm just curious about this.

[twa]

laws are usually easy to get around
Legalization isn't much of a issue to me,they can legalize it all as far as I'm concerned

[skinsgirl26]

laws are usually easy to get around
Legalization isn't much of a issue to me,they can legalize it all as far as I'm concerned

As I said, my lack of faith in the justice system.

I'm torn on the issue. I think technically it should be legal, I just don't really want it to be....but that's not what this thread is about

[BlueinBuf]

As I said, my lack of faith in the justice system.

I'm torn on the issue. I think technically it should be legal, I just don't really want it to be....but that's not what this thread is about

Kind of on your same point, if there isn't a test that can prove or disprove you're high right now, will business owners enect a 0 tolerance policy of if you have MJ in your system during a drug test you're not hired or fired on the spot. I wonder if this will increase the number of drug tests companies do on employees. I always saw this as the biggest hurdle to legalization.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yeah, I don't feel the overwhelming need to earn respect from people like you. Speaking of respect, it is universal truth that respect is not gained by employing a snarky underlying tone in a debate. If you want people to actually take you seriously and spend their time getting involved in a legitimate debate with you, the first step is to cut out the jackass tone.

As a result of my lack of respect for your "debating skills" in addition to time constraints, I don't feel it necessary to waste my time running a lit search for links when you aren't open to a reasonable debate anyway. Based on your historical posting pattern on this site, it's very evident that you enjoy playing the antagonistic and patronizing role on an internet message board more often than you do involving yourself in a thoughtful debate.

I'm comfortable with my knowledge regarding this subject as it's a something I actually deal with (not Google search about or read blogs regarding) every day from a law enforcement perspective.

in other words..." cant defend position so bow out of the discussion." Got it

I'll eagerly await any evidence at all that Obama followed through and didnt raid CA Medical MJ spots after saying he wouldnt. My guess is that it wont appear any time soon.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 07:29 AM ----------

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, although I wonder what the real motivation is with this.

The states can generate a lot of revenue with legal marijuana, but there is a lot of politically influential groups who stand to lose (e.g the for-profit prison system, drug companies, and law enforcement agencies).

I honestly think it was something that President Obama thought he could sneak through and no one would notice or make a big deal out of since it's just "stoners" that would worry. He obviously has zero respect for the medical research that has shown all the benefits for medical MJ.

In the end, despite all his rhetoric, he is just a major advocate of Federal control no matter the issue and will always aim for expanding or solidifying that control when he can.

[THEREALTOR1]

they can determine under the influence,but level of impairment is uncertain(much like alcohol)...different places set arbitrary limits

and the tests are advancing

Much like how alcohol was treated prior to the 80's and the creation of MADD lobbying for the .08 limits. You have to figure that anyone under 30 probably doesn't realize that in a time not that long ago you could practically drive around drunk, but once a "legal limit" was set, LE had a right (and in many cases were probably strongly encouraged) to begin to throw people in jail for driving around after a few beers. I guess that's how I see this issue. We're probably in 1970's territory, whereby there's a substance that's available for consumption that can impair a human brain, and at some point, although its legal to consume, a "bar" will be set by the government, and it will only be tolerable below that "bar" , without facing legal consequences.

[skinsmarydu]

I honestly think it's a big waste of time and energy worrying about weed. I could see if it was cocaine or heroin, but weed? Maybe if more people smoked it, the world would be a happier place

Back in my 20s,I actually tried to think of a way to put it in my mom's food when I go home to visit. She seriously needs to chill!!

I'm buying stock in Frito-Lay.

I told my husband to check the mutual fund.

Nothing much is going to change. Marijuana is more common than cigarettes in the Bay Area now, and it hasn't changed a thing. No one cares. Everyone still goes to work and gets the job done.

It can happen, not everyone's a doofus.

i'm not familiar with the topic but have there been tons of smokers suing cigarette companies? if so, have they been winning?

Some have, it stems from Congressional hearings where big tobacco CEOs lied about nicotine being addictive.

[Skinz4Life12]

isn't there a test where they can swab your mouth and determine whether you've smoked pot within the past few hours?

[SnyderShrugged]

isn't there a test where they can swab your mouth and determine whether you've smoked pot within the past few hours?

I think you are right. I hear you fail if you eat the swab.

[Veretax]

Personally, if they are really looking for new revenue streams, they ought to legalize it nation wide and then tax it like they do cigarettes and Alcohol. It might go a long way to reducing th overhead in some of our prisons too, thus saving money.

[pjfootballer]

Snack businesses in Colorado and Washington will hit the jack"pot".

[s0crates]

Personally, if they are really looking for new revenue streams, they ought to legalize it nation wide and then tax it like they do cigarettes and Alcohol. It might go a long way to reducing th overhead in some of our prisons too, thus saving money.

You are right it would save money. The problem with this is that the prisons are privately owned, for-profit, and get paid by the taxpayers based on how many people they have incarcerated. The last thing they want is less people in prison.

And this is to say nothing of big pharma.

[Skinz4Life12]

what is big pharma's main gripe with legalization?