Under the current law, simple possession of cannabis is against the law. There is still an "under the influence of drugs" charge if caught smoking while driving or admitting to smoking while driving. The fear of a marijuana DUI under I-502 is highly irrational: If possession alone is legalized, then having an ounce in your truck is not going to be probable cause to issue a sobriety test. That's the same as suspecting someone of being drunk when they're driving back from the store with a 6-pack. You still have your due process, people. As long as you're not actually under the influence on the road, I don't see why it's assumed that you would give off enough probable cause to be issued a sobriety test against your own will. Keep in mind what I said earlier, it's much better to vote Yes on this bill taking place in an election year, and having the kinks ironed out far before another bill is introduced, which inevitably will have some small group of cannabis supporters rallying against it right alongside the uber-conservatives, the factually ignorant and cops.
Seems most don't understand, all states already have a DUI law...anywhere in the USA you can be charges with DUI if the cop thinks you are stoned/high/buzzed/says-you-smell-of-pot...DUI is NOT restricted to just one drug such as alcohol/pot...it includes anything that impairs you, even cough syrups, cold medications, sinus medicines, anything they claimed caused you to drive in an unsafe erratic manner (or LEO just claims so) The problem with DUI laws setting a measured reading on 'pot' in your system, the percentages used have no basis on scientific facts on impairment....but some think you drive better while buzzed... Auto Insurance Site Says Marijuana Users Are Safer Drivers - Toke of the Town - cannabis news, views, rumor and humor. Driving Stoned: Safer Than Driving Drunk? - ABC News Marijuana Users Are Safer Drivers Than Non-Marijuana Users, New Study Shows and some TV shows are really taking some risk by showing the world the truth.. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z5jkYvKscw"]Weed And Driving - YouTube[/ame] spread the word!
I've read the studies that the DUI provision in I-502 is based on, so I was a bit surprised to see supposedly contradictory information. Upon close examination however, the study you are citing doesn't say exactly what you are implying: The Anderson and Reese study (which you can read at http://ftp.iza.org/dp6112.pdf), explicitly states "...because other mechanisms can not be ruled out, the negative relationship between medical marijuana laws and alcohol-related fatalities does not necessarily imply that driving under the influence of marijuana is safer than driving under the influence of alcohol". What the study is arguing is that when MMJ is legalized, people drink and drive less. The theory being that people are substituting marijuana for alcohol and smoking at home instead of driving home from bars or restaurants. I agree that alcohol is worse that MJ when it comes to driving impairment, but it doesn't mean that marijuana has no negative impact at any level. The ABC write-up you linked to provides an additional alternative theory, that since the study is based entirely on correlative data, that it could just be that traffic fatalities have declined overall. Finally, the video is obviously not a scientific study. We have to follow the science and not what we want to be true. It's rather intuitive to me that we don't want people on the road who are stoned, and that intuition is shared by most of the general public as well. The study I linked to in a previous post said that drivers between 1-5ng of active THC might be at a slightly lower or equal crash risk to someone at 0ng, but that after 5ng, your crash risk increases significantly as the THC level goes higher. I'm open to seeing other science on the subject, but thus far I haven't seen anything that contradicts this.
That is one shitty law. Might as well had a provision that if you have empty beer bottle in your trash you will get a DUI.
I would encourage you to look into it yourself rather than to trust one board commenters take on it. Unfortunately, Husky42 gets a number of things wrong in his post. The current process for marijuana DUI is to take someone's blood at a hospital. That will not change if I-502 passes. Under current law, if you have any amount of marijuana in your blood, including latent THC from weed smoked weeks earlier, you can be convicted of marijuana DUI. I'll repeat, that is under current law. I-502 for the first time makes a distinction between active THC and carboxy THC. Active THC is below 5ng within 3-4 hours after smoking, even for chronic heavy users. The threshhold will provide guidance to a court system that as of right now, is convicting people of marijuana DUI with ZERO ng of active THC. In order to be brought in to have your blood tested, one must first be arrested for DUI. Meaning the officer must prove first that you violated a traffic law, that you exhibit objective signs of impairment, and that he has probable cause to arrest you. If these conditions are not met and you test positive, the case can still be thrown out. If you have other concerns with the law, I've been reading quite a bit about it and I'm confident that any concern can be ameliorated. I hope you will reach the same conclusion after looking into it deeper and vote yes.
Took a butchers at the law, and see it is much more than just driving while high. I must say that it does look good (I didn't know they were making an active THC distinction rather than a metabolite measure), much better than what they are trying to pass in Oregon... I can't get behind Measure 80 here in Oregon, I don't agree with their method of control they proposed... I think it should be regulated like alcohol, which it seems to be what Washington is trying to do. I still don't agree with preventing vertical integration, and banning production and retail operations by the same person. Breweries and wineries are allowed to brew beer and ferment wine and sell it from the same establishment, why can't pot growers? McMenamin's anybody? My ultimate goal is to get some land (should be happening within 1-2 years time), grow cannabis, make my own organic fertilizer and soil, have a retail operation for the sale of seed, plants, herbs and herb products, fertilizer, and soil. Diversification is how farmers succeed in any farmer operation.
Don't give up your day job. Your legal knowledge is almost comical. "I smell pot" = Probable cause Fact: ACTIVE THC can stay in your system for up to 30 days. You have obviously not read any of the many studies, so please save us your armchair legal analysis.
What you say is almost true. It is apparently more than just a few hours, but not 30 days. It looks like active thc might be above 5ng for a few days. The guy in this article was well over double the limit after 15 hours. THC blood test: Pot critic William Breathes nearly 3 times over proposed limit when sober - Denver - News - The Latest Word Active THC ≠ THC metabolites (these can last well over 30 days).
I would imagine WA state would come up with a way to check active THC in blood vs. THC content in blood that is not considered active. I also know from experience by being pulled over for different things (without a single ticket) that WA cops, depending on reason, are reasonable and would not even give anyone issue if there was not a probable cause for being pulled over in the first place. Basically, one should not drive while under the influence of anything. When I got my driver's license, I obtained it with the understanding that driving is a privilege and not a right. Indeed, driving in any way that would compromise the safety of others is strictly prohibited, for good reason. If you don't give a cop reason to pull you over, there will not be an issue. If you are speeding or driving with an expired license plate tab, then you should be punished accordingly. I cringe every time I read a story about someone who drinks and drive and ends up running an innocent pedestrian over, so if I smoked a joint or a bowl, I would give it at least an hour or two before driving to ensure no one is hurt. What I get from all of this is that cannabis smokers would feel unjustified if they were pulled over for having an active THC blood content over a certain level. In this case, indeed one should be judged for being unsafe while driving. If someone was driving drunk and received a DUI for doing so, would marijuana activists truly question this any differently? I do believe cannabis is a safer alternative to alcohol obviously, but I disagree with driving on anything that would impair an individual. I think I-502 should be passed because it would both give people more freedom of choice while maintaining the responsibility of such right. When I toke, I do not drive. Period. Cannabis is an intoxicant, and as such being under the influence of too much of it while driving might put others at risk. Still, I think we should have the right to make that decision rather than being immediately jailed for using cannabis in any way whatsoever. I am going for a green card because cannabis would help my symptoms of CP and previous athletic injuries. However, I believe that a plant should not be illegal in the first place. Even if my right to grow for myself and be tested would be monitored, I think Washingtonians deserve the benefit of the doubt. After all, more crimes are committed when more control is employed, and I am confident more Washingtonians would be better off if they could enjoy their bud and only be tried based on bad decisions they might make. This theory of "we can do better" is truly asking for too much. Cannabis has been illegal for years, and the only way attitudes revolving around it will improve is if it is legalized and Washingtonians can prove they are responsible enough to use cannabis properly. If it remains illegal after this initiative goes to court, attitudes will either worsen or remain the same. There is no "better luck next time". I have learned this by remaining a citizen and voter in WA state for 8 years (I have been here all my life except for the 3 years I lived in Colorado). If I-502 gets turned down, then I can guarantee we won't have a favorable outcome for at least 5 years. I am a 'queer' individual based on political standpoints, and very little has improved after same-sex marriage has been outlawed as of last initiative election. Vote "yes" on it and have faith that our legal system will improve the situation for cannabis users from here on out. Our people has the absolute capability to prove themselves responsible, but we cannot do so without some means.
If biased standpoints prevent individuals from voting "yes" on this initiative, it is an indicator that this generation got tied up on the theories of the previous generation and lost track of its ideology of more freedom with increased responsibility of holding such freedom. As I see it, the only way cannabis would be legalized with little or no strings attached is if any questionable right would be miraculously given to us based on loose trust by the state. This is highly unlikely based on the track record of any previous initiatives being passed for such reason, which has never truly happened in this state without a history of opinions being changed. Anyone truly willing to take this risk by voting NO on I-502? If so, be prepared to engage in protests and activism. Legalizing a plant should not even involve this, but if the initiative is voted against successfully, I guarantee nothing will change without heavy radical activity. In a state that is absolutely torn between progression and conservation of previously established ideals, there is no cleaner alternative.
I simply asked for proof that "active" THC stays in the body for 30 days as he claims, not a bunch of political blah, blah, blah from you.
It appears to me that legal/illegal growers are against this bill, simply because their income will plummet. This is most likely the reason why in California, marijuana wasn't legalized. Perhaps growers should obtain proper career paths, and allow these bills to be passed for the good of our crippled and failing nation. The point given about the DUI's is quite absurd as well, if you're driving fine, then an officer has no reason to pull you over. If you're ridiculously "stoned" and falling asleep at the wheel, I believe you deserve the DUI anyways. Too many fatalities are related to using ANY drug while driving. I support this bill, and so does everyone else that realizes prohibition isn't working.
I am a grower and I feel that I would suffer from these law, and I do have a really good job. My views all depend on the way the law is implemented. As a grower I can get behind I-502 because it will work on a supply and demand basis. I don't think prices can fall much further, and based on what has happen this year, many people are backing out if they cannot produce quantity and quality. I know people sitting on pounds of herb, they can't even sell it at rock bottom prices because it is just garbage. We live in a buyers market, people don't just take what they can get anymore. I have survived simply because I can produce quality and quantity, at an average of $125/o for the grower for fire herb it is tough to stay afloat if you can't do both. If I wanted to take on the retail market, I could get more, but I only work in wholesale. Another way to look at it, is I keep several people in business; thus creating jobs. These laws will cause lots of retailers to lose their source of income for a more centralized retailing. That being said I cannot get behind Measure 80 in Oregon. This will not be a supply and demand model. The proposal is for a centralized government agencies to buy all product from producers, they will set the buy/sell price in a take it or leave it model. This is unfair to growers. I know people who don't grow can't understand the growers side, and think we are just a bunch of greedy money whores, but I am sure as shit not doing this to break even, solely in the name of supporting the government. Name some for-profit businesses that only do it for the social good... I know Tom's Shoes donates one pair of shoes to third world country for each sold, but I am pretty sure they compensate by charging a hell of a lot for some canvas wrapped shoes that fall apart pretty easily.
You are greedy. People are going to prison right now because it is still illegal. If you vote down legalization people will continue to go to prison. That's the most important issue in play here.
You are greedy because all you really care about is cheap weed... If you read my post you'd see I'd vote for I-502, but not measure 80. Voting in favor of any law just because its close to what you believe is like voting for Romney because he is on the republican ticket. You have to look at the details to make an informed decision.
Unless a grower has the money to go big in the spirit of I-502's "economy of scale", the smaller growers are SOL. I-502 states the final price MUST undercut the price of the illegal market AND there is a 25% tax at EACH of the grower, processer and retailer stages. I'll let you do your own math, but it looks to me like the grower would get something around $40 to $50/oz.
[quote name='"xdog"'] Unless a grower has the money to go big in the spirit of I-502's "economy of scale", the smaller growers are SOL. I-502 states the final price MUST undercut the price of the illegal market AND there is a 25% tax at EACH of the grower, processer and retailer stages. I'll let you do your own math, but it looks to me like the grower would get something around $40 to $50/oz.[/quote] That's what I think I can survive at.