Mexico's Prez asks UN for a new approach to War on Drugs

PeyoteReligion said:

I hope we don't legalize here in Washington on this ballot. It's all wrong, it leaves us open to a DUI if driving "under the influence" of cannabis. Guess how the measure? Blood test. Which we all know is not fair, you could have not smoked for a week and you'll get a DUI. So I'm voting against legalization this time.

Click to expand...

It's your vote, so it's your call, but look what happened to California when P19 was shot down, we lost the opportunity to legalize. There was a whole lot of disinformation distributed in CA during P19 to split out supporters of P19 on various bogus wedge issues. The disinformation campaign worked in California. If Washington's initiative fails, the same can happen to you.

One final point, it is currently illegal to drive while intoxicated. The only current test in use tests for metabolites, hence your scenario, "if you smoked in the last week, you test positive" is currently the law in Washington. Washington's initiative changes nothing with respect to driving under the influence, so if you vote against the initiative you have achieved nothing with respect to DUI.

There is no way a cannabis legalization will win without a DUI clause. Non-toking voters, like me, are absolutely required if the drug war is ever going to end, and we are never going to agree to a legalization law that legally allows intoxicated people on the road. If the blood test is looking for THC content, then it measures current intoxication. I am not familiar with Washington's initiative, does the blood test look for THC content in the blood stream or does it look for THC metabolites?

Washington's DUI test is looking for THC content, not metabolites, hence it tests for current intoxication.

Voters are never going to agree to legally allow people to drive while stoned.

If you plan to vote against Washington State's marijuana initiative (I502) because of the DUI penalty built in to the initiative, then you need to find a reason other than, "If you smoked a joint last week, you will tet positive"..

"(i) The driver is age twenty-one or over and the test indicates either that the alcohol concentration of the driver's breath or blood is 0.08 or more((,)) or that the THC concentration of the driver's blood is 5.00 or more; or ((if))
(ii) The driver is under age twenty-one and the test indicates either that the alcohol concentration of the driver's breath or blood is 0.02 or more((,)) or that the THC concentration of the driver's blood is above 0.00;"

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf



"B – blood testingBlood tests, unlike urinalysis, detect the presence illicit drugs, not inactive drug metabolites. In general, THC only remains detectable in the blood of cannabis consumers for a few hours (though low, residual levels may be detected in chronic smokers for up to 12-24+ hours if more sensitive technology is used). Because of this narrow detection window, blood tests are typically only administered in the workplace post-accident in order to estimate recent cannabis consumption. Therefore, most after-hours consumers have little to fear from a blood screen."

http://norml.org/legal/drug-testing/item/the-abcs-of-marijuana-and-drug-testing

Just one more point to add about Washington's I502 marijuana initiative.

After reading it, I think it is pretty crappy:
1. it puts a 25% tax on cannabis sales;
2. it mandates stand alone, marijuana-only stores;
3. only "specially licensed farms" can grow cannabis to supply the stores.

Prop 19 was much better. I have not yet read the Colorado initiative but from reports I have read it seems much better than the WA initiative.

desert dude said:

CSA trumps state law, that's true, but no state is required to have a state law against cannabis. Alcohol prohibition ended in a similar way: multiple states voided their anti-alcohol laws and told the the feds, "enforce your own idiotic laws, we're not gonna help". The feds won't like it, they will threaten and huff but in the end they can't enforce the CSA on their own.

Click to expand...

alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, and that stupid shit got repealed. congress tried banning weed with a law, and the courts struck it down. they tried banning weed by passing a stamp tax, and never printing any stamps, the courts struck it down. they wound up creating an unaccountable bureaucracy to do their dirty work for them, but the courts havent smacked it down yet since they dont bring federal charges for possession or use, only what they claim is "interstate commerce" in weed, which IS within their purview.

alcohol prohibition was repealed because most of the people thought it was a stupid idea once they got chained to it, and the teetotalers and suffragettes got told to eat a sack of cocks.


to this day however, states can and do enforce their own laws regulating booze,, despite the complete lack of a federal prohibition.

states have power, the feds only have regulatory oversight.