Obama Drug Policy Calls for Drugged Driving Charges for Unimpaired Marijuana Users

christiefan915 said:
I see much ado about nothing. Police should stop a car being driven erratically.
If a car is being driven safely and legally, i.e. current plates, no violations witnessed, etc., there should be no reason to stop the driver.
Click to expand...

that is not the issue. if a jbt stops a driver for erratic driving and refuses to take any 'test', there is already a remedy in place to punish said driver. enforcing a mandated blood draw is a heinous violation of someones body and some will not tolerate it. case in point, check out entry #1 on injustice report volume 2 today.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that is not the issue. if a jbt stops a driver for erratic driving and refuses to take any 'test', there is already a remedy in place to punish said driver. enforcing a mandated blood draw is a heinous violation of someones body and some will not tolerate it. case in point, check out entry #1 on injustice report volume 2 today.
Click to expand...

To me, driving erratically indicates current impairment, not a week-old substance metabolizing. When will people learn not to drive when under the influence?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
emotional plea fails to compute. how do you accept the blatant violation of your person as a government mandate?
Click to expand...

It's not emotional. I mentally laid out the scenario, thought of all the outcomes and concluded that the only way this is going to be a problem if the person is currently impaired. Otherwise why would the police make the stop and if it were for a traffic violation, why would a drug test be ordered?

My main issue is with webbway making this an Obama issue when it's already been happening for years, presumably under bush, clinton, etc., and nobody gave a rat's fanny about it.
 
christiefan915 said:
It's not emotional. I mentally laid out the scenario, thought of all the outcomes and concluded that the only way this is going to be a problem if the person is currently impaired. Otherwise why would the police make the stop and if it were for a traffic violation, why would a drug test be ordered?

My main issue is with webbway making this an Obama issue when it's already been happening for years, presumably under bush, clinton, etc., and nobody gave a rat's fanny about it.
Click to expand...
You're not familiar with ticket quotas are you? And the big issue is it's now NATIONAL policy. And since it correlates to the drug war, we can only assume a harsher standard of punishment then what the certain states had in place.
 
christiefan915 said:
It's not emotional. I mentally laid out the scenario, thought of all the outcomes and concluded that the only way this is going to be a problem if the person is currently impaired. Otherwise why would the police make the stop and if it were for a traffic violation, why would a drug test be ordered?

My main issue is with webbway making this an Obama issue when it's already been happening for years, presumably under bush, clinton, etc., and nobody gave a rat's fanny about it.
Click to expand...

capt'n gay is right....its an issue NOW because obama is making it a national issue....no other president has tried to push this as hard as obama

look, i have no problem treating marijuana just like alcohol. alcohol is legal, has extra "sin" taxes and you can legally drive only if you have a percentage of alcohol in your system below the legal limit....obama's plan has no such limit, its just the fact you have traces of marijuana in your system....and as much as i appreciate thorn's response above, marijuana stays in your system (THC) as well, far longer than alcohol. if you're going to test for it, then develope a system that works similar to alcohol.

btw.....driving while stone....no where near the amount of accidents as with alcohol or plain sober driving....there is such a miscomprehension out there about marijuana...if you have too much marijuana, unlike booze which will amp you up, you will go to sleep or be too relaxed to drive.....
 
Big Gay Al said:
You're not familiar with ticket quotas are you? And the big issue is it's now NATIONAL policy. And since it correlates to the drug war, we can only assume a harsher standard of punishment then what the certain states had in place.
Click to expand...

It's not a National Policy, it's a strategy and a recommendation. Here's the document:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs10/ndcs2010.pdf

See page 23. "Encourage states to adopt per se drug impairment laws".

Again I ask, why didn't conservatives argue this before Obama, when the first 15 states were signing on?
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
capt'n gay is right....its an issue NOW because obama is making it a national issue....no other president has tried to push this as hard as obama

look, i have no problem treating marijuana just like alcohol. alcohol is legal, has extra "sin" taxes and you can legally drive only if you have a percentage of alcohol in your system below the legal limit....obama's plan has no such limit, its just the fact you have traces of marijuana in your system....and as much as i appreciate thorn's response above, marijuana stays in your system (THC) as well, far longer than alcohol. if you're going to test for it, then develope a system that works similar to alcohol.

btw.....driving while stone....no where near the amount of accidents as with alcohol or plain sober driving....there is such a miscomprehension out there about marijuana...if you have too much marijuana, unlike booze which will amp you up, you will go to sleep or be too relaxed to drive.....
Click to expand...

Read the document. It's not mandated, it's encouraged.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs10/ndcs2010.pdf
 
christiefan915 said:
Obviously somebody did. Why did 15 states decide to do it?

Your state has it, do you remember when and how it originated? Did you complain to your legislature?

http://www.nocuffs.com/dui/duid/duid_case.asp
Click to expand...

i knew you couldn't provide another president who did this....and i knew you would not admit your error

states are NOT the same as federal....google it if you don't understand it....

you said obama....all you've given me is states

next
 
Yurt said:
capt'n gay is right....its an issue NOW because obama is making it a national issue....no other president has tried to push this as hard as obama

look, i have no problem treating marijuana just like alcohol. alcohol is legal, has extra "sin" taxes and you can legally drive only if you have a percentage of alcohol in your system below the legal limit....obama's plan has no such limit, it's just the fact you have traces of marijuana in your system....and as much as i appreciate thorn's response above, marijuana stays in your system (THC) as well, far longer than alcohol (???). if you're going to test for it, then develope a system that works similar to alcohol.

btw.....driving while stoned....nowhere near the amount of accidents as with alcohol or plain sober driving....there is such a miscomprehension out there about marijuana...if you have too much marijuana, unlike booze which will amp you up, you will go to sleep or be too relaxed to drive.....
Click to expand...

That's what I said in my first post on the topic -- that there simply isn't a standard at present to measure level of potential impairment as there is for alcohol.

The half life of THC may be somewhat longer than that of alcohol, but it is the lipophilic metabolites that hang around for up to 30 days, not THC itself. If the latter were true, you'd be high for a long, long time! :) I'll check out my Goodman & Gilman to see what the exact half life of THC is in humans, though, just for interest's sake.

Are there reliable stats available on THC involvement in traffic accidents? Intuitively I'm inclined to agree that it should be lower than with alcohol, especially when fatalities or serious injuries occur. On the other hand, it isn't routine to check for driver levels of THC, so it would be difficult to gather meaningful data at this time.
 
Thorn said:
That's what I said in my first post on the topic -- that there simply isn't a standard at present to measure level of potential impairment as there is for alcohol.

The half life of THC may be somewhat longer than that of alcohol, but it is the lipophilic metabolites that hang around for up to 30 days, not THC itself. If the latter were true, you'd be high for a long, long time! :) I'll check out my Goodman & Gilman to see what the exact half life of THC is in humans, though, just for interest's sake.

Are there reliable stats available on THC involvement in traffic accidents? Intuitively I'm inclined to agree that it should be lower than with alcohol, especially when fatalities or serious injuries occur. On the other hand, it isn't routine to check for driver levels of THC, so it would be difficult to gather meaningful data at this time.
Click to expand...

are there tests than differentiate between thc and lipophilic metabolites?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top