Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 41 - 60 of total 74 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
goatboy smellz

climber
Nederland-GulfBreeze
Nov 9, 2012 - 09:27am PT
Silver is so dumb he doesn't understand the difference between state laws and state Amendments. His family will probably be walking the streets of Reno soon to pay off his time in the old folks home and a dribble cup.
Captain...or Skully

climber
Nov 9, 2012 - 09:42am PT
Not a narcotic.
Captain...or Skully

climber
Nov 9, 2012 - 09:53am PT
Yeah, well I can SAY there's an Ark on the Moon, too.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Nov 9, 2012 - 10:00am PT
hey sliver,its about as much a narcotic,as this is a democracy
mojede

Trad climber
Butte, America
Nov 9, 2012 - 10:28am PT
FyI, the Montana folk are not too torn up about what the "Feds did here"-- it was pretty overblown as they were going for large-scale inter-state MJ traffic and transactions.

They even told the card holders and patients that the would NOT be going after them in ANY way.



Let's get to the point, let's roll another joint--tom petty
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Nov 9, 2012 - 10:37am PT
The CO governor, who's not personally in favor of the new constitutional amendment (people seem to have missed this point, that the Colorado constitution now has a section about marijuana) said he's "reaching out" to the feds to see how they should handle this. I don't see a confrontation looming.

The question is how much effort will the DEA expend in Colorado? And to what extent will Colorado police cooperate with them? They probably have agreements to cooperate with federal investigations and enforcement. But this obviously goes against the will of the Colorado voters.

I think the real federal interest is in keeping this inside Colorado, but I doubt it's going to be possible in the long run. It could also result in states like UT and KS setting up checkpoints on I-70. It's going to proliferate though. I think it will be more of an exercise in damage control, or what they call change management in the corporate world.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Feb 27, 2013 - 04:32pm PT
Just today Colorado passed a new "driving while stoned" law. Find a designated driver, dude. There's good news too, though. The state task force on mj came up with this:

Marijuana Regulators Sign off on Pot Tourism
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 27, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
Tourists could see purchasing caps though, possibly as low as an eighth of an ounce per transaction.

Why would they want to make you go back to the pot store 2-3 times a day?
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Feb 27, 2013 - 04:43pm PT
Well the "law" is not passed yet. Interesting to see if the police will be able to demand a blood draw if they think a driver is stoned. I bet cops are not very good at identifying who smoked pot 12 hours ago or 3 hours ago or are just tired after a long day. Maybe they can start doing roadside blood draws at all traffic stops. Good times !
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Feb 27, 2013 - 04:47pm PT
That's what I try to tell people. There's 8 ounces in a cup of coffee. It's not a lot.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Feb 27, 2013 - 04:56pm PT
If House Bill 1114 actually makes it into law, all it will do is clog the courts. I think it will be tough to prove impairment in many cases and challenges to the law will be abundant. Silly attempt at a law in my opinion.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Feb 27, 2013 - 04:56pm PT
Don't they already have checkpoints at the Utah border in order to get people to set their watches back 60 years?
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Feb 27, 2013 - 05:00pm PT
I doubt they will do blood tests on the side of the road. So they bring all these stoners into the emergency room in handcuffs, then they measure the thc level in the blood, then one time they'll do this to some rich guy who can take them to court. He'll prove there's no correlation between impairment and blood level and that the law is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
wbw

Trad climber
'cross the great divide
Feb 27, 2013 - 05:00pm PT
you don't get that the Feds don't give a f*#k what your state thinks or votes for in regards to legalizing any narcotic.

That, in fact is wrong. The feds have stayed hands off over medical mj in CO, and there is no reason as of now to believe this will be any different. At least until an arch-conservative, ignorant, angry right winger like Silver gets elected to President, and the informal hands-off policy is changed.

There are all kinds of problematic legal issues within CO over Amendment 64. Once they start giving DUIs to people who aren't stoned at the time, but have THC in their system, the judicial system will have plenty of challenges over blood testing drivers.

We're seeing lots of non-factual handwringing and dribble coming from the right wing crowd here in CO. Silver is a good representation of what they are saying.
crunch

Social climber
CO
Feb 27, 2013 - 05:14pm PT

All I was saying is this opens a door to people who might not have smoked weed and who will smoke it and perhaps have a couple of beers which may have been fine for them before but add the weed and its a whole new ball game with innocent victims usually being the ones who pay.

Well, Silver, an update:

here in Colorado we're a couple years into the Medical Marijuana experiment. This has been going smoothly and now it's all legal.

By now, if the change in the law was going to lead to "a whole new ball game" of some kind kind or other, we'd know.

As far as I can tell, all is exactly as it's ever been. And I'm right here, Boulder, Colorado. Stoner Central. And what do I see? Stoners smoke, as always, discreetly, as ever. Rest of us (I don't smoke) shrug our shoulders, as always. Life goes on. Access for kids and non-users is not changed one bit.

The ONLY change that I notice is that the regular stoners have cards now and, if found in possession, will not go to jail or have to pay fines (now even the cards are not needed, I guess?). Which is a good thing as most stoners are young, not so wealthy, they are naive about things like due process, court procedures, rights, etc etc. They can't afford good representation, get steamrolled by the courts and the "rehab" industry, their careers get damaged.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Feb 27, 2013 - 05:14pm PT
Police will demand the blood draw from the rich dude that tests negative but gets hauled in to get blood drawn and therefore inconvenienced. Litigation ensues.
So how do they train police to detect MJ impairment? Someone that is pretty stoned is going to look pretty similar to someone that just worked a double shift at where ever they work in my opinion. Someone that smoked from a vaporizer 1 hour before will not stink like someone that has been drinking. A person that uses MJ daily vs someone that used MJ for the first time is going to have a totally different level of impairment. How about the impairment of Indica vs a Sativa LOL
Hey and this is a Bi Partisan effort! Our government can only work together when it involves passing a law that in no way will improve public safety. Common sense is lost on many in our government.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 27, 2013 - 05:16pm PT
Last time my friend drove from CA to UT he was pulled over 3 times on I-80. Once for turning his blinker on too late (like 100' instead of 300') when exiting the highway, once for going 5 mph UNDER the speed limit, and once for not stopping long enough at a stop sign.

Each time they asked to search his car "for marijuana." Each time he said sure, and they let him go without a search.

I've heard similar stories from people going from CO to UT. If you are a middle aged guy in an SUV or truck you fit the profile of an interstate drug trafficker.

Apparently NV and UT are trying to figure out how to profit from their neighbor's laws.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Feb 27, 2013 - 05:40pm PT
...and profit they will, for a few years anyway.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Feb 27, 2013 - 05:54pm PT
Touchy subject, whether to consent to a search. I'd say no, tell them as little as possible so if they do search, they won't be able to explain why. On the other hand, they'll alert like a dog does if they smell fear, and the best thing may just be to bluff, but you're playing with your life.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Feb 27, 2013 - 06:19pm PT
Geez, what noobs!

"I have every intention of co-operating with you officer, but my attorney has advised me to always maintain my fourth amendment rights and request a warrant. I have his personal cell number in my pocket if you would care to discuss it with him."
Messages 41 - 60 of total 74 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta