High Road

Lawyers Say New Pot Initiative Will Actually Increase Busts


Reading the New Approach initiative makes me want to work 24/7 on I-1149...
Holcomb and her crew of non-stoners writing whatever it takes to find self-success in politics no matter whose life they ruin in the process.
1149 is as close to what a true republic would be, good for republicans, freedom lovers and constitutional patriots.
It will be interesting to discover what police, prosecutors, and judges believe constitutes probable cause to force a blood draw for THC testing. While it's true that DUI laws apply similarly to prescription drugs now, few people would believe a police officer if he said he smelled Oxycontin through the driver's open window. Few people distrust police officers who say they smelled cannabis through that same window.
I hope it fails;there's plenty of poor folk who would be homeless if ganga's price fell due to relegalization.
The key point is that the driver needs to 'appear impaired' before a driver can be pulled over and a blood test can be administered. If you are sober and drive like a sane person you should not have a problem; if you drive like a moron than of course an officer is going to do what he can to get you off the road before you hurt someone.

I wouldn't be afraid of the limit, it really is there so opponents cannot argue that the streets would be less safe with marijuana legal.
Can we just do a roadside sobriety test? THC in blood /= impairment
the issue is that it gives the police the ability to bust any regular pot smoker for a dui whenever they have the chance to give them a test, because any regular pot smoker will always fail the test. from some of what i've read it sounds like anyone who smoked within a day or so may fail the test (unconfirmed). the history of how cops use such tools shows that we can expect manipulation & expansion of 'cause' to administer a test. it will become a tool the cops have to bust whoever they can, whenever they can get away w/ it. given the history of drug law enforcement & recent losses in 4th amendment rights due to terrorism concerns this is almost a certainty to occur.

so imagine, a regular pot smoker who is NOT high at the time, is in an accident. the cops claim cause for a test. now, it is has gone from an accident to a serious criminal situation w/ full legality & zero justification.
must mention that i am not all yipee over the upcoming initiative to legalize pot. testing thc levels is ridiculous as mentioned(high road, june 29). additionally, the main effect this provision would serve is for the police to jack up pretty much anyone they see as suspicious.
taxing and controlling etc.is just a can of worms as well. if there is big money to be made, we will see the day when some one or two mega farms will supply all the product to the state. the state will without a doubt award these plums to the rich and connected. we would likely end up paying all the market will bear, mega taxes and all. i appreciate irony as well as the next guy yet i would not like to buy pot from some fascist corporation which is where things would likely end up.
decriminalize is the word we should insist upon hearing from our reps. lets just quit the whole toe-in-the-sand suck up routine.
no one, christian republicans included, give a hoot about pot. it is only a justification to perpetuate a war on cultural change. this initiative will serve mainly as a tool to harrass, and suck money off us in the bargain
Really glad I don't have a car.
@3: "I hope it fails;there's plenty of poor folk who would be homeless if ganga's price fell due to relegalization."

You incredible fucking moron, there are plenty of poor folk who will stay poor for the rest of their lives due to drug arrests, and who lose ALL their income while in jail.

I don't know what you believe, but I know that whatever your "cause" is, you find the worst possible solution.
I don't know, legal pot? What about the children?
(Actually, the children are ALREADY SMOKING POT, this would just REGULATE a currently BLACK market [Looking at you right now, Jay Inslee, and your bullshit straw man argument])

If Ms. Holcomb herself says a "cut-off" is necessary but the "science" is murky, that's because it's not scientific. They didn't NEED a cut-off, they put that in because these New Approach people are all fucking lawyers, too! They know law enforcement and OTHER lawyers would pick this law apart it didn't kowtow to the police enough (because we all know police don't just enforce the laws, they should be helping to make the laws, too).

If a person is too IMPAIRED to follow the rules of the road, FAILS a field sobriety test, or is deemed INCAPACITATED by a police drug recognition expert, then BY ALL MEANS, lock them up, but this is just bullshit, arbitrary nonsense.
This is all contingent on cops going out of their way to pull over people at test them for marijuana. Something they could do right now if they wanted.

Google tells me that we have about 16.5k marijuana arrests annually vs. about 37k DUI arrests. There would have to be a pretty massive shift of personnel to DUI duty to get more arrests. That would be a nearly 50% increase.
I believe they already do this in several other countries, including Germany. A comparison for how it's going over there would be interesting.
"Steinborn insists, "This could increase marijuana arrests as the police go apeshit. They will go after DUIs, and it will be like shooting fish in a barrel." "

And what do they do now, for DUIs with MM cases?
If you're going to operate heavy machinery don't do a lot of mind altering substances. If someone wants to be a responsible driver and a responsible drug user they can organize their life accordingly.
@14 I think you outlined my thoughts exactly. Maybe the two lifestyles are not compatable of driving several times a day and smoking marijuana every day. This is not rocket science people.

Ya it sucks that sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too but come the fuck on. You want to play with mind altering substances and still operate multi-ton vehicles at 60 mph and above? Well then you need to decide which one is more important for you.

I think the problem people have is they know that there are users who want to smoke an ounce of weed a day once it is legal. That is perfectly fine but if you plan on being baked out of your mind all day or even a low level but consistent user maybe you don't fucking get to drive also!
@13 i just wouldn't show off my mm auth until it became a factor. that and i don't drive high
I'll side with 14 and 15. Driving a car is a huge privilege, not a right. And it sucks that we've built society in a way where so many people feel they need to have a car to get around.

But if as part of your disability, you need to consistently smoke marijuana, then maybe a side effect of that disability is not being able to drive. The same would be true to someone with delayed functions, poor eyesight, etc. There's a reason old people switch to the bus.

Reform yes, treatment yes, "legalization" no.
@18: Why not?
Its sad that there are no laws for how stupid you're allowed to be before they take away your license. Stupid drivers and angry drivers are far more dangerous than drivers who are otherwise responsible but happen to smoke pot for relaxation as opposed to getting shitfaced on booze.

Also, having trace THC in your system does not equate to being "always a little bit stoned". That's just pure idiocy.
So now the potheads want not just their pot, but they also want the right to drive while they are stoned. Not that this was predictable.
If a person is too IMPAIRED to follow the rules of the road, FAILS a field sobriety test, or is deemed INCAPACITATED by a police drug recognition expert, then BY ALL MEANS, lock them up, but this is just bullshit, arbitrary nonsense.

Right. And if the police use non-statistical methods to show impairment, then you and the other dopeheads will be attacking them for a lack of "objective evidence."

Let's be honest: You want the right to be stoned everywhere, including in your car while you are driving. Everyone knows about potheads, which is why your legalization initiative will fail.

Oh, and the drug dealers are against legalization too. It's a threat to prices and profits. They'd much rather you be exploited, and as a non-user so would I. They don't call it "dope" for nothing.
You incredible fucking moron, there are plenty of poor folk who will stay poor for the rest of their lives due to drug arrests, and who lose ALL their income while in jail.

Fine by me. I always need cheap lawn service. Who better than a poor stoner to cut the grass for $7 an hour, cash?
Lawyer shit and Politician shit makes ape shit smell and taste magnificent and lovingly divine.

after all the X-spurts have said the economy has been saved by W Bush or Barack-O-nomics it seems the evil wicked things that leed to brain munching zombies are a good way to stuff more wasted money into politipiggy's pockets?

Yup! I got a joint for yer Lawyers and punk polittipiggy's to suck on!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just love Douglas Hiatt's comment where he says the initiative would "essentially take away their right to drive."

Mr Hiatt; As a lawyer you should well know what we all learn when we first start driving; Driving is a privelege not a right!
Abuse the privelege, and you lose it!

Regardless of what most pot smokers will say, you can't drive properly when you're stoned. You're just as apt to cause an accident as if you were driving drunk.
@9 undead ayn rand You,a disciple of Ayn Rand,have the audaciousness to call me a moron?Pfft!Attacking the messenger doesn't disprove the message.Do you own a dispensary?Ganja shouldn't be treated like ethanol,and the Lower Class shouldn't be given less consideration than cannabis,you ass eater!
Hey,undead ayn rand !There are examples throughout history where drugs where legal and there was(and still is) poverty.Making grass relegal will only cause the Poor to find some other illegal activity to make ends meet.
The "limit" isn't backed by any science/research and, such, is highly arbitrary and suspect. The initiative should be defeated on these grounds alone... or, passe and then fast-tracked for a legislative rewrite or, maybe, a well financed court challenge.
King County Metro might gain some custies :)
@27: " You,a disciple of Ayn Rand"


"Attacking the messenger doesn't disprove the message."

The message isn't disproven because you're dumb, you are dumb because your message is dumb.

"There are examples throughout history where drugs where legal and there was(and still is) poverty.Making grass relegal will only cause the Poor to find some other illegal activity to make ends meet."

And again, this is where you're a fucking moron. The underclass suffer the most from drug arrests in terms of finding work post-arrest, the loss of income from incarceration, other externalities in their communities caused by overaggressive attacking citizens because of consensual crimes, and resources given to drug enforcement that could otherwise be used for anti-abuse services, childrens programs and other essential support.

You're not stupid because you disagree with me, you're stupid because you have a child's understanding of how harmful the War on Drugs is on the underclass.
THC, being fat-soluble, is stored long-term in fat. Small amounts of THC get released into the bloodstream if someone who smoked a long time ago burns fat. And no, it doesn't make you high after all that time, but it could make you test positive. This alone is a good reason to strike down this bullshit law.

Additionally, there is evidence that people are more aware of and try to compensate for their relative impairment when high vs. when drunk. Treating the two conditions identically is a big fat fucking mistake. From http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-…

"None of the doped-up or drinking drivers were models of safety on the road. They tended to switch lane positions, swerve, and vary their steering. But the THC cigarette smokers drove significantly slower than the liquored-up subjects, who zoomed down the virtual lanes. The drinking drivers also tended to be confident and boast a sense of control, while the pot smokers seem to be 'more aware of their impairment.'"

So, driving while high is obviously an issue. But pretending that a THC blood test is the same thing as an alcohol-level blood test is fucking moronic. THC blood levels, unlike alcohol blood levels, do NOT correspond to how high someone is at that exact moment.
And let's not forget that a significant proportion of SOBER people fail field sobriety tests, because they have poor balance, lack coordination, or are fat and have a wonky center-of-gravity.
@32 undead ayn rand.The message indeed isnt' disproven,and never will be,you inbred motherfucker!Also,most people are poor because enough other people on Our Planet want it that way,not because of cannabis's "legal" status.You don't rob Peter to pay Paul,you mutant.The War Against Pot is merely one aspect of the War Between the Classes,you assfuckee!
To all these people who are attacking THC blood testing, you'd better come up with an acceptable objective measurement or there's no way your favorite drug's going to be legalized.
They screwed the pooch from the get go as they did not conform it for medical use? I don't have a drug that I can pay more for potency or less for that matter? Oh! 8$ cup cake bud or 16$ fillet mignon bud? Um? Um? gee how long will it take china to put it in a pill form thats stronger and lasts longer than anything some lost in the back woods of the northwest pot shop can muster with or with out paying said lost in the woods city for a license?

So is it beer or is it whiskey or is this a trip down the snake oil alley that we are always running from? Get a standard? a S.O.P? cancer patients are not all experienced pot heads who will know if they are getting ripped off and so we go with big legal issues that will get ugly when the lawyers start smelling blood. If you cant even name the shit to resemble what it is and its origins why even consider looking at the crap?