Nebraska, Oklahoma sue over Colorado marijuana law

a reply to: crazyewok

If it is true that we are all sinners everyone of us then what would the world look like without hypocrisy?
Imagine a world full of sinners that can't even state how things should be according to morality.
I think the problem is not hypocrisy but ignorrance of what is needed to be better and all the different opinions of the correct path to freedom liberty respect and love for neighbors

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: Xcathdra

Does that blood test determine if the "subject" is actually impaired or if there is THC metabolites in the system.

I'll let you figure out the difference.

Impairment in this case would be the observed traffic violations in conjunction with the presence of THC in the system.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So neither source really says the weed was the cause or that fatal accidents have increased.
Just that those involved have THC in their system.
I know you know that it stays in 2 weeks to a month if not more, so why would it be surprising that more people have it in their system in a state where it is legal?

a reply to: Xcathdra

And that kind of legal illogic is not helping community relations. That is an aweful large net based on tenuous logic.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
No, just telling you there is a difference between testing positive for marijuana use and actually being impaired. But, you and the police at large like to hide this fact.

Not at all. As I stated observed traffic violations in conjunction with thc in your system is impaired driving. Just as a person with a bac of less than .08 can still be charged if their driving is compromised.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Please...Fox News? Why not site Wikipedia? At least Wikipedia doesn't have a lawsuite behind it saying it can lie to the American public.

Whether you agree with fox or not is not my issue. It doesn't change the information.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Also, again the old tested positive vs. actually impaired.

Again observed traffic violations in conjunction with the presence in your system.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Same study sighted. Again tested positive vs. actually impaired.

Again observed traffic violaions in conjunction with the presence in your system.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Can you specifically site the portion were it talks about marijuana? Unlike a cop, I don't have all day to search the internet.

No read the information. You seem to have all of the answers and everyone else who doesn't agree with you is stupid.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Blood testing does not tell you how impaired the driver is when it comes to marijuana.

Observed traffic violations in conjunction with thc in your system.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Can you tell me with a straight face that 4 hours after that joint people are still impaired?

Yes it can happen.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
12 to 24 hours? Same question as above.

You cannot compare work place testing with law enforcement testing due to the way the law is written.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Now prove to me that marijuana caused those accidents because someone was actually impaired and not just tested positive.

Hint.....you can't because they haven't developed the test yet.


Try again.

They have however you are to stubborn and lazy to take the time to learn about it. DRE testing is established and is valid in court. The observation of traffic violations combined with the blood test can in fact determine impairment.
Your problem revolves around your misconception of impairment and it being solely established by whats in your blood. As I stated, and you ignored, its a combination of observed driving violations and the blood test.

In legal realms impairment is the degraded abilities of the driver.

From failing to operate the vehicle in a safe manner in compliance with established laws - Failing to maintain lanes, speed, turning radius, etc etc.

To failing NHTSA SFST's to rule out alcohol presence in the system, leading to the possibility of impairment based on narcotic.

To failing the DRE test to confirm a narcotic presence in the system.

To obtaining a blood sample and having a crime lab analyze the content of the blood.


Your problem appears to revolve around your lack of knowledge when it comes to the term totality of circumstances. You are trying to separate impaired driving and the results of a blood test.

impairment is not absolute and we know tis because its possible to have a bac below .08 yet still be charged with impaired (not drunk, but impaired) driving.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Xcathdra

And that kind of legal illogic is not helping community relations. That is an aweful large net based on tenuous logic.

In order to get to the testing / blood stage an officer must have r/s to make initial contact. That initial contact is based on observed driving violations. You then have SFSTs. You then have DRE testing. If driving violations are present and blood comes back with THC and nothing else where did impairment come from?

a reply to: Xcathdra

wow i have always found value and truth in much of what you say here. I think you are reaching too far with those stats. Testing has not advanced enough to determine beyong guessing if a person was under the influence at the time. The stats in accidents have not showed an real increase in accidents but an increase of cases where someone is trying to attribute thc to the accident. In other words the number of accidents has not risen. the only thing that has changed is the way the accidents are being viewed.

Thc does not result in impaired driving. New road test were designed specifically to fail anyone under the influence of thc but not designed to portray real world driving conditions. Example is that currect dui road test coarses were not used to determine that thc causes impaired conditions that would leed to an increase in accidents. In other words since people smoking weed can pass driving coarses that were designed for drunks they created a whole new coarse designed to fail smokers and does not serve the public saftey but does leed to officers being able to cite for smoking and driving.

a reply to: Xcathdra

some reasons that were stated to me in the past that were considered "valid" (that weren't ticketed):

- turned wrong
- braked too hard
- driving suspiciously

an officer really doesn't need a reason to pull you over. They just need to give a reason. There is a difference.

Regardless, it boils down to there needing to be a test created that can determine "under the influence". Were I a juror sitting on a case, without that I wouldn't convict.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Which is why, even with bac, its based on observed actions prior to knowing if the person is impaired. With it being traffic related it does not follow the same standards / guidelines for other crimes. As an example read the implied consent laws states have in order to obtain a drivers license.

The burden of proof is reversed, which is to say if I respond to an accident and determine a person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs the burden of innocence falls on the driver and not the officer. They are required to demonstrate they were not impaired at the time of the accident.

They will be required to explain why they had alcohol or drugs in their system and will be required to explain how those did not affect their driving to the extent of not being reasonable for an accident.

I have dealt with people who were members of the 700 club, which is to say almost 1% of their blood contained alcohol. A level that would kill others did not kill these people. They go through detox when their bac level hits .4. They are able tos peak normally. I have met others who were drunk off their asses after 1 beer.

It is observation of the individual driving in addition to their behavior after contact coupled with what's in their system that determines impairment.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Didn't they know they're supposed to pass the toke and not hog it to themselves? No wonder they're jumping out of windows. Especially that "stuff" grown in your own yard!! The worst kind

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

some reasons that were stated to me in the past that were considered "valid" (that weren't ticketed):

- turned wrong
- braked too hard
- driving suspiciously

an officer really doesn't need a reason to pull you over. They just need to give a reason. There is a difference.

Regardless, it boils down to there needing to be a test created that can determine "under the influence". Were I a juror sitting on a case, without that I wouldn't convict.

An officer must have R/S in order to make a traffic stop and that reason is required on the AIR form. Anytime there is a challenge to a DWI / DUI charge it wil be based on the reason the officer made the stop and contact. Recent court cases have forced more clarity on he part of the officer.

As an example a vehicle that crosses centerline or the fog line must do so more than once and the duration as well as how far over the line the vehicle travelled. Even after the stop there must be articulable reasons for moving into a possible dwi/dui line of investigation if the stop is for something like speed.

That's where the persons actions come into play.

By the time probable cause is reached for an arrest 90% of the case is based on officer observations of the individuals driving, officer observations of the person in question, which includes verbal and non verbal actions, the results of a field sobriety test, drug recognition expert field test and finally one o the choices for impaired driving - Blood, Breath, Urine, other.

Recent changes with BAC level and HGN testing has resulted in clarification. If a person is given an HGN test and all clues are met in both eyes there is an 80% or better probability that the person bac level is over .08.

I have stopped and arrested people for driving under the influence of drugs (including marijuana only). Those investigations have all gone the same route -
* - observation of traffic violations
* - observations of driver - verbal and physical issues.
* - SFST testing.
* - DRE testing.
* - Blood draw.

The ONLY exception between alcohol and narcotics is result. Because narcotics don't give an immediate result like a breath test we cannot confiscate the drivers license and in the case of the agencies I worked for we don't write citations. We wait for all tests result s to return and file through the PA.

As I have stated before though its observation of violations coupled with test results that creates impairment. If there is on impairment then there is no cause for officers to make contact.

** - There is a standardized test for illegal substances in a system for other than alcohol. Just as their is an AIR from for alcohol. I linked to an example of that form in a previous post. That form, like an AIR form, is filled out by the DRE during the testing stage and is submitted just like an AIR form is.

As for the comments about the reporting stats for Colorado they are based on accidents involving impairment. In addition to the alcohol stats it discusses the number of people with thc in their system at the time of accident.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So there was a cop in each and every case of an accident that observed a traffic violation prior to determine that the person was impaired due to THC? And then and only then a blood test was performed to be positive of this supercop's guess?

You're talking about THC causing an increase in accidents. Not observed traffic violations. Keep it straight.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
As for the comments about the reporting stats for Colorado they are based on accidents involving impairment. In addition to the alcohol stats it discusses the number of people with thc in their system at the time of accident.

Which is quite different than what you stated before about impairment being an observable act.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

The reality of his job does not allow him to see that mj is not the cause of accidents in a way that puts the public in danger cause above him they designed a system where it gets lumped in with everything else that does put us in danger. If he ever gets the chance to find that mj is someones only offence meaning no other drugs or booze then the cool thing to do would be to ignore it and that will not put a single person in jepordy. That is likewise for us if we combine stuff then we are a danger but a person on weed alone will be just fine. The truth is that just focusing on the other stuff will be less strain on the system and keep us safer giving them more time to deal with pill poppers and drunks.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

No there was enough evidence for the officer to suspect dwi/dui as a possible cause and went from there.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Xcathdra
As for the comments about the reporting stats for Colorado they are based on accidents involving impairment. In addition to the alcohol stats it discusses the number of people with thc in their system at the time of accident.

Which is quite different than what you stated before about impairment being an observable act.

impairment is a visible act.

What parts of observing moving violations, a drivers inability to perform basic functions, a drivers inability to pass SFST's / DRE test resulting in a blood draw leading to confirmation of thc in a persons system confused you?

If a person cannot control their motor vehicle without committing moving violations that elevates to R/S for an officer to make a stop and contact, cannot comply with basic requests by law enforcement, to failing sfst / DRE exam, to a blood draw that confirms thc in a persons system, then please explain what other impairment is present that would affect the driver?

One of the few medical conditions that mimics drunk driving is Ketoacidosis.

Even if a person takes prescription narcotics they are legally allowed to have can still be charged with DUI if they takes those drugs and it affects their driving.

Investigating an accident after the fact - IE the officer did not observe the act, does not preclude the officer from performing tests to determine if alcohol / drugs is a factor. Even if the driver is unconscious a blood draw can be obtained via implied consent.

Marijuana is no different.

a reply to: deadeyedick

and you guys ignore the fact that impairment is observable and in those cases where someone is charged its because no other impairment / explanation existed except for the dwi /dui (alcohol / drugs).

Until Colorado introduces and passes legislation that breaks THC levels in the body down like alcohol, its considered zero tolerance when driving.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I do understand your pov a bit. However the impairment you speak of from mj alone will not ever hurt anyone. Driving under the influence of mj does not cause deaths at a rate that is a danger to anyone. If they would just let stoners on the drunk driving test coarse you would see what i am saying. That is why they specifically designed a test track for weed alone and did not use existing coarses in their study.

Their will be no shortage of drivers out there that have multiple things in them but the ones on weed alone will not come back to haunt anyone if focus is put on the real problems. Time will be better served finding those that you know are beyond driving capable and not just in a slowed state of mind. On top of that the drug effects will be over by the time you realize it is just mj. But by all means you gotta do your job and could never agree with me even if you did agree somewhat. that is respectable

a reply to: deadeyedick

I have worked accidents resulting in serious physical injuries / death where drugs, including marijuana, was present. So your assertion it does not hurt anyone is not supported by either facts not my own personal experiences.

If people want to smoke marijuana I could personally care less. However if they do and then go driving I have issues with that. To try and downplay cause of death in the manner you did is problematic. To say its ok to drive under the influence because the death rate is not high is a self defeating argument. It concedes that marijuana use and accidents are linked and that death can occur because of it.

The goal is to behave in a responsible manner to prevent deaths - not to justify its use because of a low fatality result. Try making your argument to those who have lost loved ones from dui.

I am not disagreeing to be difficult. I am disagreeing because I have first hand experience that does not support claims that it doesn't cause impairment. It does in fact cause impairment and should be restricted to home use only.

Just like alcohol.