Members Alex_SF Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 It would make a most interesting Supreme Court case, no doubt. And a slam-dunk for the Feds in all likliehood. Such a slam dunk that it would never get to the Supreme Court. The issue has already been decided, in Gonzalez v. Raich, a few years ago, so the court of appeals would have to follow Raich and the Supreme Court would probably deny certiorari (decline to hear the case on appeal from the circuit court of appeals). Short version of Raich: a previous Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn(*), means that the federal government is allowed to regulate under the Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution even activity that is wholly intrastate. That, combined with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, means that even if legal under state law, pot is still illegal under federal law, even where no interstate commerce is involved. (*) One of the worst examples of result-based jurisprudence I've ever read, like shooting a hole in a wall (the result the justices wanted to reach) and then painting a target around it (crafting a convoluted excuse for legal reasoning to justify that result). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimbroni Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Still, I'd rather have a bunch of mere stoners on the road than a bunch of distracted, clueless, and stone sober assholes blabbing on cell phones, fiddling with their GPSes, texting, eating Taco Bell take-out, and turning around to yell at their kids in the back seat while driving.Oh but wait, we already have the latter. One of them killed a friend of mine by pulling out into traffic right in front of him without looking (her cell phone conversation was just too important) while he was riding his motorcycle. Never knew anybody killed by a pot smoker. Good analogy. I actually thought about the samething when I first went on my little diatribe about POT dui's. While motor skills may not be affected as bad or at all in some cases. Distraction levels are affected. Not necessarily concentration levels because a lot of time pot will make you concentrate more, but it can make you concentrate on the wrong things when driving. Like music on the radio, beautiful scenery, people on the street, or some fantasy in your head, etc. It is a lot like people who are talking on phones getting excited into euphoria or rage or anxiety depending on the phone call, and guess what they aren't paying attention to the road. They actually go into hyper concentration, but that concentration is focused on the phone call rather than driving. As far as the second part, well therein lies the problem I was trying to explain. There is no way to accurately test if someone is high or not. You can only test if they have used within the last 30 days or 2 weeks or whatever. There is no way to prove or disprove how many stoned drivers have been involved in fatal car accidents. There is no way to obtain that data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boosh Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 As far as the second part, well therein lies the problem I was trying to explain. There is no way to accurately test if someone is high or not. You can only test if they have used within the last 30 days or 2 weeks or whatever. There is no way to prove or disprove how many stoned drivers have been involved in fatal car accidents. There is no way to obtain that data. Obsolete info. There's equipment overhere that exactly points out how much ganja you smoked on the spot. The Dutch government is trying to make a new law that permits officers to use that equipment as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimbroni Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Obsolete info. There's equipment overhere that exactly points out how much ganja you smoked on the spot. The Dutch government is trying to make a new law that permits officers to use that equipment as we speak. Really. That's very cutting edge. And like I said earlier legalization, would force those kind of developments here as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonotes Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 There is no way to prove or disprove how many stoned drivers have been involved in fatal car accidents. There is no way to obtain that data. The problem is that virtually all of those stoned drivers that are involved in accidents have also been drinking. We don't know if the THC traces they exhibit are from twenty minutes before the crash, or twenty days. And frankly, we don't want to know. That might take away from the booga-booga scary factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phait Posted March 17, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Why do you think the Indians never made any substantial technological leaps or advanced their civilization much farther than living in teepees, hunting Buffalo, and making weapons out of flint and sticks after they'd been in the U.S for 30 - 40,000 years. C'mon you guys know what pot does to people. Be real... Oh jesus. Well, considering whitey came over and {censored}ed it all up (before Natives could co-exist with them and the things they'd introduced) who's to say they wouldn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hard Truth Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Why do you think the Indians never made any substantial technological leaps or advanced their civilization much farther than living in teepees, hunting Buffalo, and making weapons out of flint and sticks after they'd been in the U.S for 30 - 40,000 years. C'mon you guys know what pot does to people. Be real... Do you have a source to backup the assertion that North American natives were major users of marijuana? I never saw an indication of that in any of the many museums with Native American exhibits I have visited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Synonym Music Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 New tokers definitely have problems with driving high -- concentration, focus, attention, etc. Experienced tokers can handle it just fine, but the period you have to go through to get experienced makes me reluctant to say that driving stoned isn't a problem. And that scene in The Big Lebowski where the Dude drops the roach in his lap and crashes his car as a result was funny because it was totally plausible.Still, I'd rather have a bunch of mere stoners on the road than a bunch of distracted, clueless, and stone sober assholes blabbing on cell phones, fiddling with their GPSes, texting, eating Taco Bell take-out, and turning around to yell at their kids in the back seat while driving.Oh but wait, we already have the latter. One of them killed a friend of mine by pulling out into traffic right in front of him without looking (her cell phone conversation was just too important) while he was riding his motorcycle. Never knew anybody killed by a pot smoker. Since you've obviously got a bone to pick, I'll ignore your weak point. You can't talk on a cell phone and smoke a joint at the same time? They're not mutually exclusive. What is a problem for one person can be a problem for anyone.. Yet not everyone smokes pot. Is there also no gray area? What about people who don't use a cell-phone while driving, don't eat fast food, don't text, don't have kids to yell at in the back seat, don't smoke marijuana, and are otherwise undistracted? Certainly they exist. Certainly they have a stake in this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members whiteop Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 I just wanted to out you dope fiends...See you fell for it. See what pot does to your minds? Mission accomplished... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FireWithin Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 It's a misconception that pot is legal in Holland (and if that status has changed, I'm sure Boosh can correct me). It's a small distinction, but officially, it's "permitted." In other words, the cops aren't going to hassle you if you're smoking a joint. But if you're problematic for other reasons, they can haul you in for smoking if they want to.Last time I checked, of all the western industrialized countries, Holland has the lowest per capita pot usage. I don't think that's a coincidence.As to California, like it or not, it's de facto legal now. The economy of places like Humboldt county depend on it. If it was controlled by the state, it would provide a) a major revenue stream, b) unclog significant portions of the criminal justice system, c) reduce the power of the Mexican drug cartels a bit, d) reduce taxpayer load. It could also be exported to states like New Mexico, which are on the verge of legalization medical pot.As to pothead drivers, they're already out there. Legalization or de-criminalization will not cause people to say "Wow! I've been waiting for this so I can get stoned out of my brain and go driving!" People can be arrested for driving while impaired regardless of what drug they're taking.All in all, I see very little downside and a lot of upside. ANDERTON FOR PRES. 2012!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 after they'd been in the U.S for 30 - 40,000 years. Most of the archaeological data suggests it is more like 10-12,000 years - it just seems longer because of the herb you've been smoking. :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 But humans (and the planet on which we live) have only existed for 6,000 years. Don't you people read your Bibles? What's wrong with you? Marijuana was invented by Satan in the '60s to tempt man toward homosexuality and communism. I'm surprised more of you upstanding folks aren't aware of that. Smoke weed, go straight to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boosh Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.