What do Californians (and the rest) think of AUMA?

MinnBobber

Well-Known Member
Just viewed a livestream on the CA proposed law.
Their opinion was that a loss in CA will set the worldwide MJ legalization movement back 15 years so please, let's not wait for the perfect legal bill.
This needs to pass now.

And on the flipside, a victory now can be a "tipping point" in the worldwide movement for legalization. It's a lot bigger issue than just you as individuals. The world needs this.

RE big pharma farms: remember that no "Big licenses" will be issued for 5 years AND that will be reviewed to see IF they even want to do any big growers OR if they will keep it to small and medium licenses.

Legal is a public health and social justice issue too so let's "get it done"

EDIT: I just emailed my brother in CA to ask for a yes vote, even though he does not imbibe.
If you have friends or relatives in CA, think about suggesting to them a yes vote or discussing their concerns with you.
 
Last edited:

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
Really concerned about this Prop and really on the fence.
Remember this one, with the cops eating pot-laced edibles on a hidden camera?

Santa Ana to pay marijuana dispensary $100,000 after video appears to back police harassment claims

The city of Santa Ana will pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging police harassment during a raid on a marijuana dispensary. The city will also drop misdemeanor charges against a dozen people accused of unlawfully operating Sky High Holistic, the Orange County Register reported Wednesday.

Seems like peanuts.
As a consequence for police intimidation, vandalism, and particularly the willful destruction of recorders that would prove their guilt(not to mention their attitude regarding the girl in the wheelchair), this sends no message, leaves no dents in their pockets, and deters further behavior of the like not at all.

How do you gauge the value of putting another nail in the coffin of trust in law enforcement.
That's got to be worth more than 100k to a civilized society.

Just viewed a livestream on the CA proposed law.
Their opinion was that a loss in CA will set the worldwide MJ legalization movement back 15 years so please, let's not wait for the perfect legal bill.
This needs to pass now.

And on the flipside, a victory now can be a "tipping point" in the worldwide movement for legalization. It's a lot bigger issue than just you as individuals. The world needs this.

RE big pharma farms: remember that no "Big licenses" will be issued for 5 years AND that will be reviewed to see IF they even want to do any big growers OR if they will keep it to small and medium licenses.

Legal is a public health and social justice issue too so let's "get it done"

EDIT: I just emailed my brother in CA to ask for a yes vote, even though he does not imbibe.
If you have friends or relatives in CA, think about suggesting to them a yes vote or discussing their concerns with you.

EDIT: OK, leaning back toward yes again.
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Pot farmers worry legalization could end their way of life

California voters will decide Nov. 8 whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use — an issue that has sown deep division here among longtime growers. The Costas and many fellow pot farmers have yearned for the legitimacy and respectability that could be bestowed by legalization. But they also fear Proposition 64 will bring costly regulations and taxes and could put them out of business if corporate interests and big farms take over.
 

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
Pot farmers worry legalization could end their way of life

California voters will decide Nov. 8 whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use — an issue that has sown deep division here among longtime growers. The Costas and many fellow pot farmers have yearned for the legitimacy and respectability that could be bestowed by legalization. But they also fear Proposition 64 will bring costly regulations and taxes and could put them out of business if corporate interests and big farms take over.

Right. Prohibition is what keeps growers in business. The only way to make this business work is to sell a small amount for an inflated price. Also, for some reason this is only the case for California? They fear a cut in their profits, which is a concern for them but it's short-sighted and selfish to boot. I think this could all be re-worded for honesty and it would look more like this:

Many pot farmers want the best of all possible worlds. They want legitimacy and respectability that a legal market offers but also want the inflated profits of a semi-legal market that is poorly regulated.
 

MinnBobber

Well-Known Member
Like Mom and Pop stores, independent drug stores, and family farms, the days of the small operator are limited. Large operations will achieve economies-of-scale: why should pot farms be different?
.........................................................................................

Yes, I sincerely believe it will morph into the "craft beer brewery" model where tiny family breweries exist along side the mega-beer giants. There will be enough folks wanting connoisseur bud to support their craft IMO.

With the huge expansion of legal bud, prices should fall where the choice might be Budweiser Buds for $50 an OZ or Joe's Craft Buds for $75 an OZ. Joe has his niche and Budweiser has theirs.

X2 to @KimDracula , the growers want the best of both worlds. Yes, their expenses will go up with a license and some regs to follow and lab testing costs etc BUT that's what any legit business has to comply with.
 

blackstone

Well-Known Member
I'm not from Cali, and it seems like a different situation to where I'm from so maybe my post doesn't belong here, but I'm sure there are people there in a similar situation to me.
I was unlucky in the past and the old laws made life difficult, I just wanted to point out that in some cases, it works out worse than a minor inconvenience.
Also it doesn't need actual jailtime to have a tough impact on a persons well being, or social confidence, standing in the community.
We all know it should have always been freely available worldwide.
At times, I would have accepted even a single strain limit with legality. So I would see the loss of some small scale breeders as the minor inconvenience, over incalculable punishment of all users. Especially when there are a large amount of strains already developed and larger breeders could carry on the torch, or even employ some of the smaller breeders?!
I hope it passes as I have written to my government telling them to watch California in November, and then Canada in the Spring!
 

looney2nz

Research Geek, Mad Scientist
Like Mom and Pop stores, independent drug stores, and family farms, the days of the small operator are limited. Large operations will achieve economies-of-scale: why should pot farms be different?

yeah, at least there's somewhat of a headstart to prepare for being gobbled up when 5 years is up. :(

it will still prove profitable. I'd like to see the growers try to amend 64 and extend the moratorium on BigBiz operations coming in. Hey James Anthony are you on here? :)

As for the $100K settlement, I hope Marla and her husband (who should receive the bulk of the settlement) use it wisely (AND enjoy it!). They STILL have covered the cops, who no longer work for the city, but nothing became of the issue of whether they consumed edibles or not. How they treated Marla was absolutely shameful.
 

MinnBobber

Well-Known Member
......yeah, at least there's somewhat of a headstart to prepare for being gobbled up when 5 years is up. :(

it will still prove profitable. I'd like to see the growers try to amend 64 and extend the moratorium on BigBiz operations coming in.....
....................................................................................

Big grower licenses will not be given out for 5 years AND that is the minimum time. An evaluation will be done then to determine IF they will be allowed then/delayed/permanently disallowed. So, that 5 years gives time for all you Cali folks to make it known----let's keep this to small and med growers, fuck big pharma/ big tobacco coming in !!!
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
From a California DUI attorney.
https://www.duiblog.com/2016/10/31/...we-see-more-marijuana-dui-traffic-collisions/

If Prop 64 Passes, Will We See More Marijuana-DUI Traffic Collisions?
...

If you haven’t read it, here’s the gist:

If Prop. 64 is approved, California would legalize recreational marijuana this November 8th. As the sixth largest economy in the world and an already existing thriving medical marijuana market, it is estimated that the marijuana industry could become a $6 billion industry by 2020.

While THC is the psychoactive component of marijuana that is detected in cases of DUI of marijuana, there is no way to determine how impaired someone is regardless of how much THC is in their system Unlike alcohol, there is not an established correlation between THC and impairment. As a result, a number of companies are racing to create a roadside test to determine impairment of marijuana rather than just presence of THC.

If Prop. 64 passes, there are many more questions that need answering. One of these questions is whether we will see more marijuana-DUI traffic collisions.

The Los Angeles Times consulted with Beau Kilmer, senior researcher at RAND Corp. specializing in drug policy and co-author of the book “Marijuana Legalization” to ask the very same question.

The Los Angeles Times made mention of the fact that AAA announced last week that it was opposing efforts to legalize marijuana in California and Maine citing statistics showing an increase in marijuana related fatal collisions in Washington, a recreational marijuana state. While AAA opposed Prop. 64, it also conceded, “While the data analyzed for the study did not include enough information to determine which driver was at fault in a given crash.”

To this Kilmer responded, “The bulk of the research suggests that driving drunk is worse than driving stoned, but driving stoned is worse than driving sober. The research suggests that when people are under the influence of both marijuana and alcohol, it does increase the probability of getting into a crash.”

But, he added, “If you are going to be objective about this and you really want to know how marijuana legalization is going to affect traffic safety, you don’t just look at the number of people in crashes who are testing positive for THC. You want to look at total crashes and total accidents. It might be the case that yeah, more people are driving stoned, but some of them are now less likely to drive drunk.”

Kilmer added that the studies are not definitive.

Kilmer’s statements are correct in that, if we are to be objective about this, we can’t just look at AAA’s cited statistic. Just because a person has THC in their system at the time of a collision does not mean that the person is driving under the influence. What’s more, it may be that the amount DUI of alcohol related collisions have reduced since the legalization of recreational marijuana in Washington.​

https://www.duiblog.com/2016/09/05/marijuana-legalization-and-the-california-dui/

Marijuana Legalization and the California DUI
Posted by Jon Ibanez on September 5th, 2016
It would not be a surprise to many if California was the next state to legalize recreational marijuana with Proposition 64. If approved, California would follow the heels of Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and the District of Columbia. California is among five states to vote on the legalization of recreational marijuana this November 8th. As the sixth largest economy in the world and an already existing thriving medical marijuana market, it is estimated that the marijuana industry could become a $6 billion industry by 2020.



In 2010, voters failed to pass Proposition 19, which would have legalized recreational marijuana, by a 53.5% majority of vote. So do California voters have the same sentiment six years later? Current polls show support for the passing of Proposition 64 by 60% or more, making it the initiative most likely to pass on the ballot.

Since Proposition 64 is likely to pass, it would be appropriate to discuss how it might affect California DUIs and California DUI law.

California Vehicle Code section 23152(e) makes it illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of drugs including marijuana. Unlike California’s DUI of alcohol law, there is no legal limit for marijuana, or more specifically, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) the psychoactive component of marijuana. Therefore, a person can only be arrested and convicted of a marijuana DUI if the ingestion of marijuana impairs a person’s ability to drive a vehicle as a sober person would under similar circumstances.

To prove that a person is driving under the influence of marijuana, a prosecutor can use officer observations of driving patterns, observations during the traffic stop, performance on field sobriety tests, and the presence of THC in any blood test done.

Since “under the influence” is an extremely subjective standard, it is often very difficult to prosecute DUI of marijuana cases. This is especially true if the driver refused to perform the field sobriety tests and/or the officer did not observe driving that would be indicative of someone who is under the influence of marijuana.

If proposition 64 is passed, law makers could seek some sort of per se limit for how much THC can be in a person’s blood while driving. Several states have set a per se limit of five nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. Colorado, has set a five nanogram per milliliter of blood limit to allow for the presumption that a person is “under the influence.” Unfortunately, current per se limits for THC, however, are an inaccurate measure of how impaired a person is.

Unlike alcohol, THC is fat soluble and remains in a user’s system long after they have ingested the marijuana, sometimes by several weeks. This creates the possibility of being arrested with five nanograms of THC in the system weeks after a person has smoked marijuana and well after the “high” is gone. Yet, because the THC is present, a person can either be arrested or, in Colorado, presumed to be under the influence.

In June of last year, Cannabix Technologies Inc., a Vancouver based company announced the testing of a prototype marijuana breathalyzer. The company says that the breathalyzer will be able to test whether a person has ingested alcohol within the past two hours. Although the machine will not test for a quantitative amount of THC, it will provide a timeframe for marijuana usage, which is a better indicator of impairment that nanograms of THC in a person’s blood.

In April of this year, the California state legislature awarded UCSD’s cannabis research center $1.8 million to study THC impairment and develop an accurate roadside test for marijuana impairment.

While an accurate test for marijuana impairment may be in the offing, nothing yet exists to provide lawmakers with the ability to create an accurate per se level. Until that happens, which may be before pot shops open up in January of 2018 if Proposition 64 is passed, law enforcement and prosecutors will have to continue to rely on California’s flimsy standard of “under the influence.”

 
Tranquility,

thisperson

Ruler of all things person
Yeah. We definitely need a marijuana breathalyzer. People just get fucked if caught with anything in their system now.

Your license suspended and your car towed away. I've heard of it happening to someone I know.
 
thisperson,

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
Any per se limit is a mistake when it comes to cannabis although it's often one of those things we have to compromise on for political viability. It just doesn't work as well as it does with alcohol and will always lead to many people being punished because they were over some arbitrary number. Cannabis intoxication isn't a new thing and the police don't seem to have trouble identifying and punishing drivers that are impaired. It's not as though you get to drive like a dangerous moron as long as you can get by a breathalyzer. Stoned driving is a minor problem that we are already equipped to deal with.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Yeah. We definitely need a marijuana breathalyzer. People just get fucked if caught with anything in their system now.

Your license suspended and your car towed away. I've heard of it happening to someone I know.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/pot-breathalyzer-hits-the-street?int=a14709

American police have for the first time used a marijuana breathalyzer to evaluate impaired drivers, the company behind the pioneering device declared Tuesday, saying it separately confirmed its breath test can detect recent consumption of marijuana-infused food.​

Any per se limit is a mistake when it comes to cannabis although it's often one of those things we have to compromise on for political viability. It just doesn't work as well as it does with alcohol and will always lead to many people being punished because they were over some arbitrary number. Cannabis intoxication isn't a new thing and the police don't seem to have trouble identifying and punishing drivers that are impaired. It's not as though you get to drive like a dangerous moron as long as you can get by a breathalyzer. Stoned driving is a minor problem that we are already equipped to deal with.
I agree any per se limit is a mistake. Even with alcohol. I think there is a due process problem when statistics define criminality.
 

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
The roadside test should be for impairment, period.

If someone's capacity to drive isn't at the safety standard set, they shouldn't be on the road. Doesn't matter if they're drunk, stoned, angry, exhausted, untrained, or just plain stupid.
There are manageable amounts of cannabis, under which a daily consumer can safely operate a car, just as there are levels of alcohol one can consume and still drive safely, but that's apples and oranges in this context and the effects of cannabis on driving are far less dangerous than those of alcohol.
 
Last edited:

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
The roadside test should be for impairment, period.

If someone's capacity to drive isn't at the safety standard set, they shouldn't be on the road. Doesn't matter if they're drunk, stoned, angry, exhausted, untrained, or just plain stupid.
There are manageable amounts of cannabis, under which a daily consumer can safely operate a car, just as there are levels of alcohol one can consume and still drive safely, but that's apples and oranges in this context and the effects of cannabis on driving are far less dangerous than those of alcohol.
I think EVERYONE, including the most anti-marijuana police officer would love a test that "measures" impairment. But, what does that mean?

Even the current SFST (Standardized Field Sobriety Test) is designed to test for impairment from alcohol. A full examination by a drug recognition expert takes a while and requires an officer with special training. With either one, we get back to the core problem, at some point all we are talking about is statistics. Just like the semantics issue of old that the map is not the territory; testing signs of impairment is not the same as discovering the symptoms of impairment or if one is impaired at all. Reliance on some statistical connection between the two does not mean we have measured impairment from a drug.
 
Tranquility,

thisperson

Ruler of all things person
But assuming all variables are near the same. a 100 pound human will feel similar intoxication levels as another 100 pound human.

The variables are things like. stomach content. weight and height. tolerance levels. etc.

I like the breathalyzer. it is protection against having thc in your blood and being called intoxicated for it. assuming it is done right, I believe breathalyzers will be good for us.

A friend of mine had his car impounded and license suspended after a police officer did a sobriety test (passed) and said he was on drugs because he had weed clothing. if there was a breathalyzer they would still have their car.
 
thisperson,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
But assuming all variables are near the same. a 100 pound human will feel similar intoxication levels as another 100 pound human.

The variables are things like. stomach content. weight and height. tolerance levels. etc.
First, that is a big assumption. Second, how do we measure "tolerance levels"? We can make the definition broad enough to cover all the variations we find between impairment and dosage.

I like the breathalyzer. it is protection against having thc in your blood and being called intoxicated for it. assuming it is done right, I believe breathalyzers will be good for us.

A friend of mine had his car impounded and license suspended after a police officer did a sobriety test (passed) and said he was on drugs because he had weed clothing. if there was a breathalyzer they would still have their car.
The "breathalyzer" is a chemical test given after a person has been arrested. (The officer had probable cause to believe the driver was under the influence and then seized the person to the level of an arrest.) The seizure of the vehicle is done contemporaneously with the arrest. A later breathalyzer reading, even if it were completely exonerating, would not change that fact. Besides, it is not exonerating. Think about it, how does knowing the breathalyzer shows no alcohol in the system help the person suspected of being under the influence of THC? It is fairly standard for a person to blow .0 and the police then demand a blood or urine test. (Um...blood. No cop wants to do urine as it is a PITA.)

Certainly, the fact the person is in "weed clothing" does not give rise to a presumption of being under the influence of marijuana and any officer who thought so is wrong. It may be a factor when combined with the totality of the circumstances; but not alone.

As to him feeling he "passed" the sobriety test, I don't know about that. Unless the cop said your friend passed (And, was not lying.), your friend has no idea. If the standardized tests were done, three faults and there is considered a 78% chance of being under the influence of alcohol. A fault is not falling to the ground when standing on one leg and counting, but something minor like the foot touched the ground or the hand moved a tiny bit from the side. Since the test is designed for alcohol, one under the influence of other drugs may "pass". It's just that what a fault is, while objective in theory, has the officer subjectively interpret the results. If he thinks you are under the influence, you may very well fail the FST--even if the officer does not lie.
 

thisperson

Ruler of all things person
We were talking about a weed breathalyzer. Also, I don't know if this is how it works, but I was assuming that once a baseline is established for 100 pounds the rest is easier to extrapolate or set a setting in the factory. Licenses do say weight. I honestly don't know about that second point though, seeing as breathalyzers are magic to me.

As for my friend, I took what he said with a grain of salt, but when I asked for details it did sound like he got truly fucked and having a breathalyzer would have saved his ass. I'm working under the assumption that he could have gone to court and used the breathalyzer as evidence to have the ruling thrown out. You know, justice, what our courts are supposed to do. Maybe I'm just naive.

Edit: I view it as a good thing, because it will save the innocent and punish those who are guilty. I don't get how something so clear cut isn't good. Yeah I know weed is safer than alcohol. Doesn't change that under certain circumstances, weed can be impairing.

Mixed with alcohol, or tobacoo, or smoked alone, or taken on an empty stomach. Those are the moments I've done weed and found it slightly impairing. Vaporizing, or even dabbing just brings a fire to the forefront of my head and I focus a lot better. I even get better at vidya games. Doesn't mean I would want people driving when vaped or dabbed out.

Edit2: Wait, when we're discussing breathalyzers are you working under the assumption that any thc would be damning?
 
Last edited:
thisperson,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
We were talking about a weed breathalyzer.
How could it help "protection against having thc in your blood and being called intoxicated for it"? The point of the test is to detect THC or metabolites.

Also, I don't know if this is how it works, but I was assuming that once a baseline is established for 100 pounds the rest is easier to extrapolate or set a setting in the factory. Licenses do say weight. I honestly don't know about that second point though, seeing as breathalyzers are magic to me.
The baseline for illegal intoxication for driving under the influence of THC has not been established. To cover the middle sigmas of the population (plus a little just to make everyone feel good), a 5 mg/ml is proposed and has been codified in some states.

As for my friend, I took what he said with a grain of salt, but when I asked for details it did sound like he got truly fucked and having a breathalyzer would have saved his ass. I'm working under the assumption that he could have gone to court and used the breathalyzer as evidence to have the ruling thrown out. You know, justice, what our courts are supposed to do. Maybe I'm just naive.
If the chemical testing excluded the drugs the police suspected, prosecutors usually drop the case. It all would depend on what they thought they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edit: I view it as a good thing, because it will save the innocent and punish those who are guilty. I don't get how something so clear cut isn't good. Yeah I know weed is safer than alcohol. Doesn't change that under certain circumstances, weed can be impairing.
The crime is driving while intoxicated and not driving with something other than spit or blood in one's body. The problem with THC is finding the baseline you were talking about. With alcohol, there is a fairly direct relationship between increasing dosage and increasing impairment. THC does not seem to follow the same path in general and is more odd when specifically applied to driving.


Edit2: Wait, when we're discussing breathalyzers are you working under the assumption that any thc would be damning?
Damming? No. But, even with alcohol, just because you are under the per se limit on testing does not mean you cannot be convicted of driving under the influence. DUI is a crime. Over the per se limit is also a crime. They are separate crimes.
 

thisperson

Ruler of all things person
...I'd much rather have a clear cut line drawn of what is considered intoxicated by weed standards. Sure there will be variations, and those with higher tolerance will suffer. But the same can be said for any other chemically based impairment test. The breathalyzer will be a good thing IMO.

I thought it didn't need to be said that a baseline must be established. That's what scientific studies are for.

The protection part comes after the baseline has been established. Anyone with a dose below the legal limit will be afforded some protections. Or is it that no one got off scott free after being pulled over at a checkpoint and breathing less than the legal limit but still with something in their system?
 
thisperson,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
...I'd much rather have a clear cut line drawn of what is considered intoxicated by weed standards. Sure there will be variations, and those with higher tolerance will suffer. But the same can be said for any other chemically based impairment test. The breathalyzer will be a good thing IMO.

I thought it didn't need to be said that a baseline must be established. That's what scientific studies are for.

The protection part comes after the baseline has been established. Anyone with a dose below the legal limit will be afforded some protections. Or is it that no one got off scott free after being pulled over at a checkpoint and breathing less than the legal limit but still with something in their system?

Since the law is meant to accommodate all drivers and whatever drug affecting them, that is a high order. With alcohol, many states have a BAC number much lower than the Per Se limit where a driver at less than that is rebuttably presumed to be not under the influence. (I don't know all states. Some states may find that below a certain BAC is simply not intoxicated as a matter of law.) That low-level BAC limit was developed after many studies and with a drug that is very dose dependent on effect through decades of focus. THC is not going to be like that. Even with a lot more studies, the effect/dose relationship with THC seems far more varied to the point it is difficult to predict anything based on blood levels.
 
Last edited:

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
I think EVERYONE, including the most anti-marijuana police officer would love a test that "measures" impairment. But, what does that mean?...

Not sure of your question but by impairment I meant the inability to operate the vehicle safely. This could be caused by any number of internal and external factors.

It shouldn't be about what's in the driver's system, but whether they're in a proper state to safely drive and their performance behind the wheel. Why was the driver stopped? Were they veering from lane to lane? Were they driving recklessly? When being questioned by the officer, did the driver react coherently?
A person's body weight and tolerance play a role in this as well. Some people have such high tolerances, they barely feel the intoxicating effects of cannabis, just the relief of anxiety, pain, etc. In my experience, cannabis affects driving performance far less than alcohol and prescription drugs for those who consume cannabis regularly.

It seems unjust to say, stop someone who's driving safely, for something like a taillight infraction, who smells like cannabis, to then be tested and/or charged with driving under the influence.
 

Baron23

Well-Known Member
California cities ban pot sales ahead of state vote

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Worried that California might legalize recreational marijuana, the state’s third-largest city by population has voted to ban pot sales ahead of Tuesday’s election.

San Jose isn’t alone in scrambling to block the possible effects of Proposition 64, which would legalize pot but also allow local bans on sales.

Dozens of cities and counties from tiny Blue Lake in the heart of Northern California’s pot-growing mecca to National City near the Mexico border have either imposed or are contemplating tough restrictions on recreational marijuana sales and cultivation.

However, under Proposition 64, which is winning in polls, local governments would not be able to prohibit people 21 and older from having up to six marijuana plants for personal use and possessing up to an ounce of pot.(cont)
 
Baron23,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Not sure of your question but by impairment I meant the inability to operate the vehicle safely. This could be caused by any number of internal and external factors.

It shouldn't be about what's in the driver's system, but whether they're in a proper state to safely drive and their performance behind the wheel. Why was the driver stopped? Were they veering from lane to lane? Were they driving recklessly? When being questioned by the officer, did the driver react coherently?
I agree. A person should not be convicted of driving under the influence based upon statistics but based on facts.

A person's body weight and tolerance play a role in this as well. Some people have such high tolerances, they barely feel the intoxicating effects of cannabis, just the relief of anxiety, pain, etc. In my experience, cannabis affects driving performance far less than alcohol and prescription drugs for those who consume cannabis regularly.
Maybe, maybe not. But, studies certainly show disparate dosage related to impairment results for THC.

It seems unjust to say, stop someone who's driving safely, for something like a taillight infraction, who smells like cannabis, to then be tested and/or charged with driving under the influence.
At the same time, how fair is it to die because another person misjudged how well he could drive while high?
 
Top Bottom