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

[looney2nz]

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

I think it was 5nl/ml, and as I recall, it was a number pretty much straight out of someone's ass.

We're not <piss> testing for delta-11 THC (which is the metabolite that stays present in the body for 30 days), we're talking a saliva or blood test. I can't wait to see the field test units... understand how THEY work, I know one of them is testing for traces of delta-9 THC in the saliva.

There are SO many variables here... aside from BMI, digestive efficiency/deficiency, type of ingestion (vape, medible, capsules, tinctures), amount of CBD ingested with (or in particular PRIOR to) the THC, and not the least - tolerance.

Wasn't there a recent Auto Club Study that said impairment from cannabis vastly less than alcohol and had a distinctly different character to their impairment. I think they also noted the difficulty in assessing actual impairment based on an arbitrary lab threshold.

That isn't to say that I endorse driving impaired... I'd rather take a hot shower, kick back and relax.
But I took care of LOTS of people doing psychedelics when I was young (never participated), I got real good at snaking folks keys (they hardly ever noticed).

I just think this a vastly different level of issue, and it's a bit too early to be jumping to conclusions... but then again, I also recognize it's a potential revenue stream denied for the time being.

 

[Tranquility]

I think it was 5nl/ml, and as I recall, it was a number pretty much straight out of someone's ass.

Some states have that as their Per Se limit. And, while there is some justification, that justification is nothing more than an argument.

We're not <piss> testing for delta-11 THC (which is the metabolite that stays present in the body for 30 days), we're talking a saliva or blood test. I can't wait to see the field test units... understand how THEY work, I know one of them is testing for traces of delta-9 THC in the saliva.

There are SO many variables here... aside from BMI, digestive efficiency/deficiency, type of ingestion (vape, medible, capsules, tinctures), amount of CBD ingested with (or in particular PRIOR to) the THC, and not the least - tolerance.

I am uncertain about the variables you mention. Do you have a cite? As to "tolerance", that is a catch all that can be used to adjust the dose/effect ratio in a statistical attempt to make a direct relationship (mo' drug, mo' effect) when the data do not show it.

Wasn't there a recent Auto Club Study that said impairment from cannabis vastly less than alcohol and had a distinctly different character to their impairment. I think they also noted the difficulty in assessing actual impairment based on an arbitrary lab threshold.

I agree the studies are equivocal. There is only one major study out there that points to great danger. With the many more that point to less danger, it is making it hard for the prohibitionists to get people to agree to a per se limit law on THC to make it easier to convict drivers.

That isn't to say that I endorse driving impaired... I'd rather take a hot shower, kick back and relax.
But I took care of LOTS of people doing psychedelics when I was young (never participated), I got real good at snaking folks keys (they hardly ever noticed).

I just think this a vastly different level of issue, and it's a bit too early to be jumping to conclusions... but then again, I also recognize it's a potential revenue stream denied for the time being.

I appreciate the revenue stream concept. However, we cannot tar all who want to stop drugged driving as wanting money and not caring about a real problem.

 

[Adobewan]

I agree. A person should not be convicted of driving under the influence based upon statistics but based on facts.

Which facts? That they are driving unsafely or because they have cannabis in their system?

At the same time, how fair is it to die because another person misjudged how well he could drive while high?

That driver would be impaired and therefore shouldn't be driving.
Whether it's cold medicine or cannabis, if the person is not able to operate the vehicle safely, then they shouldn't be on the road. How fair is it to die because someone misjudged how well they could drive on Oxycontin?
Are you OK to drive after a beer? What about after three? We expect responsible citizens to measure their alcohol consumption before driving, should it differ with the lesser danger of the two?

If we're stopped under the same taillight infraction scenario I mentioned above, with cold medicine in our system, should there be a consequence? Should it differ from the same scenario with cannabis?

I, too, am not suggesting, condoning, or promoting driving while under the influence. I'm addressing one of the many imbalanced approaches to cannabis that ignores science.

And to get us back on track, after rereading this thread, as well as external sources, I'm back on board with AUMA.

 

[Tranquility]

Which facts? That they are driving unsafely or because they have cannabis in their system?

Both. Each can be relevant. Once contact is legally made, all the facts matter.

That driver would be impaired and therefore shouldn't be driving.
Whether it's cold medicine or cannabis, if the person is not able to operate the vehicle safely, then they shouldn't be on the road. How fair is it to die because someone misjudged how well they could drive on Oxycontin?
Are you OK to drive after a beer? What about after three? We expect responsible citizens to measure their alcohol consumption before driving, should it differ with the lesser danger of the two?

I am uncertain at to your meaning, but, no. At it's core, DUI is what is known as a general (as opposed to specific) intent crime. Like rape, it does not matter if you intended to drive under the influence, only that you intended to drive. (It gets worse when we really break down what courts determine is that intent.) The law does not consider the driver's ability to tell if he is intoxicated.

If we're stopped under the same taillight infraction scenario I mentioned above, with cold medicine in our system, should there be a consequence? Should it differ from the same scenario with cannabis?

Theoretically? They should be the same. Practically and realistically? Without an admission from the driver, is there a difference in determining between if someone has taken a cold medicine and if someone has taken marijuana? (Assume someone with your training and experience.)

mod note: Edited to fix misquote

 

[looney2nz]

Here's another study to add to the confusion

http://www.mcleanhospital.org/news/...rijuana-use-may-improve-cognitive-performance

 

[macbill]

Pot shops prepare for new customers, challenges if Prop. 64 passes

There will be no dramatic “day one” of recreational sales as in Colorado in 2014, when the global media flocked to witness America’s first legal recreational sale in modern times. For California, prohibition might end not with a bang but with a series of press releases, as established medical stores start serving recreational pot.

 

[macbill]

If Prop 64 passes, what happens to prisoners convicted of marijuana charges?

Though most of the attention surrounding Proposition 64 centers on how the measure would make it legal for adults to consume recreational marijuana, the law would do something else: potentially reduce prison sentences and clear old criminal records related to marijuana.

 

[macbill]

Here's why pot growers are paying millions for old greenhouses in the Salinas Valley

Buying and selling greenhouses in the Salinas Valley was never going to be the stuff of a reality TV show. But it was a good, quiet living for commercial Realtor Chuck Allen.
Then marijuana came to the valley. Now, agricultural real estate is booming. The largely empty greenhouses where flowers once were grown are fetching multimillion-dollar prices, and Allen, 76, is raking in commissions bigger than many people’s annual salary.

 

[CalyxSmokr]

I haven't read the thread yet but I voted no on 64. Too much monopoly, too few plant limit, and the shit should be descheduled and not super-regulated. I hope I am wrong but the existing medical is better than this "legalization".

 

[Amoreena]

...the shit should be descheduled and not super-regulated. I hope I am wrong but the existing medical is better than this "legalization".

That was my conclusion, too.

 

[syrupy]

Nov. 8, 2016, 8:12 p.m.
Californians vote to legalize recreational use of marijuana in the state

Voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 64, which would make California the most populous state in the nation to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

 

[MinnBobber]

Nov. 8, 2016, 8:12 p.m.
Californians vote to legalize recreational use of marijuana in the state

Yes !!!!! Not perfect BUT hopefully the tipping point for getting legal cannabis throughout the US and worldwide. And helping to restore broken families as mj possession felons gets released.

Quote from CA police rep:
“We are, of course, disappointed that the self-serving moneyed interests behind this marijuana business plan prevailed at the cost of public health, safety, and the wellbeing of our communities,” said Chief Ken Corney, president of the California Police Chiefs Assn.

How ironic that the police rep is talking about legal mj being "self-serving" when who was against it?
Prison guard orgs, police orgs, big pharma, alcohol industry, tobacco industry.
Look up "Self-serving" in the "dick-shun-ary" and their logos are there, front and center.

IMO, CA legal is key key "Driver" in legal mj movement and don't understand the vote no reasoning. Some say is crushes the small grower but I just don't see it: For 5 years there will only be small and medium grow licenses with max area of 1 acre. Large licenses will be reviewed in 5 years, before allowing, to decide IF they even want to allow large growers. Even if they do, small growers are the "craft beer brewers" of the cannabis world---filling a need


Congrats to CA and FYI, AZ is looking bad......so
Where's a good warm spot in CA for snowbirding out from MN? Just need sun and mj and pickleball
Fuck AZ

 

[Adobewan]

Obama needs to remove cannabis from Schedule one before Trump, Guilianni, and Christie bring their jackboots to our throats.

 

[Tranquility]

Obama needs to remove cannabis from Schedule one before Trump, Guilianni, and Christie bring their jackboots to our throats.

I disagree. If one can waive something away, another can waive it back. I understand the rush to want to win; but, it is the hearts and minds that must be convinced by reason and not forced by law if we want legalization to be a movement and not a temporary lull in enforcement.

We are almost there. As long as the legalization states don't screw up and create a marijuana problem, legalization seems like it will happen. Rushing only ensures argument. Let us let the mellow vapor suffuse itself through the body politic until all agree legalization is sensible and right.

 

[Adobewan]

I disagree. If one can waive something away, another can waive it back. I understand the rush to want to win; but, it is the hearts and minds that must be convinced by reason and not forced by law if we want legalization to be a movement and not a temporary lull in enforcement.

We are almost there. As long as the legalization states don't screw up and create a marijuana problem, legalization seems like it will happen. Rushing only ensures argument. Let us let the mellow vapor suffuse itself through the body politic until all agree legalization is sensible and right.

It's already a movement and it's sweeping the nation. There's difference when the momentum of the population's support, as well as science, is behind an issue.
And good God, if we could count on "reason" to affect our leaders we wouldn't all be shopping for houses in Canada today.

 

[Tranquility]

And good God, if we could count on "reason" to affect our leaders we wouldn't all be shopping for houses in Canada today.

Anyone actually shopping would demonstrate our leaders aren't the only ones not being affected by reason.

But, I still say the magic wave would hurt more than help in the long term.

 

[HomeFree]

I voted no on 64. I read the bill and it looks like a huge sham to fleece more money from cannabis users and producers, putting big money cannabis in charge. Any kind of money or property you don't have nailed down the state seems to want to take these days. Give them a little and then they want you to empty your pockets until all you have is some spare change if you are lucky. I am getting really tired of it. California must be in financial trouble.

However, if I understand it right, people in jail/prison right now for non violent cannabis "crimes" can now petition for reduced sentences or even be set free. I am not sure how many there are, but that would be great if they could set a bunch of people free. I doubt it is a lot of people though, jailed for less than an oz (I think it may have to be 28.5 grams or under) and still in jail as CA has been really easy on cannabis for a good 25 years now. But still, people do not belong in jail for buying, using, giving away, selling, growing cannabis so long as they do not actually commit a crime (cause harm to another person).

I just hope Trump (Pence) does not send in the feds to bust up 'legal' states. I am all for states rights but the day cannabis is completely dropped from the CSA will be the day I will celebrate for a tyrant could send in the storm troopers to enforce federal law (schedule 1) as it stands. People were worried that Obama would. I am not too worried about Trump giving a damn about cannabis (probably does not care) but Pence is a different story altogether. That guys honestly scares me.

 

[MinnBobber]

I voted no on 64. I read the bill and it looks like a huge sham to fleece more money from cannabis users and producers, putting big money cannabis in charge. Any kind of money or property you don't have nailed down the state seems to want to take these days. Give them a little and then they want you to empty your pockets until all you have is some spare change if you are lucky. I am getting really tired of it. California must be in financial trouble.....

IMO, very thankful it passed.

"...more than 6,000 people serving time who could potentially have their time behind bars shortened or even go free if Prop. 64 passes on Tuesday, according to an estimate by the Drug Policy Alliance, which is funding the measure.

Another 1 million people convicted of marijuana-related misdemeanors and felonies could petition to have their records changed or cleared, the nonprofit organization estimates. That would give them wider access to jobs, housing and other services that are currently out of reach."

This alone is a huge huge positive.

For 5 years, CA will only give small and med grower licenses, with nothing over 1 acre for outdoor grows so not sure where all this big cannabis fear comes from. After 5 years, a decision will then be made to decide IF CA even wants to let growers over 1 acre happen.

Plus, passage sends a huge message to the Feds AND to the rest of the world, that the green wave is here and won't be stopped.

Thankfully, the majority of CA voters looked at the big picture and the positives, not focusing on Prop 64 being imperfect.

 

[CalyxSmokr]

right now I am glad it passed. I fear a fed crackdown more than anything else now. I thought we would be dealing with Clinton not holy rollers and prohibitionists

 

[macbill]

When does California's marijuana law go into effect? These are the key dates to know.

The law........... will take some time to achieve its full effect. While the base provisions making it legal to smoke weed in private throughout the state and be in possession of it went into force on Wednesday, Californians who do not already have a medical marijuana card may need to wait until Jan. 1, 2018. That's when the state will begin issuing retail licenses to allow dispensaries to sell and profit from recreational pot, according to the L.A. Times, which noted black market sales will remain illegal.

 

[TwistedGray]

Keep your medical cards to avoid the heavy taxations by the way. With a medical card you don't have to pay the 15% tax that Prop 64 allowed.

 

[Scott A]

Obama needs to remove cannabis from Schedule one before Trump, Guilianni, and Christie bring their jackboots to our throats.

Really? Really? Just ridiculousness

And good God, if we could count on "reason" to affect our leaders we wouldn't all be shopping for houses in Canada today.

oh ffs this getting ridiculous

 

[lwien]

Keep your medical cards to avoid the heavy taxations by the way. With a medical card you don't have to pay the 15% tax that Prop 64 allowed.

This really depends on how much bud you go through in a year. The cost for the annual "card" may end up being more than the 15% savings that you would save. It would be for me anyway.

But yeah, I'm glad it passed as well. Gotta get that ball rolling in the right direction.

Obama needs to remove cannabis from Schedule one before Trump, Guilianni, and Christie bring their jackboots to our throats.

Christie seems to be out of the picture right now and in reality, Trump may actually be more favorable in not fucking with state laws than Clinton would have been.

Really? Really? Just ridiculousness


oh ffs this getting ridiculous

@Scott A, please don't work on getting this thread shut down as well.

 

[Scott A]

Christie seems to be out of the picture right now and in reality, Trump may actually be more favorable in not fucking with state laws than Clinton would have been.



@Scott A, please don't work on getting this thread shut down as well.

Trust me that is not my goal lwien. I just dont support fear mongering. You seem to be very even headed in your response and that is basically the way I felt even before the election. I just dont think Trump or really anything he will do will be a detriment to our cause. I didnt really think Hillary would be either though.

 

[pakalolo]

Really? Really? Just ridiculousness


oh ffs this getting ridiculous

If you want to counter someone's point with some facts and can do so with respect, have at it. If your only contribution is to call someone ridiculous, then I suggest that you didn't really spend any time reading over the FC rules as you were asked to do when you were suspended—or perhaps you still haven't grasped what Be Nice means. Regardless of the explanation, please note that you are on really thin ice.