• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Drugged Driving

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
http://www.firerescue1.com/print.asp?act=print&vid=1368800


11/15/2012

Responders worry about road safety with legalized pot
Police are currently being trained on new blood-test limits for marijuana

By Kirsten Wyatt and Gene Johnson
Associated Press

DENVER — It's settled. Pot, at least certain amounts of it, will soon be legal under state laws in Washington and Colorado. Now, officials in both states are trying to figure out how to keep stoned drivers off the road.

Colorado's measure doesn't make any changes to the state's driving-under-the-influence laws, leaving lawmakers and police to worry about its effect on road safety.

"We're going to have more impaired drivers," warned John Jackson, police chief in the Denver suburb of Greenwood Village.

Washington's law does change DUI provisions by setting a new blood-test limit for marijuana a limit police are training to enforce, and which some lawyers are already gearing up to challenge.

"We've had decades of studies and experience with alcohol," said Washington State Patrol spokesman Dan Coon. "Marijuana is new, so it's going to take some time to figure out how the courts and prosecutors are going to handle it. But the key is impairment: We will arrest drivers who drive impaired, whether it be drugs or alcohol."

Drugged driving is illegal, and nothing in the measures that Washington and Colorado voters passed this month to tax and regulate the sale of pot for recreational use by adults over 21 changes that. But law enforcement officials wonder about whether the ability to buy or possess marijuana legally will bring about an increase of marijuana users on the roads.

Statistics gathered for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed that in 2009, a third of fatally injured drivers with known drug test results were positive for drugs other than alcohol. Among randomly stopped weekend nighttime drivers in 2007, more than 16 percent were positive for drugs.

Marijuana can cause dizziness and slowed reaction time, and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they're high.

Marijuana legalization activists agree people shouldn't smoke and drive. But setting a standard comparable to blood-alcohol limits has sparked intense disagreement, said Betty Aldworth, outreach director for Colorado's Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.

Most convictions for drugged driving currently are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test.

"There is not yet a consensus about the standard rate for THC impairment," Aldworth said, referring to the psychoactive chemical in marijuana.

Unlike portable breath tests for alcohol, there's no easily available way to determine whether someone is impaired from recent pot use.

There are different types of tests for marijuana. Many workplaces test for an inactive THC metabolite that can be stored in body fat and remain detectable weeks after use. But tests for current impairment measure for active THC in the blood, and those levels typically drop within hours.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, peak THC concentrations are reached during the act of smoking, and within three hours, they generally fall to less than 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood the same standard in Washington's law, one supporters describe as roughly equivalent to the .08 limit for alcohol.

Two other states Ohio and the medical marijuana state of Nevada _ have a limit of 2 nanograms of THC per milliliter. Pennsylvania's health department has a 5-nanogram guideline that can be introduced in driving violation cases, and a dozen states, including Illinois, Arizona, and Rhode Island, have zero-tolerance policies.

In Washington, police still have to observe signs of impaired driving before pulling someone over, Coon said. The blood would be drawn by a medical professional, and tests above 5 nanograms would automatically subject the driver to a DUI conviction.

Supporters of Washington's measure said they included the standard to allay fears that legalization could prompt a drugged-driving epidemic, but critics call it arbitrarily strict. They insist that medical patients who regularly use cannabis would likely fail even if they weren't impaired.

They also worry about the law's zero-tolerance policy for those under 21. College students who wind up convicted even if they weren't impaired could lose college loans, they argue.

Jon Fox, a Seattle-area DUI attorney, said he's interested in challenging Washington's new standard as unconstitutional. Under due process principles, he said, people are entitled to know what activity is prohibited. If scientists can't tell someone how much marijuana it will take for him or her to test over the threshold, how is the average pot user supposed to know?

By contrast, he noted, the science on alcohol is well established. Some states publish charts estimating how many drinks it will take a person of a certain weight over a certain time to reach .08.

But such a challenge to Nevada's marijuana DUI limit failed in 2002, when the state Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature has broad authority to set driving standards. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that case, said Las Vegas DUI attorney Michael Becker.

"Marijuana affects everyone differently," Becker said. "The prevailing opinion of forensic toxicologists is that a 2-nanograms standard, such as exists in Nevada, absolutely results in convictions where individuals are not actually under the influence. But the 5-nanograms standard more closely approaches the mean threshold of prevailing opinion."

Colorado's legalization measure didn't set a driving standard _ an intentional omission by the activists who wrote it because the issue has proven divisive. Lawmakers in Colorado, which has an established medical marijuana industry, have tried but failed three times to set a THC driving limit.

Drugged driving cases in Colorado were up even before the legalization vote. In 2009, the state toxicology lab obtained 791 THC-positive samples from suspected impaired drivers. Last year, it had 2,030 THC-positive samples.

Colorado lawmakers are preparing to take up driving standards yet again when they convene next year.

"I believe a 5-nanogram limit will save lives," said Colorado Republican state Sen. Steve King, sponsor of previous driving-high bills.


Med. Mary Jane use started here somewhere around '08, so this problem of impaired drivers has been an issue for a while now. Now with the carte blanche recreational use, the problems will undoubtedly increase.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Triangle Bar said:
http://www.firerescue1.com/print.asp?act=print&vid=1368800


11/15/2012

Responders worry about road safety with legalized pot
Police are currently being trained on new blood-test limits for marijuana

By Kirsten Wyatt and Gene Johnson
Associated Press

DENVER — It's settled. Pot, at least certain amounts of it, will soon be legal under state laws in Washington and Colorado. Now, officials in both states are trying to figure out how to keep stoned drivers off the road.

Colorado's measure doesn't make any changes to the state's driving-under-the-influence laws, leaving lawmakers and police to worry about its effect on road safety.

"We're going to have more impaired drivers," warned John Jackson, police chief in the Denver suburb of Greenwood Village.

Washington's law does change DUI provisions by setting a new blood-test limit for marijuana a limit police are training to enforce, and which some lawyers are already gearing up to challenge.

"We've had decades of studies and experience with alcohol," said Washington State Patrol spokesman Dan Coon. "Marijuana is new, so it's going to take some time to figure out how the courts and prosecutors are going to handle it. But the key is impairment: We will arrest drivers who drive impaired, whether it be drugs or alcohol."

Drugged driving is illegal, and nothing in the measures that Washington and Colorado voters passed this month to tax and regulate the sale of pot for recreational use by adults over 21 changes that. But law enforcement officials wonder about whether the ability to buy or possess marijuana legally will bring about an increase of marijuana users on the roads.

Statistics gathered for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed that in 2009, a third of fatally injured drivers with known drug test results were positive for drugs other than alcohol. Among randomly stopped weekend nighttime drivers in 2007, more than 16 percent were positive for drugs.

Marijuana can cause dizziness and slowed reaction time, and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they're high.

Marijuana legalization activists agree people shouldn't smoke and drive. But setting a standard comparable to blood-alcohol limits has sparked intense disagreement, said Betty Aldworth, outreach director for Colorado's Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.

Most convictions for drugged driving currently are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test.

"There is not yet a consensus about the standard rate for THC impairment," Aldworth said, referring to the psychoactive chemical in marijuana.

Unlike portable breath tests for alcohol, there's no easily available way to determine whether someone is impaired from recent pot use.

There are different types of tests for marijuana. Many workplaces test for an inactive THC metabolite that can be stored in body fat and remain detectable weeks after use. But tests for current impairment measure for active THC in the blood, and those levels typically drop within hours.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, peak THC concentrations are reached during the act of smoking, and within three hours, they generally fall to less than 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood the same standard in Washington's law, one supporters describe as roughly equivalent to the .08 limit for alcohol.

Two other states Ohio and the medical marijuana state of Nevada _ have a limit of 2 nanograms of THC per milliliter. Pennsylvania's health department has a 5-nanogram guideline that can be introduced in driving violation cases, and a dozen states, including Illinois, Arizona, and Rhode Island, have zero-tolerance policies.

In Washington, police still have to observe signs of impaired driving before pulling someone over, Coon said. The blood would be drawn by a medical professional, and tests above 5 nanograms would automatically subject the driver to a DUI conviction.

Supporters of Washington's measure said they included the standard to allay fears that legalization could prompt a drugged-driving epidemic, but critics call it arbitrarily strict. They insist that medical patients who regularly use cannabis would likely fail even if they weren't impaired.

They also worry about the law's zero-tolerance policy for those under 21. College students who wind up convicted even if they weren't impaired could lose college loans, they argue.

Jon Fox, a Seattle-area DUI attorney, said he's interested in challenging Washington's new standard as unconstitutional. Under due process principles, he said, people are entitled to know what activity is prohibited. If scientists can't tell someone how much marijuana it will take for him or her to test over the threshold, how is the average pot user supposed to know?

By contrast, he noted, the science on alcohol is well established. Some states publish charts estimating how many drinks it will take a person of a certain weight over a certain time to reach .08.

But such a challenge to Nevada's marijuana DUI limit failed in 2002, when the state Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature has broad authority to set driving standards. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that case, said Las Vegas DUI attorney Michael Becker.

"Marijuana affects everyone differently," Becker said. "The prevailing opinion of forensic toxicologists is that a 2-nanograms standard, such as exists in Nevada, absolutely results in convictions where individuals are not actually under the influence. But the 5-nanograms standard more closely approaches the mean threshold of prevailing opinion."

Colorado's legalization measure didn't set a driving standard _ an intentional omission by the activists who wrote it because the issue has proven divisive. Lawmakers in Colorado, which has an established medical marijuana industry, have tried but failed three times to set a THC driving limit.

Drugged driving cases in Colorado were up even before the legalization vote. In 2009, the state toxicology lab obtained 791 THC-positive samples from suspected impaired drivers. Last year, it had 2,030 THC-positive samples.

Colorado lawmakers are preparing to take up driving standards yet again when they convene next year.

"I believe a 5-nanogram limit will save lives," said Colorado Republican state Sen. Steve King, sponsor of previous driving-high bills.


Med. Mary Jane use started here somewhere around '08, so this problem of impaired drivers has been an issue for a while now. Now with the carte blanche recreational use, the problems will undoubtedly increase.

When I was in downtown Denver last spring it already looked like a reggae festival. This should up the quality of transplants to CO even more.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Just look at the new influx of people to Colo. If ya need people to hire there ought to be a bunch of applicants, again then there might be...never mind
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Americans Favor a New Approach to War on Drugs A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen

More than 40 years ago, the federal government launched a war on drugs. Over the past decade, the nation has spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting that war, a figure that does not even include the high costs of prosecuting and jailing drug law offenders. It's hard to put a price on that aspect of the drug war since half of all inmates in federal prison today were busted for drugs.

Despite the enormous expense and growth of the prison population, only 7 percent of American adults now think the United States is winning the War on Drugs. Eighty-two percent disagree. The latest statistics on drug usage support that conclusion.

Earlier this month, voters in Colorado and Washington sent the clearest signal yet that the nation is looking for a new approach to deal with the issue of drug abuse. They voted to legalize the use of marijuana in their states. Those decisions fly in the face of federal law and set the states on a collision course with the federal government.

But six out of 10 Americans believe the federal government should get out of the way and let individual states decide how they want to address the issue within their own borders. Only 27 percent think the federal government should establish national rules.

Underlying the public desire for a new approach is pragmatism. Nationally, 51 percent of Americans believe that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. Only 24 percent see pot as the more dangerous drug.

But that doesn't mean Americans simply want to legalize what you can buy on the street, eliminate the penalties and pretend there is no risk. The data confirms the innate sense of pragmatism driving public opinion. When we ask Americans simply whether they favor legalization of marijuana, 45 percent say yes and 45 percent say no.

But when we ask about legalizing and regulating marijuana in a similar manner to the way alcohol and cigarettes are regulated, support for legalization increases to 56 percent. Only 36 percent remain opposed.

Most support regulations that would make it illegal for those under 18 to purchase pot, insure that those who drive under the influence would receive strict penalties and favor a ban on smoking marijuana in public places.


Fifty-eight percent support a requirement that marijuana could be purchased only in pharmacies. A plurality thinks that would cut the income of those who continue to sell drugs illegally.

However, the most persuasive case for pragmatism in exploring new strategies for the War on Drugs can be found when the topic shifts from marijuana to cocaine. First, only 11 percent support the legalization of cocaine. They recognize a big difference between pot and cocaine. If nothing else, people will want to see how the legalization of marijuana will work out before going any further.

Yet, if voters knew for a fact that legalizing marijuana and cocaine would reduce drug violence along the Mexican border, 47 percent would even be open to legalizing and regulating cocaine. Just to be clear, voters are not at all ready to take that step today. Not even close.

But most are ready to legalize and regulate marijuana. They'd like to see the states experiment with a variety of approaches and monitor the results before deciding upon the next step. That's pragmatism. And that's the way people will evaluate the new approach to the War on Drugs.

It appears as tho in this ever evolving country-- more and more folks are accepting the Libertarian greater tolerance stance toward many of the old no-no issues like certain drugs and gay unions... And are telling the Federal government to get out of their lives.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Been there, done that. It wasn't worth the cost....................


This is not the first time legalization has come to the fore. In the 1970s, Alaska legalized the drug—only to recriminalize it in 1990 after Alaskan teen marijuana use jumped to twice the national average. This is clear evidence that if legalized, marijuana use will increase (even among children).

There are significant cost burdens that come along with increased marijuana use. For example, there will be a greater social cost from decline in worker productivity and school performance. Legalization will also lead to a greater need for drug education, rehabilitation and treatment. And there will be costs associated with selling the drug.

Do we really want our governments to sell substances known to be toxic to the body, and which has no medical value that is recognized by the medical community, for the sake of sheer profit? If this were a corporation proposing such a thing, it would be taken to court.

Consider these findings from a white paper by the California Police Chiefs Association’s Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries: California legalized “medical” marijuana in 1996, and dispensaries where the drug is handed out – to pretty much whoever comes in with a doctor’s note – have become catalysts for serious crime.

According to the white paper, dispensary operators have been attacked, robbed and murdered. Also, “drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy vehicle and foot traffic in retail areas, increased noise and robberies of customers just outside dispensaries” are all criminal byproducts resulting from California’s medical marijuana distribution. We can expect similar problems—but on a far grander scale—from full legalization.

Given these cost burdens—not to mention health and societal burdens—we should continue to focus efforts to discourage drug use. We can do this in a variety of ways. On alcohol and cigarettes, we require warnings and education. With methamphetamine, cocaine and other harmful drugs, we prohibit and criminalize their sale and use. While marijuana may not be as harmful and addictive as methamphetamine, it is harmful nonetheless, and the best economic policy is to make its sale and use illegal.

The additional costs of drug education and rehabilitation combined with the increased social costs associated with increased marijuana use and sale are all greater than the potential revenue gained through legalization.

Even with the U.S. economy struggling, we should not buy into the argument that vices should be legalized, taxed and regulated—no matter how much revenue we think it may generate.

Some things just aren’t worth the costs.
 

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
OT, there is no need to regurgitate your same arguments. It is still illegal at the fed level and I think the boot will be stomped on those who are in extreme violation but probably not the individual user.
The article I posted was about the ramifications of implementation... the foremost being DUI of marijuana. This is not the same pot that you grew up with. Like all drugs the more one uses it the less effect it has... and like all drugs its' potency has been increased over time by variety selection and other cultivation methods.

You have a multitude of vocations that are subject to drug testing. The CDL driver, equipment operator, train engineer, police officers, firefighters, doctors, etc, etc. What is a guaranteed safe level of THC in their blood stream? We know that THC is stored in body fat and is slowly released over time and it is detectable up to two weeks after ingestion. How does that effect motor control, memory recall, judgement, etc.?
I don't know. Do you? Do you care?

Forgive me but I find it hard to believe that apparently at one time you took an oath to 'protect and serve'.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Triangle Bar said:
OT, there is no need to regurgitate your same arguments. It is still illegal at the fed level and I think the boot will be stomped on those who are in extreme violation but probably not the individual user.
The article I posted was about the ramifications of implementation... the foremost being DUI of marijuana. This is not the same pot that you grew up with. Like all drugs the more one uses it the less effect it has... and like all drugs its' potency has been increased over time by variety selection and other cultivation methods.

You have a multitude of vocations that are subject to drug testing. The CDL driver, equipment operator, train engineer, police officers, firefighters, doctors, etc, etc. What is a guaranteed safe level of THC in their blood stream? We know that THC is stored in body fat and is slowly released over time and it is detectable up to two weeks after ingestion. How does that effect motor control, memory recall, judgement, etc.?
I don't know. Do you? Do you care?

Forgive me but I find it hard to believe that apparently at one time you took an oath to 'protect and serve'.

Good post, Triangle Bar.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Triangle Bar said:
OT, there is no need to regurgitate your same arguments. It is still illegal at the fed level and I think the boot will be stomped on those who are in extreme violation but probably not the individual user.
The article I posted was about the ramifications of implementation... the foremost being DUI of marijuana. This is not the same pot that you grew up with. Like all drugs the more one uses it the less effect it has... and like all drugs its' potency has been increased over time by variety selection and other cultivation methods.

You have a multitude of vocations that are subject to drug testing. The CDL driver, equipment operator, train engineer, police officers, firefighters, doctors, etc, etc. What is a guaranteed safe level of THC in their blood stream? We know that THC is stored in body fat and is slowly released over time and it is detectable up to two weeks after ingestion. How does that effect motor control, memory recall, judgement, etc.?
I don't know. Do you? Do you care?

Forgive me but I find it hard to believe that apparently at one time you took an oath to 'protect and serve'.

Triangle Bar-- I served several years working drug violations- and we took down and imprisoned many violators...
And now more money than ever is being spent to combat drug crimes and build prisons...BUT it isn't working... The Drug Cartels and criminals are winning...They have more money and better equipment then the police... I watched a documentary the other day where the cartels now have fleets of submarines to smuggle in their dope...

Personally- I would like to see much more spent on education prevention and treatment... In Montana we have one program that has worked well- that was began by a Montana billionaire- but that needs to be strenghtened and continued:
http://montana.methproject.org/


Triangle Bar-Soapweed--What ideas do you guys have to keep us from losing this war on drugs...Lets hear some positive input rather than just all criticism....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
If oldtimer done everything he claims to have done he would be 180 yrs old,,,,More than likely one of his handlers posted that garbage as he is too drunk to talk even close to intelligently :D
 

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
One of the most effective anti drug efforts was Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' to drugs campaign. I know it was poo pooed by some saying it was to simplistic, but the statistics show that use among high schoolers was on the gain in the late 70's started to decline during the mid 80's. So yes, education plays a big role.

The question I raised wasn't answered. Two states have legalized recreational use. What are the workplace implications? I'm assuming that an employer cannot fire someone who now tests positive for THC since it is legal, at least at the state level. So what do you do with the heavy equipment operator who tests positive? you can't fire him... can you trust him with a $100,000 piece of equipment?

I guess I just think that medical marijuana was just to get the camel's nose under the tent. Now the camel is in the tent... opening Pandora's Box.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Triangle Bar said:
One of the most effective anti drug efforts was Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' to drugs campaign. I know it was poo pooed by some saying it was to simplistic, but the statistics show that use among high schoolers was on the gain in the late 70's started to decline during the mid 80's. So yes, education plays a big role.

The question I raised wasn't answered. Two states have legalized recreational use. What are the workplace implications? I'm assuming that an employer cannot fire someone who now tests positive for THC since it is legal, at least at the state level. So what do you do with the heavy equipment operator who tests positive? you can't fire him... can you trust him with a $100,000 piece of equipment?

I guess I just think that medical marijuana was just to get the camel's nose under the tent. Now the camel is in the tent... opening Pandora's Box.

I don't know why not- you can fire employees for testing positive for alcohol- and its legal... It will just mean setting up a standard for what will be allowed and what won't...

If you read back in history of the number of our forefather Presidents and Congressmen that used all types of different drugs and alcohol (that were all legal back then) you would wonder how this country existed as long as it does...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
I can see it now, all the dope smokers are packing their bags for Washington and Colorado. They just need to find where the local welfare office is so they can check in the minute they get there.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
He!! he cannot even be objective about something as simple as what bait to use for fishing, do you excpect him to show commen sense about this...as far as being fired for testing positive for alcohol whould have to see proof positive of that happenig a lot,,,not just something oldtimer posts because of his tendancy to not be truthful.....
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Triangle Bar said:
OT, there is no need to regurgitate your same arguments. It is still illegal at the fed level and I think the boot will be stomped on those who are in extreme violation but probably not the individual user.
The article I posted was about the ramifications of implementation... the foremost being DUI of marijuana. This is not the same pot that you grew up with. Like all drugs the more one uses it the less effect it has... and like all drugs its' potency has been increased over time by variety selection and other cultivation methods.

You have a multitude of vocations that are subject to drug testing. The CDL driver, equipment operator, train engineer, police officers, firefighters, doctors, etc, etc. What is a guaranteed safe level of THC in their blood stream? We know that THC is stored in body fat and is slowly released over time and it is detectable up to two weeks after ingestion. How does that effect motor control, memory recall, judgement, etc.?
I don't know. Do you? Do you care?

Forgive me but I find it hard to believe that apparently at one time you took an oath to 'protect and serve'.

Triangle Bar-- I served several years working drug violations- and we took down and imprisoned many violators...
And now more money than ever is being spent to combat drug crimes and build prisons...BUT it isn't working... The Drug Cartels and criminals are winning...They have more money and better equipment then the police... I watched a documentary the other day where the cartels now have fleets of submarines to smuggle in their dope...

Personally- I would like to see much more spent on education prevention and treatment... In Montana we have one program that has worked well- that was began by a Montana billionaire- but that needs to be strenghtened and continued:
http://montana.methproject.org/


Triangle Bar-Soapweed--What ideas do you guys have to keep us from losing this war on drugs...Lets hear some positive input rather than just all criticism....

We don't need more rules; we need less. However, we do need to enforce the rules that we have. Oldtimer, you consider yourself an Independent and not a follower of the "cults" of being Democrat or Republican. You can pat yourself on the back all day long on your "being your own man" "John Wayne" swaggering image of yourself, but your actions speak much louder than words. Actually, come to think of it, we haven't seen you in action, but we do have a chance to soak up your type-written words almost daily. In listening to your endless words, you are very much a Liberal Democrat.

As the line in the song goes: "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." In your own words: "The Drug Cartels and criminals are winning...They have more money and better equipment then the police..." Now you and most other Liberals think since we are having trouble winning the war on drugs, we should just "throw in the towel" and legalize it so it's no longer a problem. :roll: :? :???: :roll:

With the same wonderful Liberal slant on things, maybe all other crimes should also be made legal for the same reason. Then folks could steal, murder, rape, and pillage all they want, with no repercussions such as paying for their crimes. Are you thinking, "If you can't beat them, join them." ??? :roll:

The only rules any of us need to follow are the Ten Commandments, as put forth in God's Holy Word. If everyone followed the Ten Commandments, there would be no need for any other laws, rules, or regulations. The Liberals (this includes you) don't even want the Ten Commandments posted so people can read them. Possibly if more people had a chance to see the Ten Commandments, they might have opportunity to soak up some guidance for their lives. You and all other Liberals want to distance yourselves from any Christian principles whatsoever. The United States of America was established on Christian principles. God has given His blessing on this wonderful nation for more than 200 years. These blessings will cease to flow when we turn our backs on Him.

As an afterthought, Oldtimer, I will bet you fifty bucks you don't attend any church services today. If you do attend one hour of any church's service, I will give this church the fifty bucks. If you don't attend a church today, you won't owe me a thing. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Soapweed said:
Oldtimer said:
Triangle Bar said:
OT, there is no need to regurgitate your same arguments. It is still illegal at the fed level and I think the boot will be stomped on those who are in extreme violation but probably not the individual user.
The article I posted was about the ramifications of implementation... the foremost being DUI of marijuana. This is not the same pot that you grew up with. Like all drugs the more one uses it the less effect it has... and like all drugs its' potency has been increased over time by variety selection and other cultivation methods.

You have a multitude of vocations that are subject to drug testing. The CDL driver, equipment operator, train engineer, police officers, firefighters, doctors, etc, etc. What is a guaranteed safe level of THC in their blood stream? We know that THC is stored in body fat and is slowly released over time and it is detectable up to two weeks after ingestion. How does that effect motor control, memory recall, judgement, etc.?
I don't know. Do you? Do you care?

Forgive me but I find it hard to believe that apparently at one time you took an oath to 'protect and serve'.

Triangle Bar-- I served several years working drug violations- and we took down and imprisoned many violators...
And now more money than ever is being spent to combat drug crimes and build prisons...BUT it isn't working... The Drug Cartels and criminals are winning...They have more money and better equipment then the police... I watched a documentary the other day where the cartels now have fleets of submarines to smuggle in their dope...

Personally- I would like to see much more spent on education prevention and treatment... In Montana we have one program that has worked well- that was began by a Montana billionaire- but that needs to be strenghtened and continued:
http://montana.methproject.org/


Triangle Bar-Soapweed--What ideas do you guys have to keep us from losing this war on drugs...Lets hear some positive input rather than just all criticism....

We don't need more rules; we need less. However, we do need to enforce the rules that we have. Oldtimer, you consider yourself an Independent and not a follower of the "cults" of being Democrat or Republican. You can pat yourself on the back all day long on your "being your own man" "John Wayne" swaggering image of yourself, but your actions speak much louder than words. Actually, come to think of it, we haven't seen you in action, but we do have a chance to soak up your type-written words almost daily. In listening to your endless words, you are very much a Liberal Democrat.

As the line in the song goes: "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." In your own words: "The Drug Cartels and criminals are winning...They have more money and better equipment then the police..." Now you and most other Liberals think since we are having trouble winning the war on drugs, we should just "throw in the towel" and legalize it so it's no longer a problem. :roll: :? :???: :roll:

With the same wonderful Liberal slant on things, maybe all other crimes should also be made legal for the same reason. Then folks could steal, murder, rape, and pillage all they want, with no repercussions such as paying for their crimes. Are you thinking, "If you can't beat them, join them." ??? :roll:

The only rules any of us need to follow are the Ten Commandments, as put forth in God's Holy Word. If everyone followed the Ten Commandments, there would be no need for any other laws, rules, or regulations. The Liberals (this includes you) don't even want the Ten Commandments posted so people can read them. Possibly if more people had a chance to see the Ten Commandments, they might have opportunity to soak up some guidance for their lives. You and all other Liberals want to distance yourselves from any Christian principles whatsoever. The United States of America was established on Christian principles. God has given His blessing on this wonderful nation for more than 200 years. These blessings will cease to flow when we turn our backs on Him.

As an afterthought, Oldtimer, I will bet you fifty bucks you don't attend any church services today. If you do attend one hour of any church's service, I will give this church the fifty bucks. If you don't attend a church today, you won't owe me a thing. :wink:


Preach all you want Soap--BUT in other words- you're like all the others- and have no real answers to how to solve these problems of the real world- and namely the War on Drugs... We should just keep spending more tax dollars hiring more and more law enforcement and building more prisons...

BUT then we have to listen to folks like you whine and cry when anyone suggests raising your taxes to pay for these services :? :wink:

Since I spent years working seeing the real world while others sat in Church I've no longer needed a weekly Church visit to communicate with my God....If that is your need- so be it....
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Soapweed said:
Oldtimer said:
Triangle Bar-- I served several years working drug violations- and we took down and imprisoned many violators...
And now more money than ever is being spent to combat drug crimes and build prisons...BUT it isn't working... The Drug Cartels and criminals are winning...They have more money and better equipment then the police... I watched a documentary the other day where the cartels now have fleets of submarines to smuggle in their dope...

Personally- I would like to see much more spent on education prevention and treatment... In Montana we have one program that has worked well- that was began by a Montana billionaire- but that needs to be strenghtened and continued:
http://montana.methproject.org/


Triangle Bar-Soapweed--What ideas do you guys have to keep us from losing this war on drugs...Lets hear some positive input rather than just all criticism....

We don't need more rules; we need less. However, we do need to enforce the rules that we have. Oldtimer, you consider yourself an Independent and not a follower of the "cults" of being Democrat or Republican. You can pat yourself on the back all day long on your "being your own man" "John Wayne" swaggering image of yourself, but your actions speak much louder than words. Actually, come to think of it, we haven't seen you in action, but we do have a chance to soak up your type-written words almost daily. In listening to your endless words, you are very much a Liberal Democrat.

As the line in the song goes: "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." In your own words: "The Drug Cartels and criminals are winning...They have more money and better equipment then the police..." Now you and most other Liberals think since we are having trouble winning the war on drugs, we should just "throw in the towel" and legalize it so it's no longer a problem. :roll: :? :???: :roll:

With the same wonderful Liberal slant on things, maybe all other crimes should also be made legal for the same reason. Then folks could steal, murder, rape, and pillage all they want, with no repercussions such as paying for their crimes. Are you thinking, "If you can't beat them, join them." ??? :roll:

The only rules any of us need to follow are the Ten Commandments, as put forth in God's Holy Word. If everyone followed the Ten Commandments, there would be no need for any other laws, rules, or regulations. The Liberals (this includes you) don't even want the Ten Commandments posted so people can read them. Possibly if more people had a chance to see the Ten Commandments, they might have opportunity to soak up some guidance for their lives. You and all other Liberals want to distance yourselves from any Christian principles whatsoever. The United States of America was established on Christian principles. God has given His blessing on this wonderful nation for more than 200 years. These blessings will cease to flow when we turn our backs on Him.

As an afterthought, Oldtimer, I will bet you fifty bucks you don't attend any church services today. If you do attend one hour of any church's service, I will give this church the fifty bucks. If you don't attend a church today, you won't owe me a thing. :wink:


Preach all you want Soap--BUT in other words- you're like all the others- and have no real answers to how to solve these problems of the real world- and namely the War on Drugs... We should just keep spending more tax dollars hiring more and more law enforcement and building more prisons...

BUT then we have to listen to folks like you whine and cry when anyone suggests raising your taxes to pay for these services :? :wink:

Since I spent years working seeing the real world while others sat in Church I've no longer needed a weekly Church visit to communicate with my God....If that is your need- so be it....

That is your typical B.S. statement that I expected. Here is an example of where our taxes are going under the guidance of Liberal entitlement programs. Oh, what a productive society we have become.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/22449-judge-judy-makes-incredible-entitlement-argument-send-this-tape-to-congress/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"What the country needs is dirtier fingernails and cleaner minds."

-- Will Rogers

Which brings to question is cleaner minds (morality) the job of government-- or should that be the responsibility of the Preachers and Churchs :???:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
"What the country needs is dirtier fingernails and cleaner minds."

-- Will Rogers

Since I spent years working seeing the real world while others sat in Church I've no longer needed a weekly Church visit to communicate with my God....If that is your need- so be it....

Which brings to question is cleaner minds (morality) the job of government-- or should that be the responsibility of the Preachers and Churchs :???:

How in the world can the preachers and churches promote cleaner minds and morality if you don't show up? :???: :? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Soapweed said:
Oldtimer said:
"What the country needs is dirtier fingernails and cleaner minds."

-- Will Rogers

Since I spent years working seeing the real world while others sat in Church I've no longer needed a weekly Church visit to communicate with my God....If that is your need- so be it....

Which brings to question is cleaner minds (morality) the job of government-- or should that be the responsibility of the Preachers and Churchs :???:

How in the world can the preachers and churches promote cleaner minds and morality if you don't show up? :???: :? :roll:

So are you now claiming your holier than thou attitude gives you a cleaner mind and higher morality... :???:

I've seen several of the every Sunday front pew bible thumpers and even a few preachers be hauled off to prison when the truth was revealed.. Some for the most heinous sex and moral crimes you could imagine...

You need to step out and see the real world.... Just because someone sits in church every Sunday does not make them of high moral quality or a cleaner mind... :wink: :(
 
Top