Really?
That goes out the window the first time someone under the influence kills someone as a result of a traffic accident.
I ran across this tidbit this morning:.
Judge rejects bid to block Washington state "stoned driving" rules
Related News
Marijuana is seen in the hand of a person after the law legalizing the recreational use of marijuana went into effect in Seattle, Washington December 6, 2012. Credit: Reuters/Cliff Despeaux
By Jonathan KaminskyMore:
OLYMPIA, Washington
Fri Dec 7, 2012 6:39pm EST
(Reuters) - A judge on Friday rejected a request by a medical marijuana user to block Washington state from enforcing tougher "stoned driving" rules after it became one of the first U.S. states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.
Washington state voters last month approved marijuana legalization by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent, making the state, along with Colorado, the first in the country to legalize recreational pot use.
The new rules, which for most marijuana smokers would put them over the legal driving limit for a couple hours after taking two or three hits from a joint, took effect on Thursday.
The legal challenge came from Arthur West, an Olympia-based lawyer and medical marijuana patient who said the ballot initiative's title wrongly left out any mention of the DUI provisions.
He also argued that those provisions will enable police to target medical marijuana users, who typically have higher residual blood levels of THC--the active ingredient in marijuana--for car stops.
"I don't think it's fair that the tens of thousands of patients in the state of Washington have to choose between whether they take their medicine or be subject to arrest for driving under the influence every time they get in their cars," he said.
In rejecting West's request for a preliminary injunction, Judge Lisa Sutton noted that police have long been empowered to pull over drivers they suspect of impaired driving.
The first time some kid gets killed while someone is over the legal limit... all hell is going to break loose on this issue.
It would be a fantastic campaign, where the dopers would have to find a way to defend this issue... a way up against the pictures of an accident... bodies... and blood.
Good luck with that.
Stoners want it treated the same as alcohol and tobacco. Or so they claim.
ReplyDeleteApparently, like homosexuals, they want equality, but to somehow be more equal.
I feel that if you are going to use any drug or medical situation that impairs your ability to react or judge the driving conditions, should be prohibited. I don't care if it is medical marijuana, insulin shots, oxycodone or any medical situation...
ReplyDeleteWhen you step behind the wheel, a person is supposed to take the responsibility and privilege of driving serious? And that if you knowingly through use or have a medical situation that you may hurt someone else, honestly I believe you should face jail time!
Now the exceptions I could make are for a heart attack, epileptic seizure or some other condition for the first time, I can give someone a pass, possibly. Any other reason, you hurt someone, as I outlined earlier, you pay the price. -- Jeremy
Marijana-impaired driving will never be a common problem because it doesn't affect your motor abilities in the same way alcohol does. The concern here is not that smokers will be held accountable for driving when they have impaired themselves baking out all day. The law stating that 5 ng/ml blood is the standard for intoxication is totally unscientific. Medical users have a high potential for having a high blood concentration of active THC even when they are not under the influence of marijuana. Obviously, this means that the "standard" is not an equitable or honest measure of intoxication.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why you hold a big government-supremacist approach to the issue of substance-prohibition laws. The US Congress was not delegated this power in the Constitution, so any laws passed by the states regarding the issue of marijuana are indeed precedent to federal laws. READ the 9th and 10 Amendments and understand that the principle that backs your position also means the arbitrary lending of power to the US Congress and Prez to hold power over all affairs in the country.
Your position on this issue is in contradiction to the conservative principles of Federalism and Personal responsibility. You are siding with Paternalism and Statism. The vote of the people in Washington decriminalizing use of marijuana by adults is fully within the Constitutional rights of the people; No conservatives should champion or cheer-lead any notions of Federal usurpation of our laws.
It doesn't HAVE to be a "common problem." I Said "THE FIRST TIME IT HAPPENS" it will blow holes in the bizarre idea that pot "causes no harm." ANYONE with the wherewithal could kill this scam in a second with the next election cycle.
ReplyDeleteCory, look, I don't care if you smoke your brain into a lump of concrete. What I care about is that those supporting this crap have to lie about it to get it passed. AND, I care about paying for yet ANOTHER choice that you and those like you make. You know... other drugs, alcoholism, laziness, car wrecks caused by those who ignore our traffic laws... that sort of thing?
Any time ANYONE has to lie to get anything passed that AUTOMATICALLY makes it wrong.
If making this garbage legal was such a great idea, then the unfathomable lies about revenue should not have been necessary... but those like you supporting this tripe obviously thought they were, because I note you are attacking me for my opposition while doing nothing to hold those supporting this sewage accountable for the one big lie that was their campaign.
That someone is a "medical user" does not give them a pass to drive. You people supported this law, and now, you're going to have to live with it until the entire thing is thrown out as unconstitutional... which, of course, it is.
I don't "hold" (or even remotely support) "big government supremacy." I have just the tiniest bit of experience working in law making bodies, and my support or opposition does nothing to change the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
You DO support the Constitution, don't you? I do. And what *I* support is CONSTITUTIONAL "supremacy."
ALL of it. Not just the parts I like.
As for who or what YOU believe I side with, rest assured that I could care less.
I have my position, which is to support the Constitution of the United States, an oath I took repeatedly while I was wearing this country's uniform (When did you serve, again?) and you have yours, which is to ignore the parts you don't like.
You know... kinda like this one:
This Constitution, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Pretty straightforward, when you think about it.
But hell's bells, Cory: No conservative should repeatedly violate the laws of this country, state, county or the various cities... and that has not REPEATEDLY stopped you.
I say again: YOU are NOT in a position to pass judgement on others in this regard: laws are mere suggestions to you when you feel like it.
But NOW, since it LEGALIZES your obviously well-used ability to get baked whenever you feel like it, suddenly you're all about "The Law."
Hypocrisy never wears well on a politician. You might want to remember that.