Hey top.. Obama said decriminalize pot. Still like mrs clinton?

blackascoal said:
most are in prison for non-violent crimes. Imagine how much that costs.
Click to expand...

A LOT are in prison for non-violent crimes... however, I think it's like 20% or 25% that are in there for drug crimes. Property crimes added to drug crimes make up a majority in some states, along with people jailed for "disturbing the peace". But I don't think anyones arguing we shouldn't enforce property crime laws...

And, well, no one is in jail for smoking pot in my state. :clink:

However, if you cast a bad enough check, you're voting rights are taken away for life... wonder what population that bill was aimed at, for what purpose? Hmmmm...
 
Socrtease said:
I am doing this trial one time, my client is accused of possession of a controlled substance with intent to traffic, to wit cocaine. The Prosecutor tells the jury what he is accused of and then asks in voir dire, how many of you think our drug laws should be changed or that drugs should be legalized. Now I expected about 10% of the hands to go up, which would have been about 6 people. But NOOOOOO, over HALF the hands go up. About 1/3 of my jury was grey haired and the rest regular working people with some college students thrown in as well. We spent four hours questioning people about the war on drugs, and if too many people are going to prison because of the drug war. It was incredible. And I would say that one half of the people that raised their hands were 60 and older. You would be suprised who thinks drug policy should be reevaluated.
Click to expand...

I assume that if a potential juror is for drug decriminalization, or even lessening the penalties, the prosecutors can get rid of them?
 
uscitizen said:
I support pot being treated just like liquor and taxed heavially to help with the debt or something.
We would just have to develop DUI standard levels for pot intoxication.
I do not want extreme stonies out drinving around.
Besides the politicians should support it, with enough of the population stoned they can get by with anything.
Click to expand...

I don't really know of a way you could do an accurate road test for pot intoxication. Alcohol is the only drug that can really work like that, sense it's soaked into the blood in a big way, and evaporates out of the lungs. Only a small amount of the active ingredients of pot, however, ever gets in the blood.

And, well, that creates the problem that we'd have to write people up for LOOKING intoxicated. You could do a piss test, but that would never be fair, since any pot smoker would turn up positive.
 
yeah you can't have guys going 55 in a 70. Doing 22 in a 30, compulsivley eating dorrito's while driving. POT is exponetially less dangerous while driving, most just drive to the store to get more dorrito's anyway.
 
You could fund free National Healthcare with the tax.
Guarantee the murder rate goes down, though productivity prob take a hit as well.
 
Watermark said:
I don't really know of a way you could do an accurate road test for pot intoxication. Alcohol is the only drug that can really work like that, sense it's soaked into the blood in a big way, and evaporates out of the lungs. Only a small amount of the active ingredients of pot, however, ever gets in the blood.

And, well, that creates the problem that we'd have to write people up for LOOKING intoxicated. You could do a piss test, but that would never be fair, since any pot smoker would turn up positive.
Click to expand...

Good post. Even the tests that go the least far back still would pick up pot from 1-3 days before the test.
 
That does not mean that a test cannot be developed that will show medically the level of pot intoxication.
 
I did not say that you did, I am just saying it is a logical progression.

And is needed now in certain legal cases.
 
Watermark said:
I assume that if a potential juror is for drug decriminalization, or even lessening the penalties, the prosecutors can get rid of them?
Click to expand...
Well if they say they can follow the law then the Prosecutor has to use a peremptory challenge, we only get 7 of them. Only those that say they cannot find someone guilty of a drug crime can be excused for cause. I have actually had jurors tell me during voir dire that they believe once someone is charged there must be enough evidence or we would not be at trial and that they already believe the defendant is guilty. They get excused for cause as well.
 
Socrtease said:
Well if they say they can follow the law then the Prosecutor has to use a peremptory challenge, we only get 7 of them. Only those that say they cannot find someone guilty of a drug crime can be excused for cause. I have actually had jurors tell me during voir dire that they believe once someone is charged there must be enough evidence or we would not be at trial and that they already believe the defendant is guilty. They get excused for cause as well.
Click to expand...

So how many were excused for cause that day?
 
uscitizen said:
That does not mean that a test cannot be developed that will show medically the level of pot intoxication.
Click to expand...

Actually a blood test is the most effective means of detecting the presence of active, unmetabolized THC in the body. What is present up to 30 days after taking the drug is the metabolite(s), and they are slow to be excreted because they're lipophilic (i.e. bind to fat). If a test is sensitive enough to pick up levels of THC then (given prior research to determine intoxication level from presence of the agent in the blood) a standard for intox. level could be devised. Test results would then be compared to that, as breathalyzer results are compared to the .08 standard, e.g.

It isn't perfect. Some people can consume in excess of the legal limit and function well; others (like me) don't dare drive after a single glass of wine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top