Reply to Montgomery Co. readies for impact of new statewide marijuana law

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Montgomery Co. readies for impact of new statewide marijuana law"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Waiting for the day there's a fatality, or multiple fatalities, from a pot DUI. Sadly, it's only a matter of time.[/quote]

Do you think there's never been one before?[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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

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

DUI still exists, and still includes marijuana. That hasn't changed.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics