More evidence for legalization...

[smooth]

The only thing that is subjective is an officer's determination whether the person pulled over is actually under the influence during a field sobriety test. Officers can, and do, draw blood for an objective test but that isn't necessary to "prove" anything since the determination of the field sobriety test is sufficient in a court of law (and more than 90% of cases don't go to trial meaning that discussion of what happens at trial is almost always irrelevant).

The only time an officer will need to resort to an objective test is when he or she tests someone and can't find any visible signs of intoxication but believes there to be some anyway--just like when testing for alcohol.

Aside from that, laws also exist in all states that prohibit driving while impaired in any form or fashion. That means if you are operating a motor vehicle while using pain killers, narcotics, or even just plain tired you can and will be prosecuted.

The only thing that is subjective is the officers' determination of whether you are or are not impaired and I guess I'll just leave it to people's common sense to figure out whether this means lots of drivers get to drive impaired without consequence or lots of unimpaired drivers have to fight their way out of tickets by somehow "proving" they weren't impaired.

[joshh]

The only thing that is subjective is an officer's determination whether the person pulled over is actually under the influence during a field sobriety test. Officers can, and do, draw blood for an objective test but that isn't necessary to "prove" anything since the determination of the field sobriety test is sufficient in a court of law (and more than 90% of cases don't go to trial meaning that discussion of what happens at trial is almost always irrelevant).

The only time an officer will need to resort to an objective test is when he or she tests someone and can't find any visible signs of intoxication but believes there to be some anyway--just like when testing for alcohol.

Aside from that, laws also exist in all states that prohibit driving while impaired in any form or fashion. That means if you are operating a motor vehicle while using pain killers, narcotics, or even just plain tired you can and will be prosecuted.

The only thing that is subjective is the officers' determination of whether you are or are not impaired and I guess I'll just leave it to people's common sense to figure out whether this means lots of drivers get to drive impaired without consequence or lots of unimpaired drivers have to fight their way out of tickets by somehow "proving" they weren't impaired.

Read the link. Taking blood from someone does not prove in any way they were driving under the influence of marijuana. It just proves they have or don't have THC in their blood. Giving a drunk person a sobriety test is much more clear than someone under the influence of marijuana because marijuana has much more varying effects on people than alcohol. And both the breathalyzer and blood tests for alcohol are what is currently in their system.

Z31 either just doesn't know this or is trying his usual "I'm so superior to you I don't need to make any real points, just throw stupid comments at you to try to get you to be quiet so I can feel good about myself" bullshit.

[smooth]

Read the link. Taking blood from someone does not prove in any way they were driving under the influence of marijuana. It just proves they have or don't have THC in their blood. Giving a drunk person a sobriety test is much more clear than someone under the influence of marijuana because marijuana has much more varying effects on people than alcohol. And both the breathalyzer and blood tests for alcohol are what is currently in their system.

Z31 either just doesn't know this or is trying his usual "I'm so superior to you I don't need to make any real points, just throw stupid comments at you to try to get you to be quiet so I can feel good about myself" bullshit.

I read the link. I'm going to trust my own understanding the law and criminal trial process over an anonymous law firm presenting information intended to get me to spend my money hiring them to defend me against that kind of a charge.

If you actually take the case to trial, and if your lawyer actually makes the argument to a jury that a blood test doesn't prove you were, and then the cop is going to get on the stand and say he's had so many years of experience in the field, so many hours of special training, and in his expert opinion you were high and the jury will believe him and convict.

If you don't believe this then go down to your local courthouse and you'll probably only have to wait 5 minutes before you see a case plead out just like this. Then ask one of the public defenders about this legal theory of yours and why they don't just take it to trial and argue there's no proof.

Or maybe you can figure out on your own why it'd be a stupid defense to argue that the reason you had THC in your bloodstream was because you ingested it some other time and see what a cop, DA, judge, or jury does with that information.

[Mr.SWISS]

It actually would have very real effects on the drug trade, trafficking, illegal immigration and violence in Mexico due to cartels as well as drastically decreasing prison population and freeing up police and DEA budgets.

This^

Plus the econo benifits of taxation. And the blue collar worker benifits from not failing his piss test because he got slobber drunk and hit the bleezy on NYE and isn't a consistent smoker. Pops hot and loses the J O B and is now on to hangin with meth heads now high on dope and skitzin around town robbin and stealin. Or just stealin and doin crime to get eat/get by.

But dude came to work everyday on time, does a fantastic job and is a model employee.

It's Bullshit.

And the other side is the longer we wait the more money is amassed via the cartels and the more power they gain. No different than oil IMO.

It was said that the most fragile states in 2007 were Afghanistan and Mexico. And we sent our troops across the world while we are being invaded daily by ruthless killers.

I know we got a LOT of Yankee doodles on this board and you guys have NO IDEA how bad it really is down there. I have family in Tejas and can tell you entire families disappearing is not uncommon at all.....

And if they show up it's usually in pieces decorating a religious shrine.

What a bunch of greedy sick twisted fucks. Goes to show religion has NO effect on society morality. IDK how many times I have been treated with rude disrespect by a persecuted christian lolz.

[z31maniac]

Z31 either just doesn't know this or is trying his usual "I'm so superior to you I don't need to make any real points, just throw stupid comments at you to try to get you to be quiet so I can feel good about myself" bullshit.

Hahahaha, I love you too.

[Dozyproductions]

Or maybe you can figure out on your own why it'd be a stupid defense to argue that the reason you had THC in your bloodstream was because you ingested it some other time and see what a cop, DA, judge, or jury does with that information.

Then you're practically saying that the judgement in court whether you were high or not while driving is also subjective. (in terms that no real hard evidence is needed)

[smooth]

Then you're practically saying that the judgement in court whether you were high or not while driving is also subjective. (in terms that no real hard evidence is needed)

You can only say it's subjective if you want to say that all legal cases are subjective. But that's a pointless semantic position that implies opinion could go one way or another depending on the person making the decision.

That's not how the law operates. Your test results that demonstrate you have any substances in your body will be introduced as factual evidence. The officer testifying that his expertise based on years of experience and however many weeks special training along with what he observed you doing that led to him pulling you over, your demeanor, and your physiological condition are all going to be introduced as fact.

The jury will decide whether those facts rise to the level of a conviction. In theory they are supposed to acquit unless convinced beyond a reasonable doubt but a jury is not going to go against the word of a uniformed police officer telling them that the evidence all proves that you were using drugs.

DUI arrests are subjective, too. If you ask around you'll find out that people can and are arrested for DUI even though their BAC is under the legal limit. But saying it's subjective doesn't mean that anyone *won't* be arrested for a BAC that is higher than the limit.

I also pointed that over 90% of cases do not go to trial and if you think the few cases that go to jury or bench trials result in acquittals more often than conviction allow me to disabuse you of that notion before you get yourself in deep problems. The cause of that is mainly because of what I wrote above. No worthwhile attorney is going to expose a client to jail or prison time for a minor offense that can be plead out for a diversion class and hopefully avoiding a loss of license.

What exactly is your position?
You're going to argue to a cop that you have substance in your body because you got high at some point but you aren't currently high?

You're going to argue to a jury that you have substance in your body because you got high at some point but you weren't currently high when the cop thought so?

Or you're not going to say anything and just have an attorney tell everyone that they have no proof?

[Dozyproductions]

What exactly is your position?
You're going to argue to a cop that you have substance in your body because you got high at some point but you aren't currently high?

You're going to argue to a jury that you have substance in your body because you got high at some point but you weren't currently high when the cop thought so?

Or you're not going to say anything and just have an attorney tell everyone that they have no proof?

True true, it's not a very promising situation.

And not being confrontational but where do you get this 90% figure from? It would be interesting to see some more statistics! But your reasoning behind why so many cases don't make it to trial sounds like mere speculation unless you can say otherwise. What if the fact is that the client thinks they have a case but then revealed to their attorney that indeed they did say something that was way too 'criminalizing' to defend in court?

It sucks that the drug has been demonized so much that you can't count on an unbiased judge or jury.

[smooth]

True true, it's not a very promising situation.

And not being confrontational but where do you get this 90% figure from? It would be interesting to see some more statistics! But your reasoning behind why so many cases don't make it to trial sounds like mere speculation unless you can say otherwise. What if fact that the client thinks they have a case but then reveals their attorney that indeed they did say something that was way too 'criminalizing' to defend in court?

It sucks that the drug has been demonized so much that you can't count on an unbiased judge or jury.

I get that figure from a bunch of different sources that I had to learn while studying for my phd in criminology. I'm looking around my bookshelf for one I can post a picture of so you can see it's not one of those made up figures.

My reasoning for why cases don't go to trial is educated speculation based on observation, obtaining conviction rates, talking to criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors, fighting a dozen criminal trials when I was the defendant, and reading other people's research about it.

I simplified things but the basic problems are that there isn't enough time and space to take each case to trial and most cases are not defensible anyway. If you think through the scenario we're talking about there's no incentive to take the case to trial even if you weren't driving around actively high regardless of whether you say anything incriminating or not. I was using that example to lead you to realize that even if you're right in theory, there's no where sane to go with that argument in practice. The "answer" is worse than the thing you're being accused of in this circumstance.


But keep in mind how far the conversation has strayed from the claim. His claim was that it's legal to drive around high, not that it's hard to prove someone is driving around high. My point is that neither are true, but I do agree with that if you want to risk your freedom and license to the flimsy argument that a field and/or blood test don't "prove" you were high at that particular moment then that's your right.

I'm not an attorney, and even if I was I'm not your attorney, and even if I was I wouldn't dispense legal advice to you on a public forum, so just take my advice with whatever pinch of salt you deem necessary.

[Dozyproductions]

All I can say from your post is the truth sucks.

[smooth]

Try this link to see a source I pulled off my shelf and snapped some photos:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111449071129161397618/DropBox?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCMPbjYffmtm5jQE&feat=directlink

I posted some other pages you might find interesting so click on the link if you have a few minutes.

[Dozyproductions]

thank you

[CrusherCurtis]

Best Marijuana Argument Ever: Given By Superior Court Judge James P. Gray

[Dozyproductions]

Best Marijuana Argument Ever: Given By Superior Court Judge James P. Gray

That Judge's presentation was very straight forward. Good stuff.

Smooth ninja is smooth ;)

[tjts1]

i read the link. I'm going to trust my own understanding the law and criminal trial process over an anonymous law firm presenting information intended to get me to spend my money hiring them to defend me against that kind of a charge.

If you actually take the case to trial, and if your lawyer actually makes the argument to a jury that a blood test doesn't prove you were, and then the cop is going to get on the stand and say he's had so many years of experience in the field, so many hours of special training, and in his expert opinion you were high and the jury will believe him and convict.

If you don't believe this then go down to your local courthouse and you'll probably only have to wait 5 minutes before you see a case plead out just like this. Then ask one of the public defenders about this legal theory of yours and why they don't just take it to trial and argue there's no proof.

Or maybe you can figure out on your own why it'd be a stupid defense to argue that the reason you had thc in your bloodstream was because you ingested it some other time and see what a cop, da, judge, or jury does with that information.

winner

Read the link. Taking blood from someone does not prove in any way they were driving under the influence of marijuana. It just proves they have or don't have THC in their blood. Giving a drunk person a sobriety test is much more clear than someone under the influence of marijuana because marijuana has much more varying effects on people than alcohol. And both the breathalyzer and blood tests for alcohol are what is currently in their system.

Z31 either just doesn't know this or is trying his usual "I'm so superior to you I don't need to make any real points, just throw stupid comments at you to try to get you to be quiet so I can feel good about myself" bullshit.

Fail again