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][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.  [b]There’s no proof that the bad driving was a direct result of substance related impairment. [/b] 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]

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.[/quote]

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.[/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