What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

SteveP said:
You're absolutely right Bob. I lost a trial and retrial of a kid who caused a fatal accident when he was high. We had toxicology results, but were unable to prove when the accused ingested the THC.

I watched the 17-year old victim die in the arms of an off-duty nurse. It was that case that made me decide that 21 years was enough. I still think about it more than 20 years later.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry about that SteveP. I'm wondering if it would be difficult to make driving under the influence of pot laws kind of like DWI with alcohol. It would be common sense to at least do something if pot becomes legal.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

I think the problem is that field testing for marijuana use isn't as easy as giving someone a breathalyzer. Such devices either do not yet exist, or have not been readily distributed to police departments. Only way they can test you is by sampling your blood, urine, or hair. And with the way those tests can flag a person for use that may have occurred 2-3 weeks ago, it's not reliable for determining if someone was high when they were pulled over or caused an accident.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

SteveP said:
You're absolutely right Bob. I lost a trial and retrial of a kid who caused a fatal accident when he was high. We had toxicology results, but were unable to prove when the accused ingested the THC.

I watched the 17-year old victim die in the arms of an off-duty nurse. It was that case that made me decide that 21 years was enough. I still think about it more than 20 years later.
Click to expand...
Here in Arizona the DUI laws apparently capture people who have THC in their system, even if they (at least claim) that they hadn't used in weeks. So the pot promoters here are pushing to soften up the DUI laws to not account for THC in the system, but I haven't seen anything in the articles indicating how you'd test for pot in the system in a way that at least somewhat accurately measures possible impairment the way the blood alcohol level does for alcohol. Like many things in this country, we act now and think of the ramifications later.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Pot and fatalities does seem to be a big problem. Here's a few facts from an article from this year:

Fatal crashes involving marijuana use tripled during the previous decade, fueling some of the overall increase in drugged-driving traffic deaths, researchers from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health report.

"Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana," said co-author Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia. "If this trend continues, in five or six years non-alcohol drugs will overtake alcohol to become the most common substance involved in deaths related to impaired driving."

The research team drew its conclusions from crash statistics from six states that routinely perform toxicology tests on drivers involved in fatal car wrecks -- California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and West Virginia. The statistics included more than 23,500 drivers who died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010.

Alcohol contributed to about the same percentage of traffic fatalities throughout the decade, about 40 percent, Li said.

But drugs played an increasingly prevalent role in fatal crashes, the researchers found. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, up from more than 16 percent in 1999.

Marijuana proved to be the main drug involved in the increase, contributing to 12 percent of 2010 crashes compared with 4 percent in 1999.

http://consumer.healthday.com/publi...pot-use-have-tripled-in-u-s-study-684515.html
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Bob Gray said:
Nobody thought through much of anything before these laws were passed. Another big mess is how legal pot intersects with driving under the influence laws. Laws were written with alcohol in mind, but pot is obviously very different in its effects, residue left in the bloodstream, etc.
Click to expand...

Completely agree here Bob. Not a fan of this legalization trend either, and for similar reasons. I don't want people stoned out of their minds thinking they can get behind the wheel any more than I want drunks behind the wheel. In Colorado, can a cop pull you over and arrest you if you smell like pot? Not sure what the answer is but I can see every driver beating the rap in court by claiming what's their system is from days ago. Can you imagine if DUI's could claim that?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Agreed. At the very very least, folks should identify and try to work through all these sorts of issues before pursuing legalization. To do otherwise is simply irresponsible.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I think the problem is that field testing for marijuana use isn't as easy as giving someone a breathalyzer. Such devices either do not yet exist, or have not been readily distributed to police departments. Only way they can test you is by sampling your blood, urine, or hair. And with the way those tests can flag a person for use that may have occurred 2-3 weeks ago, it's not reliable for determining if someone was high when they were pulled over or caused an accident.
Click to expand...
You are right. Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) have been in place since the 70's, but there are not many. It's something that I looked into before leaving the job in 1994. We did not have any when I investigated that fatal accident.

A drug recognition expert or drug recognition evaluator (DRE) is a police officer trained to recognize impairment in drivers under the influence of drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) coordinates the International Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program with support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation. In addition to officers, who are certified as DREs, the DECP educates prosecutors and judges in the prosecution of drugged drivers.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) originated the program in the early 1970s when LAPD officers noticed that many of the individuals arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) had very low or zero alcohol concentrations. The officers reasonably suspected that the arrestees were under the influence of drugs, but lacked the knowledge and skills to support their suspicions. In response, two LAPD sergeants collaborated with various medical doctors, research psychologists, and other medical professionals to develop a simple, standardized procedure for recognizing drug influence and impairment. Their efforts culminated in the development of a multi-step protocol and the first DRE program. The LAPD formally recognized the program in 1979.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

CO passed a driving while stoned law last spring well ahead of the legalization on Jan. 1.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

jerphisch said:
CO passed a driving while stoned law last spring well ahead of the legalization on Jan. 1.
Click to expand...
Right. Given current drug tests, go prove it.

But the bigger question is if Justice says that it is OK for Federally Chartered Banks to process payments from marijuana sellers in Colorado, does DoJ give tacit approval that marijuana is a legal substance?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

jerphisch said:
Blood test, and if you refuse to take it they can suspend your license.
Click to expand...

Someone could make a mint on a test that detects pot a la a breathalyzer. I think we need to drill it into people's heads that stoned driving can be just as awful as drunk driving.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

SteveP said:
You are right. Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) have been in place since the 70's, but there are not many. It's something that I looked into before leaving the job in 1994. We did not have any when I investigated that fatal accident.
Click to expand...

Of course drug recognition is junk science to begin with in so much as it is easily manipulated to get false positives for convictions. Not that any cops would ever do that... :rolleyes:
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Republicans have found a new way to raise money for their Congressional candidates: Pretend to be Democrats.

Florida’s 13th congressional district will host a special election next month and by all appearances, it should be a close contest. Democrats have nominated former state CFO Alex Sink, who very nearly won the 2010 gubernatorial race, and have high hopes about her chances.

The National Republican Congressional Committee is also taking the race very seriously – so seriously, in fact, that the NRCC has come up with an unusual fundraising gambit.

Folks can go to a website that looks legitimate – contribute.sinkforcongress2014.com – and find a nice photo of the Democratic candidate alongside a graphic that reads, “Alex Sink - Congress.” If you’re not reading carefully, you might assume this is a page for Sink supporters to make a campaign contribution to their preferred candidate. But it’s not – this is a page set up by Republicans. The Tampa Bay Times reported yesterday:

Ray Bellamy said he wanted to make a political contribution to Alex Sink a Google search landed him at “http://contribute.sinkforcongress2014.com.”
“It looked legitimate and had a smiling face of Sink and all the trappings of a legitimate site,” Bellamy, a doctor from Tallahassee who follows Florida politics, wrote in an email to the [Times].

What Bellamy overlooked was that the site is designed to raise money against Sink. “I failed to notice the smaller print: Under “Alex Sink Congress” was the sentence ‘Make a contribution today to help defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her,’ ” he said.
Once Democratic supporters make their contribution, they’re directed to a new page on the NRCC’s website thanking them for donating to defeat Democrats.
Click to expand...

In other words, the Republican campaign committee seems to be trying to trick people – and in at least some instances, it’s having the desired effect.

What’s more, this isn’t limited to Florida.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Gurtholfin said:
Christie is simply a victim of his own super-sized ego.

It was bound to burn him eventually.


And no doubt that the right wing wants him gone and now is their chance. He's not far right looney enough and can't be controlled. They want their puppets on their strings and there ain't rope strong enough for that guy.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Stinky, for that nuanced analysis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top