Posted on 12/18/2012 7:27:17 AM PST by TigerClaws
The Vancouver Police Department arrested a man for Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana in connection with a deadly crash in Vancouver.
Investigators said the driver hit and killed a pedestrian around 5:50 p.m. on East Mill Plain Boulevard and Andresen Road.
Police say the victim, a male in his 50's, was believed to be walking back from Safeway and stepped out into the middle of traffic.
The driver, Scotty Rowles, was driving westbound on East Mill Plain Boulevard and could not stop his car in time, according to police.
Detectives says Rowles cooperated with the investigation, but after interviewing him they determined there was enough evidence to arrest him on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana.
(Excerpt) Read more at kptv.com ...
if you’re DUI you should never be there.
BWAAAAHAHAHA! Have a good one.
Then why do they put out the peanuts in the shell ~ and sometimes popcorn ~ at the grit bars with the dirt floors? Hunh, tell me that!
Teach those smart tokers they ain't so smart.
But let the fact be facts more people are killed every year in non drug/drunk driving crashes every year.
Then in crashes that the drivers have some impairment.
The government would probably classify this single death as caused by alcohol, marijiuana, cell phones, tobacco, and junk food. The one factor that will not be blamed is the stupidity of the person who illegally stepped into the intersection. Of course, if the designated driver was legally carrying a concealed firearm at the time to the accident, then the government would declare this to be a firearm related death and the liberals and RINOs would use the death as an excuse for a ban on assault weapons.
does not change the fact that nobody should be driving and using ANY amount of marajuana.
Then, it is worth pointing out that the voters of Washington State voted to legalize recreational pot in November -- about 6 weeks ago.
I'm trying to be polite here. I should have liked to say that the IDIOTS in Washington State voted....But, it is the Christmas season, so I shall restrain myself. After all, 'tis the season to teach the mentally ill how to shoot guns and to provide them with all the violent video stimulation that they should desire. What's a little pot? (sarc/off)
May Christ have Mercy on us all.
It goes further than that in CA. Any place a pedestrian chooses to cross a street becomes a crosswalk -- marked, or not. I noticed in my old home town last summer that they have constructed immpermeable fences down the median strips to prevent people from crossing in the middle of blocks.
The problem that I see is that cannabis stays in your system for a long time, while the effects of it are over in hours. So if you smoke a joint on Friday night, it’s still technically in your system on Monday, even though you are no longer feeling the effects of it.
This is unlike alcohol, where we have the technology to say to someone, “you are legally drunk!” by testing them and finding alcohol in your system.
One of the challenges for law enforcement would be to have a field kit that can test for “current” THC levels.
Except in the case of salty foods in bars, the more you eat, the thirstier your get and the more you drink.
Good business in either case.
The postings here by the uneducated / ill informed are sad to read.
The effects pot has on your driving versus those of alcohol are at least a couple orders of magnitude less. Not to say smoking weed enhances your abilities, but it ain’t remotely as bad as booze.
“Arrested for driving while blind” under booze is not uncommon.
Isn't that so California? Rather than change a stupid assed law to mark crosswalks and hand out jaywalking tickets elsewhere, they build barriers to force people to use crosswalks. Or so they think. California is populated by thousands of experienced barrier climbers. What's going to happen the first time one falls off into traffic?
Stays stored in fatty tissue for as long as a month - stays attached to neuroreceptors for only a few hours.
1. Driving Under the Influence was illegal before the marijuana law and is still illegal after the marijuana law.
2. There is no evidence from the article that the driver just recently started smoking marijuana when it became legal.
Facts are stupid things.
Personally, I am not sure what I think of legalizing marijuana. On one hand, I don’t see why an adult shouldn’t be able to use it responsibly in the privacy of his home. On the other hand, you don’t want children having easier access to it
Kids started reporting several years ago that they could get pot more easily than they could get cigarettes or beer. It appears that the most effective way to keep pot out of kids' hands is to legalize it for adults - so sellers have an incentive not to sell to kids (namely, the loss of their legal adult sales).
Ya go after the deepest pockets, and or sue them all since nearly everyone had a percentage of fault. In fact, in the real world, look closely at the cops investigation, as they too might be liable for conducting an inadequate investigation where pertinent facts were omitted or not followed up etc.
Maybe it is because my parents smoked and drank, but I never had any problems getting cigs or alcohol. We had an unlocked liquor cabinet a open packs of cigs all over the house that I could tap into throughout high school. Pot was definitely more difficult to get. You had to have connections and seek it out, sometimes spending an entire evening doing so. Sure there were a good number of potheads, but it frankly wasn’t worth it to me as I really didn’t care for the substance enough (plus my parents saw it as no different than cocaine or heroin).
All that would prove is that someone smoked within the last month. They don't have any evidence of driving under the influence. If this is so cut and dried, why aren't they doing this now? There's already baked drivers everywhere (just like there's drunks). The real risk are the people who take regular prescription drugs - just about all say don't drive if you're taking these things but everyone does anyway. That's a bad thing.
Why let tobacco smokers off so light. Somebody with a certain level of blood nicotine should be also get the same as other DUIs.
tell it to the judge...
Stays stored in fatty tissue for as long as a month - stays attached to neuroreceptors for only a few hours.
tell it to the judge...
I have truth; you claim to have force. The drug debate in a nutshell.
eggplant, potatoes, green tomatoes and cauliflower all contain nicotine. the effects on the body are not quite like those of MJ. that it’s addictive is irrelevant to the DUI issue.
I think the best option is to pass a law that says if there’s THC in your system, then you’re driving drugged.
See how the liberals like that.
Since we’re all being Puritans we should list all intoxicants regardless of actual driving impairment. Automatic jail if you’ve got a nicotine buzz. I’m sure the natural sources of nicotine are so minute as to not reach an intoxicating level (likewise there are trace levels of alcohol and cannabinoids always present in the system). Let’s say not more than one cigarette two hours before driving and absolutely none while driving.
Has this ever happened in a state where marijuana is illegal? I swear, sometimes the stupidity outshines the nonsense.
Puff away.
You comment has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said, so if you have a point please make it, I have cookies to make for a Christmas party.
Just make certain those ‘cookies’ aren’t laced with LSD.
huh? Why would I put crushed mormons in my cookies.
It’s Christmas.
That is the line the officer tells the defendant just put under arrest.
It is enough to arrest the person.
The fact it is in your system and can be shown to be regularly in your system will be considered by the jury.
In the meantime the pothead will be offered a plea bargan vs a chance at a probable conviction from a jury of people who are on jury duty. (retired older people and people who do not want to get out of jury duty)
Just because they are not caught driving while impaired does not mean they are not driving while impaired.
the law is regading driving “impaired”. If is not limited.
Stays stored in fatty tissue for as long as a month - stays attached to neuroreceptors for only a few hours.
tell it to the judge...
I have truth; you claim to have force. The drug debate in a nutshell.
That is the line the officer tells the defendant just put under arrest.
The law has no proper interest in what is stored in fatty tissue inaccessible to neuroreceptors.
it is admissible in court as evidence of usage.
so the accused has a history of consistent usage for the last 30 days. That history can be used against them.
Again, it is enough to support the arrest.
Again, it will be admitted into evidence for the jury to decide. The accused will have to have their lawyer defend the case and, if their state has a presumption of imairment clause in the law, rebut the presumption.
regardless, there is jail, bail, court expenses, attorney fees, etc...
the answer is really easy, use pot in ANY amount then don’t drive for thirty days after the last use. period.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Same goes for drunks and prescription drug users. What of it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.