Hopefully everyone will be marking the YES box

K

I am against marijuana for one it hurts people who live in apartments if their neighbors smoke cigarettes and/or marijuana it can travel through cracks in the shared walls or duct work and irritate neighbors.

And two, it gives the government something to do and keeps its busy arresting drug dealers and keeps them from focusing on hobbyists and providers.  Look at Seattle ever since they legalized marijuana they went all out with the government's extra free time to focus on pooners.  They have elaborate stings up there even renting out an entire hotel room once and and massage establishment another time.  So better keep the government focused on drug dealers whom are generally scum.

 

 

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

Absolutely yes!

It's not perfect,  but it's a great start to normalizing marijuana.

I will absolutely vote yes, but we must not forget that Arizona has a NO TOLERANCE LAW as it regards DUI, none, none, our driving laws need to change as well, especially since there is no standard, easy, or totally reliable test for THC currently, I speak from direct family experience.  Enjoy at home, stay at home.

What a moronic view! Educate yourself about the proposal.

You are right.  Any measurable amount of THC results in a DUI conviction for drugs, without exception.  They don't even need to prove that the driver was impaired if they have a positive drug test.  This proposition does not change that DUI law, and I haven't heard of anybody who is proposing to lighten up any DUI laws lately either.  

I understand someone appealed their marijuana DUI to a higher court to argue that marijuana is a medicine because they have their medical marijuana card, so the DUI conviction should be reversed.  The court made a ruling which stated that the conviction will stand, because marijuana is not even a prescribed medication, it is only recommended by a doctor, therefore it is not exempt like a prescribed medicine is, and they are still guilty of DUI.  So that is settled case law as far as I know.

-- Modified on 8/12/2016 7:01:23 PM

What if someone has a prescription for oxycodone and takes some then drives but does not consent to the roadside tests?  Then the government cannot prove impairment and the oxycodone amount in the blood is legal due to the prescription?  I think if it is a non-marijuana prescription the government has to prove impairment to the slightest degree so having a blood test for a prescription is not in of itself a conviction.  Discuss.

 

 

Marijuana is already regulated. If you have a legitimate medical reason to have pot you can already get it. The general population doesn't need to be running around high. Most people are dumb enough all ready.

There are two ways to get convicted of DUI, one is to have the prosecution prove impairment to the slightest degree, the other way is by using the per-se laws.  The per-se laws say that if you have .08 BAC alcohol, then you are legally impaired, or if you have ANY measurable amount of illegal drugs in your blood, then you are legally impaired.  With a blood test like that, and using the per-se laws, they don't even have to prove that you were impaired in order to get a conviction.

Now as far as roadside tests, you can refuse to do them, that is your right.  But if you refuse the blood/breath/urine test, you will get an administrative license suspension for 1 year, minimum.  Then what will probably happen is the officer will get a search warrant for your blood, and take it anyway even without your consent, by force if necessary.

As for oxycodone, if you do have a valid prescription for it, they can't bust you for DUI using the per-se laws, but they can bust you using the first method, that is to say if the officer can articulate that you appear to be impaired, even to the slightest degree.  At least that is my understanding.  Marijuana users would most likely be busted with the per-se law, since any trace amount of THC is good enough for a conviction, and the prosecutor does not have to prove impairment otherwise.  That is the trap of legalized marijuana.  Yes, it would be legal, but if you smoke it, then it would never be legal for you to drive unless the DUI laws are changed.

then someone with a medical marijuana card, could pass all the roadside tests and still be convicted of DUI by having a marijuana blood or urine test.

Then in the case of a citizen with a prescription for oxycodone, he would then agree to the blood test due to not wanting a license suspension (implied consent) for one year.  But having the oxycodone is not a per se DUI violation due to the prescription.  The government would have to use other evidence (if the roadside tests are refused) to prove impairment to the slightest degree.  What is the so called other evidence other than the original observed traffic violation which provided probable cause to pull the driver over in the first place?

Whoever said there has to be evidence "other" than why a cop pulled you over in the first place?  Whoever said that a cop needs to do a roadside test to conclude that you seem impaired to him?

The general population also doesn't need to be running around drunk off their ass...but I currently am.  So what's the difference?

Alcohol is legal. Please don't sell yourself sort. You are not a part of GenPop. You are both a whoremonger and TER member.

We have the highest incarceration rate of the world.  So I would rather the drug users and drug dealers be put in jail than the non-drug users.  So we should not advocate that drugs be legalized because then the government will have more resources to go after non-drug users.  

The drug war is busy work and it keeps the government out of trouble and we should encourage more agents to be put on drug related tasks!

This article seems to suggest that providers are initially caused by brain mis-development caused by fetal alcohol syndrome.  

-- Modified on 8/16/2016 2:09:58 AM

You sir are a complete buffoon.