First State to Legalize Marijuana is.......
- Thread starter BASEDVATO
- Start date
They are going to do blood test, like those little TB poke's, or Diabetic sugar count. Chronic user have traces in blood for 3-5 days, you piss it for about 30 days.
I assume there will be a threshold. They will not be looking for trace amounts, but most likely have a high threshold for the limit showing recent use when its at a body masses peak (I hope).
I'm not against having tests for any type of DUI, I think you need those in place for the public's behalf - as long as the test is reasonable and doesn't give false positives.
I assume there will be a threshold. They will not be looking for trace amounts, but most likely have a high threshold for the limit showing recent use when its at a body masses peak (I hope).
I'm not against having tests for any type of DUI, I think you need those in place for the public's behalf - as long as the test is reasonable and doesn't give false positives.
Sorry, IPIM, but thats total bullshit. What they check for is active THC, not the metabolites that stay in your system for weeks. According to ALL of the literature on active THC, there has NEVER been a case of someone testing over 5ng/ml (the per se limit in the new WA law) 12 hours after smoking, and the VAST majority of subjects showed way less than that amount an hour after smoking. So basically, if you aren't stoned you are not going to test positive.
Props:
BASEDVATO
They will use the same probable cause standards they use for alcohol DUIs. So if they have probably cause to pull you over, they will then administer behavioral impairment tests, abcs backwords, touching your nose, that kinda stuff, then if you fail them they'll take you to the local precinct where they will do a tiny blood draw. The field sobriety tests for booze (the ones where you blow) are just probably cause to take you into the precinct and have you blow on the real machine. You can't be convicted for failing the field tests for booze these days, and weed will be just the same.
The only people that were against this initiative in WA were people that run medical dispensaries and drug lawyers both of whom are buttering their bread off the illegality of weed.
The only people that were against this initiative in WA were people that run medical dispensaries and drug lawyers both of whom are buttering their bread off the illegality of weed.
Props:
S.SAVAGE
And this is what im talking about becuase you can NOT apply the same sobriety test to someone high on THC as you can drunk on alcohol. Your motor skills are not impaired in the same manner. And to FURTHER the muddling, studies show that those who are high actually drive MUCH BETTER than those who are drunk.
Again, this is going to cause problems i guarantee it. This is not a good thing...yet. its still premature and again, they are fuckin with the Cartel when it comes to drugs.
Again, this is going to cause problems i guarantee it. This is not a good thing...yet. its still premature and again, they are fuckin with the Cartel when it comes to drugs.
Just becuase it was grown in Cali, doesnt mean it wasnt owned by the cartel. Its like a Corporation...something may be made by Johnson & Johnson, but the checks go to Proctor & Gamble.
Marijuana is STILL a HUGE cash crop for the cartel.
Marijuana is STILL a HUGE cash crop for the cartel.
Props:
S.SAVAGE
Breh, its already illegal to drive stoned. Right now, if you get pulled over and the officer has probable cause to think you're impaired, they can compel a blood test and if they find ANY THC in your system (even metabolites, not just active THC) they can hit you with a DUI. So the per se limit actually protects us. And link me to the studies that say being stoned increases driving performance, because thats certainly not the consensus. I'm happy to link a bunch of sources if you're interested.
And as far as us fucking with the cartels, good for us. The only way we are going to stop them is by removing the illegal market they profit from. You would really prefer the cartels get that cash over the states?
And as far as us fucking with the cartels, good for us. The only way we are going to stop them is by removing the illegal market they profit from. You would really prefer the cartels get that cash over the states?
Props:
BASEDVATO
It's also infinitely easier for po to bust someone for possession than it is to test for blood thc content. Possession won't be a factor anymore. I doubt they are going to go out of their way checking lab results and whatnot for a minor infraction.
In theory this should cut down on profiling, not increase it.
At any rate, we're going to have a lot less fools sitting in jail for non violent crimes, saving taxpayer's money, and the revenue from pot taxes will be off the charts. This can go to projects like education, public transportation, etc.
In theory this should cut down on profiling, not increase it.
At any rate, we're going to have a lot less fools sitting in jail for non violent crimes, saving taxpayer's money, and the revenue from pot taxes will be off the charts. This can go to projects like education, public transportation, etc.
Yeah, I agree with all of this. Fundamentally its a civil rights issue. Along both race and class lines we disproportionally incarcerate (by a HUGE margin) minorities/the poor. I'm more than happy to sacrifice my 'right' to hop in the car after I blaze one, in order to reduce that disparity.
Props:
BASEDVATO