Nebraska, Oklahoma sue over Colorado marijuana law

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?

Your circular logic has no bounds I see.

First you talk about accidents and now we are back to being stopped for a traffic infraction?

I feel like I'm arguing with Costello about Who's on first.......

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And again impairment is based on observable actions, from driving, to contact, to field tests, to blood test.

In order to get to blood test there must be articulable facts present.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

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?

Your circle logic has no bounds I see.

First you talk about accidents and now we are back to being stopped for a traffic infraction?

I feel like I'm arguing with Costello about Who's on first.......

Because it all goes together. You guys look at only one aspect and ignore the others if you don't think they are relevant. The accidents in Colorado was discussing their latest studies of accidents and how many were under the influence.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Only an idiot still advocates against pot legalization.

Wake up furry brains. Weed is here for ever and it will only be more interesting the longer it is illegal.
Countries that have legalized it now have youths seeing pot as a boring drug crazy stoner hippies use.


It will be legal. Deal with it.....and even if you get stubborn over it the law wont go after pot users. Its use will never go away. You could sooner end beer consumption you backwards idiots. You sound like nagging prohibition house wives asking god to forgive their husbands Sunday drinking. Please.

Cops in my city dont even care anymore about pot. Its only used as an excuse to see if people have warrants or something. The last time I smoked I was at a cops house...sooooo...

get over it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You sure were quick to generalize.

Let's drill down to the core :

Cannibinoids can remain present in the body without any intoxication.

This is *different * from alcohol, by a vast divide.

I am not condoning driving while under the influence, however presence of Cannibinoids does not strictly indicate current intoxication.

Do you believe testing positive for Cannibinoids is indicative of current intoxication?

What about someone who smoked the day before who becomes hypoglycemic driving the next day? How would you handle that situation? Do you feel the cannabis is still intoxicating at that point? Because, according to the parameters you have laid out, they would be incarcerated for driving under the influence of cannabis.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The accidents in Colorado was discussing their latest studies of accidents and how many were under the influence.

Again we come full circle to how did you know those people were under the influence? The study ONLY points to people testing positive for MJ.

Who's on first?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And again impairment is based on observable actions, from driving, to contact, to field tests, to blood test.

In order to get to blood test there must be articulable facts present.

and again, those observable actions are flawed to a point that they represent injustice.

Not a single thing you listed would determine if someone were under the influence. The hyperglycemic example from below is a good example. Me personally, i can sometimes have phosphenes show up quickly and cause severe vision problems. Once or twice it has caused me to have to pull over.

We aren't talking about a speeding ticket and 1 point on your license here. We are talking DUI, which can carry felony charges and can preclude employment for people with a CDL. Because something they did 3 weeks prior is considered "articulable facts".

a reply to: Xcathdra

No, you are wrong. They are both scientific studies. You just don't want to listen to the one that doesn't suit your narrative.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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

I feel like this is a wish-washy response that fails to address anything I wrote. I did not mention anything about the law and it being illegal, I mentioned impairment regarding cannabis consumption.

If someone were to test positive for caffeine after an accident would you consider them impaired by caffeine?

originally posted by: jrod
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 than actual science in this debate.

We also have a plethora of prescription medications that cause impairment and possible road hazards to users. Is there even a test for Diazepam(Valium)?

I know in Florida that anyone who is involved in a fatal accident is tested for cannabis, and even trace amounts makes a person guilty and responsible in the eyes of the law. That my friend is a major flaw in the way law enforcement and the legal system does 'business'.

The bottom line is that accidents are not increasing in that state overall only thing increasing is thc is now being linked with more accidents because of more testing being done and an effort is being made by police to rake in profits.

Hah, you're right. In my defense, I'm in Oregon so most states are south from me. I know, I know, it's a copout.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Southern Guardian
I would suggest following the money

I live in Oklahoma. People are slow, superstitious, and conformist. It makes for a docile, yet slightly frustrating, crowd to deal with. However, when these primitives get power, hilarity ensues.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Of course people only respect laws they agree with. People only respect politicians they agree with. People only watch news channels they agree with. Is that news to you? The marijuana cat is out of the bag. There's no going back now. Soon it will be legal nationwide.

a reply to: TownCryer

Perhaps God or mother nature never intended for it to be grown everywhere and while it will become legal to possess we should still keep it growing in areas where it is native.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Just because something gets "Legalized" doesn't mean "smaller" government.

The taxes keep big government just as big.

Making something "Legal" without taxes would be smaller government.

Ironic.

Great point, and funny how easy it is for us to overlook that, thinking we'd be "left alone" to [fill in the blank: mj, gay marriage, firearms, etc]

That said, it does mean less intrusive government, less rights-encroaching, but yes, more taxes = Gov't Embiggened.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: TownCryer

Perhaps God or mother nature never intended for it to be grown everywhere and while it will become legal to possess we should still keep it growing in areas where it is native.

If only we could do the same with corn.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

Not if they can prove the original law is BS, and full of holes due to greed, large corporate holdings and nothing to do with a controlled substance.

Always follow the money trail and the propaganda that has brainwashed generations will dissipate.

Also there were laws based on hate and racism.

www.drugwarrant.com...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The CSA and its classification of marijuana gives legal standing and burden of proof.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Again you guys are failing to see the entire picture. You are overlooking the officers investigation of a driver and the signs present that would lead to further investigation via tests.

The first question is why did the officer conduct a traffic stop. You can't go directly to the last step without impairment factors.

The tests are designed to confirm officer observations. Its the same for using radar on speeders. The officer must observe the violation at which point the radar is used to confirm.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The accidents in Colorado was discussing their latest studies of accidents and how many were under the influence.

Again we come full circle to how did you know those people were under the influence? The study ONLY points to people testing positive for MJ.

Who's on first?

Was the presence of THC a contributing factor?

Secondly Colorado is a zero tolerance state. Any drugs in the system is a cause for impairment.