understood....but all the cop has to do is say he suspects you of being impaired and then it's the saliva and blood test or you risk a suspended license. It's another legal loophole for them to violate 4A.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
Yup.
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,362
- Likes
- 109,104
They won't GAF, because they won't be prosecuted as a protected sanctuary class, unless they know they've left DNA at a crime scene other than the border violation
Only $90 - No abstinence required! (they also sell synthetic urine)
Oral Clear
$120.00 $90.00
Quantity:
The all NEW Oral Clear Saliva Neutralizing Gum clears out nicotine and all other toxins. CURRENT STOCK EXPIRES October 31st, 2019
Clears out Nicotine and all other toxins!
Oral Clear
$120.00 $90.00
Quantity:
The all NEW Oral Clear Saliva Neutralizing Gum clears out nicotine and all other toxins. CURRENT STOCK EXPIRES October 31st, 2019
- Description
- Directions
- Product FAQ
Clears out Nicotine and all other toxins!
- No abstinence period is required!
- Effective in a blazing fast 30 seconds and will last 30 minutes
AHM
NES Member
Howie Carr Show Mashup of the Day.
Besides, maybe Annie Dookhan lacks the enzymes to analyze crimalien DNA.
I'll vote to do away with DUI laws, when the family of the injured gets to deal out it's own punishment without repercussions.
Or perhaps do away with laws that punish non damaging actions? If they hurt someone or break something, make it an add on charge and jack up their sentence. Otherwise what is it they have done wrong? Nobody loses their rights, goes to jail and/or pays thousands for lawyers when they text while driving and that is just as dangerous.
Bad news - smoking chronic might reveal your toxic masculinity too. Cause or correlation?
"A new study from Harvard University researchers found men who smoke marijuana have significantly higher sperm counts than non-tokers."
"A new study from Harvard University researchers found men who smoke marijuana have significantly higher sperm counts than non-tokers."
crispnipz
NES Member
Making the mistake of overpaying at a Taxachusetts rec shop? Probably. Making the mistake of simultaneously exercising a natural right while in full compliance with a state law? Molon labe.
That's a great theory unfortunately its terribly flawed, although its always ironic to see the Molon Labe phrase since the first people who used it got their asses kicked and lost everything
Now onto more practical discussions, the state does not usurp the feds here who have made it clear that ANY use is unlawful. So theres that.
Because you can't pay me enough to replace my child. You wouldn't survive 5 minutes in a locked room with me if you hurt my child. So, until I get those 5 minutes or the worth of my child, no.
Also, as soon as you are done texting, you can drive normally. And yes, I'd like to see texting elevated to the same condition, but that would be statist of me, so I'll pass.
Sure, because someone who drives drunk and does not hit anyone somehow hurt your child? Or perhaps you get more revenge if someone was to hypothetically hit your child while driving drunk and they get hit with a 2 year DUI in addition to whatever charge for hurting the kid instead of a 2 year enhancement on the sentence for said crime?
It is statist of you to want any malum prohibitum nonsense to stand. I understand that DUI is usually an emotional issue rather than logical. But how does it hurt you for someone to drive drunk? And assuming the sentence enhancement is the same as the current DUI regardless of what they did (Property damage, hitting a person, killing someone, etc.) than you get the same out of that that you would out of DUI as a stand alone crime. Either way nobody is going to let you take it into your own hands, however good it might make you feel in that situation so that little flight of fancy makes no difference here.
So, what you're saying is you are fine with killing children? As long as there's alcohol involved?
It is scientifically proven that driving under the influence degrades the ability to make decisions in a timely manner. That is not 'emotional', that is a simply fact. Now, can we discuss what is 'impaired', sure. I've never drank and been tested to absolutely know what .08 feels like and if I am degraded to the point of not being able to drive, so we can have a discussion as to what level of impairment needs to be sanctioned. I'm not keen on DUI checkpoints, but those were put in place long before I was the age to vote, and I wouldn't vote for them now.
I don't know what it's like in the freedom mecca of the northeast, but my time in Maine, I didn't see a single DUI citation issued. The only citation I've seen issued down here was when a driver took off on the officer as he was walking up. She could barely stand when we finally stopped her. She went to jail, the deputy told me walking up the first time, "Let's let her call and get someone to come get her". Her going to jail was on her, and her alone.
The major difference between pot and drinking is, the level of effect the drug has in it's normal usage: How many marijuanas can you take before it affects you. I can drink one beer every hour and know on average my liver is pushing it out. How many marijuanas can you take an hour and still drive safely? Who knows.
Wow strawman much? I have been clear, if they hurt someone make it an add on charge. If not leave them the hell alone. Laws should punish actual harm, not perhaps, maybe, greater chance to harm. If they hurt a child because they chose to drink and drive by all means burn them. If they hurt nobody, how can you justify ruining their life?
As far as the impairment of marijuana I think you hit that close to right on. How much before you are impaired enough that it makes a difference? And more than that how do we test for that when the only testing we have will peg if you have used it in the last month or 3. Cops would likely be happier as a group with legalization if there was a roadside test, but the core of that is how does it affect your driving at all, and I have no idea there. Is it an actual impairment, or simply people assume it is because drugs?
Ugh, wouldn't a 'strawman' argument be 'what if someone shoots a gun into the air'?
Or is that a non-sequitur?
Heavy MJ users I used to know (mostly computer programmers, if you use Linux, you benefit from the work of potheads) were at least as good a judge of their own THC impairment as you are of your booze impairment. The US NIH acknowledges that pot users are likely better judges of their own impairment than are users of alcohol and acknowledge that most "car accidents caused by THC users" are really about polydrug abuse, generally pot and booze at the same time:
See also the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) paper "Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk".NIH.GOV said:
Unfortunately that’s just for banking so until the make it legal to use and get BATF to change their rules and policies any legal firearm owner could jeopardize their license to carry and ability to own firearms.
Randy Lahey
NES Member
Fascinating how the maternal instinct overrides common sense in exchange for an imagined sense of greater security: “for the children”. I know the world is a scary place, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water; punish people for actual crimes not crimes that could be.
It is doing nothing and they know that. Just appears they actually give a crap. Then people will say oooooohhh look they are getting it done hahahaha such fail. Until BATF sends out a letter saying it’s clear , it’s not.
crispnipz
NES Member
That's a great theory unfortunately its terribly flawed, although its always ironic to see the Molon Labe phrase since the first people who used it got their asses kicked and lost everything
I am unable to find a single instance of anyone being charged for being a firearms owner while possessing or purchasing legal recreational marijuana in any state where it is legal.
As an example, socialite playboy Dan Bilzerian both:
Publicly admits to being a cannabis user: Dan Bilzerian Gives Exercise Tips for Stoner Gains
Publicly shows his collection of firearms: https://static.independent.co.uk/s3...mbnails/image/2017/10/04/07/dan-bilzerian.jpg
Bilzerian is about the most blatant example of someone being a simultaneous cannabis user and firearms owner. And until he is prosecuted by the ATF for such, the ATF has no business telling anyone in compliance with state law that they can't own firearms.
Dan has much more money than you. And sure you can rant on the ATF all day but they are the ones who can make your life a living hell. So roll the dice. Maybe the defense that they can’t tell you what to do will work, I doubt it but I’m not a lawyer.
crispnipz
NES Member
So? What's more important is that he is a high-profile individual who breaks this law, but is otherwise lawful. If the ATF wanted to send a message, they would nab him or someone like him.
It's not rolling the dice, nobody has been prosecuted for this and I doubt they would because:
1. they want distributors
2. they don't want to create a situation where some people get prosecuted for this and others don't
I spent 8 years there, but I was in a very remote area. Don't get get all in a ruffle about anecdotal strawman non-sequitur.
Similar threads
