Is Legalizing Weed Obama's Secret Weapon?

[gresh]

Personally, I'm stuck on the definition of impairment issue......how do you legally define impairment with cannabis?

They figure that out and they figure out regulatory side of the house and we are going to have legal weed.

And I think it all boils down to one thing:

It's another indicator of the severity of Great Depression 2.0

Just like the repeal of Prohibition........it turns a cost(LE/Justice/Incarceration) into a revenue(tax).

"Shazam!

I just reduced US government costs by a zillion.

I just increased US government revenue by a trillion.

I just defeated the Narco terrorists.

You little people clean up the mess and sort out the details.....Look! Something shiny over there! I gotta go fly over and sh!t on it!"

^^^^^^At least that's what the Politicians will have us believe

You can't define it because it's way different from alcohol and that's what most of the DUI policy is centered around. The only thing people who use it can do is drive safe or not be high. Soon they're going to introduce swab's that can test for cannabis on the spot. There's some LEO's trying to introduce legislation so if you don't submit to a swab you'll go to jail just like if you don't submit to a breathalyzer. There's no way to test just how high you are, so you get taken to jail. You can fight the case and get a get blood test to see if there were active metabolites in your system, but it's expensive and usually not worth it. Most people just plea out.

[KurtyKat]

Compared to damn alcohol it would make perfectly sense to legalize weed.

[G-AWZT]

Check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1552901.html

God I love these Taiwanese cartoons. It makes Barry look even goofier than Spicoli.

[shermbodius]

Legalize Pot and ban tobacco. Just my opinion.

[Hollis]

There's some LEO's trying to introduce legislation so if you don't submit to a swab you'll go to jail just like if you don't submit to a breathalyzer..

That is not how implied consent works or the law works. Google is your friend.

[Laconian]

Personally, I'm stuck on the definition of impairment issue......how do you legally define impairment with cannabis?

They figure that out and they figure out regulatory side of the house and we are going to have legal weed.

And I think it all boils down to one thing:

It's another indicator of the severity of Great Depression 2.0

Just like the repeal of Prohibition........it turns a cost(LE/Justice/Incarceration) into a revenue(tax).

"Shazam!

I just reduced US government costs by a zillion.

I just increased US government revenue by a trillion.

I just defeated the Narco terrorists.

You little people clean up the mess and sort out the details.....Look! Something shiny over there! I gotta go fly over and sh!t on it!"

^^^^^^At least that's what the Politicians will have us believe

I agree with this. The legalization will definitiely increase the bureaucracy and where many folks think there should be a decrease in costs associated with MJ enforcement, I think they will stay about the same and jst be shifted. As soon as you tax and regulate something somebody (and their organizations) are going to figure out ways on how to shortcut the regs and taxes.

[J.Noah ה]

This would certainly get Obama the younger generation votes, just like it did for Ron Paul.

[Mikhael]

[Hollis]

Personally, I'm stuck on the definition of impairment issue......how do you legally define impairment with cannabis?

The way the judge use to say it, "If it makes you a less better driver." The general problem that I see is how our world sees driving under the influence. Most see it as drunk driving, which can be a BA about 0.2. Assumption level to be under the influence is .06 or .08 in the states. Under the influence does not mean drunk. It means the person is a less better driver. Assumption level means the state does not have to prove your are a less better driver, the defendant has to prove they where not effected. Under the right conditions, under the influence a person can blow a 0.0 and be convicted. The BA is after the stop, there needs to be probable cause. Also the Romberg field sobriety test is used. Currently everything but the BA applies to a person driving under the influence of weed or other drugs.

This maybe old knowledge, maybe if there are errors someone will modernize it.

[tluassa]

Is Legalizing Weed Obama's Secret Weapon?

Answer:

"Drugs make politics tolerable"
-Hunter S. Thompson

[Dirtydiaper]

If potsmokers weren't too strung out on their couches to get their ass to the voting booth, pot would've been legalized decades ago.

[shermbodius]

If potsmokers weren't too strung out on their couches to get their ass to the voting booth, pot would've been legalized decades ago.

DD, I have thought that for years.

[eskachig]

The way the judge use to say it, "If it makes you a less better driver." The general problem that I see is how our world sees driving under the influence. Most see it as drunk driving, which can be a BA about 0.2. Assumption level to be under the influence is .06 or .08 in the states. Under the influence does not mean drunk. It means the person is a less better driver. Assumption level means the state does not have to prove your are a less better driver, the defendant has to prove they where not effected. Under the right conditions, under the influence a person can blow a 0.0 and be convicted. The BA is after the stop, there needs to be probable cause. Also the Romberg field sobriety test is used. Currently everything but the BA applies to a person driving under the influence of weed or other drugs.

This maybe old knowledge, maybe if there are errors someone will modernize it.

Yeah, I don't really see the huge problem. There isn't an easy roadside test for a bajillion legal and illegal drugs that can affect one's driving ability. When you're under the influence and driving the most important criteria is whether the LEO thinks you're impaired or not.