You're right, I actually didn't post that source. I had the I-502 MMJ factsheet confused with the DUI factsheet. My bad. http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502 Factsheet - DUI.pdf It's the second heading. THC in this source is referred to as "active THC metabolite", as opposed to "inactive THC metabolite", which is what all of your sources have referred to.
I once got pulled over South of the Washington border and after two perfect field sobriety tests(the dick made me do everything twice)..he concluded I was under the influence of something he couldn't quite detect so he wanted my consent to go down town and provide him a urine sample. All the while he was going to write me a ticket for no registration and no insurance on a vehicle I had purchased that day. His partner grilled my passenger about me and "the dope" but we both were air tight gave them absolutely no probable cause to even search the vehichle. The LTD was legit off the lot, we weren't packing, knew he had nothing. Had to get angry in my defense explaining I felt like he was harassing me and stepping out of bounds by accusing me of such an asinine thing like doing drugs. Let him know how completely unreasonable it would have been to "ok, just going to write a couple tickets and you can go home" to suffice for my unwillingness to cooperate by going to the police station. Drove away 35 minutes later without any yellow pieces of paper just like it should have been.
Which doesn't happen to a lot of minorities and impoverished people. Good job on knowing your rights.
How about this, it should be mandatory that they can ONLY ask for sobriety test if the driver was swerving or reported to have been swerving, driving erratically, out of control or blowing a stop sign/red light. If there was no indicators at all, then the police should have no right to ask for such a test just cause they pulled you over for speeding, no turn signal, or saw pot in the car. This MUST be brought with video evidence from the cruiser showing the car being out of control or blowing red lights/stop signs. No evidence of swerving, test should be considered illegal and thrown out of the court hearing. I don't honestly even care at that point what test methods they use(outside of sticking people with needles). It's not sensible for people who while are under the influence can drive better then other sober people, be charged with a crime they didn't commit(unsafe driving). If you happened to be stoned and caught swerving and just being a danger to other people- well guess what you're not one of those people who can be stoned and drive and deserve everything coming at you.
So, I guess ReconReefer is just done responding now... lol. I guess I made a pretty good argument for garbage who doesn't read.
You can still commit the DUI if you're sober though, so this is merely the same as testing for inactive THC. THC blood test: Pot critic William Breathes nearly 3 times over proposed limit when sober - Denver News - The Latest Word "Even when deemed sober by a doctor, my active THC levels were almost triple the proposed standard of 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood." Long time smoker, 15 hour smoke break including sleeping. He also claimed himself sober. Allowing this this bill seems to be a backdoor for more DUIs in exchange for less possessions/convictions.
This is the exact same source he used. The one that doesn't specify what metabolite of THC was tested for. Yes, I see that he says active. Without test results, this could just be more anti-bill fear mongering. If he had active THC in his bloodstream, he would be high. The body would still be metabolizing it into inactive metabolites, therefore he would be high. Furthermore, if you take a blood test for THC-COOH hours later, you could still fail. Active THC will not show up unless you're high. Don't ask for sources, I've already posted them. And for the last god damned time, nothing in the bill makes it easier for the police to administer the test. If anything, it takes away certain circumstances where they could arrest you now. For example, possession of a certain amount is enough to arrest right now. They could then test you and give you a DUI under the current law. On the other hand, if this was passed, they couldn't arrest you for possession, and they couldn't test you because they have to arrest you before they can do so. I'm tired of making the same damn points over and over. People who are against this bill are either that way because they stand to lose profits from growing and selling, or because they've been scared into being that way by the people who do. Nothing is going to change your minds.
I got tired of trying to prove ignorance wrong. No where in the initiative does it say how or standards for testing the link you provided is capital investment rhetoric. The initiative also failed to move a lot of people at the Seattle city center debate. It won't pass because it needs every voter it can get to go yes. This is a definite no because too many pro-mmj people are against it. But if you don't want to just pass on my socioeconomic analysis and try to prove me wrong there I love to debate economics and social policies.
Washington - In 2007, 18,126 people were behind bars in Washington, representing a 3.2% increase over the previous year. - Washington spent $832 million in fiscal year 2007 on corrections. - For every dollar spent on higher education, Washington spent 55 cents on corrections. And you don't think this "earmarked" tax revenue will be spent on said healthcare and such, but it only takes weeks of legislature to reallocate tax revenue. This fails to deal with legalize vs. decriminalize. Costs more and puts more people in jail. The statistics prove it. "I tried to highlight the irony that the strong American democracy has become the most punitive in the world, recently beating out even Russia" Bringing Down the U.S. Prison Population The problem isn't in the MJ legalize movement. The problem is the failed legal system.
I seriously wish that those who are supporting I-502 would actually take the time to READ it. Anyone who thinks that those of us who are opposed to it are simply worried about losing some financial gain, are sadly mistaken. For those of us who ARE opposed, we are very disappointed that the dispensary owners have remained totally silent on I-502 thus far. Anyone pushing the idea that they are behind the opposition are either disengenuous, are trying to discredit us, or they are ignorant of the facts. You stated that "Active THC will not show up unless you're high." Sadly, you are completely misinformed or you'll using old studies. The very latest study from Dr. Erin Karschner, and supported by the National Institutes on Drug Abuse, was just released last week. You probably haven't seen it yet, so here it is: Extended Plasma Cannabinoid Excretion in Chronic Daily Cannabis Smokers During Sustained Abstinence "Chronic, daily male cannabis smokers resided on a secure clinical research unit under constant 24-hour surveillance. Written informed consent was provided and the National Institute on Drug Abuse Institutional Review Board approved the study. Blood specimens were collected daily on ice, centrifuged and plasma separated within 2 h and frozen at − 20C until analysis." Conclusion: THC and THCCOOH can be detected in plasma for up to 30 days of monitored abstinence in chronic daily cannabis smokers. Thus, cannabinoid plasma concentrations may not indicate recent cannabis exposure, nor intoxication or impairment, depending upon past smoking history. It is unknown whether residual cannabinoid plasma concentrations are accompanied by cognitive and psychomotor performance impairment. These data have important forensic implications for driving under the influence of drugs and other forensic investigations. This study proves, beyond any doubt, that active THC can stay in your blood for as long as 30 days after the last time you consumed it. So unless you now want to argue that you are still technically "high" 30 days after smoking, I think your argument just went down in flames. This means that every patient will be guilty of DUI every time they get behind the wheel! I know that my active THC level will never drop below 5ng/ml. If you're twenty years old, and haven't smoked a joint in the last two weeks, you can still be arrested and convicted of a felony DUI under the "zero THC" tolerance level in I-502. Is this really anyone's idea of "legalization"? This is not "fear mongering". This is the scientific evidence that proves that totally innocent, un-impaired, drivers will be arrested and convicted of driving under the influence of drugs. The consequences of this are life-changing and far more serious than a simple possession charge. Let's not further criminalize innocent cannabis consumers and have the nerve to call it "legalization". Steve Sarich NO On I-502
The link I provided is a factsheet that cites the bill. I don't know if you went to college, but when you see links and page numbers at the end of a document, those are specific references to source material. The fact that my source isn't the bill itself doesn't mean anything. You, sir, are the only person being ignorant in this argument.
I'm pulling peer reviewed articles and you pull fact sheets, and you ask me if I went to college? Do you understand the peer review process? The scientific way of proving statistics and facts fit the suggested thesis? No, if you had you would have addressed my socioeconomic claims. So found anywhere in the initiative language where it said to test for "active metabolites"? Because the way it reads id 5ng of THC not active metabolites. So your wrong. Not only wrong about this law but in general. Rethink your superiority complex and then come talk sense not rhetoric.
THC itself IS THE FUCKING ACTIVE METABOLITE. Jesus Christ. I can't argue with children. The Denver News is not peer reviewed. The only peer reviewed article you referred to was talking about THC-COOH, NOT ACTIVE THC, NOT RELEVANT. The fact sheet has these things, again, called "citations", which are word-for-word, verbatim quotes pulled from the language of the bill. If you read the end of the factsheet, it tells you exactly where in the bill to find what the numbered citation is referring to. So, yes. I question whether you've ever written or read an academic paper, because you don't seem to know how citations work. And, your argument that the fact sheet is just "capital investment rhetoric" is bullshit as well, because people don't just give their money to someone because they say something. Hence, the motherfucking citations which reference language in the initiative.
I'd like to point out that the fact that it can be detected is due to the PRESENCE OF OTHER METABOLITES, not the active, working THC itself. If there was actual, active THC, you would be high. There's no question about it. THC doesn't just tell itself to stop metabolizing when it feels like its job is done. If the actual active THC is in your blood, it's being metabolized into other substances (THC-COOH, etc.) within hours. This is why it says "residual cannabinoid plasma concentration", not "leftover THC from the stuff that somehow resisted being metabolized by your body". And once again, I fail to see how this is even relevant. As the law is written right now, they can test you if they arrest you and have a suspicion of drug use. OH, WAIT! Isn't that what you're scared of the police doing if this passes? Well, what the fuck? Why don't they just do it now?! Well, I'm glad you asked. Because if you don't give them a reason to think you're high, they don't have a reason to think you're high. It's pretty simple. Passing this legislation: Does. Not. Make. It. Any. Easier. Than. It. Already. Is. To. Administer. The. Test. So, what reason is there, really not to pass this, seeing that what you're afraid of now is already in place? Actual language from the current Washington state laws on DUID: "Type of Drugs Prohibited: Any drug, including controlled substances or prescription drugs. Required Proof: 1. Defendant was driving or was in actual physical control of a vehicle in Washington. 2. While driving, or was in actual physical control of a vehicle, defendant was under the influence of, or was affected by any drug; or 3. Defendant was operating a vehicle in a negligent manner likely to endanger persons or property. 4. While so operating the vehicle, defendant exhibited the effects of having consumed a controlled substance or a prescription drug." (A positive drug test is understood as an "effect of having consumed a controlled substance".) "Arrest Required Prior to Test: Yes" So, again, they have to actually have a reason to physically arrest you before they can test you. People aren't just going to be arbitrarily given DTs unless they give a cop a reason to think they need one. Now let's take a look at what you're facing RIGHT NOW if you're prosecuted under this law: "Criminal: Not more than 1 year imprisonment and/or not more than $5000 fine for any DUID offense (gross misdemeanor); not more than 90 days in jail and/or not more than $1000 fine for any negligent driving offense." That's RIGHT NOW, without legalization. With legalization, the only thing that changes is that you can smoke and buy without fear of arrest. The DUID laws are the same, pass or not, so that's a wash. Passing the initiative can ONLY AFFECT POSITIVE CHANGE.
I can cite rhetoric is doesn't make it as you stated muthfuckin fact. So your fact sheet that so called "cited the initiative", doesn't. Your being a dick. Here's the initiatives actual language since you were too lazy tor read it yourself. " or the THC concentration of the person's blood was 5.00 or more" I don't see metabolites or anything of the sort. Do you? Still not addressing my Econ issue?
Just so it's known I'm noot citing out of context. if a test or tests were administered, whether the applicable requirements of this section were satisfied before the administration of the test or tests, whether the person submitted to the test or tests, or whether a test was administered without express consent as permitted under this section, and whether the test or tests indicated that the alcohol concentration of the person's breath or blood was 0.08 or more, or the THC concentration of the person's blood was 5.00 or more, if the person was age twenty-one or over at the time of the arrest," I know you want it to be based off this "perfect" metabolite test but that's not what is in the words man. If it's not in writing then it never happened and no one can form a defense off THC metabolites. You have great facts, bad implementation. and seriously I'm not trying to me mean or offensive so keep it somewhat cordial around here. I only said ignorant as in you were failing to read the actual words and going off someone else's on a fact sheet.
I suppose I was proven correct by the silence. Just read enough and you'll eventually find fact. The true ability lies in determinig fact from rhetoric.
Nitpicking this bill is just ridiculous. If you EVER want weed to be legalized you will vote yes on this bill. At stake is more than just getting legalized in Wash. You guys have the opportunity to get the ball rolling, and to show the government that this is what the MAJORITY wants. If these initiatives keep failing, it will just show that we aren't willing to do whatever it takes to get it legalized. To those who are going to vote no, what exactly are you waiting for? How many mistakes in a bill is acceptable for it to get passed? No bill for legalizing weed will EVER be perfect. I can guarantee you that. Not on the federal level, or on the state level. Set a precedent. Be the first fucking state to get the ball rolling. Once its finally rolling, its all downhill from there. Seriously, its the first nudge that is ALWAYS the hardest, but once it finally gets going, its MUCH easier. Just look at MMJ. Be a California, except for legalizing weed for everyone. Yes, their MMJ laws are the most primitive....and same as this first bill, but look at all the progress we have made because that first state legalized. We have to start somewhere, and waiting is not the answer. MMJ patients will be more than fine.
I-502 does not legalize anything. I-502 adds restrictive bureaucratic taxes to an illegal business under the IRS, DOJ, and a plethora of other federal organizations. So, yes federal change is needed and soon so we can have legitimate access to MJ for everyone. I will nit pick garbage bills every time. To ignore faults is to accept failure and I won't do that as an intellectual individual it's my right and task to inform the ill-informed. To blindly accept this as the problem solver it isn't would be unwise.