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: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

If it were to go to, federal court as you suggest then Colorado law would be ruled unconstitutional because the federal casa classifies marijuana as a controlled substance with no medical value.

Since federal law trumps state law if in conflict, Colorado law would be ruled null and void.

Your conspiracy theory needs more work.




posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah, i appreciate this is how you lot operate in the US, although even under your own laws, 'Implied consent' is a very grey area with plenty of challenges under the 4th and 5th.

I don't know how, even if it is accepted practice in the US, an unconscious person could ever be regarded as having given consent for blood to be taken...unless of course, he said 'Yeah, sure..take a blood sample' and only then promptly became unconscious.

I think the US has too broad an interpretation of the word 'consent'.


edit on 22-12-2014 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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?



In a test of reasonable doubt, however...."chances are" doesn't work for me.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll stick to the scientific studies.



Let's try to be clear and honest; you will stick to your interpretation of those studies. Science provides data, we must interpret it.

Beyond that, I did want to thank you for participating in this thread. It made clear to me how irrational the LEO stance/approach on this subject is.

The outcome of this lawsuit should be fascinating. It's not like it's going to impact the market itself, just determine who is making the money and how.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: DrumJunkie

NHTSA established the tests for alcohol impairment. Is a person takes those tests and impairment is present but signs of alcohol are not a drug recognition expert can be called to administer their test. That test, which is linked a page or so back, deals with the affects of drugs on the persons system. The tests are designed to stimulate areas that are affected by the different drug types.

Just like administering an alcohol sobriety test the officer must have r/s to do so.

That r/ comes from the suspects driving, his interaction with law enforcement, his responses for the sfst and his responses for the dre test. Only after all of that is a request for blood made.

Contrary to the argument some others are trying to make its contingent upon all of those factors and not just part of one.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You would be incorrect.

If a person causes an accident and tests positive for marijuana in their system who is at fault? The person or the marijuana?



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Perhaps u should educate yourself some more since you don't seem to understand how our laws work. Since driving is a privilege and not a right implied consent is lawful and valid under scotus
rulings.

Implied consent only applies to a driver and only if unconscious.

Any driver can refuse to take field sobriety tests or drew tests. They can also refuse to comply with a breath blood etch etc sample. Absent a court order if they say no we can't force it.

Its then up to the individual to demonstrate their innocence.

Your 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights are present and applied.


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

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



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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?



In a test of reasonable doubt, however...."chances are" doesn't work for me.


And arguing marijuana does not cause impairment doesn't work for me.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

Science has shown an individual can be impaired from marijuana.
Science has shown what alcohol and drugs can do to a person, resulting in scientific testing to look for those areas that are impaired.
Science has given us the medical tests that can screen blood for alcohol and drugs.
Marijuana is a zero tolerance standard when operating a motor vehicle.

I am presenting the side of the argument that you guys refuse to look at. Trying to launch an attack because I dont agree with someones interpretation says a lot about how far they will go to try and justify there behavior as having no impact on others.

As I stated before I dont care if you smoke marijuana so long as you don't drive after doing it. That same standard applies to alcohol.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I apologize if this point has been posted previously, but I recently watched on TV a driving test of a daily marijuana smoker compared to that of a non-marijuana smoker, and the result was that after both had a few puffs of MJ, the daily marijuana smoker could drive the car without any impairment to their reaction and driving skills, whereas the non-smoker was greatly impaired.

The present laws do not take into account tolerance to prescription drugs (all prescription drugs) because we have many people driving vehicles while under the influence of prescription drugs that disrupt our ability to function both mentally and physically.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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?



In a test of reasonable doubt, however...."chances are" doesn't work for me.


And arguing marijuana does not cause impairment doesn't work for me.


Of course it does cause impairment and perceptual changes along with the other effects of 'being high', otherwise if would be pretty pointless consuming it.

The question though is one of IS the person impaired, because Cannabis traces are still in their systems, or are they impaired because they're stoned out of their gourd?

Like alcohol, Cannabis will remain detectable for an extended period of time after consumption, and like trace amounts of alcohol in a persons system which is not impairing their driving ability, Cannabis can also be in a persons system in trace amounts which doesn't affect their driving ability.

Pretty much anything can impair a driver..distracting advertising boards...a pretty girl with a skimpy top and no bra is one that has caught me out more than once in my life, perhaps elevated sex hormones will be used to convict people of driving while impaired?



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Current laws state you cannot have those items in your blood while operating a motor vehicle.

If you do and don't get caught then that's how it goes.
If you do and get caught you can be charged with dui/dwi.

For some reason people think tolerance is a valid argument when in fact its not.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
So lets say a clean living Mormon who has never had caffeine before, goes to Seattle and indulges in coffee over there. Do you think that that person would be impaired by caffeine? Could that person be a potential hazard on the road?

Based on what I have seen, I seriously doubt that a frequent cannabis users experience impairment that would represent a road hazard, just as caffeine users are not considered road hazards. It is more about the general perception that actual science when it this debate.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

And to answer the question one must look at the totality of circumstances. You guys seem to ignore everything leading to a test for drugs / alcohol.

The drivers inability to comply with traffic laws - inter lane weaving, crossing centerline, crossing fog line, inconsistent speed, speeding, driving below the minimum speed limit (on federal and state highways with minimum speeds), turning radius etch etc.

The drivers inability to answer basic questions, their inability to multitask, speech, appropriate answers to basic questions.

The inability of the driver to pass sfst / dre testing.

If you fail the above areas then impairment has been demonstrated.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: InTheLight

Current laws state you cannot have those items in your blood while operating a motor vehicle.

If you do and don't get caught then that's how it goes.
If you do and get caught you can be charged with dui/dwi.

For some reason people think tolerance is a valid argument when in fact its not.



As with blood alcohol content, they do tolerate a measurable amount in the blood, which means they tolerate a minimal level of impairment. As with medical marijuana, there are strains that vary in THC percentages, which also varies level of impairment. So, why is there no measurable allowance for medical marijuana's chemicals which may or may not contribute to impairment, handled in the same manner as the drug known as alcohol?
edit on 22-12-2014 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You are making the same flawed argument. If the person doesn't get caught then that's how it goes. If they get caught then we go from there.

While still illegal there is your daily verses non daily answer.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Alcohol is the only substance where the level is taken into account. Exceptions being under 21, which is zero tolerance and holding a class a license (commercial drivers license) where the limit is 0.02.

The presence of anything else that is listed under the csa is 0 tolerance.

Why?

Because of the affects on the body and how an individual reacts to it. Trying to design a law that makes allowances is difficult, and we see it with alcohol, where acceptable levels have dropped to 0.08 with noticeable impairment presenting at 0.04.

Even then we all know people who are so drunk they can't walk, let alone drive, telling everyone they are fine to drive.
edit on 22-12-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: InTheLight

Alcohol is the only substance where the level is taken into account. Exceptions being under 21, which is zero tolerance and holding a class a license (commercial drivers license) where the limit is 0.02.

The presence of anything else that is listed under the csa is 0 tolerance.

Why?

Because of the affects on the body and how an individual reacts to it.




Different individuals react to different levels of chemicals due to varying reasons - tolerance, size of person (men can handle more alcohol than women), what other drugs is the individual taking and would react with another drug(s) in the body, etc. The authorities, again, just don't know how to handle the growing medical marijuana use by people that need it to function in their daily lives, which includes driving, because other drugs just don't work for them. Again, if all prescription drugs are taken into consideration and given a measurable tolerance level for driving a vehicle, we would see many people not allowed to drive at all.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Which is why a person with a bac lower than 0.08 can still be charged based on their impairment.

Its not up to law enforcement to determine levels. That belongs to the legislature and the scientists who study the effects of alcohol / drugs.

Its the reason the zero tolerance standard is used.

Also if I'm not mistaken isn't medical marijuana holders prevented from operating a motor vehicle?

Washington states law allows for private recreational use, not public. They have set a standard of anything less than 5 nanograms per milliliter of THC in the blood and its not illegal to operate a motor vehicle. Anything over is driving under the influence.

Colorado law has no minimum limit. The use of marijuana, like Washington, is restricted to private home use. If u drive and test positive you are considered impaired under their law. They are looking to modify it for levels but have not done so yet.


Neither state allows for marijuana to be smoked in public and neither state allows for driving a vehicle after smoking marijuana.

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

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

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



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Burden of proof.

No one would say that someone under the influence isn't impaired. What is being said is that any claims of impairment are not scientifically based, and do not represent proof. It is little more than an educated guess.

Were there a breathalyzer type test to determine if they were actually impaired, you would have me square in the middle of your court here. I am all about keeping the roads safe as a primary purpose of police. But not if it results from loosely applied logic as a stopgap for any real evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join