Last post here for me but it is a convincing argument when 52% of the country have used it(that admit it) and 0% have died or reported significant side effects.
Among other things:
2 Likes
Pete’s top advisor having a burner account pretending to be a Nigerian Pete supporter is a great Sunday morning gift.
5 Likes
I did propose the idea of making people take a test and acquire a license for using alcohol.
The truth is that legalization of marijuana just isn’t a deal-breaker for me. A candidate’s opinion on this isn’t going to sway me one way or the other. I don’t really respect anyone who is going to be a single-issue weed voter, but those are the sort of fools you probably have to cater to if you want to put a lot more state legislative seats up for grabs. Since this issue doesn’t particular appeal to me, I would be happy to see marijuana banned at the federal level if it could be used in a cynical way to make gains at the state level.
I do have concerns about how marijuana laws are enforced in racially unjust ways, but for now I prefer decriminalization over legalization.
No polls dropping today? Is that because of the holiday weekend?
Looks like a pretty good chance Bloomberg lucks out and misses the debate. He needs one more national poll by Tuesday.
Death, taxes and anachronistic making terrible fucking posts
2 Likes
Full legalization needs to come hand in hand with per se THC blood levels for DWI. If you can pass a bill that fully legalizes marihuana but makes it a misdemeanor to drive with greater than 5 nanograms per microliter THC in blood (active, not the metabolite), then I can get on board.
1 Like
It’s been a couple of years but just before legalization I played in a poker game a lawyer who was more or less in charge of dealing with this stuff. I think he said testing wasn’t super, reliable though I could be remembering wrong.
Agree that driving stoned is the same as drunk. Dunno enough about measuring it to have an opinion on the specifics.
That’s malarkey. A blood test is pretty damn reliable. Urine is useless though that’s true. Urine is useful to tell you that someone has smoked sometime in the past day or so, not that they are currently under the influence.
I prosecuted quite a few of these in my day. The consensus opinion i the medical community was that an expert would testify that someone who had 5 ng/ml would certainly have been impaired. A level lower than that and they would not testify to that.
As someone who smokes weed everyday I have to say it’s absurd to say marijuana has no side effects.
4 Likes
Lololol apparently Lis Smith got caught running a fake Nigerian twitter account
6 Likes
I mean on the spot, and I’m going off of a two year old memory.
Weed is detectable in a blood test for up to 25 days (and at a bare minimum 2-7 days based on a google search). A blood test won’t tell you if someone is intoxicated just if they have used in the last several days to a few weeks. If that is really the criteria for stoned driving I would fail basically every time I have driven a car for a long time even though I never drive within several hours of smoking.
I agree stoned driving needs to be punished with dui (it already is) obviously I would just be shocked if a blood test could tell you how high someone was with any degree of certainty.
1 Like
7 Likes