Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on February 25, 2013, 12:55:38 PM
-
Really, you can't make this stuff up.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/23/court-rules-arizona-can-prosecute-sober
http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_22582743/ariz-court-ruling-upholds-dui-test-marijuana
An appeals court has issued a ruling that upholds the right of authorities to prosecute pot smokers in Arizona for driving under the influence even when there is no evidence that they are actually high.
The ruling by the Court of Appeals focuses on the chemical compounds in marijuana that show up in blood and urine tests after people smoke pot. One chemical compound causes drivers to be impaired; another is a chemical that stays in people's systems for weeks after they've smoked marijuana but doesn't affect impairment.
The court ruled that both compounds apply to Arizona law, meaning a driver doesn't have to actually be impaired to get prosecuted for DUI. As long as there is evidence of marijuana in their system, they can get a DUI, the court said.
Does he even have to be driving? I mean, they already gutted the "U" and the "I" from "DUI," why should they not go all the way and charge people for being sober on their front porch or laying in bed?
Looks to me like they just outlawed driving if any residue of any sort from any medication that could possibly cause impairment is still in one's system. Also, what if they perform hair follicle testing? The non-impairing drug residue is not even in the person's system at that point. The actual use may be months or years in the past.
The ruling overturns a decision by a lower court judge who said it didn't make sense to prosecute a person with no evidence they're under the influence.
Silly lower court judges. Of course it makes sense to someone.
The Court of Appeals said the Legislature adopted the decades-old comprehensive DUI law to protect public safety, so a provision on prohibited substances and their resulting chemical compounds should be interpreted broadly to include inactive compounds as well as active ones.
Need I point out that driving while sober has not traditionally been considered a public safety issue? Yes, yes, that is an appeal to tradition and not valid among the cool kids, nowadays. I am sure there is no way jettisoning appeals to tradition could possibly come back to bite one in the tuckus.
This seems to me just another example of what I call "The Five-Legged Cow Conceit." If some folks band together and insist that bulls and cows are not fundamentally different and that a bull is just a five-legged cow, this is only conceit. In reality, bulls and cows remain fundamentally different, no matter if silly people insist on playing word games. Similarly, defining a non-impairing residue from an impairing substance as somehow indicating someone is now impaired, under the influence, or a public safety hazard is no more than conceit.
-
Sounds like persecution of anyone who is using or has used MJ.
-
Here's the thing:
They can't just start giving every traffic stop an MJ residue test. 4A violation, no probable cause or articulable suspicion, etc.
So they need to see an articulable reason to initiate an MJ test. Paraphernalia visible in the car, noticeable scent, etc. Not sure if a leafy bumper sticker is grounds or not. I think that's covered under 1A protection and not suspicion in and of itself, but may be a contributor to additional scrutiny.
Scent is the really tricky issue. It (a pot smell, or even trickier... a no-pot-here smell) cannot be photographed or recorded and presented back in court later, so it's Ossifer Friendly's word against yours in regards to what anything smelled like.
Any cop can say he "smells pot" and start giving you a hellish traffic stop.
Also, the article states that licensed MJ users are not subject to this...
The ruling does not apply to the state’s 35,000 medical marijuana patients, who are permitted to drive with pot in their systems if they can pass a (flawed) test for impairment.
-
Long time ago I was sitting on the tailgate of my pickup in the parking spot of my apartment watching the world go by when a car rear ended another car at a stop light. The driver of the offending car was pretty obviously very seriously impaired, he didn't appear to have been injured in the collision but the guy could barley stand up or even speak coherently. When the cops showed up I let them know I had been a witness and gave a brief statement.
The fun part was watching the filed sobriety test. I'm not sure I could have passed it stone cold sober. They may have been just jerking the guy around a little for fun but seriously, -say the alphabet backwards staring with R. Stand on your left leg and hop backwards 3 hops are the 2 that I remember.
-
So, any of you own a coffee can?
-
Long time ago I was sitting on the tailgate of my pickup in the parking spot of my apartment watching the world go by when a car rear ended another car at a stop light. The driver of the offending car was pretty obviously very seriously impaired, he didn't appear to have been injured in the collision but the guy could barley stand up or even speak coherently. When the cops showed up I let them know I had been a witness and gave a brief statement.
The fun part was watching the filed sobriety test. I'm not sure I could have passed it stone cold sober. They may have been just jerking the guy around a little for fun but seriously, -say the alphabet backwards staring with R. Stand on your left leg and hop backwards 3 hops are the 2 that I remember.
Could probably do the backwards hopping, though my balance is not as great as it used to be when I was a kid - but the alphabet backwards from R? Not a chance in hell, even sober. I sing the song in my head to this day, to determine letter placement. It'd probably take me an hour to get from R to A. Sober. Not a good sobriety check for me.
-
say the alphabet backwards staring with R
RAWKCAB TEBAHPLA EHT :P
-
RAWKCAB TEBAHPLA EHT :P
!ngathf lgan'hagw heyl'R uhluhtC hfan'wlgm iulgn'hP
-
Not a chance in hell, even sober.
If you're ever pulled over and a cop starts with the SFSTs, never respond with this statement. In the report, the cop will say something like: "Mr. Erictank admitted to me that he was intoxicated and that he couldn't perform the Standardized Field Sobriety tests." They interpret such a statement as "I could not do that test if I were sober, which I am not now."
-
If you're ever pulled over and a cop starts with the SFSTs, never respond with this statement. In the report, the cop will say something like: "Mr. Erictank admitted to me that he was intoxicated and that he couldn't perform the Standardized Field Sobriety tests." They interpret such a statement as "I could not do that test if I were sober, which I am not now."
Well, so then what happens to people who just can't do that stuff sober?
Cause that alphebet thing pretty much screws me too. =/
-
Well, so then what happens to people who just can't do that stuff sober?
Cause that alphebet thing pretty much screws me too. =/
What I meant was not to say "I can't even do that sober," as it will be re-interpreted as an admission of guilt.
Check your state laws. In my state you can decline the stupid human tricks and they'll put you on a certified breath (not the roadside PBT) or blood test.
-
I saw this one coming as soon as I heard about Colorado and other states legalizing MJ. The problem is how to test for MJ presence in order to determine if a driver is impaired. Nearly opposite of alcohol, it's difficult to find a proxy for short-term impairment and easy to find a proxy to show long-term use.
The real question, to me, is if we actually need formal laws banning 'driving while high' at all. I think the burden is on the state to show that MJ use actually increases accidents. Unlike alcohol, MJ is not known for creating reckless behavior the way alcohol does. I would propose (gasp) leaving it regular ol' legal for a while and see if a problem actually develops. But I would bet on that NOT happening, because it doesn't increase the power of the police and governments.
-
Well, so then what happens to people who just can't do that stuff sober?
Cause that alphebet thing pretty much screws me too. =/
http://youtu.be/Wz8dsvm0GFo <-- Gotta post this one again after that =)
-
I find it very reassuring that so many other people still need to sing the alphabet song in their heads.
-
^^^a crutch by any other name......
-
I was trying to teach myself myself the Nato spelling alphabet a couple weeks ago. I was trying to practice by reciting the alphabet, but I can't actually recite the alphabet without singing the song.
Alpha Brave Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliette Kilo Lima November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform Victor Whiskey Xray Yankee Zulu
I still had to sing the song to get the order right. That spelling alphabet is really stupid by the way. I think a grade schooler could come up with a better one. Lima?
-
Unlike alcohol, MJ is not known for creating reckless behavior the way alcohol does. I would propose (gasp) leaving it regular ol' legal for a while and see if a problem actually develops.
It might not cause reckless behavior, but a person is certainly impaired while high. Smoke enough and you cannot drive safely.
Chris
-
I agree, but the same applies to many other prescription drugs that are not specifically addressed by 'under the influence' laws. Driving and smoking tobacco is obviously legal, and nobody seems to worry about that. Obviously there is a continuum here. Driving tired can cause just as much impairment as driving drunk. At the end of the day, people need to be responsible for their behavior. I don't see a reason why MJ should be specifically addressed, just because it was illegal yesterday.
Suppose that someone is naive enough to think that since MJ was previously illegal, nobody ever drove while high. Thus, we don't know what MJ's impact on driving impairment is. So, does that mean we should make it specifically illegal just to be safe, or should be make it legal, just to be on the side of liberty?
Besides, people drive while high all the time now. I don't think the number of people smoking and driving is going to go up. If anything, it might go down, because a lot of teenagers seem to smoke in their cars.
-
I was trying to teach myself myself the Nato spelling alphabet a couple weeks ago. I was trying to practice by reciting the alphabet, but I can't actually recite the alphabet without singing the song.
Alpha Brave Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliette Kilo Lima November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform Victor Whiskey Xray Yankee Zulu
I still had to sing the song to get the order right. That spelling alphabet is really stupid by the way. I think a grade schooler could come up with a better one. Lima?
Obviously drunk. Forgot Mike.
-
I was trying to teach myself myself the Nato spelling alphabet a couple weeks ago. I was trying to practice by reciting the alphabet, but I can't actually recite the alphabet without singing the song.
Alpha Brave Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliette Kilo Lima November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform Victor Whiskey Xray Yankee Zulu
I still had to sing the song to get the order right. That spelling alphabet is really stupid by the way. I think a grade schooler could come up with a better one. Lima?
The words were chosen for pronunciation characteristics
-
I find it very reassuring that so many other people still need to sing the alphabet song in their heads.
I can even sing up to J in Turkish. Oh, yeah. :cool:
-
I can even sing up to J in Turkish. Oh, yeah. :cool:
I made an Alphabet song for Hebrew. I don't know what Israeli children learn.
-
The words were chosen for pronunciation characteristics
That's what i would have thought, but they still seem like really random choices. If i did it, all of them would be at least 2 syllables, for one.
-
The words were chosen for pronunciation characteristics
Conn, RADAR- Romeo three five, Range 6 5 hundred yards bearing 3 1 7, constant bearing decreasing range.
-
It's Alpha, BRAVO, Charlie...
We had to recite it before we were allowed to transmit on UHF, VHF, and HF radios.
One of my fellow recce crewdawgs made his own version, using women's names.
Alice, Betty, Cynthia... :rofl:
-
My daughter, as a pre schooler, taught herself the alphabet - backwards. Lo & behold, 25 years later she's pulled over (guity of no more than "driving while cute) & is asked to recite the alphabet backswards. To the officer's surprise, he hears the ZYW's for the first time in his life.
-
My daughter, as a pre schooler, taught herself the alphabet - backwards. Lo & behold, 25 years later she's pulled over (guity of no more than "driving while cute) & is asked to recite the alphabet backswards. To the officer's surprise, he hears the ZYW's for the first time in his life.
Again, obviously impaired posted. ZYX's. :P
-
If you're ever pulled over and a cop starts with the SFSTs, never respond with this statement. In the report, the cop will say something like: "Mr. Erictank admitted to me that he was intoxicated and that he couldn't perform the Standardized Field Sobriety tests." They interpret such a statement as "I could not do that test if I were sober, which I am not now."
I'm not saying it to a cop while pulled over on the side of the road, am I? In such a case, I'd probably say something like, "I still sing the song in my head to determine letter placement - what makes you think I could do so backwards? If you have another field sobriety test you can administer, I'd be perfectly willing to try that. For that matter, why not use your breathalyzer, that ought to clear this right up in a few seconds." If I have to, I'll accompany him to the station for a test there, but I'd really prefer not to if there's any other reasonable choice, and he's giving me a ride back to my car afterward (because if he thinks I'm safe to drive my own car there, he must not actually believe I'm drunk).
That's what i would have thought, but they still seem like really random choices. If i did it, all of them would be at least 2 syllables, for one.
Only ones that aren't are Golf and Mike, both of which are pretty unequivocal. It's solely about whether you can determine what letter is being said without fear of mistake (as opposed to phonetic pronunciation of the letters, ay, bee, cee, dee, eee - so many very-similar sounds, easily mistaken). The military-"phonetic" alphabet, as I learned it in boot in 91, prevents any confusion.
-
Conn, RADAR- Romeo three five, Range 6 5 hundred yards bearing 3 1 7, constant bearing decreasing range.
:O That's not good.
Although, my LCU's are slow enough that there's usually another line on there: "Time to CPA 6 0 minutes" :lol:
-
That's what i would have thought, but they still seem like really random choices. If i did it, all of them would be at least 2 syllables, for one.
It was also chosen so non native english speakers would be more understandable on the radio with the distinct words.
Trust me when you get it down pat and actually use it a lot it works well. Hey you could always have to use the pre 1960s phonetic alphabet...
-
It might not cause reckless behavior, but a person is certainly impaired while high. Smoke enough and you cannot drive safely.
Chris
The point of the thread is the test is for metabolic by products, not the actual cannabinoids, and the byproducts exist for a long time after the individual is no longer "under the influence"...in other words, its NOT a time sensitive test like a breathalyzer or alcohol blood test, and you would pop DUI for potentially days to weeks after using. And that is BAD.
-
The point of the thread is the test is for metabolic by products, not the actual cannabinoids, and the byproducts exist for a long time after the individual is no longer "under the influence"...in other words, its NOT a time sensitive test like a breathalyzer or alcohol blood test, and you would pop DUI for potentially days to weeks after using. And that is BAD.
I was responding to Zahc's assertion that "Unlike alcohol, MJ is not known for creating reckless behavior the way alcohol does.", not the validity of the test in the OP.
Chris
-
I was responding to Zahc's assertion that "Unlike alcohol, MJ is not known for creating reckless behavior the way alcohol does.", not the validity of the test in the OP.
Chris
Yeah, you generally don't hear about high speed car chases with the driver high on MJ.
-
just a few moron afraid to get caught with stash running from cops. go to some drug rehabs etc you might hear stories you won't like about driving stoned.
i've tested positive over 45 days after last toke
-
A few yrs ago, a motorcycle cop pulled out of driveway into heavy traffic, instantly getting run over.
Initially the woman who hit him wasn't charged, and she passed all field sobriety test.
She tested dirty for weed ( blood test) but claimed she hadn't smoked any for a week.
She went to prison.
As a former heavy weed smoker I know I could pass any field sobriety test and be wasted I also know I've zoned out and went right thru red lights.
A heavy addicted weed smoker can pass your typical roadside sobriety test, really easily if cops do not make them nervous.
I would practice field sobriety test for fun while stoned...
Thank God I do not have to worry about that stuff anymore.
-
A few yrs ago, a motorcycle cop pulled out of driveway into heavy traffic, instantly getting run over.
Initially the woman who hit him wasn't charged, and she passed all field sobriety test.
She tested dirty for weed ( blood test) but claimed she hadn't smoked any for a week.
She went to prison.
As a former heavy weed smoker I know I could pass any field sobriety test and be wasted I also know I've zoned out and went right thru red lights.
A heavy addicted weed smoker can pass your typical roadside sobriety test, really easily if cops do not make them nervous.
I would practice field sobriety test for fun while stoned...
Thank God I do not have to worry about that stuff anymore.
When I was in my 30's I smoked pot pretty much daily. I had a little "Dugout" hitter box. A couple of one hits after work just to take the edge off, not unlike having a couple beers. A field sobriety test would have been easy to pass.
Now if you are sitting around smoking bongs of the good stuff and immediately hop in the car I would say you are impaired. Not in the same way as alcohol though. The distraction and zoning out lost in thought doesn't lend itself to safely piloting a vehicle. It is more of a reaction time issue rather than motor skills like with alcohol. Usually I waited an hour two after doing bong hits before driving.
While I did buy a house and laid the financial foundation for my future; in many ways I wasted nearly whole decade of my life by being stoned half the time.
Like gunsmith, Thank God I'm done with that!
-
What a bunch of hippies! :police:
-
In WA the blood test standard for MJ imparment is something like 5ug/ml of whatever the psycoactive component (or metabolic byproduct thereof) was. That quantity's units may be off. But the reason behind that standard was that someone who toked several hours ago probably would be under that threshold.
Regardlrss, I don't much care. Never having even tried MJ it's just not an issue that especially bothers me.
-
Smoking dope then having a couple drinks can be very bad combo for driving. Under the legal alcohol limit but potentially pretty intoxicated.
Seen more than a few who can handle their weed then they drink a couple beers and they're wrecked.
-
Personally, I think impaired is impaired while driving whether it be alcohol or drug related. The problem now is trying to establish a "level" for pot use. I suspect this will require a lot of judgement by law enforcement and that can be a problem.
My wife got pulled over for "impaired driving" once and I had to drive about an hour to get her out of jail. As far as I know, she was not under the influence of any drug or alcohol. They were nice about it, but told me she was driving very erratically. We got something to eat at a local 24 hr restaurant and I essentially proceeded to make my own evaluatin before she got back in her car.
-
I don't understand why statutory limits are even in place. If a person is not capable of safely piloting a vehicle (because they're tired or drunk or stoned or etc) then that's an issue. If someone is capable of meeting the standards we place for driving ability while being over some arbitrary limit then it's not.
-
I don't understand why statutory limits are even in place. If a person is not capable of safely piloting a vehicle (because they're tired or drunk or stoned or etc) then that's an issue. If someone is capable of meeting the standards we place for driving ability while being over some arbitrary limit then it's not.
I suspect it came about due to the arbitrary and capricious nature of vaguely defined field "impairment" examinations. You can't quantify a decrease in reflex speed and accuracy in the same way you can a chemical compound's concentration in the blood. The idiocy in question here is that the particular chemical compounds they are testing for are metabolites of the impairing chemicals, not the impairing chemicals themselves. They are good for telling you "person A consumed chemical X sometime up to Z time ago" but they do not tell you if said person A is presently impaired now due to consuming chemical X.
-
how about a test for things like lsd
-
I don't understand why statutory limits are even in place. If a person is not capable of safely piloting a vehicle (because they're tired or drunk or stoned or etc) then that's an issue. If someone is capable of meeting the standards we place for driving ability while being over some arbitrary limit then it's not.
1. Because the standards were invented before we had traffic cameras. At this time any discussion of the ticket in court would rest on the officer's analysis of the suspect's driving. "I saw him swerving! I did!"
2. Because the eventual goal of these measures is to discourage drinking qua drinking and drug use qua drug use. If you lower the treshold enough that even someone who only had one or two drinks cannot drive (already law in some Western countries), then naturally - this is the thought process - less people will drink.
Think of that as the drinking equivalent of bans on guns in certain workplaces and schools, or mass transit. If I cannot carry a gun at work, nor have it stored somewhere while at work, then I cannot be armed on my way home from work or to work either. If I cannot carry a gun on mass transit, then anyone who uses mass transit is effectively disarmed throghout the day.
-
1. Because the standards were invented before we had traffic cameras. At this time any discussion of the ticket in court would rest on the officer's analysis of the suspect's driving. "I saw him swerving! I did!"
2. Because the eventual goal of these measures is to discourage drinking qua drinking and drug use qua drug use. If you lower the treshold enough that even someone who only had one or two drinks cannot drive (already law in some Western countries), then naturally - this is the thought process - less people will drink.
Think of that as the drinking equivalent of bans on guns in certain workplaces and schools, or mass transit. If I cannot carry a gun at work, nor have it stored somewhere while at work, then I cannot be armed on my way home from work or to work either. If I cannot carry a gun on mass transit, then anyone who uses mass transit is effectively disarmed throghout the day.
Not only that, but the way some jurisdictions apply the law, it is a crime to drink and own a car :facepalm: