It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nebraska, Oklahoma sue over Colorado marijuana law

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.


First you say marijuana has caused an increase in accidents.

Then I asked how you tell if it was MJ that caused the accident, and you retort with it was observed that they were impaired. Now it's back to the blood draw?

If the officer never observed anything and only has a blood test of an unconscious person, how did they tell the person was impaired?

If impairment is an observable thing?

You are talking in circles.

But, I wouldn't expect you to back down since your livelihood depends on it.


edit on 22-12-2014 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

If a cop can look at a RTA victim, unconscious due to the trauma suffered during the RTA, and determine that victim is 'impaired' (other than being unconscious due to head trauma from the RTA)...why do Cannabis test kits exist i wonder?

The answer?

A cop cannot reliably determine if Cannabis has been consumed just by 'looking' at a person...so bearing that in mind, there's a good case to have this thrown out, due to illegal search and taking blood without consent...an unconscious person cannot give consent, implied or otherwise.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

But, you are NOT understanding that THC stays in the blood up to 24 hours or more.

According to your logic.......

If I smoke in the night and then get into a fatal accident the next afternoon where I die (and you didn't observe ANY traffic violations or impairment from me prior) and I test positive for marijuana, MJ was the cause?

Can't you see how stupid this stance is?



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Basically what XCathdra is saying is that these statistics are NOT from DUI per se but some are from DWTPFM (Driving While Testing Positive For Marijuana).

Hence....meaningless.

Don't take the bait people. It's a full of Sh*t study with skewed data.

Why would a cop be pushing this stance since Mj is becoming legal? Hmmmm...they will start losing their toys if they don't come up with a way to put people into slavery....errr I mean the prison/justice system the rest of their lives.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
First of all, it's important to point out that in Colorado fatal traffic accidents have, in fact, decreased overall since legalization. If the sudden increased availability of MJ was actually a causative link to traffic deaths then the trend should have been upward --- not downward. As other have pointed out, the cited studies do not cite MJ as a cause of the accidents studied, only that the person had THC metabolites in their system. Other researchers (including American Journal of Epidemiology) has attacked the oft-cited 'MJ Kills' study saying that it does not factor what other substances were present (e.g., alcohol) and that no control was used in the study. It is reasonable to conclude that with the wider availability of MJ in Colorado there would be an increase in THC-positive drivers in general --- not just those involved in accidents. What they say the study shows is that there is an increase in the accident drivers that simply reflects the overall increase in the driver population.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

It's simple really, if everyone looks at all the pieces to the puzzle.

The Federal government sees that Marijuana has gotten legalized in many states, they have also seen the revenue that its producing for the states that have legalized it.

The Federal government wants in, they want their share and the only way to do this without losing face is have a couple of states bordering Colorado sue them in supreme court.

Legal precedent is then set by the supreme court decision and marijuana is legalized. No one loses face, and the decision will never be over-turned by any court of law anywhere.

Easier than having a bunch of idiots in congress spend a couple hundred million, and years going back and forth, that we all know are controlled by big pharma.

Simple.
edit on 22-12-2014 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Dear average southern conservative, how do you feel about the nanny state and big government?

"Smaller gubmint, dammit! Git away from mah guns, dammit! State rights, dammit! Rabble, rabble, dammit!"


Ok, what about gay marriage, recreational marijuana, and non-Christian religions?

"Oh, the gays? The potheads? The heathens? Why isn't the gubmint making them live how I want them to?! They should do something about that!"


Uh, Oklahoma and Nebraska are not Southern states, but I get your point.

Colorado has their law. Tough. Deal with it. It is not the responsibility of Colorado to enforce prohibition in Oklahoma. ("Deal with it" not directed at you but the politicians and LEO of OK and NE.)
edit on 22-12-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Drug dealers will sue for loss of earnings next Pfffttt !
The American dream



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

That may actually be close to the truth mate.

These big headed types hate to admit they were wrong, and so...this would seem the perfect way to not lose face.

You could be right.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Denoli
Drug dealers will sue for loss of earnings next Pfffttt !
The American dream


Nah..they'll move more into the hard / deadly drugs and hard crime territory, where Police resources can be put to greater effective use now that harmless pot won't be an obstacle and distraction to them detecting serious crime.

About time too.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick



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.


In reading this thread I have seen the reference in a different course for MJ testing that is used for alcohol. Can you tell me what the differences in the courses are? I am legitimately curious as I have never heard about this.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

So in turn, America should legalize/decriminalize those drugs too.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The only reason Oklahama, and Nebraska are starting to argue about this, is in direct relation to the amount of money these two states are losing now. Think about how much money these states could bring in, and how much federal money they must have been getting to buy there fancy police cars, sting operations, highway drug stops. There is only one reason the cost of marijauna is so much higher on the east coast, because the people transporting marijuana take huge risks driving through these states to deliver the product. Its 20 years in prison for large amounts if caught in the bible belt states. Now that its legal in colorado, and people can get prescriptions, im sure thats had a huge effect on the amount of people having to pay fines, court cost, all of which go back to the very people kicking up a fuss. Time to look elsewhere for there money.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

I posted links to some recent studies out of Colorado. Read those then come back.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Impairment can be observed thru the tests I talked about. As I stated, which some intentionally ignore, if a person is not conscious a blood sample is obtained via implied consent.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

What part of impairment and tests do you not understand? Chances are you won't be stopped for impaired driving after 24 hours now would you?



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll stick to the scientific studies.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Your ignorance knows no bounds.. don't make accusations again with that you cannot support. Attacking those for holding a different view says a lot.


edit on 22-12-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Your studies are no more scientific than mine. They are just statistically sampled drivers who got into an accident to see if they have marijuana in their system (which has already been pointed out to you is a flawed way of doing it). Well mine is doing the same thing, just for a different statistical sample. But I guess when the numbers don't support your narrative, it isn't "scientific" is it?
edit on 22-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join