I think you mean it would go before voters in November 2012, not November 2010.

@1) Pot has magical effects on time.

this initiative really breaks my heart. i'd really love to support it, but there is a poison pill. it essentially makes it illegal to be a pot smoker & drive. if you smoke regularly, you will never pass the blood test. hell, you might fail it even if you aren't a regular pot smoker, but you did smoke the night before. there will be yet another tool for the cops to bludgeon people w/ at their discretion.

@3 driving is a privilege. If you're determined to be a stoner you have no right compromising the safety of others.

@3: How is it handled today? I understand the concern, but isn't it already considered DWI?

Most people could smoke and drive responsibly like I'm sure @3 could but a small number of dumbfucks would ruin it for everyone. Just to clarify I wasn't harshing on @3 before.

Hopefully my $100 helps.
$50,000! quite the power couple.

The point being missed is that even if you aren't stoned, but say smoked 3 days earlier. If you get pulled over and tested, the cop can bust you for a DWI based off of the rules set by this. That is messed up.

@8 - That is messed up.

@3 being inebriated and driving, whether by cell phone, texting, drinking, or pot ... Is all pretty much the same thing.

Fuck this initiative and fuck NAW. What campaign manager comes out with "I don't think anyone needs to buy more than an ounce at a time."? Well, we don't need to buy 6 cases of wine at a time either but we are willing to do it.

Not to mention the poison pill #3 mentioned already. All this initiative does is create more jobs for lawyers.

I absolutely hate pay-per-signature employees. One actually once said to me, "If you disagree, sign so that you can vote against it." Also, I just want to buy my damn groceries in peace.

@8: "The point being missed is that even if you aren't stoned, but say smoked 3 days earlier. If you get pulled over and tested, the cop can bust you for a DWI based off of the rules set by this. That is messed up."

Yes, but can't they ALREADY do this? They do arrest people for driving while stoned.

@13, what part of "x number of days after smoking" do you not get? Or are you trying to tell me that I am still stoned a week later after smoking?

IF this becomes an issue, and that is a big if, then we can address it then. Getting a warrant to get a blood draw, and then going through all the effort of that blood draw, will likely be too much of a pain in the ass for the officer to do unless they think they have a good reason.

Who in their right fucking mind thinks they have the patience to test you? It's not a "poison pill" it's an ass-saving do-nothing clause.

@14: My point is that can't they ALREADY claim that you're stoned?