More evidence for legalization...

[smooth]

I asked you direct questions. Until you answer them the discussion is over because I'm not going to waste my time arguing bullshit with you. If you have a valid position and some opinions about it, then fine, but so far you have just been arguing some extremely ignorant positions.

[joshh]

I answered every one of your questions. Run if you must.
Simply pointing out the problems with relying on a cop's word and a bs THC test is where this began.

[smooth]

I answered every one of your questions. Run if you must.
Simply pointing out the problems with relying on a cop's word and a bs THC test is where this began.

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?

Is the above not clear enough for you or shall I put it in a bulleted list to aid you in comprehending the questions?

[joshh]

I can't help you if you refuse to read and comprehend. Even if you disagree.

It's more just period.

[smooth]

I can't help you if you refuse to read and comprehend. Even if you disagree.

It's more just period.

How am I refusing to read or comprehend your answer?

I asked you:

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?

and you answered:

Yes but they can keep driving even though they are flat out guilty. The more the proof the easier the conviction.

I also asked you why you think that a license suspension would be more effective than six months probation, monthly drug and alcohol screenings, and a DUI education class.

Then I asked you if suspended license and all of the above aren't enough, what would you like to do differently? What would be enough?

Go back through your post and show me the answer to those questions and you'll see you didn't answer any of them.


You've made it clear you think the system is broken as it currently operates, but you have not explained what you like done differently. Explain to me in simple terms what you think would work better to ensure sure first time DUI offenders are dealt with fairly and effectively.

[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?

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.

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.

I can keep quoting it for you if you'd like. Letting people off when they're guilty is no way to run a justice system. I don't care what the reasons are. And fucking people by the injustice of not having actual evidence is also a failure.
It matters not if I can come up with the perfect way to run our justice system. Seeing the failures is the start.
So when it comes to marijuana and sobriety tests, people are currently either able to pay a lawyer enough to get off on the circumstances or they get pinned just because a cop said so and they had THC in their system (even if they we not DUI). That's another failure. Equal justice under the law should not include how much you can pay your lawyer.

Our system could be set up on a gradient scale depending on the crime of course (it's very lightly set up this way but only for those who can't defend themselves). While others get off time after time. And treating everyone the same.

Edit:The breathalyzer has increased the rate of convictions on DUI drivers because it's more accurate than a cop's opinion and adds more evidence. The same would happen if we had a way to test for DUI marijuana.

[smooth]

I pointed out to you earlier that we do have a way to test for THC that's even more accurate than the breathalyzer. You either missed it or you don't understand how hair analysis works.

It's not necessary for an officer to obtain hair analysis because his word and the blood test will be sufficient in court. But if you are convinced that you're innocent you can request a hair analysis and introduce it as evidence to the court. It doesn't cost anything if you have a public defender so the only reason it wouldn't be done is because you know that it'll show you had it in your system during the traffic stop. Of course, as I mentioned earlier (and the article supports), the reason it won't go to trial is because the vast majority of all arrests are processed through plea agreement and diversion class because we don't have enough time or money to take every single case to trial and incarcerate everyone for every single offense.

Edit:The breathalyzer has increased the rate of convictions on DUI drivers because it's more accurate than a cop's opinion and adds more evidence. The same would happen if we had a way to test for DUI marijuana.

You don't have any evidence for this claim. In fact, the article you posted directly contradicts this and points out that juries based their decisions from the video of the traffic stop and whether than the defendant appeared sober even when breathalyzer tests indicate intoxication.

For some reason you don't seem to understand the difference between alcohol and drugs. With alcohol, you can have *some* in your system and still walk around in public and/or drive legally. If you have marijuana in your system, there is no amount that is legal. There is no reason for a breathalyzer test to determine whether you're over the limit because the limit is zero. If you have *any* in your system you are breaking the law...so there's no need to determine how much is in your system and whether you are "impaired" from it.

[joshh]

I pointed out to you earlier that we do have a way to test for THC that's even more accurate than the breathalyzer. You either missed it or you don't understand how hair analysis works.

It's not necessary for an officer to obtain hair analysis because his word and the blood test will be sufficient in court. But if you are convinced that you're innocent you can request a hair analysis and introduce it as evidence to the court. It doesn't cost anything if you have a public defender so the only reason it wouldn't be done is because you know that it'll show you had it in your system during the traffic stop. Of course, as I mentioned earlier (and the article supports), the reason it won't go to trial is because the vast majority of all arrests are processed through plea agreement and diversion class because we don't have enough time or money to take every single case to trial and incarcerate everyone for every single offense.


You don't have any evidence for this claim. In fact, the article you posted directly contradicts this and points out that juries based their decisions from the video of the traffic stop and whether than the defendant appeared sober even when breathalyzer tests indicate intoxication.

For some reason you don't seem to understand the difference between alcohol and drugs. With alcohol, you can have *some* in your system and still walk around in public and/or drive legally. If you have marijuana in your system, there is no amount that is legal. There is no reason for a breathalyzer test to determine whether you're over the limit because the limit is zero. If you have *any* in your system you are breaking the law...so there's no need to determine how much is in your system and whether you are "impaired" from it.

Now you're trying even harder to fight the facts.
How long does THC stay in your system? If you know the answer to this question you can make the connection to what I'm talking about. That is not proof the person was intoxicated by marijuana AT THE TIME OF THE PULL OVER.


My link absolutely supports the idea that the more evidence they have against you in a DUI charge the more likely you're going to get convicted. I.E. Breathalyzer, sobriety test, video. Do your own research and you'll find the same. End of discussion.

[smooth]

THC metabolizes differently for each person but generally it stores in fat cells and can be detected within a 30 day window via urinalysis.

Hair analysis is accurate within a 90 day window, but it indicates time, amount, and frequency.

Blood analysis, which you seem to be confused about based on a random internet law firm's website constructed to entice you to purchase their services, is only accurate within a three day window.

If you get pulled over right now and they pull blood and detect THC that could have only been ingested between now and Sunday. If you ingested marijuana on Saturday you can go get a hair analysis and show the court that you ingested it on Saturday thereby exonerating you for driving while intoxicated *but* you'll be subsequently charged and convicted for possessing and using marijuana.

If you're in a decriminalized state like Oregon or California, then you'll be fined. But if you're in any other state you will be trading pleading no contest and going to drug diversion for a probably jail sentence because the DA and judge don't like it when people waste their time.


Your link doesn't say anything about the more evidence the police gather about the traffic stop the more likely the conviction. It says the exact opposite. You didn't even read the article, apparently, because the reason some people win their court cases is because juries give more weight to the visible evidence in front of them from the traffic stop camera than the breathalyzer tests.

When police departments videotape arrests, those videos become "the single most important factor" in the case, Fox said.

"That's what the jury pays attention to. We look at it, and if the guy looks sober as a judge, it's far less likely we're going to take that to trial."

According to the article, the breathalyzer isn't very important in a criminal trial. The point of the breathalyzer is because

Blowing at least 0.08 or refusing the breath test also results in an administrative license suspension by the state Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in a process that's separate from the criminal case. Only a not-guilty verdict in a jury trial can get that suspension lifted automatically.

The suspension takes effect 10 days after the arrest to give defendants time to appeal before a state hearing officer. Just 22 percent of administrative suspensions are overturned, according to department statistics. But 93 percent of applicants qualify for a "hardship" permit to drive to and from work, church and school, after a 30-day "hard suspension" if the defendant blew a 0.08 or above, or a 90-day wait if the defendant refused to blow.

That's the information in the article that you posted so I feel I did my research. If you point out the portion I missed that contradicts what I wrote feel free to cite it here.

The main problem here is your confusion.
You keep using an article talking about alcohol DUI to establish your points for marijuana DUI. They aren't the same and trying to direct the conversation to this article is a distraction from the fact that your points about marijuana DUI are baseless.

I'm qualified to discuss either topic, so it doesn't bother me, but it demonstrates your ignorance and stubbornness to get the basic facts straight before you try and ramrod your opinion down other's throats.

[z31maniac]

but it demonstrates your ignorance and stubbornness to get the basic facts straight before you try and ramrod your opinion down other's throats.

You've boiled down the essence of joshh's posts in this section.

If you were local, I'd buy you a beer.

[joshh]

THC metabolizes differently for each person but generally it stores in fat cells and can be detected within a 30 day window via urinalysis.

Hair analysis is accurate within a 90 day window, but it indicates time, amount, and frequency.

Blood analysis, which you seem to be confused about based on a random internet law firm's website constructed to entice you to purchase their services, is only accurate within a three day window.

If you get pulled over right now and they pull blood and detect THC that could have only been ingested between now and Sunday. If you ingested marijuana on Saturday you can go get a hair analysis and show the court that you ingested it on Saturday thereby exonerating you for driving while intoxicated *but* you'll be subsequently charged and convicted for possessing and using marijuana.

If you're in a decriminalized state like Oregon or California, then you'll be fined. But if you're in any other state you will be trading pleading no contest and going to drug diversion for a probably jail sentence because the DA and judge don't like it when people waste their time.


Your link doesn't say anything about the more evidence the police gather about the traffic stop the more likely the conviction. It says the exact opposite. You didn't even read the article, apparently, because the reason some people win their court cases is because juries give more weight to the visible evidence in front of them from the traffic stop camera than the breathalyzer tests.

According to the article, the breathalyzer isn't very important in a criminal trial. The point of the breathalyzer is because


That's the information in the article that you posted so I feel I did my research. If you point out the portion I missed that contradicts what I wrote feel free to cite it here.

The main problem here is your confusion.
You keep using an article talking about alcohol DUI to establish your points for marijuana DUI. They aren't the same and trying to direct the conversation to this article is a distraction from the fact that your points about marijuana DUI are baseless.

I'm qualified to discuss either topic, so it doesn't bother me, but it demonstrates your ignorance and stubbornness to get the basic facts straight before you try and ramrod your opinion down other's throats.

Great you finally got what I've been saying for 3 pages now. So you admit people get busted for DUI even though it can't be proven that they were in fact DUI (marijuana). Even though you're now trying to escape that idea by claiming lesser charges.
Of course you also said many people don't get off from a DUI which with a single link proved your idea ignorant. A lesser charge is semantics from you so you went down that road.

Unlike other defendants caught on tape, the patrol car video doesn't present an open-and-shut case that she's impaired.

She didn't get convicted because of the video.

Prosecutors say they often agree to reduce charges to resolve cases that might not be winnable before a jury.

That's the common sense you were talking about previously and that you missed. Of course the more evidence you have the more likely the conviction. That's just blatant ignorance on your part.

The video evidence helps the defence more then the prosecution because it shows the officers flaws with the law or even as in that links first example....it wasn't clear from the video she was DUI. Which is why they have more than just the sobriety test to prove guilt I.E. Breathalyzer, blood tests, officers opinion, video evidence etc.

VIDEO IS KEY

Prosecutors are least likely to hold out for convictions if defense attorneys find flaws in an arrest report or a video shows the defendant doesn't look drunk.

Defense attorneys study the arrest report to see whether the officer followed the law during the investigation and arrest: Why was the defendant pulled over? What did the officer see in the vehicle? How did the defendant get out of the vehicle? How did the officer compel the defendant to take the field sobriety and breathalyzer tests?

"Sometimes when a defendant files a motion to suppress (evidence), we'll review it and realize they are likely to prevail, " said Ben Fox, who heads the misdemeanor prosecution division in East Volusia for 7th Circuit State Attorney R.J. Larizza.

Sometimes no motion is filed, says Assistant State Attorney Chris Kelly. Defense attorneys "come in and say, 'Here's the weakness of your case.' "

"And we'll see it, " adds Fox. "Sometimes we'll see it before they come in."

http://www.duiarresthelp.com/articles/breathalyzer-dui-cases.PHP

There's another link that explains the importance of the breathalyzer in a traffic stop and in court.
You're starting to actually argue that the breathalyzer is pointless altogether. While some people do get off because of breathalyzer inaccuracy, they are still used as evidence. In some states just refusing to do a breathalyzer gets you arrested.

Now back to my original point. A sobriety test and THC test (inaccurate for the DUI) is unjust. A test that is more clear if one could be made is the way to go. Or you're just fine with innocent people (of a DUI anyways) being charged. Or those who can pass a sobriety test but are stoned be set free.

[joshh]

You've boiled down the essence of joshh's posts in this section.

If you were local, I'd buy you a beer.

Are you out trolling like you accuse so many others of doing. I love watching your inconsistencies.

[kronus]

Are you out trolling like you accuse so many others of doing. I love watching your inconsistencies.

quoting for delicious irony

[Wh33lhop]

lol

[Rsully70sev]

*takes hit of blue chem dog*

I love marijuana, I'd much rather smoke than pop xannax for anxiety. I live in California, so I have my doctors reccomendation for my ailment making it legal. I treat it like any other mind alterting "substances" and give it the respect it deserves- no driving. I play mortal kombat and eat pizza rolls. Come at me bro