xavier7995
- 1,806
- 263
This is awesome!
Cops Test New Weed Breathalyzer On California Drivers
LocalGrowGuy
- 2,497
- 263
So, semantics.
"TBH I wouldn't be surprised if the latter actually improved a person's driving safety!"
"I am not arguing that driving high makes you a better driver. I am arguing that the effect of driving high on driver safety and accident culpability is insignificant."
We can agree to disagree, but I fail to recognize a distinction between these two statements for the purpose of this discussion. Also, if the population doesn't see this then neither do our legislators. This is because politicians and lawmakers are stupid, they have their own agenda and self interests that doesn't likely match yours. To me this position creates a non-starter. We can keep talking pixie dust and unicorns and the authorities understanding or accepting something close to what your post seems to say, that different strains have different effects (or something?). Your follow up comes off differently than your initial post that I replied to. Full Disclosure: I'm not even sure what you were trying to say in your first post. I apologize if I misunderstood your intent by concentrating on what words you used.
You're preaching to the choir guy. You make sense to me but the population in question would read this and get an error message. People's beliefs with regards to driving under the influence of anything, booze, drugs, kids, distraction, traffic, skin color, legal status, aren't going to change by reading an article on the internet. Just like there is very little movement in politics during the debates, people's ideologies are not likely to change based on new information, especially when it goes against what they think is the truth.
I think you should consider the fact that most people are biased, and everyone lies. Ourselves included. The group of people we are discussing will never read your links, they will never educate themselves. Mouthbreathers read headlines and repeat soundbites, they don't read science papers. Your linked studies will be ignored, but things like this aren't ignored, and are the reasons why we have ridiculous laws like per se drugged driving at 5 ng/mL (HB 1325). I counter that permissible inference laws like we have here are more relevant in the courtroom that at-fault or studies of culpability. Maybe our reasoning is just different, or theirs is very different, or maybe it's the fact that the average person is a moron who probably can't even pronounce 'culpability'. Five syllables is a lot. It does nothing for the cause when drugged up idiots kill 8 year olds like Peyton Knowlton. Her picture will further their cause more than anything you or I can do. Anti-MJ crowds will always point to examples like this, and dead children will trump anything contrary. In my opinion. I accept the reality that our legal system is not science based, and that makes me sad.
Are we dancing around the same ideas but using different words? Are we discussing fault/culpability and impairment versus scientific data contained within conducted studies and law enforcement's own views on impairment/culpability? While defendants can argue against impairment under permissible inference, I think it will be very difficult for the average defendant to defend themselves against LEO who have undergone training under ARIDE or DRE. Cops come with credibility and these cutesy acronyms that make for easy recall during deliberations.
"Using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System for the period 1990-2010, the current study examines the relationship
between these laws and traffic fatalities, the leading cause of death among
Americans ages 5 through 34. Our results provide no evidence that per se
drugged driving laws reduce traffic fatalities."
[Per Se Drugged Driving Laws and Traffic Fatalities, by Anderson and Rees, 2015]disclosure: I didn't read all 44 pages
As long as drivers test positive for marijuana, your culpability stats will not register with the masses. You also have to consider that law enforcement has no interest in discontinuing enforcement of 'drugged' drivers. That's because it's easy and cops are lazy. Breathalyzers and blood tests enable laziness, and I don't believe that cops are interested in spending money trying to develop some type of roadside test to determine sobriety as it relates to sleep, distractions, etc. It's easy to deny that you were on the phone, but it's more difficult to say you weren't high if your chemical test comes back positive. You also know that a positive drug test does not equal impairment, and I'll assume you know that cops will gladly make the link for you, or the DA will at your hearing.
Respectfully, I still stand by my point criticizing you for your comment, and you didn't answer my question Dodgy McDodgerson.
I await your analysis. This is vastly more enjoyable to me than the typical hit-and-run, post-and-hide style of some other posters.
"TBH I wouldn't be surprised if the latter actually improved a person's driving safety!"
"I am not arguing that driving high makes you a better driver. I am arguing that the effect of driving high on driver safety and accident culpability is insignificant."
We can agree to disagree, but I fail to recognize a distinction between these two statements for the purpose of this discussion. Also, if the population doesn't see this then neither do our legislators. This is because politicians and lawmakers are stupid, they have their own agenda and self interests that doesn't likely match yours. To me this position creates a non-starter. We can keep talking pixie dust and unicorns and the authorities understanding or accepting something close to what your post seems to say, that different strains have different effects (or something?). Your follow up comes off differently than your initial post that I replied to. Full Disclosure: I'm not even sure what you were trying to say in your first post. I apologize if I misunderstood your intent by concentrating on what words you used.
You're preaching to the choir guy. You make sense to me but the population in question would read this and get an error message. People's beliefs with regards to driving under the influence of anything, booze, drugs, kids, distraction, traffic, skin color, legal status, aren't going to change by reading an article on the internet. Just like there is very little movement in politics during the debates, people's ideologies are not likely to change based on new information, especially when it goes against what they think is the truth.
I think you should consider the fact that most people are biased, and everyone lies. Ourselves included. The group of people we are discussing will never read your links, they will never educate themselves. Mouthbreathers read headlines and repeat soundbites, they don't read science papers. Your linked studies will be ignored, but things like this aren't ignored, and are the reasons why we have ridiculous laws like per se drugged driving at 5 ng/mL (HB 1325). I counter that permissible inference laws like we have here are more relevant in the courtroom that at-fault or studies of culpability. Maybe our reasoning is just different, or theirs is very different, or maybe it's the fact that the average person is a moron who probably can't even pronounce 'culpability'. Five syllables is a lot. It does nothing for the cause when drugged up idiots kill 8 year olds like Peyton Knowlton. Her picture will further their cause more than anything you or I can do. Anti-MJ crowds will always point to examples like this, and dead children will trump anything contrary. In my opinion. I accept the reality that our legal system is not science based, and that makes me sad.
Are we dancing around the same ideas but using different words? Are we discussing fault/culpability and impairment versus scientific data contained within conducted studies and law enforcement's own views on impairment/culpability? While defendants can argue against impairment under permissible inference, I think it will be very difficult for the average defendant to defend themselves against LEO who have undergone training under ARIDE or DRE. Cops come with credibility and these cutesy acronyms that make for easy recall during deliberations.
"Using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System for the period 1990-2010, the current study examines the relationship
between these laws and traffic fatalities, the leading cause of death among
Americans ages 5 through 34. Our results provide no evidence that per se
drugged driving laws reduce traffic fatalities."
[Per Se Drugged Driving Laws and Traffic Fatalities, by Anderson and Rees, 2015]disclosure: I didn't read all 44 pages
As long as drivers test positive for marijuana, your culpability stats will not register with the masses. You also have to consider that law enforcement has no interest in discontinuing enforcement of 'drugged' drivers. That's because it's easy and cops are lazy. Breathalyzers and blood tests enable laziness, and I don't believe that cops are interested in spending money trying to develop some type of roadside test to determine sobriety as it relates to sleep, distractions, etc. It's easy to deny that you were on the phone, but it's more difficult to say you weren't high if your chemical test comes back positive. You also know that a positive drug test does not equal impairment, and I'll assume you know that cops will gladly make the link for you, or the DA will at your hearing.
Respectfully, I still stand by my point criticizing you for your comment, and you didn't answer my question Dodgy McDodgerson.
I await your analysis. This is vastly more enjoyable to me than the typical hit-and-run, post-and-hide style of some other posters.
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Concerning total bans and per se laws regarding metabolites, our Supreme Court here has actually addressed this in a recent decision.
However, a recent court ruling in Arizona could (hopefully) have significant implications for Oklahoma’s drugged-driving law.
Arizona has had a law since 1990 which classified the presence of inert THC metabolites in a driver’s blood or urine as DUI per se. Last month, though, that law was ruled unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court.
In Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan, the state’s high court upheld a lower court ruling to dismiss the DUI charge against Hrach Shilgevorkyan, a driver who was charged with DUI after admitting he had “smoked weed” the night before the traffic stop, and a subsequent blood test detected the presence of THC metabolite.
In its ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court found that banning non-intoxicating substances did not follow the intent of the law to prevent impaired driving. Banning all substances, regardless of its ability to impair, is therefore unconstitutional:
“We . . . reject the State's argument that [the law] 'creates a flat ban on the presence of any drug or its metabolite in a person's body while driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle,' even when the only metabolite found is not impairing . . .
Because the legislature intended to prevent impaired driving, we hold that the 'metabolite' reference in [the law] is limited to any of a proscribed substance's metabolites that are capable of causing impairment . . . Drivers cannot be convicted of the . . . offense based merely on the presence of a non-impairing metabolite that may reflect the prior usage of marijuana.”
In other words, a person cannot be charged with violating a traffic law simply because of the presence of a non-impairing substance in his or her bloodstream.
In short, the court states, “We are asked to determine whether the phrase ‘its metabolite’ includes Carboxy-Tetrahydrocannabinol (‘Carboxy-THC’), a non-impairing metabolite of Cannabis, a proscribed drug listed in § 13-3401. We conclude that it does not.”
Prior to this ruling, eleven states plus Washington, D.C., had zero tolerance per se cannabis laws. With its Supreme Court’s ruling, Arizona has removed itself from the list. The unconstitutionality of the law in that state should have significant impact on the law in the other ten states which currently have zero tolerance for non-impairing metabolites. When Oklahoma drivers challenge the state’s law, our own high court will (hopefully) have little footing to justify upholding the law as constitutional in light of the persuasive precedent set by Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan.
http://www.oklahomalegalgroup.com/o...ui-law-unconstitutional-could-oklahoma-follow
However, a recent court ruling in Arizona could (hopefully) have significant implications for Oklahoma’s drugged-driving law.
Arizona has had a law since 1990 which classified the presence of inert THC metabolites in a driver’s blood or urine as DUI per se. Last month, though, that law was ruled unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court.
In Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan, the state’s high court upheld a lower court ruling to dismiss the DUI charge against Hrach Shilgevorkyan, a driver who was charged with DUI after admitting he had “smoked weed” the night before the traffic stop, and a subsequent blood test detected the presence of THC metabolite.
In its ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court found that banning non-intoxicating substances did not follow the intent of the law to prevent impaired driving. Banning all substances, regardless of its ability to impair, is therefore unconstitutional:
“We . . . reject the State's argument that [the law] 'creates a flat ban on the presence of any drug or its metabolite in a person's body while driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle,' even when the only metabolite found is not impairing . . .
Because the legislature intended to prevent impaired driving, we hold that the 'metabolite' reference in [the law] is limited to any of a proscribed substance's metabolites that are capable of causing impairment . . . Drivers cannot be convicted of the . . . offense based merely on the presence of a non-impairing metabolite that may reflect the prior usage of marijuana.”
In other words, a person cannot be charged with violating a traffic law simply because of the presence of a non-impairing substance in his or her bloodstream.
In short, the court states, “We are asked to determine whether the phrase ‘its metabolite’ includes Carboxy-Tetrahydrocannabinol (‘Carboxy-THC’), a non-impairing metabolite of Cannabis, a proscribed drug listed in § 13-3401. We conclude that it does not.”
Prior to this ruling, eleven states plus Washington, D.C., had zero tolerance per se cannabis laws. With its Supreme Court’s ruling, Arizona has removed itself from the list. The unconstitutionality of the law in that state should have significant impact on the law in the other ten states which currently have zero tolerance for non-impairing metabolites. When Oklahoma drivers challenge the state’s law, our own high court will (hopefully) have little footing to justify upholding the law as constitutional in light of the persuasive precedent set by Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan.
http://www.oklahomalegalgroup.com/o...ui-law-unconstitutional-could-oklahoma-follow
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Here is a link for the full ruling. http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/arizona-court-marijuana-ruling.pdf
Twistedtreez
- 40
- 18
Ok after chilling out I still believe in what I said ! I lnow I was a lil obnoxious with my point but my point wasn't the content it was the belief that my life is my life . What I see touch taste smell hear is my choice if I've been high everyday since 1993 ! It may not work for some! I do not drink alcohal or even sniff any drug I do not take pills . I will not support a weed breathilizer and I don't think it's any body's business to change my mind or tell me what's illegal on a website about a plant that is federally illegal! I know that a lot of west coasters have proper paperwork and feel they are in the right lane , because they pay basically a bribe to not be arrested ! I have no problem with that ! My problem is people thinking its o k to take a body fluid from someone that didn't want to give it ! Or breath whatever! I'm with Rickey from trailer park boys "what now that's weeds legal , what you going to do unarrest me" after smoking a joint and going to my corner I also realized that we are about to have self driving cars ! So by the time they figure this shit out it probably will be irrelevant
xavier7995
- 1,806
- 263
I give points for anyone who references trailer park boys.
LocalGrowGuy
- 2,497
- 263
You need to learn why it is considered a privilege to drive, and that most states require you to consent to a chemical test when you get your drivers license.
You don't get to do what you want when you are behind the wheel, and you don't get to refuse chemical testing. Refuse the road sides, those are bullshit, but don't refuse the chemical test.
I hope you don't have to learn this the hard way, and I hope you don't hurt anyone else in your endeavor. Good luck mr. treez.
Twistedtreez
- 40
- 18
Is that reverse phycolgy you hope I don't hurt anyone aww do you care about me or are you looking for that "I told you sooo , 'moment!!! "Classy you are sir
LocalGrowGuy
- 2,497
- 263
You aren't good at this phycolgy stuff.
Latest posts
-
KWhat the hell do i do next!!! Im so new at this….
- Krystinmadviv3164 posted
-
Let's See Your Frostiest Flowers- Redneckx posted
-
What kind of problem does this plant have? magensium or calcium?- jetbtkng posted
-
A good problem to have..but rookie mistake.- Oldchucky posted
-
Autoflower revegged due to stress- LoveGrowingIt posted