I was unfamiliar with the term, but you are correct.

"Standard", hrump.  The standard was a BAC of 1.3, then got progressively moved down because of feels.



Hmm, maybe there should be an "unsafe operation" law then?  Maybe "careless driving"?

The lead in showed that it wasn't a serious port.  But I do expect the anti-nullification group to show up and the post was as decent as any to put my statement.

The people that really only push for jury nullification related to dope, trespass on private property, littering and urinating in public and other vagrancy offenses.  They don't care about the state laws restricting guns, taxes, property rights, etc.

Careful what you wish for.

Maybe everyone should be a conscientious objector when it suits them.

then maybe you should push for the kind of nullification that you desire

They flaaa, cause they are haaaa

I have a full time job and don't have time to protest or hand out pamphlets while smelling like BO and halitosis.

I hear you man, I hate all activism - even for causes that I endorse

I don't push for it.  I don't even imagine it's at all likely I'd use it if I was on a jury.  But it's knowledge everyone should have the mind should the need arise.

That's anyone who paid attention in HS civics.  Unfortunately, a good chunk of jurors are semi-literate retards.  The ones that get their legal system knowledge from Law and Order are actually the smarter ones.  Just as unfortunate, the activists only show up in front of courts when it's their stoner buddies that are on the docket.

< Removed. -- BB >


 

There's plenty of folks on this site that will tell you that your job is only to judge the facts, not the law itself.  

Potheads suck.

yea.. even the stoners i know recognize that it will impair your ability to drive..

Not quite, "only" as in if the poster thinks this is acceptable, hoping to limiting the consequences to someone who thinks it is acceptable, versus some who doesn't want the risk for their family.
 

You went to UNC Chapel Hill didn't you?

 
the line should be driving recklessly. Why is important only for possible treatment (anger management therapy, AA, NA, etc...)


If someone isn't driving recklessly, why bother them?

 
We already don't.


Who cares if some dude, high as a motherfucker, runs into a school bus.   It's Allah's will.  

That's why I added the qualifier of "good" jury nullification....I mean I would love to see a purely SAFE Act related arrest in NYS get thrown out by jury nullification...

I have no illusions to the general stupidity of a juror pool...I mean, generally, I gotta believe many jurors are people who have no jobs (who may or may not be FSA types), or weren't smart enough to get excused...

I know there are those who will do it as part of their "civic duty". but lets face it, there isn't a lot of upside to serving...hell, in Buffalo, they wouldn't even pay for your parking....

Strictly reminiscing about my wayward youth, I think you can be impaired from smoking pot. And from what I understand, pot is many times stronger than the stuff around when Donna Summer was blaring through the speakers. But the measurement given above, 5ng (five nano grams or 0.000000005 grams per milliliter of blood) is so infinitesimally small I can't see how they came up with that number. By that standard, if you took a shot of whiskey and inhaled the vapors deeply you'd come up with a similar alcohol reading.

Putting it this way I understand. I would agree that the level needs to be raised. But I can't and won't agree that there doesn't need to be some limit. There are people on this site who think all drugs should be legal. I can't agree with that.

The all caps "YOUR" reads to me that the statement was intended to be a lot more personal than rhetorical.  Not the post I'd want to defend.  

If you are going to have a scientific threshold you should probably have some science behind it.

 
shh.. I have now been schooled that it doesn't effect anything, but people smoke it anyways because it effects them.

I love watching the shit storm on here when someone mentions legal weed! Anyone remember seeing Feinstein describe the inner workings of the AR-15 on the hill. Also priceless. Ill be back in a second, I'm gonna make some popcorn.

You blame the guns too don't you.

Duh, he was texting and driving. Happens to the sober all the time.

Going with this...

 
no you lack the ability to read simply English.  You were not told that.  


Maybe take some English classes or go see a doctor about your issue.

That's just silly. Many of the nullification activities are hardcore constitutionalists and more right wing than 87% of Arfcom.

Jury acquits someone who wasn't proven to be impaired beyond a reasonable doubt - ARF cops go ballistic about "jury nullification" and juries being out of control.

Jury acquits cop who shoots a man in the back who is laying face-down on the ground - ARF cops praise jury, the jury system, talk about how the jury has spoken, offense not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

Typical.

 
Maybe go light one up so you can simmer down, man.

This is exactly it.  To say someone isn't impaired while operating a car, heavy machinery, etc. while smoking weed is foolish.  Will it affect people differently?  Sure.  How many people do you know that seem to do things "better" drunk or have a high tolerance for alcohol?  Same with weed of course.  The current test models for THC metabolites is based on finding any with a +/- dependent on machine calibration and accuracy as well as other environmental factors.  It doesn't show that you're high only that you have something in your system.  The type of test necessary is a lot more expensive and time consuming; results may come long after the person is no longer "high."  I've been done this road several times with employees on heroin, meth, weed, cocaine, etc. not to mention some folks I used to know who made it a habit of getting high and finding out where they would end up...one ended up under a semi but he's better now.

What blows my mind is that there are so many people who have become programmed that if it isn't supporting legal weed then it is hogwash; honestly, having someone drive or operate equipment impaired is just plain stupid regardless as to whether it is weed, pain pills, or alcohol.

Haha... Nope. Private Baptist College in small a small southern town.

Just don't like people getting arrested for anything other than violent crimes. Takes billions of our tax money to support it and keep it going and does little or nothing to stop the problem.
But you just keep on with the Statist status quo. It's working so awesomely for us in this country.

I think legalizing drugs under a program like they have in Switzerland would probably be a good idea. It's a medical issue, not a criminal one until an addict turns to criminality to support their addiction. We need to remove the profits from the drug equation. But I'd also support that if you are enrolled in an addiction risk mitigation program, you also give up some of your rights and privileges of citizenship. For example, you don't even get close to having drivers license any longer.

I've arrested a few people who were impaired by marijuana. The majority of whom caused serious wrecks. If we take the totality of the circumstances into consideration - wreck, smells strongly of burnt marijuana, maybe even admits to smoking marijuana, poor performance of field sobriety tests, etc... in my experience it is absolutely possible to be impaired due to marijuana use. I've also arrested a good amount of people who were impaired on other drugs, even their own prescription meds. Each case has to be treated individually, however. Not every person who smoked some pot is too stoned to drive, and not every person who takes a sip of alcohol is drunk.

Also, to who was wondering why cops and prosecutors would be mad about this... I go to work every week in a large city. And each week I respond to an ungodly amount of vehicle collisions. Most of which are caused by stupidity, some of which are also caused by impaired driving. I've seen a lot of dead bodies laying on the interstate caused by impaired driving. So when you work hard to try and prevent these things from happening, at least some of them hopefully, and all of your cases in court get dismissed and people walk out with no repercussion at all... how would that make you feel? To know not only that you wasted your time, but more importantly that those people are probably going to go out and do the exact same thing again because they "got away with it". 99% of law enforcement, in my opinion, is about deterrence and presence. Most people don't drive 100mph on the interstate because they don't want a speeding ticket. Most people don't drive drunk because they don't want to get popped for a DWI. If we don't enforce and prosecute laws, than whats the point? Everyday I see people doing the same crap over and over and over again. Lots of repeat offenders, you know why? Because nothing ever happens to them due to cases being dismissed for arbitrary reasons.

But hey at the end of the day I'm salaried and I make the same whether I arrest every drunk on the road or one a year. I don't get too worked up over it at this point, it's the DA's job to convict people, not mine. I detect and arrest if necessary, collect evidence and present it to the court. At least I get that drunk off the road for the day or night.

Lol.  Typical shitty 'journalism'.  The title says cops and prosecutors are mad.  No where in the article does it say or support that assertion.  

Read article title; masturbate furiously.

 
Yeah, I suspect that those doses are not only "large enough" but actually extreme.


Drunk drivers kill people.


High drivers go through the taco bell line at 1mph.  



Only one of these is a menace to society.

You have some weird visuals running through your head.

I have some very amusing stories of  weedheads running into various hard to spot solid objects such as trains.  Some were before cell phones were a thing. Impaired is impaired. What you used to get that way isn't really that important to the overall picture. . .

Weedhead wishful thinking.