Buster's not here, man.
Posted on 04/12/2014 2:37:27 PM PDT by Wolfie
Heh. Decriminalization of drugs threatens a trillion dollar empire. If there’s anything drug cartels and LE agree on it’s, “Please don’t decriminalize drugs! We might have to get real jobs.”
DEA administrator claims that chocolate legalization imperils dogs.
There fixed it.
The cartels and LE are like opposing teams, in the same league. They battle each other; but they all realize that they need each other, or there’s no game.
There. Fixed it.
/johnny
Is that both the “medical” AND “recreational” brands of weed?
Buster's not here, man.
The biggest reason not to legalize is that there is no test to determine level of impairment for driving, as there is for alcohol. It takes 2 weeks for THC to leave the body, so what are the stoners supposed to do, never drive?
It is a better standard than measuring intoxicant levels, because it actually PROVES a danger. It is a reasonable expectation that the government prove a charge, no?
So, the cops can't just pull over your "stoners" for a dim tail light and then measure some arbitrary juice level & stick them for ten grand in penalties based on that. Cry me a river.
Apparently you have some? Do tell...
The best reason is that potheads are dopes, they will corrupt children and the libertards will move on to normalizing cocaine for kids and stuff
Sometimes I really wish FR had a “Like” button.
You are right. What did they do before the breathalizers? They did roadside impairment tests. Walk the line. Touch your nose. Count. Say the ABC’s. Go back to that.
Law enforcement has killed infinity times more people and dogs while enforcing pot prohibition than pot itself ever will. Zero people or animals have died from pot ingestion. Labs cannot even induce damage through doses not possible in nature.
The most dangerous thing about pot is the possibility of being shot by cops or ending up in jail with violent criminals for holding a dry plant.
observe the obviously impaired drivers and cite them
That is a rather subjective standard and it gives law enforcement more discretion than I am comfortable with.
In fact I was pulled over once for a roadside sobriety test at a USAF gate. I didn’t do well (drunk buddy just woke me up from a sound sleep to help him find his van). The pocket breathalizer read 0.00. Under your standards I’d have been given a DUI for my buddy being passed out drunk!
Oddly though, that was the only time I ever went through that gate sober.
A quick scan of the thread so far and I seem to be the only one remembering the Cheech & Chong “dog ate my stash” skit...
“This dope tastes like sh*t man.”
“It is.”
All that matters in the driving. So document, record, and describe the event, submit to cross examination, and convince a jury. Neither the ability to do physical stunts, nor the measurement of some arbitrary level of intoxicant, proves impairment.
Any conviction ought to begin with an observed and documented event showing actual impaired driving ability of the suspect, which could stand on its own as a violation of failure to maintain reasonable control, careless driving, or reckless driving. MADD type lobbying groups have brought forth increased sanctions similar to criminal penalties while legal procedures continue to follow standards used for speeding tickets - but justice in those cases should demand a full burden of proof from the government, 4th and 5th amendment rights, and so on.
JMO
Heh. In my youth I was often advised by the older and wiser that some day I might be undeservedly tagged for something, and the best course of action might then be to chalk it up as karma for the many times I had likely gotten away with it in times before.
But I think with something as serious and life altering as a possible DUI conviction can be today, I wouldn't be so easy going. I came of age in the '70s when where I come from a DIU ticket was just an extra big fine (the local police blotter column showed it was usually $365, though the less well to do would often get a break) and you could get a bunch of them before more serious sanctions than that were ever brought to the table. And without going into detail I am willing to admit I have gotten away with drunk driving a time or two, and I have driven while spun up pretty good on some other stuff as well - and I think in that regard I don't represent anything close to a small minority - but as we mature we do come to learn the errors of our ways and we become better and more conscientious people. Some learn sooner and perhaps in more harsh ways, and that's life.
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.