Legalize it.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by shmike

You can't guarantee conviction even with objective proof.

My point was that there are other offenses that you can be charged with that don't have scientific testing methods available.

Keeping MJ illegal because of the DUI boogeyman is ridiculous.

You can be charged with shoplifting when you weren't even in the same country at the time. Charging is a pretty much immaterial metric

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by shmike

Keeping MJ illegal because of the DUI boogeyman is ridiculous.

Agreed.

Look at the number of alcohol related deaths we had during Prohibition.

People who are going to drive impaired, are going to do it whether the means of intoxication is legal or not. That can't be easily helped.

Check out what some cops have to say on the subject:

http://www.leap.cc/about/why-legalize-drugs/

JC

[Adeptus_Minor]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Check out what some cops have to say on the subject:

http://www.leap.cc/about/why-legalize-drugs/

JC

Very well stated but, sadly, it's far too much common sense for lawmakers to take it to heart.

[goof2]

There is a flip side to that too, how does someone prove they weren't impaired?

Something like 5 years ago there was a cop in Tampa that finally got fired for his habit of failing people on the field sobriety test and sending them to jail. The problem was the people he was arresting were frequently blowing .02 or lower, often .00, when given breathalyzer tests and were ultimately determined to not be impaired. From what I remember this guy had such a hard-on for drunk drivers he basically thought everyone was hammered.

Without a way to disprove impairment you could also be at the mercy of a cop who expects everyone to be an Olympic gymnast or is seeing what he/she wants to see in the field sobriety test.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The problem being that there is then no medical evidence of impairment, other than the officer's opinion. How many drunks have gotten off charges for the same reason?

And what about prescription drugs? No solution there, but it's ok because big pharm keeps the money flowing... to politicians... and anti-marijuana... wonder why that could be?

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

If you can't OBJECTIVELY prove intoxication, you can't guarantee conviction. Far too many drunks have gotten off using the same basic issue, and that's when a valid test actually exists. Such a test does not exist for THC.

Doesn't exist for sleeping aids, pain meds, exhaustion, etc, etc. You can't nerf the world, man...

Originally Posted by goof2

There is a flip side to that too, how does someone prove they weren't impaired?

Something like 5 years ago there was a cop in Tampa that finally got fired for his habit of failing people on the field sobriety test and sending them to jail. The problem was the people he was arresting were frequently blowing .02 or lower, often .00, when given breathalyzer tests and were ultimately determined to not be impaired. From what I remember this guy had such a hard-on for drunk drivers he basically thought everyone was hammered.

Without a way to disprove impairment you could also be at the mercy of a cop who expects everyone to be an Olympic gymnast or is seeing what he/she wants to see in the field sobriety test.

Well, I don't think keeping anything illegal or making everything legal is going to change that... With this example, he could have been 100% correct and those folks could have all been baked out of their minds...

[VatorMan]

As soon as it's legal in 50% of the country-I'm starting up a chain of Taco Bells.

[askmrjesus]

It occurs to me, that given our level of technology, a "YOU ARE FUCKING HIGH" detection device, couldn't be that hard to come up with.

Pupil dilation, pulse/breathing rate measurements, some sort of tongue THC swab, etc., can't be that hard to sort out.

Can it?

JC

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

It occurs to me, that given our level of technology, a "YOU ARE FUCKING HIGH" detection device, couldn't be that hard to come up with.

Pupil dilation, pulse/breathing rate measurements, some sort of tongue THC swab, etc., can't be that hard to sort out.

Can it?

JC

There are already tongue swab thc tests. We have had them used on a few guys at work.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Apoc

There are already tongue swab thc tests. We have had them used on a few guys at work.

They show presence of THC in the system, but not impairment. The stuff hangs around in your bloodstream long after impairment is over. It's usually the metabolites that are being checked for. The issue from where I stand isn't just about not being able to convict, it's also about inappropriately charging.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by goof2

There is a flip side to that too, how does someone prove they weren't impaired?

Something like 5 years ago there was a cop in Tampa that finally got fired for his habit of failing people on the field sobriety test and sending them to jail. The problem was the people he was arresting were frequently blowing .02 or lower, often .00, when given breathalyzer tests and were ultimately determined to not be impaired. From what I remember this guy had such a hard-on for drunk drivers he basically thought everyone was hammered.

Without a way to disprove impairment you could also be at the mercy of a cop who expects everyone to be an Olympic gymnast or is seeing what he/she wants to see in the field sobriety test.

Immediately upon going to the station they should have been tested...... or if they were intelligent they should have demanded one. I mean how long honestly, would someone have been held? The breathalyzer needs to be done right away to be useful.