Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

What’s been defined as “impaired”? A certain amount of cannabis in their system? Is it against the law to smoke while driving altogether?

Hasn’t been defined yet.

https://wtop.com/local/2023/04/new-md-law-prevents-law-enforcement-from-using-smell-test-for-marijuana-dui-investigation/

You can be arrested for failing a field sobriety test, but not for a smell or any specific blood test measurement.

Oh that’s clear as mud

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

What’s been defined as “impaired”? A certain amount of cannabis in their system? Is it against the law to smoke while driving altogether?

Hasn’t been defined yet.

https://wtop.com/local/2023/04/new-md-law-prevents-law-enforcement-from-using-smell-test-for-marijuana-dui-investigation/

You can be arrested for failing a field sobriety test, but not for a smell or any specific blood test measurement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

What’s been defined as “impaired”? A certain amount of cannabis in their system? Is it against the law to smoke while driving altogether?

Hasn’t been defined yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

What’s been defined as “impaired”? A certain amount of cannabis in their system? Is it against the law to smoke while driving altogether?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

+1

Exactly. These complainers don’t even know the laws. I laugh at them while I light my legal blunt at home. Look at them seethe.

NP. I have to chime in here. I just need to say this - as someone who has enjoyed marijuana on occasion - seek help. You are too invested in your love of a substance. Marijuana, like any other drug, has downsides. Stop acting like a moron and try to see both sides of the issue. Surely you learned critical thinking skills somewhere along the way, right? Perhaps if you stopped smoking so much you’ll be able to think straight.

DP here. There are no “both sides” to this issue. One side has made it their mission to persecute and imprison cannabis users for decades and the other side just wants to be left alone. We are rightfully happy that we don’t face violence from the state anymore. Who are you to scold the pp for their choices? Nobody ever said that there are no downsides. Was it clear and sober thinking that lead you to insult an anonymous person for having their own opinion? Maybe you should check yourself before diagnosing strangers.

Smoke is a nuisance and there are lots of people driving while high.

I followed one yesterday down the GW parkway. Driving his Land Rover, sucking his pacifier, window cracked, and glazed over stare. I exited and took a different route.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

+1

Exactly. These complainers don’t even know the laws. I laugh at them while I light my legal blunt at home. Look at them seethe.

NP. I have to chime in here. I just need to say this - as someone who has enjoyed marijuana on occasion - seek help. You are too invested in your love of a substance. Marijuana, like any other drug, has downsides. Stop acting like a moron and try to see both sides of the issue. Surely you learned critical thinking skills somewhere along the way, right? Perhaps if you stopped smoking so much you’ll be able to think straight.

DP here. There are no “both sides” to this issue. One side has made it their mission to persecute and imprison cannabis users for decades and the other side just wants to be left alone. We are rightfully happy that we don’t face violence from the state anymore. Who are you to scold the pp for their choices? Nobody ever said that there are no downsides. Was it clear and sober thinking that lead you to insult an anonymous person for having their own opinion? Maybe you should check yourself before diagnosing strangers.

Smoke is a nuisance and there are lots of people driving while high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

+1

Exactly. These complainers don’t even know the laws. I laugh at them while I light my legal blunt at home. Look at them seethe.

NP. I have to chime in here. I just need to say this - as someone who has enjoyed marijuana on occasion - seek help. You are too invested in your love of a substance. Marijuana, like any other drug, has downsides. Stop acting like a moron and try to see both sides of the issue. Surely you learned critical thinking skills somewhere along the way, right? Perhaps if you stopped smoking so much you’ll be able to think straight.

DP here. There are no “both sides” to this issue. One side has made it their mission to persecute and imprison cannabis users for decades and the other side just wants to be left alone. We are rightfully happy that we don’t face violence from the state anymore. Who are you to scold the pp for their choices? Nobody ever said that there are no downsides. Was it clear and sober thinking that lead you to insult an anonymous person for having their own opinion? Maybe you should check yourself before diagnosing strangers.

Smoke is a nuisance and there are lots of people driving while high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

+1

Exactly. These complainers don’t even know the laws. I laugh at them while I light my legal blunt at home. Look at them seethe.

NP. I have to chime in here. I just need to say this - as someone who has enjoyed marijuana on occasion - seek help. You are too invested in your love of a substance. Marijuana, like any other drug, has downsides. Stop acting like a moron and try to see both sides of the issue. Surely you learned critical thinking skills somewhere along the way, right? Perhaps if you stopped smoking so much you’ll be able to think straight.

DP here. There are no “both sides” to this issue. One side has made it their mission to persecute and imprison cannabis users for decades and the other side just wants to be left alone. We are rightfully happy that we don’t face violence from the state anymore. Who are you to scold the pp for their choices? Nobody ever said that there are no downsides. Was it clear and sober thinking that lead you to insult an anonymous person for having their own opinion? Maybe you should check yourself before diagnosing strangers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

+1

Exactly. These complainers don’t even know the laws. I laugh at them while I light my legal blunt at home. Look at them seethe.

NP. I have to chime in here. I just need to say this - as someone who has enjoyed marijuana on occasion - seek help. You are too invested in your love of a substance. Marijuana, like any other drug, has downsides. Stop acting like a moron and try to see both sides of the issue. Surely you learned critical thinking skills somewhere along the way, right? Perhaps if you stopped smoking so much you’ll be able to think straight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Traffic accidents and deaths go up when cannabis is legalized, so apparently many cannabis users are not "making good decisions as adults about their ability to drive safely."

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-07-19/where-pot-became-legal-car-crash-deaths-rose-study

Without legalization of cannabis, Montgomery County last year had 50 people killed on the roads, at least 3,200 car crashes that injured at least one person, and at least 10,000 car crashes with enough damage to property or injury to people to warrant a police report. Just in Montgomery County, just in one year.

There are plenty of people advocating for safer roads in Montgomery County. If you're interested in safer roads you can join them. If you're only interested in safer roads as an argument against legalizing cannabis, that's between you and your conscience.

Not sure why you would infer that. Whatever. These studies generally look at when cannabis is completely illegal, when it's been decriminalized, when medical applications are legalized, and when recreational use is legalized. And accidents and deaths keep going up. Is it the sole reason? Of course not and nobody is arguing that it is. But why add to it, especially in a county that purports to care about racial equity. Overwhelmingly, most of those who die are Black and brown. Why add another contributor to those poor outcomes? So the old white folks can smoke their cannabis in peace?

Most of those who are locked up for cannabis are also Black and brown.

You're not interested in preventing traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths - you're only interested in arguments you can use against legal cannabis.

Nobody has gotten locked up for simple cannabis possession for over 10 years.

Good! Thanks legalization/decriminalization!

So there is NO reason to add another stupid law that stops cops from pulling drivers over for the smell of weed. THAT's the real mistake.

With that logic you’d want cannabis delivery drivers to get harassed/searched just doing their job. Unlike alcohol, cannabis may have an odor that can be detected thru a container. Now police must ask for a sobriety test (do not consent!) to proceed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on the road behind someone smoking pot. We ended up stopped at a light in front of a gas station. I was behind him in the next lane over. Someone was trying to exit the gas station so the pot smoker backed up right into the car behind him to make room. The car that was hit was honking his horn to get his attention. I asked the driver if he was ok and he said he had a dash cam that had recorded not only what had just happened but the entire trip down the road where the high driver was clearly driving erratically. I would love to know what happened and if the hit driver would have been charged as a rear end if he had not recorded the incident.
Montgomery county has realized they have made a huge mistake allowing people to smoke and drive because they just hired an agency to educate the public on using weed safely.

Total straight up lie. Nobody is allowed to be impaired while driving. Period.

+1

Exactly. These complainers don’t even know the laws. I laugh at them while I light my legal blunt at home. Look at them seethe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Traffic accidents and deaths go up when cannabis is legalized, so apparently many cannabis users are not "making good decisions as adults about their ability to drive safely."

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-07-19/where-pot-became-legal-car-crash-deaths-rose-study

Without legalization of cannabis, Montgomery County last year had 50 people killed on the roads, at least 3,200 car crashes that injured at least one person, and at least 10,000 car crashes with enough damage to property or injury to people to warrant a police report. Just in Montgomery County, just in one year.

There are plenty of people advocating for safer roads in Montgomery County. If you're interested in safer roads you can join them. If you're only interested in safer roads as an argument against legalizing cannabis, that's between you and your conscience.

Not sure why you would infer that. Whatever. These studies generally look at when cannabis is completely illegal, when it's been decriminalized, when medical applications are legalized, and when recreational use is legalized. And accidents and deaths keep going up. Is it the sole reason? Of course not and nobody is arguing that it is. But why add to it, especially in a county that purports to care about racial equity. Overwhelmingly, most of those who die are Black and brown. Why add another contributor to those poor outcomes? So the old white folks can smoke their cannabis in peace?

Most of those who are locked up for cannabis are also Black and brown.

You're not interested in preventing traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths - you're only interested in arguments you can use against legal cannabis.

Nobody has gotten locked up for simple cannabis possession for over 10 years.

Good! Thanks legalization/decriminalization!

So there is NO reason to add another stupid law that stops cops from pulling drivers over for the smell of weed. THAT's the real mistake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Traffic accidents and deaths go up when cannabis is legalized, so apparently many cannabis users are not "making good decisions as adults about their ability to drive safely."

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-07-19/where-pot-became-legal-car-crash-deaths-rose-study

Without legalization of cannabis, Montgomery County last year had 50 people killed on the roads, at least 3,200 car crashes that injured at least one person, and at least 10,000 car crashes with enough damage to property or injury to people to warrant a police report. Just in Montgomery County, just in one year.

There are plenty of people advocating for safer roads in Montgomery County. If you're interested in safer roads you can join them. If you're only interested in safer roads as an argument against legalizing cannabis, that's between you and your conscience.

Not sure why you would infer that. Whatever. These studies generally look at when cannabis is completely illegal, when it's been decriminalized, when medical applications are legalized, and when recreational use is legalized. And accidents and deaths keep going up. Is it the sole reason? Of course not and nobody is arguing that it is. But why add to it, especially in a county that purports to care about racial equity. Overwhelmingly, most of those who die are Black and brown. Why add another contributor to those poor outcomes? So the old white folks can smoke their cannabis in peace?

Most of those who are locked up for cannabis are also Black and brown.

You're not interested in preventing traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths - you're only interested in arguments you can use against legal cannabis.

Nobody has gotten locked up for simple cannabis possession for over 10 years.

Good! Thanks legalization/decriminalization!

So there is NO reason to add another stupid law that stops cops from pulling drivers over for the smell of weed. THAT's the real mistake.

On what basis should cops be able to stop someone for the smell of a legal product? Should a cop be able to search you based on the smell of coffee?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Traffic accidents and deaths go up when cannabis is legalized, so apparently many cannabis users are not "making good decisions as adults about their ability to drive safely."

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-07-19/where-pot-became-legal-car-crash-deaths-rose-study

Without legalization of cannabis, Montgomery County last year had 50 people killed on the roads, at least 3,200 car crashes that injured at least one person, and at least 10,000 car crashes with enough damage to property or injury to people to warrant a police report. Just in Montgomery County, just in one year.

There are plenty of people advocating for safer roads in Montgomery County. If you're interested in safer roads you can join them. If you're only interested in safer roads as an argument against legalizing cannabis, that's between you and your conscience.

Not sure why you would infer that. Whatever. These studies generally look at when cannabis is completely illegal, when it's been decriminalized, when medical applications are legalized, and when recreational use is legalized. And accidents and deaths keep going up. Is it the sole reason? Of course not and nobody is arguing that it is. But why add to it, especially in a county that purports to care about racial equity. Overwhelmingly, most of those who die are Black and brown. Why add another contributor to those poor outcomes? So the old white folks can smoke their cannabis in peace?

Most of those who are locked up for cannabis are also Black and brown.

You're not interested in preventing traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths - you're only interested in arguments you can use against legal cannabis.

Nobody has gotten locked up for simple cannabis possession for over 10 years.

Good! Thanks legalization/decriminalization!

So there is NO reason to add another stupid law that stops cops from pulling drivers over for the smell of weed. THAT's the real mistake.