Montgomery Co. readies for impact of new statewide marijuana law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

There are other possible consequences besides incarceration. Fines, loss of license (or at least points), treatment, community service, etc., are all available alternatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

There is a car flipped on it's roof almost every day in MoCo. How is this going to make it different?

The DC area is the only place I have ever lived where I have seen people openly drinking alcohol while driving, at least since I was a kid in the 70s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

There are other possible consequences besides incarceration. Fines, loss of license (or at least points), treatment, community service, etc., are all available alternatives.

DUI still exists, and still includes marijuana. That hasn't changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There are other possible consequences besides incarceration. Fines, loss of license (or at least points), treatment, community service, etc., are all available alternatives.

Those are criminal justice and law enforcement resources that could be put to better use than on cannabis consumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is a car flipped on it's roof almost every day in MoCo. How is this going to make it different?

The DC area is the only place I have ever lived where I have seen people openly drinking alcohol while driving, at least since I was a kid in the 70s.

Correlation does not equal causation. Please try to make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is a car flipped on it's roof almost every day in MoCo. How is this going to make it different?

The DC area is the only place I have ever lived where I have seen people openly drinking alcohol while driving, at least since I was a kid in the 70s.

Correlation does not equal causation. Please try to make sense.

How is this relevant? I am guessing that DUI (primarily alcohol) actually is a main cause of the rollover epidemic in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

No need for jail. But a fine would be appropriate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

There are other possible consequences besides incarceration. Fines, loss of license (or at least points), treatment, community service, etc., are all available alternatives.

DUI still exists, and still includes marijuana. That hasn't changed.

But without testing or a legal limit, it seems arbitrary and unenforceable, especially when the police are being limited (can’t act on smell). It certainly doesn’t seem to offer the same degree of deterrence. I know with alcohol, I’ve heard that people shouldn’t be judging their degree of impairment based on how they feel because as their degree of impairment increases, it also impairs their ability to objectively evaluate their degree of impairment. While they might feel they are fine to drive, the fact that they might be approaching an objective limit with specific consequences is somewhere on their radar, even if it’s in the background. With marijuana, the only reference point the driver has is whether they think they’re too impaired.

While the police may be able to ticket specific driving violations (and I hope they do), DUI seems unenforceable. Lots of people drive badly, and they’re not all under the influence. Without a test or a legal threshold for “under the influence”, it seems like a debatable premise. There’s no proof that the bad driving was a direct result of substance related impairment. We’re basically left with a version of: “You were DUI.” “Was not.” “Were so.” “Prove It.” “Well, I can’t, but were so.”. If I were on a jury, I might believe it was DUI and want to convict, but unless the prosecution PROVED their case, I would have to acquit, and I don’t know how they would do that without proof beyond subective testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
How is this relevant? I am guessing that DUI (primarily alcohol) actually is a main cause of the rollover epidemic in Montgomery County.

Correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

There are other possible consequences besides incarceration. Fines, loss of license (or at least points), treatment, community service, etc., are all available alternatives.

DUI still exists, and still includes marijuana. That hasn't changed.

But without testing or a legal limit, it seems arbitrary and unenforceable, especially when the police are being limited (can’t act on smell). It certainly doesn’t seem to offer the same degree of deterrence. I know with alcohol, I’ve heard that people shouldn’t be judging their degree of impairment based on how they feel because as their degree of impairment increases, it also impairs their ability to objectively evaluate their degree of impairment. While they might feel they are fine to drive, the fact that they might be approaching an objective limit with specific consequences is somewhere on their radar, even if it’s in the background. With marijuana, the only reference point the driver has is whether they think they’re too impaired.

While the police may be able to ticket specific driving violations (and I hope they do), DUI seems unenforceable. Lots of people drive badly, and they’re not all under the influence. Without a test or a legal threshold for “under the influence”, it seems like a debatable premise. There’s no proof that the bad driving was a direct result of substance related impairment. We’re basically left with a version of: “You were DUI.” “Was not.” “Were so.” “Prove It.” “Well, I can’t, but were so.”. If I were on a jury, I might believe it was DUI and want to convict, but unless the prosecution PROVED their case, I would have to acquit, and I don’t know how they would do that without proof beyond subective testimony.

Here's an idea. How about, instead of trying to prove whether a given case of bad driving was or was not caused by impairment, we instead focused on the bad driving itself? Since it's the bad driving that's the problem? When someone turning right on red hits me in the crosswalk, I don't care if they were drunk or stoned or on their phone or distracted by their infotainment system. What I want is for nobody to hit me in the crosswalk, or anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

There are other possible consequences besides incarceration. Fines, loss of license (or at least points), treatment, community service, etc., are all available alternatives.

DUI still exists, and still includes marijuana. That hasn't changed.

But without testing or a legal limit, it seems arbitrary and unenforceable, especially when the police are being limited (can’t act on smell). It certainly doesn’t seem to offer the same degree of deterrence. I know with alcohol, I’ve heard that people shouldn’t be judging their degree of impairment based on how they feel because as their degree of impairment increases, it also impairs their ability to objectively evaluate their degree of impairment. While they might feel they are fine to drive, the fact that they might be approaching an objective limit with specific consequences is somewhere on their radar, even if it’s in the background. With marijuana, the only reference point the driver has is whether they think they’re too impaired.

While the police may be able to ticket specific driving violations (and I hope they do), DUI seems unenforceable. Lots of people drive badly, and they’re not all under the influence. Without a test or a legal threshold for “under the influence”, it seems like a debatable premise. There’s no proof that the bad driving was a direct result of substance related impairment. We’re basically left with a version of: “You were DUI.” “Was not.” “Were so.” “Prove It.” “Well, I can’t, but were so.”. If I were on a jury, I might believe it was DUI and want to convict, but unless the prosecution PROVED their case, I would have to acquit, and I don’t know how they would do that without proof beyond subective testimony.

Here's an idea. How about, instead of trying to prove whether a given case of bad driving was or was not caused by impairment, we instead focused on the bad driving itself? Since it's the bad driving that's the problem? When someone turning right on red hits me in the crosswalk, I don't care if they were drunk or stoned or on their phone or distracted by their infotainment system. What I want is for nobody to hit me in the crosswalk, or anywhere else.

I agree with you. The 1st sentence of my second paragraph explicitly expressed a similar view. However, with alcohol, we have learned that it benefits society to identify when such violations are alcohol related. I’m no criminal justice expert, so I’m sure my understanding is incomplete, but I think the benefit is partially as a deterrent factor (as I described in my 1st paragraph), and partly because we recognize that when a substance is involved, addiction may increase the likelihood of repeated offense, and it provides a framework for getting that person off the road entirely. I hope that someone with more specific knowledge can address how society benefits from specifically identifying alcohol related traffic crimes as DUIs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

There are other possible consequences besides incarceration. Fines, loss of license (or at least points), treatment, community service, etc., are all available alternatives.

DUI still exists, and still includes marijuana. That hasn't changed.

But without testing or a legal limit, it seems arbitrary and unenforceable, especially when the police are being limited (can’t act on smell). It certainly doesn’t seem to offer the same degree of deterrence. I know with alcohol, I’ve heard that people shouldn’t be judging their degree of impairment based on how they feel because as their degree of impairment increases, it also impairs their ability to objectively evaluate their degree of impairment. While they might feel they are fine to drive, the fact that they might be approaching an objective limit with specific consequences is somewhere on their radar, even if it’s in the background. With marijuana, the only reference point the driver has is whether they think they’re too impaired.

While the police may be able to ticket specific driving violations (and I hope they do), DUI seems unenforceable. Lots of people drive badly, and they’re not all under the influence. Without a test or a legal threshold for “under the influence”, it seems like a debatable premise. There’s no proof that the bad driving was a direct result of substance related impairment. We’re basically left with a version of: “You were DUI.” “Was not.” “Were so.” “Prove It.” “Well, I can’t, but were so.”. If I were on a jury, I might believe it was DUI and want to convict, but unless the prosecution PROVED their case, I would have to acquit, and I don’t know how they would do that without proof beyond subective testimony.

Whatever. Police can use the same tools they would use for people on prescription drugs. I don’t see anyone crying about a roadside test for prescription pain medication or benzos. DUIs have been given to impaired drivers regardless of the substance. The cannabis users are just now free from harassment. More legal than beer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

There are other possible consequences besides incarceration. Fines, loss of license (or at least points), treatment, community service, etc., are all available alternatives.

DUI still exists, and still includes marijuana. That hasn't changed.

But without testing or a legal limit, it seems arbitrary and unenforceable, especially when the police are being limited (can’t act on smell). It certainly doesn’t seem to offer the same degree of deterrence. I know with alcohol, I’ve heard that people shouldn’t be judging their degree of impairment based on how they feel because as their degree of impairment increases, it also impairs their ability to objectively evaluate their degree of impairment. While they might feel they are fine to drive, the fact that they might be approaching an objective limit with specific consequences is somewhere on their radar, even if it’s in the background. With marijuana, the only reference point the driver has is whether they think they’re too impaired.

While the police may be able to ticket specific driving violations (and I hope they do), DUI seems unenforceable. Lots of people drive badly, and they’re not all under the influence. Without a test or a legal threshold for “under the influence”, it seems like a debatable premise. There’s no proof that the bad driving was a direct result of substance related impairment. We’re basically left with a version of: “You were DUI.” “Was not.” “Were so.” “Prove It.” “Well, I can’t, but were so.”. If I were on a jury, I might believe it was DUI and want to convict, but unless the prosecution PROVED their case, I would have to acquit, and I don’t know how they would do that without proof beyond subective testimony.

Whatever. Police can use the same tools they would use for people on prescription drugs. I don’t see anyone crying about a roadside test for prescription pain medication or benzos. DUIs have been given to impaired drivers regardless of the substance. The cannabis users are just now free from harassment. More legal than beer

By definition, prescription drugs are restricted. When cannabis use was restricted to medical use requiring a prescription, we weren’t calling for roadside tests for it, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.

Do you think there's never been one before?

do you think when we both simultaneously legalize cannabis AND hamstring police enforcement of DUI, that deaths won’t increase? what sane government does that?

A government that has decided to stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary and harmful incarceration.

There are other possible consequences besides incarceration. Fines, loss of license (or at least points), treatment, community service, etc., are all available alternatives.

DUI still exists, and still includes marijuana. That hasn't changed.

But without testing or a legal limit, it seems arbitrary and unenforceable, especially when the police are being limited (can’t act on smell). It certainly doesn’t seem to offer the same degree of deterrence. I know with alcohol, I’ve heard that people shouldn’t be judging their degree of impairment based on how they feel because as their degree of impairment increases, it also impairs their ability to objectively evaluate their degree of impairment. While they might feel they are fine to drive, the fact that they might be approaching an objective limit with specific consequences is somewhere on their radar, even if it’s in the background. With marijuana, the only reference point the driver has is whether they think they’re too impaired.

While the police may be able to ticket specific driving violations (and I hope they do), DUI seems unenforceable. Lots of people drive badly, and they’re not all under the influence. Without a test or a legal threshold for “under the influence”, it seems like a debatable premise. There’s no proof that the bad driving was a direct result of substance related impairment. We’re basically left with a version of: “You were DUI.” “Was not.” “Were so.” “Prove It.” “Well, I can’t, but were so.”. If I were on a jury, I might believe it was DUI and want to convict, but unless the prosecution PROVED their case, I would have to acquit, and I don’t know how they would do that without proof beyond subective testimony.

Whatever. Police can use the same tools they would use for people on prescription drugs. I don’t see anyone crying about a roadside test for prescription pain medication or benzos. DUIs have been given to impaired drivers regardless of the substance. The cannabis users are just now free from harassment. More legal than beer

By definition, prescription drugs are restricted. When cannabis use was restricted to medical use requiring a prescription, we weren’t calling for roadside tests for it, either.

Prescription drugs are not the only medications that could cause impairment. Over the counter sleep aids, cold and allergy medications all can cause impairment. Prescription drugs are not restricted due to possible driver impairment but rather the overall safety and risk of OD of the drug. Drivers can even be impaired by lack of sleep and there is no chemical test for that either. At some point drivers are expected to make good decisions as adults about their ability to drive safely. Police are also trained to identify impaired driving no matter the cause even without chemical tests.

This is just the new way that anti-cannabis crusaders are going to try to harass us. They are just stoking fears about impaired driving as a wedge to turn people against legalization. You can tell by their fixation on cannabis while ignoring other legal drugs that can also cause impairment.