home

Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill

Via NORML:

NORML regrets to inform you that earlier this week the House and Senate gave final approval to Senate Bill 8, Ohio's proposed per se "drugged driving" bill. While some of our allies on the House Criminal Justice Committee valiantly tried to address some of our concerns by introducing several amendments to the bill, SB 8 - as approved by both chambers - would still potentially punish marijuana smokers for "drugged driving," even if the individual is neither under the influence nor impaired to drive.

The bill is expected to be signed into law by the Governor, whose administration lobbied for its passage, and will take effect 90 days after his approval.

What's wrong with the bill? It punishes marijuana smokers who are not under the influence at the time they are driving.

This pending law represents an all out assault on Ohio's marijuana smoking community. Because marijuana's main metabolite, THC-COOH, remains detectable in certain bodily fluids, particularly urine, for days and sometimes weeks after past use, this legislation seeks to define sober drivers as if they were intoxicated. Someone who smokes marijuana is impaired as a driver at most for a few hours; certainly not for days or weeks. To treat all marijuana smokers as if they are impaired, even when the drug's effects have long worn off, is illogical and unfair.

< In Lieu of Flowers. Vote Democratic | Senate Hearing on Feingold Censure Motion >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#2)
    by Johnny on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    No Narius, the alternative is to have the state demonstrate incapacity to operate the motor vehicle. But that would mean all those heroic doctors driving home after a 72 hour shift could be arrested due to sheer exhaustion. Once gain, basing capacity on a strict chemical measurement, the powers that be have demonstrated their vast capacity for downright idiocy in legislation.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:38:52 AM EST
    The alternative is to let people drive while impaired by pot and kill other innocent people. I would rather the law error on the side of public safety. The pot smoker can take a bus.
    Narius, What part of this statement do you not comprehend?
    It punishes marijuana smokers who are not under the influence at the time they are driving.


    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    Probably not. The republicans probably cut the Mass Transit Funding and put it into rare coins. How's that workin' out for them?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    Well, can't say much for the bill, but I am intrigued with the language:
    Someone who smokes marijuana is impaired as a driver at most for a few hours; certainly not for days or weeks.
    Since I have heard many here argue that it is safe to drive while high on marijuana. IIRC someone even claimed they were a better driver when they were stoned. (Which perhaps was an indicator if their poor ability to drive overall) I'm all for BAC's since they measure the alcohol present in the blood. A metabolite is not indicative of the levels of the intoxicant present at the time. If they were develop such a test, perhaps my view would change.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    Don't mind narius...he's for totalitarianism. Whatever govt. does is allright by him, regardless of the merits. As to this new bill, the felonization of America continues. What's the deal with the federal and state governments pushing to create all these new felons? ***Disclaimer...it's a bad idea to drive under the influence of any drug; be it mj, alcohol, or certain over the counter cold remedies. A bad idea should not necessarily be a felony.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:15:03 PM EST
    I understand the statement but that does not mean I would have to have a problem with it.
    Apparently you do not understand the statement since you so eloquently state:
    There is nothing wrong to punish some pot smoker while makes the street safer.
    What does that even mean? You are making no sense.
    And you can not argue that ALL pot smoker drives when they are not under influence.
    I am not arguing that ALL pot smokers are not under the influence when they drive. I find it ridiculous that a pot smoker can be charged with "drugged driving" when they are not under the influence.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    You are making no sense.
    Much like the drug war as a whole makes no sense, eh macro? narius...what you fail to understand is you are NOT making the "streets safer", just clogging the courts and the lock-ups. This will do nothing to improve road safety, and the Ohio legislature damn well knows it. Or they are retarded.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    narius wrote:
    There is nothing wrong to punish some pot smoker while makes the street safer.
    macromaniac replied:
    What does that even mean? You are making no sense.
    macromaniac: You hit the nail on the head! What a non-sensical reply from narius. Makes me wonder if narius is, well, stoned, LOL!

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#11)
    by Al on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    This issue can probably be settled scientifically. For alcohol, there are studies that have measured how motor coordination and reflexes deteriorate with blood alcohol content. Cell phone usage is also attracting attention as studies show that it is equivalent to drunk driving. I am no expert, but studies have probably been done with marijuana as well. The sensible thing to do is to do the research carefully, so that everyone concerned is satisfied that safety is ensured while at the same time not unduly restricting an individual's right to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. It's common sense, really.

    I assume, if the bill does have a zero tolerance for drug metabolites and these are not indicative of intoxication, it'll be challenged in a court of law and struck down. Not that I would wonder if NORMAL's interpretation of a drug law might be somewhat biased or anything, but has anyone read the actual bill itself? I can't google it...

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:48:01 PM EST
    Jeralyn, Please intervene so reasonable people can have a discussion on one of the few forums left to us in this FUBAR world. This is very counterproductive.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:49:19 PM EST
    narius wrote:
    You lock up all 1000 of them, you got 400 dangerous driver off the street.
    Hey, while we are at it, why don't we just give 'em all the death penalty, too! (Sheesh, where do these people come from?).

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    Since I have heard many here argue that it is safe to drive while high on marijuana. Which "many"? Cites, please. I believe this is referred to on other blogs as a "jeffy." ********** Note that reefer can be inhaled second-hand, just as tobbacco can. You can't get high that way, but this bill could screw up people who just happened to be in the wrong room at the wrong time.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    The sensible thing to do is to do the research carefully
    I agree Al. If our federal legislature looked at the studies available, mj would be legal. Our leaders care not for the facts, just the symbolism.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:57:57 PM EST
    Hey, while we are at it, why don't we just give 'em all the death penalty, too!
    I don't know Lab, I'm sure narius would prefer a forced labor camp:)

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#19)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    You lock up all 1000 of them, you got 400 dangerous driver off the street.
    Okay, well, why not start locking up teenagers and the elderly, too?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:06:56 PM EST
    What a silly law. When someone develops a test that quickly and accurately guages drug intoxication in the field, then they're cooking with gas.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:21:50 PM EST
    Thank you Jeralyn for naming narius a chatterer. I believe he has already exceeded his four posts a day. Just imagine if narius was in charge of a blog we participated on.......his chatterers would be locked up for four years, have their faces tattooed with the word chatterer and made to pay reparations which would go to the Pro Death and Torture fund. Compassion and giving the benefit of the doubt are good things, narius. Take TL's kindness and tolerance as an example.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:45:04 PM EST
    I've deleted Narius' comments over his four a day limit.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#23)
    by Pete Guither on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    It is not good to drive while impaired by anything -- alcohol, drugs, fatigue, cell phones, etc. And each of those things can cause impairment. But there are also differences in the degree and danger of impairment. And when prohibitionists try to scare people about the dangers of driving while on marijuana, it's legitimate to point out that driving while under the influence of marijuana, while not safe, is by most studies, well below the danger of alcohol or fatigue. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution." A Dutch study in real world conditions concluded "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program." A May 1998 Australian review of 2,500 injured drivers reported that cannabis had "no significant effect" on driving culpability." And the Transport Research Laboratory in London found: "..researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously. Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or drinking." And then, of course, there's the classic joke, which conveys a certain truth: A drunk driver will blow right through a stop sign without slowing down. The stoned driver will patiently wait for it to turn green." The point is -- if you want to make the highways safe, look at impairment and impairment danger, not whether there is still residue in the blood, which has nothing to do with road safety. As far as marijuana drivers killing other innocent people, it's worth noting that Karen Tandy, the head of the DEA with all the resources of the federal government available to her, when trying to come up with an example of the danger of marijuana and driving, actually uses one that involved a driver on a combination of marijuana, cocaine and opiates. Apparently even she couldn't come up with a good example of someone killing someone while high on marijuana.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#24)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    Since I have heard many here argue that it is safe to drive while high on marijuana. Which "many"? Cites, please. I believe this is referred to on other blogs as a "jeffy."
    I'll admit I don't know what a "Jeffy" is, but Pete's post above is indicative of the ones to which I was referring.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#25)
    by Johnny on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    When someone develops a test that quickly and accurately guages drug intoxication in the field
    Isn't that what the "touch your nose and say the alphabet from e-w" crap is supposed to do? Everyone is seeking some arbitrary chemical level to determine absolute incapacity. Absurd. Ridiculous. Studies indicate that alcohol reduces awareness etc... Well guess what? Like kdog says, so does pot, so do cold medicines. So do cell phones, not getting enough sleep, driving for too long and getting tunnel vision, diabetics often have issues behind the wheel. I propose subjecting persons pulled over to nothing more than a battery of reflexive, responsive, and cognitive testing. Abandon the arbitrary chemical levels-they exist only to provide an arrest when all else fails to prove the incapacity of a driver.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    It looks like Pete beat me to it, but I'll pile on. Studies on the subject have shown that marijuana does not increase the likelihood of causing an accident. In fact, the most recent study I've seen, from France, showed that while 2.9% of the driving population was believed to be under the influence of marijuana, only 2.3% of fatal accidents were attributed to marijuana use while driving. Of course, since 7% of the drivers were under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, it was falsely reported that marijuana increases the risk. I know that most people could care less about personal anecdotal evidence, but when I was driving, I found that marijuana was very helpful. As someone with a long history of speeding violations, I found that it made it much easier for me to stay within the speed limits. I'm sure that many people are going to "tsk, tsk" me for that, but frankly I don't care. If someone saw me driving 90 weaving through traffic completely sober and then saw me driving 55 in the right lane stoned, it's not too hard to figure out which way people would prefer I drive. But since being stoned all the time is not exactly an option when driving to work, I sold my car 3 years ago and just take the bus everywhere.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    Studies indicate that alcohol reduces awareness etc... Well guess what? Like kdog says, so does pot, so do cold medicines. That's not necessarily true. Pot actually increases awareness. It does have some negative aspects for driving, but it's a lot more complex than alcohol in discussing whether it's good or bad. Having a high levels of alcohol in your system is unquestionably dangerous when someone is behind the wheel.

    Satisfied Molly?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    Patrick, I'm just curious about this: Since I have heard many here argue that it is safe to drive while high on marijuana. IIRC someone even claimed they were a better driver when they were stoned. (Which perhaps was an indicator if their poor ability to drive overall) What research have you done to discover that driving under the influence of marijuana is less safe? Have you conducted studies?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    When someone develops a test that quickly and accurately guages drug intoxication in the field, then they're cooking with gas.
    Actually, there is a test that covers all forms of impairment. If the problem is to get 'impaired' drivers off the road, then test for the impairment, not the cause.
    I assume, if the bill does have a zero tolerance for drug metabolites and these are not indicative of intoxication, it'll be challenged in a court of law and struck down.
    Nope, not in my state. They had a case where a woman was completely at fault, even the judge said so, but the guy involved in the accident had mj metabolites in his bloodstream, and the judge said he had no choice under the law except to convict him. I call it the KMart defense: 'There's no reason sir, it's just our policy.'

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jo Fish on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    Ohio? Why bless my pointed little head. In Westerville, Ohio we find this monument to American Idiocy. Need to ask those moron republicans in the Ohio Statehouse how that whole Prohibition Thing worked out for them and the country. On a side note, do we now get to ask every legislator in Ohio to submit to substance-abuse testing before they come to Columbus? Seems only fair. Really funny that one Convicted Criminal, Bob Taft, will be criminalizing a barely-provable crime. I wonder how much they might be paying him to sign this? It's been proven that it's not in his nature to give Something for Nothing. He pled guilty graft and corruption after all. When this bill crosses his desk all he needs to do is say that magic word. Noe! And do the right thing. After all, a whopping 6% of Ohioans believe in him now.

    Sailor, I was referring to the legal challenge the bill will almost assuredly face.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 03:35:36 PM EST
    Before I get flagged for commenting too much, I'll end with this: If a study comes out that shows that having caffeine in your system makes you more likely to cause a car accident, do you make it illegal to drive while (or just after) drinking coffee?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#34)
    by Johnny on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 03:45:54 PM EST
    Pot actually increases awareness.
    Thats not entirely accurate. But for the sake of argument, I'll accept it at face value. Why then not smoke pot before anything that involves mental dexterity? Would you feel safe having your pre-frontal lobes operated on by a stoned surgeon? Would you have your children watched by a stoned baby-sitter? It does not increase awareness, it increases the perception of awareness. But hey, if you want to drive stoned, be my guest.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#35)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 03:51:20 PM EST
    What?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    What research have you done to discover that driving under the influence of marijuana is less safe? Have you conducted studies?
    20 years of experience. I know that doesn't mean much to some, but it was enough to convince me.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#37)
    by Pete Guither on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    20 years of experience. I know that doesn't mean much to some, but it was enough to convince me.
    By all means, let's use your 20 years of experience instead of national statistics or scientific studies. It's the way we come up with laws these days. So how many fatal accidents did you get in during your 20 years of driving while high on pot?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    OK, I'm still here, but will be off to catch the bus in a second. :) [thehim]: Pot actually increases awareness. Thats not entirely accurate. But for the sake of argument, I'll accept it at face value. We may be delving into semantics at some point here, as I may have been more accurate in saying it makes one more cautious. However it does make one more easily distracted as well. It's certainly a tradeoff, but it's one I've found not to be detrimental, unless one is very intoxicated. Why then not smoke pot before anything that involves mental dexterity? Would you feel safe having your pre-frontal lobes operated on by a stoned surgeon? I hope that for most people, driving isn't as hard as brain surgery. It's certainly not for me. I've found that when navigating a new city or driving a new route and having to figure out directions, it's better not to be stoned. But for long interstate drives and regular commutes, I've found it to be beneficial. By nature, I've always been a fast driver. Once I'm familiar with an area, I tend to drive faster. It's mainly for those types of drives that I found it ideal to use marijuana to relax myself and to keep my speed down. There's not a lot of decision-making that needs to go on when driving through rural interstate. But that's exactly the kind of place where some laws like this will be enforced. Would you have your children watched by a stoned baby-sitter? It depends on the degree. People can get mildly stoned and still function. It's the same as if I allowed someone to drink a beer while babysitting a child. And I guarantee you a lot more people have had a stoned babysitter than they realize. In fact, it's pretty common for teenagers who smoke pot to babysit and be stoned before they do it. It does not increase awareness, it increases the perception of awareness. And going after pot smokers who drive does not increase public safety, it only increases the perception of public safety. But hey, if you want to drive stoned, be my guest. I will, and you'll be glad when I do.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    20 years of experience. I know that doesn't mean much to some, but it was enough to convince me. 20 years of experience doing what?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#40)
    by dead dancer on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 06:44:02 PM EST
    I've deleted Narius' comments over his four a day limit. Thank The Supreme Being! How about deleting Narius' comments for forty days and forty nights!

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#41)
    by Johnny on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:17:04 PM EST
    Ok ok ok... I get your point, you want to be f**ked up and drive. Thats fine. Provided you can pass certain basic perception, reflexive, and cognitive tests, by all means toke it up. Should you fail to demonstrate actual ability (not a chemical illusion ;), then be prepared to suffer the consequences. Easy enough, right?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#42)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    thehim, Patrick is a long time visitor to this site. He is, if I read correctly, in the law enforcement busines, specifically large scale growth detection and eradication in CA.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:09:59 AM EST
    I cannot imagine driving stoned, but this law is utter nonsense. Until they have a test that can prove you smoked within hours of driving it is bunk. If I smoke on Saturday night and have an accident Monday morning I can be prosecuted for DWD because science cannot determine when I smoked? I would say punishing someone for an action that had nothing to do with their accident is cruel and unusual. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Patrick - In your 20 years of service how many cases have you found where someone smoked pot on Thursday, had an accident on Sunday and the pot was at fault?

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    Ok ok ok... I get your point, you want to be f**ked up and drive. Thats fine. Provided you can pass certain basic perception, reflexive, and cognitive tests, by all means toke it up. Should you fail to demonstrate actual ability (not a chemical illusion ;), then be prepared to suffer the consequences. Easy enough, right? That's a deal, my friend. What I find fascinating about people's understanding of marijuana is that everyone understands the difference between someone who is buzzed on alcohol and someone who is fall-down drunk from it, but they think that there's only one level of "stoned". There's a belief that as soon as you inhale any amount of THC, your intoxication is the same. That's silly. I never get f**ked up and drive, but I've found that mild amounts of THC have made me a more relaxed and a much less aggressive driver. For someone who's had 13 speeding tickets, it's just smart "self-medication".

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:34:25 AM EST
    Patrick is a long time visitor to this site. He is, if I read correctly, in the law enforcement busines, specifically large scale growth detection and eradication in CA. Well, I hope he has some other skills to fall back on because that's not going to be a job in California for too much longer. Nevada's likely going to legalize this year and if the recent polls are any indication, most of the west coast will follow suit soon after.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#46)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 10:03:22 PM EST
    thehim, CA passed Prop 215 for compassionate use 9 years ago and they are still raiding dispensaries, tying the law up in courts and prosecuting under the federal statutes. As long as the fed is run by delusional evangelists and overpaid, unnecessary pensioners, the war on drugs will continue.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 12:33:26 AM EST
    CA passed Prop 215 for compassionate use 9 years ago and they are still raiding dispensaries, tying the law up in courts and prosecuting under the federal statutes. As long as the fed is run by delusional evangelists and overpaid, unnecessary pensioners, the war on drugs will continue. It's going to end faster than you think. The Republican party is a lot more internally split and many forces within it are starting to realize how much taxpayer money is being wasted. The next two years are going to be an interesting time for drug law reform.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#48)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 09:09:07 AM EST
    thehim, The fascists control all three branches if government. In my estimation it will take at least 30 years to overcome the damage done by these "elected" criminals.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#49)
    by Patrick on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    specifically large scale growth detection and eradication in CA.
    Used to be, but not any more. Besides, there's plenty of work out there, even if all drugs were legalized, not just MJ. Won't happen in California for some time, IMO. There's a growing anti-movement that's fed up with the MJ clinics that are fronts for dealers.

    Re: Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 12:16:37 PM EST
    people there is an accurate test the facts are thc coohis not imparing it in fact is not even an active ingr in marijuana the psycoactive ingediants are THC-delta 9 & to amuch lesser degree delta 11 the qustion that needs to be ans is how much of those ingr cause inparment.the law passed would be similar to charging you sir with DUI for having water in your body after havig a few drinks 2 days ago.

    Ohio Passes Unfair Drugged Driving Bill (none / 0) (#51)
    by jamespeter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:02:50 PM EST
    I cannot imagine driving stoned, but this law is utter nonsense. Until they have a test that can prove you smoked within hours of driving it is bunk. If I smoke on Saturday night and have an accident Monday morning I can be prosecuted for DWD because science cannot determine when I smoked? I would say punishing someone for an action that had nothing to do with their accident is cruel and unusual.
    ===============
    jamespeter
    california dui

    Marijuana is Wrong (none / 0) (#52)
    by meben on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 08:59:53 AM EST
    Its very correct to punish those buddies who are involved with this type of things of marijuna trading & intake

    ______________-
    Ben

    DUI