Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

[Jimjamesak]

I don't know what flies in Alaska, but there's a few things here that don't apply especially since we're talking about Massachusetts.

1) Cops can't be everywhere at once. If you call them and they respond, I'm assuming they'd have to catch people in the act as well. If there's no fear of arrest, I'm guessing these people will be happy to risk a 25 dollar fine as opposed to toking up in their parents basement.

2) I'm not aware of cops taking a blood test down at the station for a drunk driving arrest. I don't think you can compel blood tests out of people except under court order but I'll let the legal beagles speak to that. But, your premise is still incorrect. A blood test will show pot for smoking up to a month ago. Why not just claim you're not stoned now, and its showing what you did yesterday or last week? Again, you'll win in court every time, which makes the law unenforceable.

Your haughty attitude in dismissing these questions isn't going to serve your cause well. People want to regulate pot like alcohol? Sounds good. Can you drink beer in public, like in the park or on the street? No, not less specifically permitted or residing in New Orleans. Can you drive with too much alcohol in your system? No. Can you show up for work smelling like alcohol? No. Is public intoxication legal? No.

So, until you're willing to apply the same standards, my answer is no.

Ugh, you are woefully ignorant. You're asking questions that have already been answered.

Yes you can be compelled to provide a blood sample, its standard practice upon arrest for impaired driving. Yes, even Massachusetts with its implied consent laws and yes this includes marijuana.

No, you cannot smoke in public. It's up to officers to enforce said laws.

No, you cannot operate a vehicle under the influence of marijuana. It's even in your laws right now.

No, you cannot show up to work stoned. You'll probably be asked for a drug test.

And as for being stoned in public, considering that being intoxicated in public is not a crime in Massachusetts that's kind of a pointless argument.

Your bias against marijuana is showing. I know you have it because the "free weed loving stoner" was your go to label for Bernie Sanders supporters.

 

[Rover]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

Ugh, you are woefully ignorant. You're asking questions that have already been answered.

Yes you can be compelled to provide a blood sample, its standard practice upon arrest for impaired driving. Yes, even Massachusetts with its implied consent laws and yes this includes marijuana.

No, you cannot smoke in public. It's up to officers to enforce said laws.

No, you cannot operate a vehicle under the influence of marijuana. It's even in your laws right now.

No, you cannot show up to work stoned. You'll probably be asked for a drug test.

And as for being stoned in public, considering that being intoxicated in public is not a crime in Massachusetts that's kind of a pointless argument.

Your bias against marijuana is showing. I know you have it because the "free weed loving stoner" was your go to label for Bernie Sanders supporters.

Huh...and I'm ignorant. Looks like you've been fudging a bit Mr. Expert.

"Implied Consent

Massachusetts law requires you to take a breath or blood test if you are arrested for a DWI. Massachusetts’s “implied consent” law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been driving while intoxicated, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood or breath for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken as soon as possible from when you were last driving. The officer gets to choose which test you take, although he or she must take you to a medical facility to have your blood drawn. The law also gives a special exemption for diabetics, hemophiliacs, or anyone taking anticoagulants – they don’t have to take the blood test.

Once you are arrested, the officer should tell you that if you refuse to take the test, then your license will be suspended for at least180 days and up to a life-time loss. At that point, if you decide to refuse the test then the officer can’t force you to take one. He or she will, however, take your license, give you notice that your suspension is now in effect, and will send your car to impound. Your car will be stuck in impound for 12 hours after your refusal and you will have to pay for the towing service and storage costs.

You can find the implied consent law at Massachusetts General Laws 90-24(f)."

Which is why lawyers tell their clients (there was a whole expose on this in the Globe a few months ago) to refuse the test. Yes you will be arrested but you aren't supplying incriminating evidence. They can't make you, AND they have to take you to a medical facility, not down to the station and do it there.

On public intoxication:

"What is Public Intoxication?

In Massachusetts, public intoxication is treated as a social ill, but not a crime. A police officer may assist an intoxicated person (with or without consent) to the person’s home, a health care facility, or to a police station for protective custody.

An intoxicated person taken to a health facility or a police station must be informed of his right to take a breathalyzer test, and to make one phone call (at the intoxicated person’s own expense). Protective custody is not an arrest, and the intoxicated person may be kept at a police station onlyif a suitable treatment facility is not available and until he “sobers up” (or for up to 12 hours, whichever is shorter).

(Ma. Gen. Laws Ann., Title XVI, Chap. 11B § 8.)"

The cops can take you into custody for 12 hours with or without your consent for 12 hours although you aren't charged with a crime. Are you saying you're okay with the same standard for stoners?

 

[Jimjamesak]

Huh...and I'm ignorant. Looks like you've been fudging a bit Mr. Expert.

"Implied Consent

Massachusetts law requires you to take a breath or blood test if you are arrested for a DWI. Massachusetts’s “implied consent” law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been driving while intoxicated, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood or breath for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken as soon as possible from when you were last driving. The officer gets to choose which test you take, although he or she must take you to a medical facility to have your blood drawn. The law also gives a special exemption for diabetics, hemophiliacs, or anyone taking anticoagulants – they don’t have to take the blood test.

Once you are arrested, the officer should tell you that if you refuse to take the test, then your license will be suspended for at least180 days and up to a life-time loss. At that point, if you decide to refuse the test then the officer can’t force you to take one. He or she will, however, take your license, give you notice that your suspension is now in effect, and will send your car to impound. Your car will be stuck in impound for 12 hours after your refusal and you will have to pay for the towing service and storage costs.

You can find the implied consent law at Massachusetts General Laws 90-24(f)."

Which is why lawyers tell their clients (there was a whole expose on this in the Globe a few months ago) to refuse the test. Yes you will be arrested but you aren't supplying incriminating evidence. They can't make you, AND they have to take you to a medical facility, not down to the station and do it there.

On public intoxication:

"What is Public Intoxication?

In Massachusetts, public intoxication is treated as a social ill, but not a crime. A police officer may assist an intoxicated person (with or without consent) to the person’s home, a health care facility, or to a police station for protective custody.

An intoxicated person taken to a health facility or a police station must be informed of his right to take a breathalyzer test, and to make one phone call (at the intoxicated person’s own expense). Protective custody is not an arrest, and the intoxicated person may be kept at a police station onlyif a suitable treatment facility is not available and until he “sobers up” (or for up to 12 hours, whichever is shorter).

(Ma. Gen. Laws Ann., Title XVI, Chap. 11B § 8.)"

The cops can take you into custody for 12 hours with or without your consent for 12 hours although you aren't charged with a crime. Are you saying you're okay with the same standard for stoners?

Alright let's move the goalposts back to the goal line, if you can refuse any tests related alcohol OUI then how is marijuana being treated any differently?

And sir, the goalposts are to remain on the goal line. If you have any issues with the field markings you can file a protest but the game will play with the field as marked. For attempting to move the goalposts you are being cautioned for unsporting behavior and shown the yellow card.

 

[Rover]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

I think you're a little too concerned about legalizing weed in a state thousands of miles away from you, but okay....

You're advocating legalization. I'm saying I'll consider it under two circumstances. 1) its edible pot because I don't want to deal with the smoke (I feel the same way about cigarette smoke), and 2) we need a reliable test so that the same amount of impairment doesn't get you a trip to jail for booze but a walk for pot. You went on some odd Bernie Sanders rant and then basically have implied its your way or the highway.

No, it isn't. You may have to accept that this isn't done entirely on your terms. That's life. But to get back to a question you refuse to actually answer: If you're caught driving drunk, there's a standard that applies as evidence. The breathalyzer, a .08 reading which is measuring blood-alcohol content.

I put to you, what is the marijuana legal impairment standard equivalent to the .08 standard for blood alcohol levels, and how would we realistically measure that (the trip to the hospital thing is unworkable and absurd, not to mention you can claim the pot in from days earlier)?

Lastly, because CO or AK choses to legalize pot doesn't mean everybody else should. I love New Orleans. Its the most fun non-beach vacation spot I can think of. I don't want to turn Boston into New Orleans however, or Vegas or anything like that. What works there may not work here. If your state is having fun with legal weed, good for you. Not up to me to tell you what to do. But that works both ways.

 

[Scarlet]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

The Legislature here dragged its feet on getting the infrastructure going so we haven't had shops or anything yet. However, there hasn't been a rash of impaired driving or having to smell smoke (since public consumption is banned, dumb reasoning Rover). The only consequence I'd heard was some police departments weren't happy because they had to get new drug sniffing dogs.

It's not dumb reasoning. Residents in my building smoke in the "privacy of their own homes" but it wafts out into the hallways. Some residents stand out on their balconies. It makes its way into my place. That's not right. Not an argument either or for or against but I felt the need to respond that it's not dumb reasoning at all. I don't want to smell it in my home.

 

[joecct]

It's not dumb reasoning. Residents in my building smoke in the "privacy of their own homes" but it wafts out into the hallways. Some residents stand out on their balconies. It makes its way into my place. That's not right. Not an argument either or for or against but I felt the need to respond that it's not dumb reasoning at all. I don't want to smell it in my home.

What about cigarette smoke? Are some buildings smoke free??

 

[Scarlet]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

What about cigarette smoke? Are some buildings smoke free??

The building is smoke free, so no smoking in any of the common areas but people smoke in their own units. I never smell cigarette smoke in the hallways, which is odd, given that I know people smoke. But the pot smoke odor has been more prevalent. I was just trying to make a point that Rover's comment about not liking/wanting to smell pot is not dumb reasoning.

 

[Rover]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

The building is smoke free, so no smoking in any of the common areas but people smoke in their own units. I never smell cigarette smoke in the hallways, which is odd, given that I know people smoke. But the pot smoke odor has been more prevalent. I was just trying to make a point that Rover's comment about not liking/wanting to smell pot is not dumb reasoning.

The part I don't understand with that Alaska guy is I can live with edible pot. If I'm not smelling it and you're consuming it but not doing anything dangerous (like driving) maybe its easier to legalize than criminalize. Smoke travels. Other people breathe it in, including kids. I don't want to partake in your activity, be it cigs or weed. Pot smokers even if they're ex-smokers don't have a problem with the smell, so they don't get it when other people do. I'd also point out like tobacco pot smokers tend to hang around with fellow smokers, so they think 95% of the population is getting high at any given time because all their friends are.

 

[Jimjamesak]

I think you're a little too concerned about legalizing weed in a state thousands of miles away from you, but okay....

You're advocating legalization. I'm saying I'll consider it under two circumstances. 1) its edible pot because I don't want to deal with the smoke (I feel the same way about cigarette smoke), and 2) we need a reliable test so that the same amount of impairment doesn't get you a trip to jail for booze but a walk for pot. You went on some odd Bernie Sanders rant and then basically have implied its your way or the highway.

No, it isn't. You may have to accept that this isn't done entirely on your terms. That's life. But to get back to a question you refuse to actually answer: If you're caught driving drunk, there's a standard that applies as evidence. The breathalyzer, a .08 reading which is measuring blood-alcohol content.

I put to you, what is the marijuana legal impairment standard equivalent to the .08 standard for blood alcohol levels, and how would we realistically measure that (the trip to the hospital thing is unworkable and absurd, not to mention you can claim the pot in from days earlier)?

Lastly, because CO or AK choses to legalize pot doesn't mean everybody else should. I love New Orleans. Its the most fun non-beach vacation spot I can think of. I don't want to turn Boston into New Orleans however, or Vegas or anything like that. What works there may not work here. If your state is having fun with legal weed, good for you. Not up to me to tell you what to do. But that works both ways.

Ok. You stated you were concerned about driving under the influence of marijuana and how police would enforce the laws, believing that since there is no roadside breathalyzer like test it would impossible to enforce. I countered you argument with facts about police using roadside tests to show a reasonable suspicion of impairment, the "walk the line" or "count from 23 to 49" style tests, with backup provided by blood testing showing a defined level in the laws. Yes this is controversial and contestable, however this isn't much different than proving alcohol based impairment. You countered showing that the blood test could be refused. I stated that this is not any different to refusing a blood test or breathalyzer for alcohol, making your point moot. As for your concern about "the trip to the hospital", actually the blood taking can be done at the jail. Nearly all jails across the country are equipped with facilities and personnel, such as a nurse, for this purpose.

What has got me going is not an insistence to what should happen in a different state but combating your ignorance and blatant goalpost shifting. It's not of any real concern to me what happens in Massachusetts. However, ignorance on the subject is a concern.

 

[Jimjamesak]

The building is smoke free, so no smoking in any of the common areas but people smoke in their own units. I never smell cigarette smoke in the hallways, which is odd, given that I know people smoke. But the pot smoke odor has been more prevalent. I was just trying to make a point that Rover's comment about not liking/wanting to smell pot is not dumb reasoning.

I feel it is based mostly on personal experience with the issue. I live in an apartment building where this has happened before. Yes it is a problem but it's one that can be dealt with rather easily. At my building you're not allowed to smoke in any unit, tobacco or marijuana or anything, if you are you can be evicted. This is similar in condo buildings here as well, no smoking in units and you're out if you do.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

I think you're a little too concerned about legalizing weed in a state thousands of miles away from you, but okay....

You're advocating legalization. I'm saying I'll consider it under two circumstances. 1) its edible pot because I don't want to deal with the smoke (I feel the same way about cigarette smoke), and 2) we need a reliable test so that the same amount of impairment doesn't get you a trip to jail for booze but a walk for pot. You went on some odd Bernie Sanders rant and then basically have implied its your way or the highway.

No, it isn't. You may have to accept that this isn't done entirely on your terms. That's life. But to get back to a question you refuse to actually answer: If you're caught driving drunk, there's a standard that applies as evidence. The breathalyzer, a .08 reading which is measuring blood-alcohol content.

I put to you, what is the marijuana legal impairment standard equivalent to the .08 standard for blood alcohol levels, and how would we realistically measure that (the trip to the hospital thing is unworkable and absurd, not to mention you can claim the pot in from days earlier)?

Lastly, because CO or AK choses to legalize pot doesn't mean everybody else should. I love New Orleans. Its the most fun non-beach vacation spot I can think of. I don't want to turn Boston into New Orleans however, or Vegas or anything like that. What works there may not work here. If your state is having fun with legal weed, good for you. Not up to me to tell you what to do. But that works both ways.

If you dont want him to answer questions...dont ask the questions. Jesus he was responding to you not just making a speech about how bass akwards Mass is on the idea.

 

[Jimjamesak]

If you dont want him to answer questions...dont ask the questions. Jesus he was responding to you not just making a speech about how bass akwards Mass is on the idea.

On top of that he doesn't have the courtesy to refer to me by name, just "that Alaska guy."

And to Scarlet, I did not mean to imply your concern was dumb. It is a legitimate question and I hope I answered it.

 

[Rover]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

Ok. You stated you were concerned about driving under the influence of marijuana and how police would enforce the laws, believing that since there is no roadside breathalyzer like test it would impossible to enforce. I countered you argument with facts about police using roadside tests to show a reasonable suspicion of impairment, the "walk the line" or "count from 23 to 49" style tests, with backup provided by blood testing showing a defined level in the laws. Yes this is controversial and contestable, however this isn't much different than proving alcohol based impairment. You countered showing that the blood test could be refused. I stated that this is not any different to refusing a blood test or breathalyzer for alcohol, making your point moot. As for your concern about "the trip to the hospital", actually the blood taking can be done at the jail. Nearly all jails across the country are equipped with facilities and personnel, such as a nurse, for this purpose.

What has got me going is not an insistence to what should happen in a different state but combating your ignorance and blatant goalpost shifting. It's not of any real concern to me what happens in Massachusetts. However, ignorance on the subject is a concern.

The problem is your pot advocacy is delving into la-la land. I've asked you repeatedly how a blood test would prove impairment for pot usage. I've yet to see you answer the question, but have gone on several tangents which appear to me that you're taking this issue way too personally. If there's no reliable test or standard, then there's no punishment. If pot has changed your life for the better, again good for you, but a lot of us don't wish to share the experience.

 

[Jimjamesak]

The problem is your pot advocacy is delving into la-la land. I've asked you repeatedly how a blood test would prove impairment for pot usage. I've yet to see you answer the question, but have gone on several tangents which appear to me that you're taking this issue way too personally. If there's no reliable test or standard, then there's no punishment. If pot has changed your life for the better, again good for you, but a lot of us don't wish to share the experience.

Ah, got it. I'm the crazy, pot smoking whipper snapper that won't answer your questions. Might want to zip up, your bias showing.

Final answer here, the blood test shows the presence of THC at whatever level is shown and is used as evidence to show that the defendant had used marijuana. This evidence is used in conjunction with other evidence, usually testimony from the arresting officer stating that the defendant was observed to be impaired, to try to convict.

It is not as accurate at BAC level testing and is far from perfect, that you are correct. However it is not leading to mass amounts of stoned drivers getting away with impaired driving as you so ignorantly insist.

I now wait to see where the goalposts will be shifted to...

 

[Rover]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

Ah, got it. I'm the crazy, pot smoking whipper snapper that won't answer your questions. Might want to zip up, your bias showing.

Final answer here, the blood test shows the presence of THC at whatever level is shown and is used as evidence to show that the defendant had used marijuana. This evidence is used in conjunction with other evidence, usually testimony from the arresting officer stating that the defendant was observed to be impaired, to try to convict.

It is not as accurate at BAC level testing and is far from perfect, that you are correct. However it is not leading to mass amounts of stoned drivers getting away with impaired driving as you so ignorantly insist.

I now wait to see where the goalposts will be shifted to...

Again I fail to see why you're taking this so personally, but whatever. I don't care if you're a pot smoking hippy or taking a corporate approach to all of this. I also haven't insinuated you're too stoned to answer questions but if you want to play the victim be my guest.

Is it possible people in legalization states just aren't being prosecuted for DUI-weed usage since its too difficult to prove? I don't know the answer to that, but before I jump on the pot train its a question I'd like answered. I'll say again though which you concede is if there's not a reliable standard to indicate impairment I'm a little skeptical to say the least. The issue isn't whether you used marijuana. The issue is how much is too much?

PS - Its time to stop being butthurt over the Sanders race. He lost. Even he's over it. You should do the same.

 

[Scarlet]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

On top of that he doesn't have the courtesy to refer to me by name, just "that Alaska guy."

And to Scarlet, I did not mean to imply your concern was dumb. It is a legitimate question and I hope I answered it.

You didn't imply that at all. I just wanted to make sure you got that Rover's comment about not wanting to smell it is not dumb. To you, it might not be a big deal. To me, it's important. To further clarify, I live in a condo, not an apartment building. People own their places, not rent them, So the condo association hasn't taken the extra step to enforce no smoking in each unit. I wish they would. I guess I'm just nose blind to cigarette smoke. We do have a lot of younger families with smaller kids in the building and if I was a parent, I'd be annoyed.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Again I fail to see why you're taking this so personally, but whatever. I don't care if you're a pot smoking hippy or taking a corporate approach to all of this. I also haven't insinuated you're too stoned to answer questions but if you want to play the victim be my guest.

Is it possible people in legalization states just aren't being prosecuted for DUI-weed usage since its too difficult to prove? I don't know the answer to that, but before I jump on the pot train its a question I'd like answered. I'll say again though which you concede is if there's not a reliable standard to indicate impairment I'm a little skeptical to say the least. The issue isn't whether you used marijuana. The issue is how much is too much?

PS - Its time to stop being butthurt over the Sanders race. He lost. Even he's over it. You should do the same.

You wanna wondering why I'm taking this personally? It's because of posts like this. Your questions have been answered and you have no response so now you're just deflecting.

1. You're harping on the "no reasonable measure" on the DUI issue. I've given you all the information possible and the goalposts keep shifting.

2. You're trying to dehumanize me and my answers with the snide little remarks like "If pot has changed your life for the better, again good for you, but a lot of us don't wish to share the experience." or "Pot smokers even if they're ex-smokers don't have a problem with the smell, so they don't get it when other people do. I'd also point out like tobacco pot smokers tend to hang around with fellow smokers, so they think 95% of the population is getting high at any given time because all their friends are." It's easy to see what you're doing. You're trying to subtly paint me as the ex-pot smoking idiot who's trying force their habit on others. The biggest key on that? In none of your posts do you address or refer to me by name., like I'm some annoying fly to swatted away. And your "get over Sanders losing" comment is the coup de grace in all this, as if who either one of us supported in the Democratic primary has any bearing on this discussion.

I've answered your questions. Have a nice day Rover.

 

[Jimjamesak]

You didn't imply that at all. I just wanted to make sure you got that Rover's comment about not wanting to smell it is not dumb. To you, it might not be a big deal. To me, it's important. To further clarify, I live in a condo, not an apartment building. People own their places, not rent them, So the condo association hasn't taken the extra step to enforce no smoking in each unit. I wish they would. I guess I'm just nose blind to cigarette smoke. We do have a lot of younger families with smaller kids in the building and if I was a parent, I'd be annoyed.

I was referring to his statement about public consumption in places like the Boston Common like he stated. Yours is actually a legitimate concern and one that had to be dealt with here. Not trying to imply all questions about smoke are ignorant.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

The vast majority of people who want to smoke marijuana smoke it already and changing its legal status won't affect those numbers too much one way or the other. People are already driving while high, I can tell you that from watching my friends in high school "hot box" in their cars, rolling down the street with the windows just barely cracked and the smoke pouring out of them. The people smoking marijuana in their homes today are the same people who will smoke it in their homes should it become legal within any given state.

The cases made against legalizing it is just carried over stigma from having grown up in a culture where pot is the Devil's tool or gateway drug. People setup their straw man arguments against its use, and no matter how the discussion goes they stick to their guns.

The only difference going forward is who's going to jail and who's not. It's almost like some people just want to send young black men to prison for harming absolutely nobody in particular, for being the evil boogiemen their white bread parents warned them about as children.

(Watch that last line really get Rover going.)

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

You didn't imply that at all. I just wanted to make sure you got that Rover's comment about not wanting to smell it is not dumb. To you, it might not be a big deal. To me, it's important. To further clarify, I live in a condo, not an apartment building. People own their places, not rent them, So the condo association hasn't taken the extra step to enforce no smoking in each unit. I wish they would. I guess I'm just nose blind to cigarette smoke. We do have a lot of younger families with smaller kids in the building and if I was a parent, I'd be annoyed.

On this subject... (and not necessarily asking Scarlet directly)... does pot smoke carry farther than cigarette smoke? I agree that I cant stand second hand smoke. I'd go so far as to advocate for all public smoking to be illegal (tobacco and pot).

Is there a difference between the smoke itself and the odor? Does pot scent carry farther even if the smoke itself is not detectable at that point?