Jeff Sessions to Wage War on Legal Marijuana. The KKK is fine with him though.

[Ira500]

Originally Posted by robrath

That right there is the reason it will remain legal. The federal government already prohibits MJ and so far they have done nothing. Maybe it is time to legalize coke and heroin as well, seeing how well MJ crashed the illegal trade and brought prices down, after all, it is now considered a "right to inhale". More $ to the states right? how about legalize prostitution as well and tax it? As long as it is more $ to the state coffers.

I'm not sure about legalizing meth, or heroin, or crack. Though maybe if it were legal and treated as a disease rather than a criminal act, robberies, etc. would be reduced as a result. But if something barely has any impact on me, I have no problem with it being legal. There are enough actual crimes for the police to focus on. Pimping should be illegal. But prostitution? It's not like keeping it illegal has made it disappear.

[treuphax]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

With California adding to Washington/Colorado/Oregon/Alaska and others, any crackdown will create at the least a very large backlash, and at worst, riots. My hope is the new administration understands this and will back off, but with Trump nothing would surprise me.

If TPTB really wanted to control the public, they should encourage citizens to get high.

Distracted, high and docile means less likely to resist, protest & cause trouble. I'm no fan of weed, but if it makes people calmer & less aggressive, (even behind the wheel) maybe it's not such a bad thing? Recently I read that a study showed that in jurisdictions with legal cannabis, motor accidents / fatalities declined. The drivers may be high, but might they be less in a hurry, less aggressive, less susceptible to road rage? Of course I'm not defending driving high; I'm sure it's' a bad idea. But it's clear the Seattle Police have other priorities than stopping toking motorists. As a pedestrian or cyclist, it's usually pretty clear which cars passing by aren't waiting until they get home to enjoy smoking their cannabis. If the strong skunky clouds coming out of so many cars isn't enough probable cause to stop the drivers, I don't know what is. It's really common. You never have to wait 5 minutes to smell another skunkmobile drive by.

[perigee]

All impaired drivers should be punished, driving is dangerous and lives are at risk, that being said I remember talking to an off duty officer about his job and he mentioned they can always tell the really stoned drivers because they are driving so very s l o o o w, so maybe treuphax is on to something?

Again, don't drive drunk, stoned, high and put your cell phone down!

[Blondebaerde]

Originally Posted by perigee

All impaired drivers should be punished, driving is dangerous and lives are at risk, that being said I remember talking to an off duty officer about his job and he mentioned they can always tell the really stoned drivers because they are driving so very s l o o o w, so maybe treuphax is on to something?

Again, don't drive drunk, stoned, high and put your cell phone down!

I was on a jury trial in King County in 2015 where we, based on the evidence, had to find the defendant "Not Guilty" due to vagueness in what constitutes "impaired" or "under the influence" vis a vis being high under WA law. Wonder if they've changed the law since, they usually do when case like ours slide under the door of reasonable doubt.

The officer's testimony was compelling enough, as was the evidence we were allowed to see. We suspected there was DUI evidence, too, but wasn't presented in court so legally "did not exist" for whatever reason.

Definitely interesting, and I don't know how to measure sobriety in such a case. There may be a way, but it needs to be codified similar to drinking and driving: we all know about those standards, the law has decided they are "objective" measurements of impairment.

[perigee]

Thanks for sharing, Blondebaerde that's really interesting and I didn't know it was so vague. Also, thanks for doing jury duty that's a thankless job, but one of the foundations of our country and having to stick to the rules even when you suspect that the defendant was guilty while sucks, it keeps the system honest. Hopefully the person learned their lesson and won't push it again.

[Ira500]

Originally Posted by Blondebaerde

I was on a jury trial in King County in 2015 where we, based on the evidence, had to find the defendant "Not Guilty" due to vagueness in what constitutes "impaired" or "under the influence" vis a vis being high under WA law. Wonder if they've changed the law since, they usually do when case like ours slide under the door of reasonable doubt.

The officer's testimony was compelling enough, as was the evidence we were allowed to see. We suspected there was DUI evidence, too, but wasn't presented in court so legally "did not exist" for whatever reason.

Definitely interesting, and I don't know how to measure sobriety in such a case. There may be a way, but it needs to be codified similar to drinking and driving: we all know about those standards, the law has decided they are "objective" measurements of impairment.

As I understand it, you can be arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana if you test at .05 nanograms or higher. But because marijuana stays in fat cells for an extended period of time, that doesn't necessarily indicate impairment. For example, if you smoke pot regularly, but haven't smoked in a week, and get pulled over and tested, you may very well test over.05 nanograms, because it's still in your system. And if you never smoke pot, except right before getting pulled over by the cops, you might test under .05 nanograms because it hasn't built up in your system.
About 15 years ago when I was a union shop steward, I had to defend someone who tested positive(over.05) nanograms, after an accident. He had just gone back to work after a back injury. During the injury at home he chose to smoke pot rather than take pain pills. A week or two after going back to work, the accident involved him seeing a car head straight toward him( driving the waterfront streetcar) and he got the streetcar stopped, but the motorist drove right into the side of the streetcar. It was ruled a non preventable accident by Metro, but because he tested over .05 nanograms, he got fired.

[cdelena]

The issue is not really with the AG, but with Congress. Marijuana is not legal in federal law and that has what made the use so complicated.

[AADAD]

i hope my post here is received well. Like many I used when I was young, and suffered for it. Poor emotional controls, poorer study habits and I could not take most things seriously. It was a good ride but IT WAS NOT REALISTIC.

That said there is clearly a place for pain relief and preventing nausea and vomiting as well as ameliorating the side effects of many chemotherapy medications. But I worry about people who don't really need it. Traffic crashes, lack of attention to detail and no testing as yet for people who drive while using.

I recommend to those who are considering it, watch to see if it changes your performance, your safety at work and on the road and be honest with yourself about whether it's a benefit or a harm. It's a big trend in our society and I think candidly that it's not all for the good.

[dtuba]

The State of WA made, what like $250 million dollars in MJ tax revenue last year? Almost as much as sales of hard alcohol over the same period. It's a cash cow in this state and other western states where it's legal.

Good luck trying to put that genie back in the bottle. I don't see it happening.