Sweeping problems under the rug never solves them. The problem is putting too many people in jail in addition to failing to reform convicts. The idea isn't to maintain a population of people in prison, but to rehabilitate them back into society in a meaningful manner. For someone who cares so little about people, good or bad, I'm not sure you'd understand the sentiment.
And you could have it all,
my Empire of Dirt.
I will let you down,
I will make you Hurt.
I've seen a lot of people act like idiots when they get their hands on a gun. It is the same thing, you don't like something, so you want to ban it. Drugs are a tool, just like alcohol. It seems illogical to blame one, but not the other. Stop trying to force your morals onto everyone else. You seem to have a strong aversion to freedom, that's pretty sad.
- - - Updated - - -
That still doesn't justify the existence of a law.
Ironically, people like you are the ones whining when antiquated and oppressive laws get overturned. You whined when gay marriage was legalized, so you don't actually mean what you say. I can bitch about oppression all I want, because I have freedom of speech. I can call you out for hypocrisy whenever it suits me, and I enjoy doing it.
Well, then it comes down to backyard farm and cooking vs fast food style argument. A fair amount of people would do it themselves to save money and guarantee a quality they like. But plenty would keep dispensaries alive because some people don't want to put in the work, don't mind paying a premium price or like the ability to complain if they don't like what they got.
Can't get mad at the seller if you grown your own failure batch.
They would also be more empty if people like you stopped trying to push unnecessary laws. You can whine all you like about people not breaking the law... but here's a better concept. Stop trying to push horseshit laws.
- - - Updated - - -
And then the free market and capitalism would take over. Freedom is awesome.
- - - Updated - - -
Laws are laws, right? Now you want to try and rationalize one criminal act, because it doesn't fit your narrative. Stop trying to move goalposts, and stop breaking the fucking law.
Remember Obamas Fair Prison sentence act, and then Wendell whatever was released under it, and he went on to murder his ex gf and her 2 children? YEAAA! Lets let more of these criminals back on the street!!!! (I know this is pardoning and the Act is something else, but its still the same general thing)
I'm saying that THC levels in the blood aren't indicative of recent use. You can test positive for a month, sometimes more.
Urine testing: "Marijuana use can be detected up to 2–5 days after exposure for infrequent users; for heavy users: 1–15 days; for chronic users and/or users with high body fat: 1–30 days"
Hair testing: "a detection period of approximately 90 days"
Saliva testing (what WA uses and the closest you get): "up to 72 hours after intake"
Blood testing: "12–24 hours, with heavy/frequent use detectable in the blood for up to 7 days."
Breath tests (still in testing): A claim of 2-3 hours, but still needs published scientific backup.
None of them can determine if you're intoxicated while driving. The closest you get right now is saliva testing, and that leaves a huge margin of error. Would it be fair to charge someone with a DUI if they drank 2-3 days before driving? No.
Sure, when the technology gets there (hey, here's hoping that breath test is proven to be accurate in that small of a time range!), it's something that needs to solidly happen. But doing it now means incorrectly gauging how recently it was used, and can't be taken as a real statistic for who is actually stoned behind the wheel.
No. I see too many people who grow up to become very successful and rich from the inner city poor. And they did it all through hard work, paying attention in school, and doing the right thing (Ben Carson, Chris Gardner, Michael Oher, Steve Harvey, Ella Fitzgerald, John Woo, Eartha Kitt. Even Colonel Sanders and Dr Phil were destitute and homeless as kids, etc..) People dont have to fall into the gang, drug, and crime culture. They choose to
Last edited by Orlong; 2016-12-20 at 06:32 PM.
I dunno, I'm reading here the challenge with the blood test is that they have to get the blood fairly quickly to get a accurate reading. Which in a fatal accident is probably easy. Where in other cases, they need to get a warrant and such and in that time the THC levels can drop making someone who is over the limit, below the limit by the time the test is administered. Heavy users have the worse of it, has that high level is stored.
Most everything I found so far, says the blood test is the most accurate. I'm sure the Pro Pot people will still argue they are excellent drivers regardless of how stoned they are, just like most drunk drives argue the same.