... which in my case would be a pretty accurate ruling.
... which in my case would be a pretty accurate ruling.
Well, you are what you intake.
Hopefully Scalia and Thomas both have massive coronaries before they can get to a case like this. However, the constitution makes no mention of marijuana or narcotics in general, so the framers didn't even contemplate that the federal government may have to regulate it. States rights, yup.
well i think we can agree the founding fathers supported hemp.
Martha Washington man... She was a hip hip lady
Every day George would come home and she'd have a fat bowl waiting for him
Little known fact: George Washington's teeth weren't made of wood, they were made of HEMP!!! And he used to smoke mad bowls out of them when he listened to Bob Marley.
I think the liberals are going to be circumspect, especially in light of the heightened scrutiny that the Roberts court is giving to federalism and commerce clause challenges. I imagine they will be careful to not use their votes to create a precedent for weakening federal regulatory authority that Roberts will in turn use to bite them in their asses in future cases.
Really that's what this is about for me: I like the idea of marijuana legalization, but not as much as I like the idea of the Supreme Court giving deference to federal regulation over conflicting state law in other, more traditionally economic areas.
The brightest idea for everyone would be for the legislature to realize that the war on drugs is a massive failure and recognize it by changing our drug laws. It'd be so much nicer to keep this out of the courts.
We would probably pull in a lot of foreign money as a country if weed was apart of our tourist attractions. The USA needs to act quickly before The Netherlands revert their anti-drug tourism policy.
Imagine, fishing in the great rivers, climbing Half Dome at Yosemite, watching the Daytona 500, the Macy's Day parade, Disneyland; all with a joint in your hand and no worries about the man.
And for you non smokers out there - we're bringing back the smoking section it will be about 40% of the crowd if ganja was legal. Plus I would love to have a bong at my favorite pub.
you are high as fuck if you think anyone's gonna be blazing at disneyland. i don't even know that they have smoking sections anymore. aside from customers who can simply avoid the area, there are employees who will still be affected.
Yup, and probably highly discouraged in places like Yosemite in light of the increased amount of accidents in the past few years with all the dumbasses falling off thing or into things or out of things.
Really, the only place you're going to be able to legally smoke is in your own home, or maybe there will be "bars" for smoking. But it's never going to be legal to just walk around smoking weed. you can't walk around with a beer in your hand.
you can in New Orleans (as long as it's not in a glass container). And you can walk around smoking cigarettes? And, honestly, you can walk around smoking weed in SF so...
They have smoking sections and it is still possible to blaze at all major theme parks.
If they have booze at CalifOrnia Adventure, i dont see why not a legalized plant. Stoners have more money than you think and Disney knows this. It's possible they could add a ganja field to the "Soaring Over California" attraction. Basically revamping a rides popularity by adding weed to it. No crazy characters, just a cgi weed farm with a guy in a hammock. It's beautiful.
A bill that sets a legal limit for THC in a motorist's bloodstream passed in the Colorado House on Tuesday.
Under House Bill 1114, drivers caught with 5 nanograms THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that produces the "high" sensation, in their blood would be considered to be driving under the influence of marijuana and could be ticketed similarly to a person who was considered to be too drunk to drive.
HB-1114 now needs one more vote in the House before it goes to the Senate. Read the full text of HB-1114 here.
"This is about traffic safety in the state of Colorado," said bill sponsor Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Aurora), The Denver Post reports.. "This bill will send a very strong message that no longer can you get behind the wheel after smoking marijuana."
This is the fourth time in three years that the state House has supported a marijuana DUI bill, however all previous attempts have failed in the Senate in years past. But this year, Rep. Mark Waller (R-Colorado Springs), the bill's other sponsor, thinks that a standard blood-THC limit is more critical with the passage of Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana for recreational use for adults.
As in previous years when marijuana DUI bills have come up for debate, opponents say that the 5 nanogram standard is too low for frequent pot smokers, especially medical marijuana patients, who regularly have this level of THC in the bloodstream and therefore, if passed, these people would lose their driving privileges, The Denver Post reports.
But Waller says that this bill is different than the previous bills because it allows for a person who has been charged with having 5 nanograms of THC in their blood to rebut the charge that they are too impaired to drive, according to 7News.
"For example, if you did not exhibit poor driving, you can put that on as evidence to say, 'Look my driving was not poor, I'm not unsafe to operate a motor vehicle,'" Waller said during the hearing.
Waller also said he would have preferred this bill to be a so-called "per se" limit bill -- all three of the previous failed marijuana DUI bills were "per se" bills -- meaning if a driver tested above the legal 5 nanogram limit, the result would be an automatic conviction nearly every time.
But are drivers measurably impaired while under the influence of marijuana like they clearly are when under the influence of alcohol? That has been one of the core questions opponents of the bill have been asking about bills like these each year they are introduced. Westword spoke to Attorney Leonard Frieling in 2012 over last year's marijuana DUI bill who described the clear correlation between blood alcohol level and driving impairment -- the higher the blood alcohol level, the more impaired drivers are. But he questions the correlation between marijuana blood levels and driving impairment saying to Westword, "that appears not to hold true as cleanly with cannabis. So talking about impaired driving is one thing, but trying to give a number a meaning it doesn't have is something else entirely."
Last year Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Denver) spoke out about the issues that make marijuana blood limits problematic like the fact that THC is fat-soluable, so blood limits could remain above the 5 nanogram limit for days after the user last legally smoked pot, CBS4 reported. The user would not appear stoned, but legally they could still be considered impaired. With this thinking in mind, Steadman tried and failed to exempt medical marijuana patients in the bill.
This fact of THC's different effect on the body than alcohol's was stunningly shown in 2011 by Westword pot reporter William Breathes. After a night of sleep and not smoking pot for 15 hours, a sober Breathes still tested nearly three times higher than the proposed legal limit.
To add confusion to the matter, Washington state television station KIRO recently assembled a group of volunteers, had them smoke pot and set them loose on a driving test course to try and answer the question: How high is too high to drive?
The less-than-scientific results, while entertaining, unfortunately don't add much clarity to the question at hand. A regular smoker of marijuana tested above the legal limit to begin with, yet drove without much of a problem. Two casual smokers also navigated the course without incident. However, after smoking more marijuana, driving ability began to devolve quickly.
Washington state voters, along with voters in Colorado, passed recreational marijuana amendments last November, but Washington, unlike Colorado, already passed a marijuana DUI bill in 2012 setting the legal impairment standard at 5 nanograms in the state.
And in Washington, the enforcement of the law ultimately comes down to common sense. Explains Bob Calkins, a Washington State Patrol spokesman, to The Oregonian, "We don't just pull people over and draw blood... If you're driving OK, we're not going pull you over. But driving impaired is still driving impaired." Watch KIRO's full stoned driving segment here.
The bill now advances to the House Appropriations Committee for another vote.
Seems like sensible legislation along the lines that I had suggested in one of these earlier weed threads.
I think that's going to be one of the most difficult things to get right with marijuana legalization, because there is definitely such a thing as being too high to drive, but how do you quantify that in the same way you do with alcohol?
The .08 standard took decades to figure out. I imagine as legalization becomes more of a norm, NHTSA and other groups will establish better data points. But the point that the Washington State Trooper raises is a good one: under normal circumstances, the police aren't going to have pc to ask to draw blood if there's not a driving pattern, field sobriety tests, odor of weed, obvious signs of impairment, admissions of recent use, etc.
They need a new way to test for impaired driving under the influence of drugs.
Yeah, the .08 standard took a long time to work out, but it worked down from a complete free-for-all. If we have too strict of a standard, who is going to effectively fight to have it lessened (see, e.g., three strikes, mandatory minimum sentences, etc.)
Given that my main reason for wanting weed to be legal is to stop feeding people to the huge prison-industrial machine, I'm a bit worried that having weed in your car is grounds for performing a blood test that a regular stoner will fail if they've smoked in the last 15 hours.
Fascinating Patrick Radden Keefe piece on the bureaucratic struggles involved with legalization in Washington state.