More evidence for legalization...

[joshh]

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.

I put that link up purposely. Because it's not that hard to get people off even with DUI alcohol charges. With a good lawyer and some cash they get off on technicalities usually. When they do. Total bullshit reasons. The same happens with DUI marijuana charges.
So essentially what you're saying is because someone has THC in their system and the cop is only using his opinion, and they shouldn't have THC in their system at all (without a medical card), that they're automatically guilty even if he wasn't actually high at the time. That just supports having a test to prove it during the pull over.
THC test no matter what and the cop's opinion and you're guilty. Better hope you don't get an asshole cop eh. Removing the human error is needed in these cases.

[smooth]

Please don't conflate my explanation of how the law works with endorsement of it working that way.

[joshh]

Please don't conflate my explanation of how the law works with endorsement of it working that way.

Then you missed the point. You discuss the law and how it works and I'll keep discussing making real proof of a person's DUI and how that's important. Our law system is a fucking mess. THC in someone's system and a cop's opinion is not (or should not be enough) to prove a person's guilty of DUI marijuana. It works both ways.
You're ok with a crap shoot for busting people just because they've smoked marijuana sometime in the past and a cop's opinion. I'm for a test that can prove it without a doubt. If one could be made. And stop letting people off for ridiculous technicalities for DUI.
So they deserve a DUI just because they have THC in their system...

Edit:When marijuana becomes legal then what? It will be all the cop's opinion.

[smooth]

standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt you can conjure up in your head regardless of common sense.

Would you rather the police took hair samples?

And how do you manage to quote me and start posting exactly what I told you not to do in the quoted portion?

[joshh]

standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt you can conjure up in your head regardless of common sense.

Would you rather the police took hair samples?

And how do you manage to quote me and start posting exactly what I told you not to do in the quoted portion?

"Common sense" is not proof the guy was DUI.
So then you still don't understand why it's important to have real proof and not an opinion and a test that only proves the existence of THC.

If I have 20 previous speeding tickets, any more tickets make me guilty because I've been caught speeding in the past. I've heard a cop actually say this very thing. "Even if you didn't deserve that ticket, you've gone over the speed limit at some point. So you deserved it".

Removing the human error is the point.

[smooth]

Is your position that it's legal to drive around high or that it's not legal but people should do it anyway because there's no way to prove you're' doing it?

[joshh]

Neither, my position is if someone is guilty of the actual crime then they should pay for it. But to have real proof of the crime. The breathalyzer was great and it's very reliable. Yet many people even get off from that regardless. That's just wrong.
You shouldn't have to pay for a crime because of human error and a correlation.

[smooth]

Many people don't get off from DUI arrests.
This is just silly now I'm not interested in going around in circles with you correcting nonsense claims.

[joshh]

Now you're going for semantics. Many or some, people get off when they shouldn't.
Taking the human error out of DUI arrests (specifically marijuana) would make it far more just.

[smooth]

I'm not arguing over semantics. Your logic is contradictory.
You are claiming that in alcohol arrests guilty people go free more often than they should yet in marijuana arrests innocent people are punished more often than they should.

You don't provide any evidence for either claim and you don't explain why one type of error would occur in one type of arrest and not in the other. And it's even more confusing given that the more accurate test, according to you, results in guilty people not being caught yet the less accurate test results in even more people being caught doing nothing wrong at all yet they'll still be punished.

Not only is the stuff you're writing totally wrong from a statistical perspective, it isn't even logically coherent.
And then your ultimate point that when people are demonstrating signs of intoxication, are pulled over and continue to demonstrate physical signs of intoxication, and an officer goes far enough to order a blood test and *that* shows physiological evidence of the source of the intoxication, that none of that is evidence that the driver is actually driving under the influence...and somehow you think people arrested for alcohol intoxication are not arrested or convicted enough?

There's not much room to discuss anything with you because your positions are all over the map.

[joshh]

No, you're just refusing to understand. Even the breathalyzer test doesn't always get a conviction. The sobriety test is even more inefficient at getting convictions based on the fact it's easier for a lawyer to argue failures of the officer/officers involved.

One example...

http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/east-volusia/2009/12/27/beating-the-dui-rap-nearly-half-of-cases-are-dropped-reduced.html

Like I said, it's a two way street. Some people get fucked while others get off when they shouldn't. But the more factual evidence such as a breathalyzer test help prove guilt. We need one for marijuana if it could be made.
Lawyers are always trying new ways of beating anything that "proves" guilt of their clients even when it's damn clear the person was intoxicated.

[smooth]

If you actually read that article in its entirety I'm not sure how you concluded it supports your position. It's actually the opposite of what you're arguing and mainly supports what I've been writing about in this thread.

I'm also not sure what people getting arrested on DUI charges and pleading to reckless driving offenses has to do with the marijuana discussion.

Like I said, it's a two way street. Some people get fucked while others get off when they shouldn't. But the more factual evidence such as a breathalyzer test help prove guilt. We need one for marijuana if it could be made.
Lawyers are always trying new ways of beating anything that "proves" guilt of their clients even when it's damn clear the person was intoxicated.

As I wrote earlier, you can request hair analysis and that will show you were not under the influence at the time. The officer can order a hair analysis as well but won't because it's expensive and unnecessary. If you want to provide some evidence that you weren't intoxicated you can avail yourself of that option.

[joshh]

Many people don't get off from DUI arrests.
This is just silly now I'm not interested in going around in circles with you correcting nonsense claims.

If you actually read that article in its entirety I'm not sure how you concluded it supports your position. It's actually the opposite of what you're arguing and mainly supports what I've been writing about in this thread.

I'm also not sure what people getting arrested on DUI charges and pleading to reckless driving offenses has to do with the marijuana discussion.



As I wrote earlier, you can request hair analysis and that will show you were not under the influence at the time. The officer can order a hair analysis as well but won't because it's expensive and unnecessary. If you want to provide some evidence that you weren't intoxicated you can avail yourself of that option.

Not quite. You're arguing the system works and works well. And that a sobriety test and a THC test are all that's needed for a conviction. If people can get out of or even lower the DUI charges when a breathalyzer is used, what do you think happens with DUI marijuana cases....you think it works. It's making some people guilty of a charge that's based on opinion and correlation as opposed to what's currently in their system. While others get off because they can pass the sobriety test, yet they're stoned. It's simply unjust and more imperfect than it could be.
If you don't like that then there's no point in arguing this anymore.

[smooth]

What do you think should happen to someone when he or she is pulled over and doesn't look visibly intoxicated but blows a .141-.151?

The article you cited quotes the prosecutors as saying:
"Prosecutors say they don't have the resources to take hundreds of DUI cases to trial each year.

They point out that an alcohol-related reckless driving conviction is still a conviction carrying a sentence of six months probation, monthly drug and alcohol screenings, and a DUI education class."

The difference is that a DUI conviction carries with it a license suspension so someone can no longer drive...to work. Why do you think this is a better way to address drunken driving than the above?

What do you think should happen to first time offenders if neither of the above is enough?

[joshh]

What do you think should happen to someone when he or she is pulled over and doesn't look visibly intoxicated but blows a .141-.151?

The article you cited quotes the prosecutors as saying:
"Prosecutors say they don't have the resources to take hundreds of DUI cases to trial each year.

They point out that an alcohol-related reckless driving conviction is still a conviction carrying a sentence of six months probation, monthly drug and alcohol screenings, and a DUI education class."

The difference is that a DUI conviction carries with it a license suspension so someone can no longer drive...to work. Why do you think this is a better way to address drunken driving than the above?

What do you think should happen to first time offenders if neither of the above is enough?

Yes but they can keep driving even though they are flat out guilty. The more the proof the easier the conviction. I doubt the prosecutors randomly pick cases to bring to trial and pick the ones they think will get a DUI conviction.
In other words they generally pick cases where a breathalyzer was used over just a sobriety test. Or better yet both as is said in the link. Along with video evidence. Because it's more evidence.
So a guy who gets a sobriety test with video evidence and does fairly well on it doesn't rule out the cop dragging him downtown for a blood test. To then find out he's got THC in his blood yet he wasn't DUI is an unjust situation. And it's left entirely up to the cop involved. Or the guy gets pulled over and passes the sobriety test yet he's stoned. Also unjust.
Does that mean we should allow people to drive that are stoned but can pass a sobriety test? I say no. A sobriety test is not an end all. Specially since marijuana acts differently in each person.