| Author | Message | ||
| byoung
Senior Member Username: byoung Post Number: 1402 Registered: 12-2004 |
I know the weather's bad, but... | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 5271 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colorado's law is MUCH better. If you can't grow it, it ain't legal! Though the absurd, unscientific DUI provision of Washington's law is going to provide lots of work for lawyers. :-( Bill, tgo (Message edited by lbpesq on November 09, 2012) | ||
| jacko
Senior Member Username: jacko Post Number: 3286 Registered: 10-2002 |
Colorado's much closer to SF too :-) Mind you Masschussets is very nice this time of year and the maple leaves are very similar in shape :-) Graeme | ||
| byoung
Senior Member Username: byoung Post Number: 1403 Registered: 12-2004 |
Well, I'm relatively certain that the feds are going to sue to block the laws from being implemented. Too many union jobs at stake in the DEA, Prisons, courts, etc. But the law is pretty explicit that production is legal (and taxed). I know you're way more informed; I'd love to hear what about the law prevents growing. I like the fact that the DUI provision is specific (5 ng/l), is it not accurate/correctly reflecting inebriation? Bradley | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 5272 Registered: 7-2004 |
The feds can't stop a state from legalizing under state law. There is an argument that the feds can stop the state from implementing regulations, licensing production and sales, and perhaps, collecting taxes. These are new questions and one cannot be sure how a court would rule on these issues. But the feds can't successfully challenge state legalization. Of course, if one is charged in federal court with federal law violations, the state law will not be of any help. Cultivation is allowed by licensed producers for commercial distribution. It is still illegal for individuals to grow their own. (Colorado allows individuals to grow 6 plants). There is absolutely no scientific basis for the 5 ng/l limit. The science people argued against including this provision, but the cops liked it, so in it went. My understanding is that a patient who uses medical cannabis regularly can easily test at over 5ng/l the day after using their medicine, and certainly without being intoxicated in any manner. Furthermore, anyone under 21 with ANY amount in their blood is automatically DUI. Thus, a 20 year old with cancer who uses lawful medical cannabis to offset the nausea from chemotherapy is always DUI. The truth about cannabis and driving (which even many pro cannabis are scared to argue) is that, for experienced users, there is little correlation between cannabis ingestion and traffic accidents. Studies show that those on alcohol tend to drive faster and take more chances, while those on cannabis tend to drive slower and take fewer chances. Bill, tgo | ||
| byoung
Senior Member Username: byoung Post Number: 1404 Registered: 12-2004 |
You can tell a drunk is driving because he'll blow through a stop sign. You can tell a stoner is driving, because he'll stop, and wait for it to turn green. I get what you're saying, and was curious what you thought, since you have spent so much of your life involved in these issues. Thanks! Bradley | ||
| richbass939
Senior Member Username: richbass939 Post Number: 1184 Registered: 11-2004 |
I have to admit I don't know a lot about the fine points of the new law. The DUI aspect concerns me, especially the underage part of it (I have an 18 year old in college in Boulder, CO). I'm sure that there are many parts of it that need to be dialed in. However, it's a start, with Colorado (along with WA state) leading the way. We'll see what happens. Our governor said that people shouldn't break out the Cheetos and Goldfish just yet. I'm sure the statehouse conservatives will do what they can after they get over the pain of the trouncing they just got. I guess we'll see how things shake out. Rich | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 5273 Registered: 7-2004 |
Rich: The per se DUI provision is in the Washington law only. Colorado's law references the current DUI law whereby actual impairment must be proven. The presence of THC in the blood is certainly a strong piece of evidence, but there still has to be evidence of impaired driving too. Bill, tgo | ||
| richbass939
Senior Member Username: richbass939 Post Number: 1185 Registered: 11-2004 |
Sorry, double post. (Message edited by richbass939 on November 10, 2012) |
