Some progress in southern Texas

SirJAG · Feb 19, 2017

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...iminalize-some-low-level-marijuana-possession

Finally some progress in Texas. Art was a big proponent of this (old austin chief) but fought an uphill battle the whole time he was here. I wish him all the best in Houston.

Best Qoute:
Saying the effort "has produced no tangible public safety benefit for the people of Harris County," Ogg told a news conference that money could be better spent "to go and fight the real criminals out there, the rapists, the robbers, who plague every corner of our community."

nxhappy · Feb 19, 2017

would be so much better if they just packaged the ****ing joints and made some tax money. People are finally realizing pot isn't the devils lettuce .

SirJAG · Feb 19, 2017

^ you'd be surprised how it is still demonized. Check out how AZ lost this past November. The opposition was running horrible propaganda on the evils of t he devils lettuce.

Screw-Rice · Feb 19, 2017

As someone who has been for legalization for a long time, primarily so all the potheads would stfu about it, it isn't all sunshine.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/08/31/studies-show-results-of-legal-pot-in-colorado/

Do whatever what you want in your house, but when it spills onto the roads, it becomes an issue. It isn't uncommon to see people loading up pipes at stop lights. Add to that, the influx of people who come for the pot, tends to create a demographic shift.

oldmodman · Feb 19, 2017

We should differentiate between fun dope and medical dope.
I have a friend that had Polio as a child in the early 50's.
She is now fully stricken with advanced post polio syndrome. The only thing that helps alleviate her constant tremendous pain is methadone and dope. Which has no effect if smoked. Only if it is eaten. Before it was legal where she lives friends would bring it to her from out of state. If she had been caught with it she would have been arrested and fined. Yet, for her, it was medically required.
She can no longer drive so for her being stoned is not a problem.
But even when she is taking the maximum dosage of both medicines she has no impaired abilities, other than the physical ones from her disease.
But healthy people showing impaired motor and mental skills should not be endangering the public.

Is there a 100% accurate test (preferably one with near instant results) that police can use to determine recent usage of dope? I do not want to rely on their "training" to determine guilt and then arrest. There could be way to much leeway given to officer training. There must be a mechanical test that has no ambiguity. Since guilt could lead to fines, jail, loss of employment, higher auto insurance costs and so on.
I do not want guilt or innocence to be based on an opinion.

13COBRA · Feb 19, 2017

I agree with your line of thinking, and also that it should be treated like alcohol when it comes to driving or operating a vehicle.

Screw-Rice · Feb 19, 2017

oldmodman said:
Is there a 100% accurate test (preferably one with near instant results) that police can use to determine recent usage of dope? I do not want to rely on their "training" to determine guilt and then arrest. There could be way to much leeway given to officer training. There must be a mechanical test that has no ambiguity. Since guilt could lead to fines, jail, loss of employment, higher auto insurance costs and so on.
I do not want guilt or innocence to be based on an opinion.

There is equipment being tested here along with a breathalyzer version being worked on, but until then, training is the main method. Without knowing exactly what training they employ, you can't devalue it as an officer just deciding on a whim to charge someone. It isn't like the test is asking if they want Funyuns and listen to Pink Floyd. Course the easiest solution is don't do it if you plan to go anywhere.

http://kdvr.com/2016/01/26/colorado-state-troopers-testing-marijuana-dui-devices/

nxhappy · Feb 19, 2017

13COBRA said:
I agree with your line of thinking, and also that it should be treated like alcohol when it comes to driving or operating a vehicle.

absolutely

jeffh81 · Feb 19, 2017

Legalize weed and prostitution so you can tax and regulate it. Its the American way

2000gt4.6 · Feb 20, 2017

Screw-Rice said:
As someone who has been for legalization for a long time, primarily so all the potheads would stfu about it, it isn't all sunshine.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/08/31/studies-show-results-of-legal-pot-in-colorado/

Do whatever what you want in your house, but when it spills onto the roads, it becomes an issue. It isn't uncommon to see people loading up pipes at stop lights. Add to that, the influx of people who come for the pot, tends to create a demographic shift.

I'd have to question how they are seeing traffic deaths due to pot increasing. How do you tell a dead guy was just smoking? Does it include a drunk person who was also high?

Screw-Rice · Feb 20, 2017

2000gt4.6 said:
I'd have to question how they are seeing traffic deaths due to pot increasing. How do you tell a dead guy was just smoking? Does it include a drunk person who was also high?

Yes because toxicology isn't a thing during investigations...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Rct851 · Feb 20, 2017

why isn't anyone outraged about all the senior citizens in the roads? Old age shows all the same symptoms as being stoned. Driving way too slow, slower reflexes, slower decision making etc.

Oooo wait because this would mean a lot of the "good ole boys club" that wants to live in an era of propganda wouldn't be able to drive anymore.

It's all about safety until you have to give up something you want then all of a sudden "O well that's different"

Equalbracket · Feb 20, 2017

Kind of odd they consider under 4 ounces low level possession

Having lived in Colorado for two years, one pre legalization, one year post I can say it mainly just made the black market small, or non existent as they have matched the black market prices. Absolutely no rise in DUI's/wrecks per the chief of police. I never once saw anyone lighting up at stop lights, or anyone acting like fools.

I know countless people it's purely medicine and helps them quite a bit, there will always be those who abuse any and everything. No reason not to legalize and tax it. It will still get you fired legal or not.

I suggest adding mandatory weekly drug tests for anyone on any government subsidized programs, at their expense.

edit: Had a local deputy run a red light late with no emergency lights and clip another car causing it to overturn. DPS showed up found a baggy of pot in the girls car, but she wasn't intoxicated or high and was let go with no charge, and subsequently decided that was their way out of any discipline for the deputy causing the wreck. Had she hit him, same situation I'm quite sure would of gone quite a bit different

Screw-Rice · Feb 20, 2017

Equalbracket said:
Kind of odd they consider under 4 ounces low level possession

Having lived in Colorado for two years, one pre legalization, one year post I can say it mainly just made the black market small, or non existent as they have matched the black market prices. Absolutely no rise in DUI's/wrecks per the chief of police. I never once saw anyone lighting up at stop lights, or anyone acting like fools.

Not sure where they got their info, but there was a rise in accidents the first year it was legalized, 94 dead tested positive. Which was higher than previous years, so to say there was no rise is false. Going from 10% of accidents where the driver tested positive to 19% testing positive is a large increase.

http://gazette.com/study-finds-fata...sen-since-legalized-marijuana/article/1559401

This is the frustration from those who don't do any form. We legalize it and instead of taking accountability and acknowledging it needs some more tweaking, the response is "well it must be another reason".

ashleyroachclip · Feb 20, 2017

There is no positive , I stand test to determine impairment.
Impairment is a judgement call , usually attached to a revenue scheme .

I have been in this movement for more than 40 years .
Have been a test rat for the masses lol.
The media makes shit up all the time .
Any time a new law is passed , there becomes another groupie of sympathizers , that make huge money to protest and disrupt .
Until you have actual fact , that you can only gleen with self testing , there is no way for you to know the truth.

Just think about drinking before you were of age.

2000gt4.6 · Feb 21, 2017

Screw-Rice said:
Not sure where they got their info, but there was a rise in accidents the first year it was legalized, 94 dead tested positive. Which was higher than previous years, so to say there was no rise is false. Going from 10% of accidents where the driver tested positive to 19% testing positive is a large increase.

http://gazette.com/study-finds-fata...sen-since-legalized-marijuana/article/1559401

This is the frustration from those who don't do any form. We legalize it and instead of taking accountability and acknowledging it needs some more tweaking, the response is "well it must be another reason".

There is no current test, especially after death, that can determine if you were under the influence during the accident...

Use the drug on Wensday, don't Thursday, die in a wreck on Friday and it will show the same result at smoking it while going down the road and getting in a wreck.

And that being the case, I would be highly surprised if the positive rate didn't go up after legalization....More people overall will be using the drug. Higher percentage using means more likely someone in a fatal accident will test positive.

Are they seeing an overall increase in traffic deaths? Is it higher than the national trend (story the other day about 2015 fatalities going up due to cheap gas etc).

Also, and I hate to be an ass, but there are 3.8 million licensed drivers in Colorado . And millions more driving thru each year from out of state. 90 people died who tested positive for pot seems pretty low in my opinion, and there is simply no way you could possibly blame every one of them on the drug when you know it tests positive up to 30 days after use. Alcohol, according to CODOT, is a factor in 32 percent of the fatal crashes. How many of those also were using pot?

Looks like a huge stretch to me to even suggest it's a real problem. A 9 percent increase when the new overall number was 90? Whoop de do.

Screw-Rice · Feb 21, 2017

2000gt4.6 said:
There is no current test, especially after death, that can determine if you were under the influence during the accident...

Use the drug on Wensday, don't Thursday, die in a wreck on Friday and it will show the same result at smoking it while going down the road and getting in a wreck.

And that being the case, I would be highly surprised if the positive rate didn't go up after legalization....More people overall will be using the drug. Higher percentage using means more likely someone in a fatal accident will test positive.

Are they seeing an overall increase in traffic deaths? Is it higher than the national trend (story the other day about 2015 fatalities going up due to cheap gas etc).

Also, and I hate to be an ass, but there are 3.8 million licensed drivers in Colorado . And millions more driving thru each year from out of state. 90 people died who tested positive for pot seems pretty low in my opinion, and there is simply no way you could possibly blame every one of them on the drug when you know it tests positive up to 30 days after use. Alcohol, according to CODOT, is a factor in 32 percent of the fatal crashes. How many of those also were using pot?

Looks like a huge stretch to me to even suggest it's a real problem. A 9 percent increase when the new overall number was 90? Whoop de do.

Not sure if you're intentionally being ignorant or not. This proves my point, that none of you can ever take any kind of responsibility and it's ALWAYS some other reason.

You obviously have no idea how the testing works. Blood, saliva, urine, and hair test all are referenced. If you think they don't know how to determine levels at the time, you haven't opened up a text book in 30 years.

Glad 90 deaths attributed to pot is pointless, as long as you can get baked, screw them, right?

Rct851 · Feb 21, 2017

Screw-Rice said:
Not sure if you're intentionally being ignorant or not. This proves my point, that none of you can ever take any kind of responsibility and it's ALWAYS some other reason.

You obviously have no idea how the testing works. Blood, saliva, urine, and hair test all are referenced. If you think they don't know how to determine levels at the time, you haven't opened up a text book in 30 years.

Glad 90 deaths attributed to pot is pointless, as long as you can get baked, screw them, right?

What if the other reasons are legit?

Screw-Rice · Feb 21, 2017

Rct851 said:
What if the other reasons are legit?

What other reasons for what?

Rct851 · Feb 21, 2017

Basically everything the poster above you had said. Seems reasonable that there will be more people with THC in their systems that have died in a wreck but that doesn't mean they were impaired while driving or the THC was the cause.

What do you know about how all the blood testing works and the specifics of what can be determined without a doubt in regards to the timing of the accident and previous use? Not being a smartass I'm really just asking. The paragraph about nobody picking up a book in 30 years was a little condescending and leads us to assume you are some expert in the field and can explain all this well enough for all of us non readers to understand.

"If you think they don't know...." why reference "they" why not "I" and if you can't explain the testing then why not?

Some progress in southern Texas

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

I like BBC

Well-Known Member

Resident Ford Dealer

I like BBC

Well-Known Member

Here’s KingBlack

Well-Known Member

I like BBC

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I like BBC

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I like BBC

Well-Known Member

I like BBC

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread