Sorry....you're only allowed to spread bullshit if no one calls you out on it. Your comment that a good lawyer will be able to get you off of a per se DUID show that you have ZERO knowledge on the subject. Talk to an attorney...I can provide you with the names of several. Jeffrey Steinborn, attorney and Board Member of NORML, agrees with me. Doug Hiatt, Washington NORML, agrees with me. Aaron Pelley, the top pot attorney in Washington State, agrees with me. Vote for this initiative and you better get yourself a bus pass. You will have NO defense against a per se DUID. You are automatically guilty simply by have that THC in your blood....even though you weren't impaired. You can even argue that you weren't impaired when you go to court. So now you have three of the top pot attorneys (who also do DUI's) that you can check with....you don't need to take my word for it.
Dude, they can ALREADY do that to you. At least here in Missouri they can. Stop being fucking selfish. The legalization movement for the rest of the country depends on this passing.
This is a straw man argument. "Reducing drugged driving by 10%" is not equivalent to "raising the body count on cannabis users by 10%".
It certainly IS if it's based on a per se limit that will criminalize unimpaired drivers. All major studies have shown that you can't determine impairment by measuring concentration in the blood for ANY substance besides alcohol. You'll be the first one screaming like a maniac if you are convicted of a DUID that you can't fight....two days after you last smoked...and you're not the slightest bit impaired. The latest study from the National Institute on Drug Abuse confirms that ACTIVE THC can stay in your blood for up to 30 days. Happy driving! By the way....if you're under 21 you can have ZERO THC in your blood or you too will become part of the body count.
You're right....doing that is Missouri is truly fucked up! But it's OK if they do it to us here in Washington, right? We should just "take one for the team"? Fuck you! If you support passing bad laws, pass them in your own fucked up state....but don't tell us we're "selfish" for not passing fucked up laws here in our state simply because you are dumb enough to think that us passing fucked up laws here is somehow going benefit to YOU! Now who's selfish?
Still you. Alcohol prohibition was repealed by a few states repealing it and then the rest of the country cascaded from there. The rest of the world is desperately counting on this passing in the 3 states that have it up for election this year. The bad parts of the law will be changed soon enough when everyone realizes they don't make sense.
I apologize Steve, I accidentally overlooked your first response. I read in your link that the ONDCP's goal is to lower drugged driving by 10% in the US by 2015. And I won't say that your cause or angle isn't a just one. It seems like you've been through a lot battling with the OFM in Washington as well. But I'm confused as to why legalizing marijuana in Washington would help stop drugged driving. In the article it sounds like this will be happening all over the nation, not just in states that have legalized marijuana. I'm also confused about whether I-502 states that THC metabolites or THC active cells will be tested. If the tests only cover the active cells, it sounds like police will have a lot harder time finding drugged drivers unless the drivers are actually driving stoned. Don't get me wrong though! I'm not against you. I'm trying to educate myself about how the tests will work and the fine print behind I-502. Maybe you have a thread already about why it shouldn't be passed or how the testing will go? I've looked you up and it seems you're very qualified to educate the Grass City community about why we shouldn't vote for I-502
Get your head out of your Ass.that is the government's Offical responce to how they will act in 2012 with the new laws passing.They are telling you what there going to do and your still saying no thier not??? Stop being so nieve! what makes you think you can trust Government's?? And the Controll Freaks who run it all.
Dude, you got a whopping 16 posts so far. You're already telling people to fuck off? Check yo' self fool. You smell like a troll. edit: and you've been a lurker since 2005? What the fuck? How creepy can you get?
If we keep things up like this the thread will be locked in no time. I think there is a ton of future tripping going on here, which happens with every new change in public policy. Things rarely turn out as terribly as anyone ever runs around screaming about anything. That said, as far as voting against the bill goes, let's say you all vote against it and it indeed is a "NO". What happens then? You think people will patiently wait another 4-10 years or so for an even more flawed bill? They won't, in never works that way with something like this. Crime will go back up in the meantime, cartels will be larger and drug gangs will remain a problem. Then I will finally move away from WA for giving up on the people and situation here. I would be more understanding of the motives of the people voting "No" if they weren't already getting medical bud. It seems to me it would be all too easy to vote against the bill if your stash jar was kept legally full. It's really the same issue as rich people voting against public financial support (welfare) of low-income families, and voting against equal marriage rights while being securely married for 20+ years and straight as an arrow. Would you honestly hold an identical stance if your medical got taken away too? Doubt it. People seriously need to hush up and act mature. Seeing these double posts telling users to "fuck off" in such a setting...
all grow licenses will have to go through the liquor control board? call me way out of touch, but didn't they just fire >%95 of their staff? don't tell me they will re-hire the staff for distribution of cannabis?
google him dude. I actually have a feeling he may know a little about what he's talking about. I'm still pro legalize though.
I say pass it now and work out the kinks later. Right now most weed smokers in Washington are treated like grade A criminals whether they grow, sell, or buy green. Those people will at least have some protection under the law if this passes. The rest who stay off the grid would be considered criminals either way. I don't think this will hurt the MMJ community. There would be a mass protest and political fall out for every patient who is arrested for growing or buying weed. Imagine if all three states legalize weed. The DEA and prohibition lobbyist would have to quadruple their numbers just to make a dent in marijuana industry in just those three states let alone the entire country.
People are being arrested, charged, and convicted of marijuana DUI right now in Washington State for latent THC for weed smoked weeks before. I-502 makes a distinction between latent and active THC, which alone is a huge step forward with regards to these kinds of policies. I talked to a defense attorney who has defended over sixty marijuana DUI cases last year (and supports I-502) and he said exactly ONE of them was for over 5 nanograms of active THC. For the arguments of the opposition to I-502 to make any sense, people would have to be getting charged with marijuana DUI with 5+ ng of active THC in their blood and convincing juries that they weren't actually impaired. Is that happening? NO. The current policy is zero tolerance. If you take the time to read the studies, you'll know that even heavy users are unlikely to test positive for 5+ng of active THC unless they've just smoked it, in which case they shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, med patient or not. I have to lol at the notion that this is done at the bidding of the drug czar. The drug czar does not want legalization bills to pass. None of the fearmongering stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Some claims are so manifestly false it defies reason why anyone would continue to parrot them, especially when they've been exposed as dead wrong: eg. "I-502 criminalizes patients" (it doesn't touch medical marijuana laws), "I-502 doesn't address hemp" (it does), "I-502 doesn't remove any penalties" (it does), "I-502 adds new prohibitions" (it doesn't)... etc. etc. I know some people say they will "hold their nose and vote for it" but in my view it's a damn good piece of legislation. Certainly the best I've ever seen reach the ballot in WA. If it passes, it will be major progress not just for Washington and the US, but for the world. It will be the first place (to my knowledge) to have legal, not just decriminalized marijuana. Even Amsterdam just has a de-facto decrim policy.
This guy is lying.atm there is no scientific method to accurately test too see wether someone is actually impaired at any level of thc in thier blood.
First, let's all realize that this whole myth about an "epidemic of stoned driving" is being made up by the people who are looking for a whole new way to expand the war on drugs. When was the last time you heard a story, anywhere, about someone being (just) stoned and killing people in an auto accident? If that was actually happening, don't you think the DEA and the Drug Czar would have that on the front page of every paper in the country? It's so rare they don't even keep records of it. All they have is statistics that show that drivers involved in accidents may have had some residual THC in their systems, but not that it actually contributed to the cause of accident. There simply is no "epidemic of stoned drivers"....it's a lie. Both active THC and THC-carboxy (THC that has already been metabolized by your body) can stay in your system for as long as 30 days. If someone wants to actually read the studies, I can post them. What the studies show, however, is that the amount of active THC in you system cannot be scientifically linked to impairment. The studies that show this were sponsored by the Federal Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and countless others. They all say the same thing.....you can't measure intoxication or impairment by THC concentration in your blood. (The same goes for any other kind of drug besides alcohol) I'm a long-time patient. I haven't medicated today, but I'm quite sure that I'm at least four times the legal 5 ng/ml limit that would be established by I-502. In fact, I will probably never be below 5 ng/ml and neither will most other patients or regular cannabis users. This won't just effect patients! If you smoke daily, you will be legally impaired every time you drive under this proposed limit and you will have no legal defense in court. If you are under 21....you're just totally screwed. You can have ZERO THC in your system...and remember it will stay in your system for up to 30 days. Impairment laws are meant to keep dangerous drivers off the road, not to punish people who simply have some small trace amount of THC in their system and aren't actually impaired in any way. These are two new "prohibitions" brought to you by I-502. And please don't think they'll be going away. The law enforcement community is already ramping up for this new law. Initiatives cannot be changed by the legislature for at least two years...that's the law. Over the first two years there will be a huge spike in the number of "drugged driving" arrests. Law enforcement will point to this and use it as proof that there was, as they had suggested, an "epidemic of drugged drivers" on the road. Once they can show that "legalization" has cause a 300% increase in drugged driving arrests, do you think that the legislature is going to take this new tool away from them? Not a snowball's chance in hell. There will be no "fixing" this later. The threshold for "probable cause" to test you for impairment is so low it's ridiculous. Have you even been pulled over and tested when you weren't the slightest bit impaired and given a field sobriety test? I know I have....more than once. With this new law, they won't just be able to give you a field sobriety test if they suspect that you MAY have been using cannabis. First, they will impound your vehicle, which they are required to do by law. Then you're on your way to the hospital to have your blood taken. And while you're POSITIVE you're not impaired in any way, you'll have no way of knowing how much THC is in your blood. If you drink three drinks within a one hour period, you can be pretty sure that you're over .08 blood alchohol level. How can you possibly determine if you are over 5 ng/ml? Do you have more than that in your system right now? The point is, you don't know....and you'll never know until they've hauled you in to test you. All you know is that you aren't impaired right now, but this test has nothing to do with impairment. I hope I'm explaining this so everyone can understand it....it may effect your life. If you get a DUID it will stay on your record forever. Try applying for a job with a DUID (or two) on your record. If you drive a vehicle as part of your job, you're screwed. You'll have plenty of drug rehab classes in your future as well. Your insurance will go through the roof and you'll be paying attorney bills for the next two years. Now imagine going through all of this and you haven't smoked one bowl in the last two days and you're positive you aren't impaired. You're life just got turned upside down over a crime that you absolutely did not commit....and that you have no defense for. There is no point in making possession "legal", but then making it an even more serious crime to have any THC in your blood. "You can have it...you just better not smoke it". Just think about it. If you have questions, please ask. Steve Sarich Spokesman NO On I-502 Campaign P.S. I have personally been raided by more drug task forces than anyone else in the history of State of Washington. Please don't suggest that I am against legalization. I-502 just isn't legalization and we didn't wait decades to see cannabis legalized to settle for a law that further criminalizes us....and still makes it illegal to grow even a single plant.
Thanks for such a detailed reply. Any extra knowledge helps a lot and I can see why it would be frustrating to you to have people trying to tell you that you're wrong/ a prohibitionist. I'm still a bit confused though, although I'm seeing it more from your side now. as far as the "two new prohibitions" are they really that new? It's illegal at any age and it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be appropriate to set the age limit lower than 21. That is to say better 21+ than no age at all. And I'm not so sure about the laws of the road when it comes to drugged driving in states where marijuana is still illegal, even medicinally. So if I get pulled over in Kentucky, let's say, will I get tested for THC? And if I do will it be considered a DUI? And you make a very good point about the drugged driving rate rising if pot is legalized in these states, but if it rises 300% wouldn't you hope that someone would stand up and say "how does this correlate to accidents while stoned?" or "show us the last case someone crashed a car while they were only stoned."? I understand why you don't want I-502 to pass Mr. Sarich, but I feel like if it does you could make quite a name for yourself for reforming it to make the laws in washington state much more acceptable. Please let me know what you think and feel free to inform me more!
Careful readers will note that I never actually said that. As someone who calls others out for lying frequently, I would advise you that it's exceedingly important that one read carefully before calling someone else a liar for the sake of one's reputation. What I did say is that I don't think someone should be behind the wheel of a car if they've just gotten high. I base this statement not on scientific evidence but on my own experience of myself and others. Now as for your claim, there actually is peer reviewed science justifying the 5ng (active) limit. I won't say you're lying, but you are certainly wrong. I'm not sure how easy these studies are to access without a UW or other university account, but there are a few I can refer you to. In the Journal of Analysis & Prevention 36 (2004) 239-248, the conclusion reads "The present study presents good evidence that drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes and taking psychoactive drugs, particularly cannabis and strong stimulants, or two or more drugs in combination were more likely to be responsible for the crash than those taking neither drugs nor alcohol." On p. 245 it also states "Of particular interest is the association of THC with driver culpability. This association showed a biological gradient, similar to that observed for alcohol. The estimated association with culpability of THC in concentrations of at least 5 ng/ml was much greater than the association of all identifiable concentrations of THC. The odds ratio for THC concentrations of 5ng/ml or higher were similar to those for drivers with a BAC of at least 0.15 g%. THC also increased the likelihood of culpability in drivers who had also been drinking alcohol." Another study in The American Journal on Addictions, 18: 185-193, 2009 concludes, "Case-control studies are inconsistent, but suggest that while low concentrations of THC do not increase the rate of accidents, and may even decrease them, serum concentrations of THC higher than 5 ng/ml are associated with an increased risk of accidents". The author of this study believes that more research is necessary and I certainly agree with that. I-502 dedicates funding to marijuana research which I think is a great thing. When more information comes in, we can change the policy if need be. I would also refer to a great article on related issues: Sorry, Medical Marijuana Activists, Your Study Doesn't Prove that I-502 Will Nab Sober Drivers for DUIs | Slog Ultimately, people are being put away right now for marijuana DUI with far less than 5ng of active THC (sometimes just latent). It isn't at all clear how I-502 will make this problem worse. Since we are simply speculating about the future, I don't see it as any less justified to conclude that providing some guidance to the court on the issue of active vs. carboxy will reduce the number of prosecutions.
This is quite the thread but I still think I'll vote yes. Like others stated its better than it being illegal plus not many bills are perfect the first go around anyways so why not. Hopefully it will set the stage for legalization of cannabis nationwide.