Ya, apparently you didn't even read my post. How did I attack you instead of your ideas? In fact you are the one who overreacted and called me an insensitive prick (twice now). And you didn't even comprehend the idea i was putting forth with that black/women analogy...rambling about poverty?? The point was, our system is never perfect and laws are made in increments. How anyone can disagree, or not see this is just ignorance.
Lol are you fucking shitting me? A DUI IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL. Long time smoker was sober when he got blood drawn. He had 15 ng/ml blood. http://blogs.westword.com/latestwor...william_breathes_3_times_over_limit_sober.php Medical people are fucked. We can't take one step forward and two steps back. Also, I don't give a fuck about other states, or WA being the pathway to legalization. Sure, it'd be nice but that argument is weak. Please stop using it. Think about it, if the DUI is included in this bill, and it passes, this bill will be the base for other decrim/legalization bills. I don't think anyone would be happy about it. The hemp section of this law is also shit. To reiterate: this is a decriminalization bill. Not legalization.
[quote name='"Snugglebandit"'] Ya, apparently you didn't even read my post. How did I attack you instead of your ideas? In fact you are the one who overreacted and called me an insensitive prick (twice now). And you didn't even comprehend the idea i was putting forth with that black/women analogy...rambling about poverty?? The point was, our system is never perfect and laws are made in increments. How anyone can disagree, or not see this is just ignorance.[/quote] I'll just clear the air and apologize. I'm sorry, after re-reading your first post I see where I misread and misunderstood your argument. I see you want incremental change, well this isn't that. It is a further persecution of pot smokers by dragging all of their names out for the federal govt. It's garbage. Something needs to happen on the federal level before the states can really flex. Doesn't need to be legislation change, but a supreme court ruling of some sort in favor of state rights specified towards mmj would empower voters and confidence.
Again, what makes you think that this passing will take away rights you have under a technically unrelated law? There's nothing in the bill that says "if this passes, medical marijuana no longer exists lol fuck you guys".
[quote name='"arewenotmen"'] Again, what makes you think that this passing will take away rights you have under a technically unrelated law? There's nothing in the bill that says "if this passes, medical marijuana no longer exists lol fuck you guys".[/quote] People that don't read like you are the garbage in our civilization. Name-Calling/Disrespect is not allowed here. - KSR
Yes there are current laws covering a blanket case of DUI infractions but I highly doubt that a breathalyzer would give the kinda of pertinent results as it would for alcohol, instead it's likely that it'll be an oral swab to detect THC or other canaboids in the saliva of the accused. This method is a very short term detection method for marijuana usage as my understanding goes and from a friends personal expierence at his Job as a "Sandwich Artist"(you know where I speak of) Basically he got stoned the night before he worked, went to bed, got up, showered and went to work. His boss then confronted him about a "random drug screening." The method used was the saliva method I mentioned earlier and his saliva came up clean and clear, he later went on to become a regional manager making 50k a yr with a pension and benefits but decided to up and quit one day. He's done that before so I'm not sure why they kept hireing him back. lol
Doubt they'll go with oral swab, as the initiative itself calls for 5ng THC/ml blood. The reason why is because police can get more convictions this way. The science behind it is bunk, and does not account for long time smokers that have built tolerance (hint: MMJ patients are at high risk). Nobody wants to be framed for murder. Nobody wants a DUI because the cop smelled the legal oz of marijuana in your car, and decided to test you. If the police officer asks for a sobriety test (getting your blood drawn) you must agree or lose your license. THC blood test: Pot critic William Breathes nearly 3 times over proposed limit when sober - Denver News - The Latest Word Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review The current law for DUI marijuana conviction rests on the police to prove that you were impaired under marijuana. Looking high, impaired driving, admission to smoking, etc... A blood test can be asked from the officer, but the test results could be fought by your lawyer (you're a long time smoker, studies show that THC lingers long after your high). Under this initiative, if you're over, you were DUI. No matter what. Also, does anyone really think store fronts are going to happen? The Feds raid MMJ currently, what makes you think people selling to the public aren't going to get their asses jailed and fined?
Show me anything that says what you're claiming. Correction: Anything not written by paranoid right-wingers or people who make money selling it now. http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502 Factsheet - Medical Marijuana.pdf Read. Also, that "5 ng/ml cutoff" is for THC, not THC-COOH, which THC is rapidly metabolized into, and it's a blood test. Also, they STILL have to arrest you before you can be taken to a "medical professional", who then tests you. So, yes. If you get incredibly stoned to the point where you shouldn't be driving anyway, swerve around and get yourself pulled over, and then give the officer a reason to arrest you, you can be brought in and MAYBE fail a test if it's soon enough after you smoked. The THC-COOH will be in your blood stream for something like 6-8 hours after you smoke; not the THC, which is what they have to test for. Fear mongering and idiocy.
OK, sorry apparently I was misleading you with false sources or your just biased yourself. At least you came back with an intellectual response I appreciate that, so thank you. The Marijuana Policy Project good enough? Here's their mission statement to really outline their goals and purpose so as not to mislead. 1. Increase public support for non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies. 2. Identify and activate supporters of non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies. 3. Change state laws to reduce or eliminate penalties for the medical and non-medical use of marijuana. 4. Gain influence in Congress. and the link saying the DUI is just strait trash for constant users. Marijuana and DUI Laws: How Can We Best Guard Against Impaired Driving? It outlines what you talk about and how the test levels are just flawed. Perhaps a 20 n/g is more reasonable perhaps but I just don't agree with police officers telling me I have to get stuck with a needle after being arrested. WTF happened to innocent until proven guilty? You sound like the right winger if you step back and think about it. Your imposing more regulations and allowing more legal infringements on our freedoms. How? By allowing them to arrest and test. How is it the US is 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the world prisoners are here? A total of 44,440 behind bars for marijuana, at an avg cost of 30000 per a prisoner that's 1.3 billion dollars spent incarcerating pot dealers, users, and traffickers. And to what end or benefit? Marijuana Arrests For Year 2005 -- 786,545 Tops Record High... Pot Smokers Arrested In America At A Rate Of One Every 40 Seconds More arrests and detainment. You can't convince me this is a good thing unless someone could provide facts that the tests are not subjective to user tolerance... So far all I've is evidence suggesting these tests are flawed in multiple ways, and not to mention you have to be arrested then tested is what your suggesting? Wonder if the cops will interpret that the same way? Oh and under CURRENT laws police officers can not test blood until they've ran a sobriety test, and field breathalyzers. Which a police officer can not draw upon when it comes to MJ so this leaves room for discretion, and failure in justice. Do you trust the police with your freedom?
And there's tons more [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5knj6KnnHX4]Ridiculous Seattle Police Misconduct - YouTube[/ame]
That's actually the exact opposite of right-wing... As a matter of fact, I'm dealing with some marijuana-unrelated legal troubles brought on by a false report written by a police officer, so no. I don't trust the police with my freedom. However, you only rebutted my argument on the DUI count. I've already explained why the blood testing thing makes your tolerance and level of use a moot point: It doesn't stay in your blood longer if you're a long-term user. You're thinking of fat cells, where it can be detected by a urine test. THC will be converted into THC-COOH at the same rate regardless of how often you smoke. Again, nothing related to MMJ will be changed, because it's a completely different law, and nothing in I-502 makes it easier for police to arrest you to be able to drug test for DUI. They still need you to commit an arrestable offense before you can be brought in. Nothing in your post really refuted any of the claims that I made.
I'm going off actions not doctrine. The right wing has shown over the last 10 years to erode freedoms. But this isn't really about that.... "While the Colorado Legislature debated a per se THC limit of five ng/ml, Denver News' medical marijuana reviewer (and medical marijuana patient), William Breathes, subjected himself to blood draws to test his THC levels. After a 15-hour period of abstinence, Mr. Breathes' THC levels were still 13.5 ng/ml. According to his physician, Mr. Breathes was in “no way incapacitated†at the time.6 " That was in my sourced site. I'm refuting exactly what you say but with sources. Your being biased and opinionated, I feel if you really looked at the facts I've provided you may feel differently. So back to what I said previously can you provide medical examples of tests being performed with legitimate users? Sourced not word of your keyboard.
Ok, I looked into that source, and basically what you have is a guy, who isn't medically trained, saying what happened. There's no documentation, no official test results, nothing concrete. Furthermore, if he had that level of regular, Delta 9 THC in his blood, he would be high, and not "coming down" high, but full blown high. Almost definitely, what he was tested for was, again, the metabolite THC-COOH, which is what drug tests usually test for, and which stays in your blood after the THC itself is metabolized. People sometimes refer to this as "THC", when in reality, they aren't the same thing.
Every source I find is incorrect or biased... that's the way the world is. I don't see any smokers getting behind the legitimacy of this test. Which surprises me your defending it over and over again with nothing but the knowledge you've read about. This time I had to search through peer review abstracts just to find the on tinge of evidence showing your wrong. THC-COOH is just as ineffective measurement as any other suggested because... " A sensitive analytical method and a prolonged specimen collection period are important study considerations in the monitoring of marijuana excretion." SO.. in layman's terms each individual levels would differ depending on an assortment of variables. Urinary excretion half-life of 11-nor-9-carb... [Ther Drug Monit. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI I don't mind the reading and further educating myself.
Yes, and again you posted a source that deals with a metabolite of THC, not THC itself. Also, by the time it gets to the "monitoring of marijuana excretion" stage, the THC has long since been metabolized, and wouldn't cause a positive result in a blood test for THC. The bill is very specific that unmetabolized THC is what is being tested for. There is no "excretion time" for unmetabolized THC, because by the time it would be excreted, it's already been metabolized. That's what makes your "high" go away, the metabolism of the THC. That's why they don't test for it in drug tests, because it's gone so quickly. That's why it's better to have THC be what's tested for under this bill.
And here's the US feds admitting your wrong.... "the US Department of Justice affirms that a positive drug test result for the presence of a drug metabolite "does not indicate ... recency, frequency, or amount of use; or impairment."[9] A US Department of Transportation report further states that while a positive test for drug metabolites is "solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment during a focal event."[10] You Are Going Directly To Jail: What It Means, Who's Behind It, and Strategies to Prevent It UK govt also the same conclusion as I with science! They discovered a "heavy user would maintain a level of 20,9,8 ng/ml on successive days after consumption till 8 days later when the patients levels reached 1 ng/ml. Scroll down to 2.9 it wouldn't let me copy paste. http://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf Just saying I keep finding contradicting sources. Noting to support your claims. Each time I go back to try and find out if you could be right I prove you wrong each time. I continue to find source after source rebutting everything you argue. Yet your still here which I admire it's good your fighting for what you you deem to be just, and you should never stop. Though educate yourself on what your talking about then have the FACTS to back it up. Also have the humility to admit you could be wrong. As I could be wrong but 5 or 6 sources later I see nothing to point me in the other direction other then medical professionals just plain suggest ending use. Happy 4.20!
Dude, are you fucking kidding me? This is EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. It's better that they would test for THC rather than a metabolite, because the presence of THC itself indicates that the subject is high, whereas a metabolite indicates that they were high recently. If anything, this proves YOU wrong, because you keep saying that heavy users will test positive for longer periods, but it says "does not indicate ... recency, frequency, or amount of use". I'm not sure that you understand the difference between THC and metabolites of THC. Now, I'm not saying, and I have never said, that the presence of THC indicates impairment, but it's a hell of a lot better than testing for something that can remain for hours or days after the fact.
No your right you are now off creating your own science(until proven). No where have you provided a source saying they can test for the metabolite or I missed it. I mean if you wanna call BS on my evidence provide some factual contradiction.