Seriously Obama? Smoke a joint last week, go to jail for DUI this week?

[SlipperySlope]

Under the newly released White House National Drug Policy (link http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs10/ndcs2010.pdf), Obama is calling for the presence of *any* marijuana in your body to be de jure evidence of driving under the influence.

A. Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws
State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense for driving under the influence of drugs ... Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver’s body is per se evidence of impaired driving ... expand the use of this standard to other states ...

Hat tip: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/obama-drug-policy-calls-f_b_574483.html

[ShortnFiery]

1. Idiots!

:puke:

[maxsolomon]

57. to a degree the drug war industrial complex is self-perpetuating

there's only 1 direction the laws can go in a puritan country, and that's towards less tolerance. i doubt Obama reviewed this recommendation personally, and it is not likely to be made law anytime soon. i'm not going to vote for mike huckabee over this. are you?

the west coast is going to have to lead this fall if we want to give the feds political cover to walk the drug war back from the precipice.

[pattmarty]

255. C'mon, you are responsible for any thing you do AND SO IS ST OBAMA........

........You seem to dimly (or dumbly) forget that he appoints people to carry out HIS agenda. He knows whats going on. He is doing the same shit Clinton did.

[Joey Kidd]

282. True !

And Mahatma Obama is deep into the DLC.He's not and he have never been a Liberal.

[maxsolomon]

291. NO ONE runs an organization as complex as the POTUS

not a banking CEO basking in CDO profits, not the Pope, not Putin or the Premier of China.

you seem to 'dimly or dumbly' forget THAT. all this 'Obama did this, Obama did that' is just much BS as it was during President Cheney's terms. the Obama ADMINISTRATION did this - a huge group of people making collective decisions in a rigidly proscribed, federally regulated manner. so WHY did they?

can we get some context or clarification on this issue from the Feds (#1, is this a new provision? a leftover from the Cheney Administration? did Obama recommend it? did Kerlikowske? who did?) prior to declaring Obama personally responsible for the ongoing Drug War and 'worse than Clinton'? which, to me, means strategically astute enough to be re-elected in a nation where inattentive, 'dim and dumb' rubes prone to hysteria cast the deciding votes, based on how RW propaganda affects their butthurt little feelings, and not on verifiable information.

if he personally orders his Drug Czar to aggressivly lobby this recommendation in all 50 legislatures, i will agree that the Drug War is being 'ramped up', and proceed to get my 'dim and dumb' knickers in a twist.

[pattmarty]

308. Response to your 1st sentence and that covers IT ALL......................

.......Like said in my 1st post, YOU are responsible for what you do. When a President is in office, it's his show. If the economy grow and does well (I know, he has NO control over that) he gets the kudos. If shit goes south like a war OR the economy he gets the shit. I fucking know that he doesn't know every goddamn thing and know ever person in the government, I ain't a fucking teabagger ya know. Ultimately it's his show. Eventually he will know what a subordinate or dept does (or should) and if he feels it's wrong tell HIS people to change or stop, or if he feels it is right then he should endorse it. Bottom line, he's gotta take the heat.

[maxsolomon]

336. fine, then make him feel the heat - and vote to legalize in WA, OR, CA this fall

this ridiculous thread is filled with hysterics acting as if this means anything has changed regarding cannibus policy except rhetoric. "this is the final straw! he's a 1 termer now! this is the end!"

saying that Obama is RESPONSIBLE for what his administration does is hyperbolic - yes, ultimately he is responsible, but there are shades of gray in everything - it's not black or white.

this is not the issue that will cost him the election in 2012. not letting legalization become the issue in 2012 is what will keep him electable. i know it's Rahm-ish, but he needs to be seen as neutral on the legalization initiatives at worst, and faintly disapproving at best.

[pattmarty]

341. If I lived in any of the states that are "close" to legalizing I would vote................

............and/or help in the process. Obama will NOT get behind any kind of marijuana discussion mainly because he is a "centrist" and doesn't want to piss off any of his potential voters. "Hippies" may vote in super high percentages, but their percentage of the actual voting public is probably 2%. I am just saying with Bush both the right and left got behind or against him on his "administrations" policies, not just for the generally stupid shit he used to spout.

[Mike K]

389. "Make him. . . ?"

How?

Do you recall his first "Town Hall," which occurred just a few months after he took office and for which he invited the public to submit questions. The greatest volume of questions, including mine, several of my acquaintances' and the entire membership of L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) were related to the marijuana issue. Obama's response to this constituency was to ridicule us ("I don't know what this says about the public. . .") and to contemptuously dismiss the topic as one might dismiss an annoying drunk.

What more should we have done? What more can we do to "make him" do what we want him to do --which is what he should be doing if he were worthy of our support? Do you think he isn't acutely aware of what effect his actions will have on his base? Obama has broken almost every explicit and implicit promise he made as a candidate. He not only failed to hold the Bush Administration accountable for their many crimes but has emulated them in a number of important ways.

What you mistakenly perceive as hysteria is nothing more than an appropriate level of anger and resentment. I personally believe Obama took Office knowing that fulfilling his obligations to the corporate sponsors who financed him would severely limit potential for a second term. So it is not at all hysterical to describe Obama's presidency as plainly compromised and to regard him as an extraordinarily deceitful politician.

[lark]

293. Clinton has a mixed record, for sure

but at least he signed a transformational law, FMLA, into being that has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to keep jobs that otherwise would have been fired. What has Obama done for the working people so far? I have not seen much at all that I like and a whole lot I don't. He's certainly made no major changes, as he promised.

Yes, he's not the absolute monster Cheney is, but he's allowing way too much of that legacy to go forward. Why doesn't he fire all the people in MMS that approved the leases without requiring an environmental impact, why isn't he doing anything at all about the oil, why is he siding with BP over the scientist? Why, why, why?

[Mike K]

383. Max,

i doubt Obama reviewed this recommendation personally, and it is not likely to be made law anytime soon.

I respectfully suggest that the doubt you've expressed is rooted in denial. This is not a minor issue so you may rest assured it is in line with Obama's agendas. Either it came directly from Obama or from Kerlikowske, his drug czar, who knows exactly what Obama will and will not approve.

Keeping marijuana illegal is a very big money issue. Mega-billions of dollars are at stake. The money comes to Washington from a number of major corporate interests in the form of overt PACs -- and from the drug cartels in the form of covert bribes. Legalization of marijuana would wipe out major crime syndicates and dramatically affect the bottom lines of major pharmaceutical corporations.

By now you should be aware that Obama is a corporate puppet, so this most recent evidence of that should not surprise you.

[Dr.Phool]

237. We seem to get dumber by the day.

[glitch]

330. Let's criminalize nicotine. It does a lot more damage.

Just kidding smokers, :hide: just wanted to highlight the hypocrisy.

[Mojeoux]

359. When Marijuana wins in California this fall, the POTUS will change his tune

in time for the 2012 election.

Every state that voted to legalize medical-marijuana did so by landslides and massive voter turn

outs. People came out of the woods and the woodwork to register vote for marijuana, people who hadn't voted in decades.

These are the kind of numbers that usually make politicians drool.

[Mike K]

390. I don't know about that.

The expressed intention to enforce existing per se DUI laws and encourage passage of more is a direct response to prospective marijuana legalization in California. The gloves are coming off and the tacit threat is for a potential flood of DUI arrests in California.

What comes next is anybody's guess.

[Mojeoux]

393. Fuck I hope it WINS!

Why does Obama listen to the idiots at the DEA?

[Mike K]

397. It's not the DEA Obama listens to. The fact is the DEA listens to him.

The people Obama listens to are those who stand to lose a lot of money if pot is legalized. And by a lot of money I'm talking about collective billions.

[Echo In Light]

2. Yay! Phony Drug War!!!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

4. Thats so, so fucked up

People can have cannabinoids in their system for some time after smoking with no psychoactive effects

[ima_sinnic]

5. sheesh, my animosity grows by the day ...

2012 can't come fast enough.
even if he's reelected, it will feel good NOT to vote for him.

[Echo In Light]

8. Cons agree: NEVER trust your own Lying Eyes! You simply aren't informed of 'The Facts.'

[spiritual_gunfighter]

140. WTF

Why do you guys all get off on being anti-Obama, you aren't real Democrats anyway. Pout Pout Pout
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Lost4words]

147. he gets down on his knees for the man pretty good dont he!

what a spineless piece of bush wannabe. To hell with democrats

[ecstatic]

154. Nice one... keep the thinly coded messages coming

:eyes:

[Lost4words]

156. thanks, I plan to.

[ima_sinnic]

166. instead of standing up to them, he bends over

I wonder what "we" he was talking about in his slick multimillion-dollar ad agency wet dream slogan stolen from Howard Dean of "Yes We Can"? It's become pretty obvious that this was the real "code speak"--it meant, yes we can bleed the masses till they scream and then twist the knife.

[muffin1]

207. Your post stopped me in my tracks.

I feel the exact same way. It boggles my mind that two years ago, I was donating, campaigning, attending rallies, wearing Obama buttons, and bugging everyone within hearing distance to vote for him. Christ, I fucking CRIED in the voting booth, I was so happy to vote for him.

Now, I'm more angry at him than I was at shrub. At least we knew who shrub was from the beginning.

Obama pretended to be on our side. I feel so betrayed. I feel stupid for falling for his snake-oil salesman act.

Between the 'drill-baby-drill', the escalation in Afghanistan, continued rendition, moving the goal posts in Iraq, the health 'reform' debacle, the shitty treatment of the gay community, his support of Lincoln and Specter...I am truly stunned.

What a fool I was.

[freddie mertz]

220. You weren't alone. We all fell for the con to some extent.

Even though I was not an early supporter and was repelled by things like the Reagan interview and the FISa vote betrayal, I allowed myself to think "for the best" and joined the kool-aid squad, joining GOTV efforts and posting signs everywhere, and crying like an idiot watching the election night events.

Now in the cold light of day, I see that I was fooled by the lure of ethnicity and good sloganeering, combined with belief in the promises later broken and revulsion for the opposing team.

Won't happen again, I promise you that. :puke: :grr: :thumbsdown:

[mochajava666]

307. I feel exactly the same way. Can Obama change course?

Can anyone let him know that now is not the time to keep shitting on his base? He needs the base in mid-term elections, yet doesn't provide any hope or motivation to mobilize for the fall election.

Time is running out.

[freddie mertz]

343. I don't think he can or will.

It's up to us what to do about it.

Which scares me I will admit.

[icee]

225. You were NOT a fool. The charade the man put on was masterful. He

fooled folks whose job it is to evaluate politicians. He will end up a black mark in history, lifted to President at a time when the Democratic Party and the nation itself was reeling in horror from the spectacle that was George Bush. Quit blaming yourself!

[KoKo]

246. I think the folks who "evaluate politicians" knew exactly what they were doing...

sadly..for us...and that Obama believed his own messaging. He seems to be a "tool" for others and product of the Marketing Machine that managed to keep Bush in power for eight years...

Maybe he will produce the "change" we can believe in. When the whole country goes to hell in a handbasket we will finally get REAL REFORM. But, it didn't have to come to this...or did it.

[icee]

249. Yes, I have said that for months, even using the word tool. He

was given a job by the MIC, and is doing it admirably (for them).

[lark]

294. I feel your pain

We were all sold a bill of goods. I just don't get it. Is he that Machavailean (sp?) that he totally lied about everything he was for? Did he get bribed, did he get threatened? WTF happened?

[Mike K]

358. I voted for Obama because it was either him or McCain -

- but I never was taken in by the skyward gaze and cosmetic smile. The first time I saw Obama speak it invoked recollection of the salesman at PineBelt Cadillac who tried to sell me a new DTS. The similarities are remarkable in every way: slick, smooth, intelligent, polished and charming.

Obama is a first class salesman who successfully sold himself to a lot of Americans. The fact that he is non-White worked for him because George W. Bush is as White as it gets and, although they were not consciously aware of it, a significant percentage of Americans who voted for Obama were really voting against their recollections of the Bush persona in toto. In Barack Obama the kingmakers had presented a candidate who was in every way the diametric opposite of the President America had come to despise.

Obama never said he was opposed to marijuana prohibition but he managed to clearly convey that impression. At his first Town Hall, for which he invited questions from the public, he clearly revealed who he really is when he ridiculed those of us who asked what he planned to do about marijuana prohibition by derisively saying, "I don't know what this says about a lot of Americans. . ." and then dismissing the question as contemptuously as if he hadn't already admitted to "frequently inhaling." I knew right then what Obama is, so I'm not at all surprised about this latest manifestation of his true character.

There is no question that Obama is bitterly despised by even more Republicans now than before he was elected, so the fact that he obviously is content to go about alienating more and more of his supporters leads me to believe he's content with the fact that fulfilling his obligation to the kingmakers who put him in Office excludes the likelihood of a second term. I believe he is there to do the things he is doing and not concern himself with 2012, because unless he manages to pull a gigantic rabbit out of his hat he won't stand a chance of being re-elected.

Who's going to vote for him?

[Mike K]

395. While Bush managed to achieve all that his plutocratic sponsors -

- positioned him for his obnoxious personality brought about a backlash that weakened the Republicans' ability to effectively pursue the corporate agenda. So my theory holds that Obama was chosen by the kingmakers to function as a Trojan horse. And while the popular perception holds that Obama is changing, I believe he's just coming out of the closet.

Was he bribed? I suppose an assured shot at a one-term presidency might be thought of as a bribe to some.

[Lorien]

337. I can't yet say that I'm more angry at Obama than I was at Shrub

because BushCo was outright giddy over their own criminal activity. Obama still tries to gloss over the collusion with corporate interests which makes it more palatable, but still disgusting beyond belief. Perhaps the fact that it does seem "more palatable" when the Orator does it makes it more dangerous. I really don't know. I sincerely doubt that he'll run in 2012, but I'm sure that whoever the ruling elite replace him with will be as deceptive, if not more so. It is completely heartbreaking.

[muffin1]

365. The fact that Obama is so smart is what galls me the most.

Shrub was a complete dumb-ass. I never expected anything from him except what we ultimately received. I did expect a whole hell of a lot more from Obama. I was duped, I bought the brand - hook, line and sinker.

Maybe I, along with many others, were so down-trodden after the last eight years, that Obama was too attractive to resist. I don't know. I also have no idea what the answer is. I do not see myself ever voting republican, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama again. A third party candidate really has no chance, so...

[Aramchek]

283. funny, I heard a Teabagger say the same thing.

How does it feel to be fighting for the same goal?

[freddie mertz]

344. Even a clock which is stopped. nt.

[Aramchek]

350. so, you're out to vote Obama down as well?

I can connect you to Glen Beck in one degree. :)

[freddie mertz]

356. I have no interest in working against his re-election.

IF he is the Dem nominee in 2012.

But he will have to work hard to earn my vote again, even then.

In the meantime, I will certainly enjoy voting against his designated candidate, the Republican Arlen Specter, in the PA primary next week.

To vote for the DEMOCRAT, of course.

[muffin1]

366. Feel free to connect these people to Beck, as well...

teachers, anti-war activists, environmental activists, the GLBT community, and pot smokers (that includes nearly every college student). And hey, we're only 16 months in.

AND, this post is brought to you by one of Obama's (former) most ardent supporters.

[Aramchek]

376. quit pretending like you speak for the masses

take it from an Anti-War Pot Smoking Son-of-a-Teacher who is employed by Obama-supporting Lesbians

[freddie mertz]

378. So we have you to speak for them, then?

There is a lot of diversity of opinion out there.

None of us speak for anyone but ourselves.

[Aramchek]

380. "None of us speak for anyone but ourselves" This was my point

The poster was speaking on behalf of groups that I am a part or close associate of and yet,
I completely disagree with them.

[freddie mertz]

386. And yet you tried to shove Glenn Beck's words down MY throat.

Not very civil, and certainly not in keeping with what I posted about "Speaking for ourselves."

[Aramchek]

387. it was uncivil jest, I must admit

but how civil is a consistent and aggressive beratement of the best hope our Party has to get anything done?

[freddie mertz]

403. OK, thanks. But my argument is that he has fundamentally betrayed that trust.

Cutting AIDs funding, using his OFA machine against Sestak in my state.

I say enough!

[Aramchek]

404. Sestak doesn't have a chance in the General.

Do you really blame Obama for wanting to hold that seat?

I know you want to stand on principle and support Sestak because he is slightly more liberal than Specter,
but what good does it do you if you end up with Senator Toomey?

[freddie mertz]

405. Recent polls show Sestak doing better against Toomey than Specter.

Arlen's star is fading.

Do you really think he is best we can we do?

[Aramchek]

406. what polls?

Neither Specter or Sestak is the best we can do.

But Specter is the best chance against Toomey as long as Democrats vote for him.

Sestak will lose the Independent vote, and that kills any chance he has to be the next Senator.

[freddie mertz]

407. That is the common wisdom coming out of WDC.

Toomey actually leads both of them statewide polls, but Specter has higher negatives in general polling.

I will try to get you a recent poll or two on the general, but they eluded me this afternoon.

Sestak is currently favored to win the primary, but it will be close I am sure.

[muffin1]

385. So...

he is against almost everything that affects you or someone you hold dear, and you still support him. Why?

I mean, I know he's hot and all, but come on.

[Aramchek]

388. Obama has been and will continue to do more for all those groups than any President in decades

Your opposition to him does not further your cause.

[freddie mertz]

408. He's done a lot less than he could have done and promised to do.

Dem activists are turning away from him in droves.

Denial won't help.

If he wanted our support, he could have had it.

[Richard Steele]

398. Agree completely. This Administration is now officially less liberal than Nixon's was.nm

[Donnachaidh]

6. CHANGE you can believe in -- more support for the Corporate Prison System!

Yeah -- that's one way of getting rid of those pesky *undesirables* who voted his ass into office.

unbelievable....

[Enthusiast]

162. Well, it's one of America's

most important industries.

[KurtNYC]

242. or is this support for the Pharm corps?

I notice it is aimed at "illegal" drugs -- so driving while impaired by Oxy, Percaset, etc is not addressed.

Most DWI/DUI charges just raise insurance rates -- it doesn't land too many in prison.

[Joey Kidd]

296. Yep.

I totally agree.

[Toucano]

7. -100

Wrong direction of "change" Obama.

[Joey Kidd]

299. Yeah...

As soon as Captain Barack got at the helm of the ship he decided to sail to the right.

[katandmoon]

9. WTH is wrong with him?

[krabigirl]

54. One term president...

[Gman]

104. So what Democrat will replace Obama??

Enlighten us, please.

[Better Believe It]

120. None. If Obama decides to not run in 2012 it will be a Republican.

[RaleighNCDUer]

273. Hell, if he keeps this shit up it will be a republican regardless.

He seems to be deliberately setting himself up to be a 1-term pres.

[Lost4words]

149. who gives a shit, maybe we will get off our asses with the next puke. pres.

[Grinchie]

183. I agree -- I am so done with this false 2 party system.

I'll write in Kucinich and sleep better.

[dotymed]

175. A perfect time for a Viable third party to emerge.

An anti-corporatist party. People before profits. They'd damn sure get my vote. America is currently, for the last 30 years the biggest threat to the world. What would you expect from a nation that spends 15x the combined expenditures of all the nations in the world, on their military? Then they deregulate a system that has the power to destroy the economies of the world, and is doing so. We are a blight on human kind. We were once the example that other nations sought to emulate. Now we are a country of serfs owned by a tiny percentage of the minority.

[ima_sinnic]

179. I'm there.

am just in hopes that somebody truly, genuinely viable will emerge by 2012, plus a groundswell of support that can overcome the mass media propaganda machine.

Someone Howard Dean-like, with a PROVEN track record of being "of the people" but also the capability to withstand and overcome being shunned and ridiculed by the big noise machine--it means humungous Internet organizing and workers on the ground who can bring together all disaffecteds (because teabaggers are also being screwed and just do not understand the source and the modus operandi).

[nightrain]

189. but even Dean is not squeaky clean, has corp ties...

[ima_sinnic]

216. Dean-LIKE

I'm a tight deadline today and cannot really respond to this; however, I wonder whether, with Dean, we would see bullshit such as per se testing for marijuana of drivers and refusal to even consider decriminalization, let alone legalization, stepped-up engagement in several wars and concomitant bloated defense budget, lying about "wanting" a public option while actively fighting against it, secret promises to Wall St., insurance co's, oil co's, etc., appointment of the lowest, most corrupt scumsuckers to every agency, benign neglect of oil companies as they destroy the planet, bending over for anything, no matter how wrong, appointment of constitutionally incorrect judges, total absence of will to try war criminals, lying about restoring of habeas corpus, etc. etc.

It would seem extraordinarily difficult to find SOMEone who didn't have some kind of corporate ties (does Al Franken, for example?) and is still viable.

what exactly are Howard Dean's corporate ties? I'm using him only as an example--someone who was and still is very successful at mobilizing the masses, capturing their imagination, and winning their votes and their monetary and time contributions, and who has a proven track record of progressive policy--or at least, not totally ass-backward and treacherous. We were warned Obama was "unproven" and also chameleon-like and even unprincipled, but it was either too late, people didn't want to hear, or they were willing to overlook because of his charisma and eloquent speeches.

[nightrain]

391. I hear you.... I don't know anything about Al Franken's corporate ties, and I suppose

that some corporate ties might be okay, depending on the corporation, and the nature of the ties...

I was very disappointed last summer to see Dean speak on behalf of lengthening the time delay to generic biologicals (if I remember correctly). I would have to look at his record in total in order to make a decision about supporting him.

Yes, on all of your comments about Obama. What a major disappointment!! Of all the candidates, still Kucinich seems most ethical and people-centered. I am very glad I voted for him in the primary.

[reggie the dog]

188. The European Union does not want to emulate the USA

anymore. As recently as 5 years ago this was different but today, even our right wing politicians want a REGULATED CAPITALIST SYSTEM IN THE EU, quite unlike that of the USA.

[xxqqqzme]

240. The entire campaign will have to be on the

internet - speeches, ads, live rallies - because that 3rd party will never get positive corporate media coverage. The perpetuation of the two parties is in their best interest. It will have to be done in 2012 because the internet is about to be squeezed by corporamerica.

[midnight]

303. The ACP .... The Anti-corporatist Party might be the ticket.

[glitch]

331. I am with you. nt

[reggie the dog]

187. Clinton

she would be happy to run and could likely win thanks to Republican women voting for her and she could use that as an excuse to "reach across the isle".....

[Oilwellian]

231. At this point...

Any true Democrat will do.

[Gman]

284. I see no one wants to commit anything. Therefore

all I hear is the typical whining and complaining and pissing and moaning.

[muffin1]

288. Unless Obama reverses almost everything he's done so far,

I won't vote for him, even if he runs unopposed.

Fool me once...

[Mike K]

401. It's too soon to tell -

- but I would happily vote for Dennis Kucinich, who was my hoped-for choice last time. I am also impressed by Alan Grayson's pugnacious spirit because that is exactly what is needed. We need someone who will do for the left what Bush was able to do for the right and do it in a similar manner.

[TheKentuckian]

10. Oh, I thought we were getting a little less drug war but he's amping it up

I'm truly sorry for my part in foisting this fraud on the party and the American people.

[Echo In Light]

12. I posted this the other day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8323052

[Blue_In_AK]

46. I remember being chastised pretty severely by some here

(not you) for even expressing doubts about Obama during the campaign. I really wish I had been wrong when I questioned his sincerity.

[texastoast]

11. Unbelievable

That is just completely crazy.

This just pisses me off, especially when in so very many industries, you can come to work hungover the next day and no one peeps a word. Guess that alcoholic beverage lobby has greased the palms well.

This is one fucked up culture and this administration is surely not helping with garbage like this.

[Echo In Light]

19. Installed to apply a cosmetic, 'friendlier' face to american fascism

[CrispyQ]

32. Indeed!

Buying Brand Obama
by Chris Hedges

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/04

snip...

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us? His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush's secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.

Brand Obama offers us an image that appears radically individualistic and new. It inoculates us from seeing that the old engines of corporate power and the vast military-industrial complex continue to plunder the country. Corporations, which control our politics, no longer produce products that are essentially different, but brands that are different. Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush. The Bush brand collapsed. We became immune to its studied folksiness. We saw through its artifice. This is a common deflation in the world of advertising. So we have been given a new Obama brand with an exciting and faintly erotic appeal. Benetton and Calvin Klein were the precursors to the Obama brand, using ads to associate themselves with risqué art and progressive politics. It gave their products an edge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand with an experience.


more at link

An excellent read.

[Douglas Carpenter]

130. what Mr. Hedges says is by and large true, but unfortunately ..NO one one who challenges

the unsustainable bubble economy or the unsustainable imperial project is going to be taken seriously in the current media/political environment. They are going to be dismissed as cranks, fringe extremists and a kooks. And that will end of the discussion in any mainstream circles before the discussion barely even starts to gain the slightest traction in mainstream circles.

I wish their was an alternative. But most unfortunately, the only viable alternative at this point that is actually capable of gaining actual power is a political movement led the crazies on Fox News and other people who are genuinely convinced that Obama is pursuing a radical socialist and leftist agenda.

I wish there was another alternative - one that was actually rooted in the world of reality that actually had a viable scenario in which they could conceivably gain power that could plausibly enact at least the minimal changes necessary to redeem the country and save the country and the world from catastrophe. But there isn't. There just isn't. When a new political group takes power, it will not be by people who think even a little bit like Mr. Hedges - it will be an old political group who thinks a lot like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

[Andronex]

139. The last paragraph...

The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about performance. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness. But the longer we live in illusion, the worse reality will be when it finally shatters our fantasies. Those who do not understand what is happening around them and who are overwhelmed by a brutal reality they did not expect or foresee search desperately for saviors. They beg demagogues to come to their rescue. This is the ultimate danger of the Obama Brand. It effectively masks the wanton internal destruction and theft being carried out by our corporate state. These corporations, once they have stolen trillions in taxpayer wealth, will leave tens of millions of Americans bereft, bewildered and yearning for even more potent and deadly illusions, ones that could swiftly snuff out what is left of our diminished open society.

[truedelphi]

161. Ah, but when the only choice is between the mean and nasty

Fascistas, and the smiling friendly and charismatic ones, what can we do?

(For those who need to know it - fascism is defined as having the government work its hardest, not on behalf of the people, but on behalf of the CorporRATE Big Shots. And in that regard, that is Obama's main idealogical guiding light - his helping the Big Oil, The Big Financial People, the Big DOD people, the Big Pharmaceutical Interests, the Big Insurers, Monsanto and its Big Food take over, etc.)

As the CorpoRATe beholden President, he has to put down Marijuana, because the Big Pharma want him to. They are rapidly attempting to figure out pain meds, tumor dissolvers and other things that can be gotten and patented from their discoveries about the particular working of particular cannibinoids. They will not allow us to grow our own, when we can be forced to buy from them for hundreds of dollars a day rather than just putting a few seeds in a spot in our own back yard.

[dana_b]

254. Whoa! he really says it like he sees it

thanks for the link!

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. Oh yes. nt.

[inna]

107. precisely

[leftstreet]

121. +1

[icee]

235. Yeah, the make-up was perfect.

[Lost4words]

150. what fucking liberty or freedom? what stinking lies.

[PufPuf23]

13. This is just stupid

technically and politically.

[AngryAmish]

14. Completely fucking crazy

[Forkboy]

15. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[newtothegame]

16. Cmon, you know the rules...

Posts about President Obama must contain one of the following:

1) Something about chess
2) Something about the Repukes doing it too
3) Something about criticism being racist

Learn the rules or gtfo.

[muffin1]

56. LOL! Here's another one...

4.) Would you rather have McCain/Palin?

[Lost4words]

152. Lets see ignorant or deceitful, which is better?

thats not a choice and it sure as hell is not change.

[DeSwiss]

17. Fuck this shit! K&R - n/t

[Rex]

18. This is why it was such a bad idea to let Bush/Dick run amok with

our laws and liberties - you can't just peel those restrictions back after a new president roles into office. Things only get more authoritarian, not less. If this is news to some then, welcome to America.

[Blue Owl]

20. Is this some kind of "faith-based" hokum?

Because there's ZERO scientific evidence to back up any claims that marijuana is more harmful than legal alcohol or tobacco.

Cannabis is an answer, not a problem.

[Oregone]

25. No, its 3-D Chess

[Echo In Light]

26. Per se

[Javaman]

321. then someone forgot to wear their glasses. nt

[dsn]

21. Why do you think I've been saying it's not time to legalize pot yet?

Until we have a scientific intoxication test that uses a fancy machine with an LCD screen that displays a number the court system can use to say "yes he is stoned" or "no he is not," legal pot will be a fucking nightmare because you know exactly what's going to happen: the cops will set up Stoned Driving Checkpoints--pull over a driver, hand him a cup and if he's got any THC metabolite in his urine charge him with Driving Under the Influence. Half the country will be on Vespas because they smoked a joint on Friday night, then got tested on Wednesday night and had their license pulled.

And I figured it was just a matter of time before they tried this shit while it's still illegal.

Of all the things Obama is doing--many of them good, like trying to rein in toxic derivatives--his refusal to consider moving weed from Schedule I to Schedule III is what I consider the worst of all. Then again, if he did it in his first term he wouldn't get a second...

[reggie the dog]

39. the tests they do in France are saliva based

and only detect if you have smoked in the past 4 hours. Urine tests used to be used but never got convictions unless someone admitted to just having smoked as the piss only detected METABOLITES of the drug and not active THC. Even these saliva tests are not used in any other EU nation as they are not reliable and our courts here find many people innocent who claimed that 4 hours after smoking they were no longer higg (seeing as a govt report put out by our own govt said cannabis lasts 2 to 4 hours).... anyways I smoke WHILE driving in Illinois because it is illegal to drive for WEEKS after smoking so it is ALWAYS illegal for me to drive in Illinois.

[dsn]

167. The saliva tests they use in the US can detect use for up to 3 days

I don't know what the French test is, just the US one, and it's able to detect metabolites for up to three days.

OTOH, the French cutoff was probably REAL low when they were testing piss, because the cutoff we use in the US is high enough that you have to actively ingest marijuana to reach it. Secondhand smoke won't do it.

[reggie the dog]

185. the cutoff was high in France

it was just not proof of RECENTLY using cannabis. The fact that someone used a few days, or weeks ago, was not enough to get a DUI conviction so they dropped the piss tests because people who did not admit to smoking just before driving were being found innocent. on saliva they must use a level that only detects up to 4 hours...

[me b zola]

71. BS

How does a police officer check to see if someone is driving impaired on prescription drugs? They give a field sobriety test and if the person fails that then it's a blood test. It should be the same for cannabis. Why is there a need to have an intrusive test on the spot for cannabis but not for prescription drugs?

As far as a urinalysis for cannabis, a urinalysis cannot tell you if someone is "impaired" (:eyes:) on cannabis because it only measures inactive metabolites.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6991#urinalysis

[dsn]

169. As to the second point...

That was exactly what I was getting at. We both know what the test measures. The problem with catching stoned drivers is, they apply alcohol rules (where you quit being drunk when your body burns up all the ethanol) to pot (which lodges itself in your fat cells and leaches out for many days--long after the fun ended) and that does not fucking work. It CAN'T work, but that's what they do.

There has GOT to be something quantifiable that happens to every person who smokes pot. I just know there is. Maybe a little jitter in a brain wave that only happens when you take drugs. If they find that, and are able to make a device any cop can use with a day's training, they'll be able to bust the STONED drivers rather than just the ones with metabolites in their systems.

[me b zola]

286. But to my first point...

Why is there a double standard for impairment of Rx vs cannabis? A field sobriety test is all that is needed "on the scene". Intrusive test ie saliva or blood tests should be requested only if someone fails a field sobriety test, just like they do if there is probable cause of someone being under the influence of prescription drugs.

[Flaneur]

322. Test for impairment, not metabolites.

Can the driver walk in a straight line?

Can the driver do simple subtraction?

Can the driver close his eyes and touch his nose with his finger?

Then he can drive.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

77. ridiculous and pathetic

So you think millions of innocent plant users should rot in jail while you search for a test that may not exist?

You're a clown.

[dsn]

170. You're even more ridiculous and pathetic

You think millions of innocent plant users--who really WOULD be innocent if they legalized it, and I think it should be--should rot in jail because Joe Arpaio decided he wanted to fill his jail up with pot smokers again, and started running "pot sobriety" roadblocks featuring some sort of pot testing.

You think millions of innocent plant users should bear the burden of replacing the money lost through the Republican vote-buying scheme called "tax cuts."

You think whole sectors of American society--the people who work in jobs that require drug testing--should be barred from enjoying the use of an innocent plant because the current test can detect one joint you smoked two weeks ago, and you never know when someone's going to walk up to your desk and tell you, "pee in this cup or leave your employee ID with the receptionist." And believe me: if pot was legal, 95 percent of the employers in America who drug test would implement random testing--even the ones who don't do it now.

You also think very few people should be eligible to use marijuana because you can't hardly get a job anymore without passing a piss test--ALL of which test for marijuana!

I cannot think of a worse scenario than legalized pot coupled with the fucked-up test we have now. If pot was legal, but you'd have to choose between smoking marijuana or driving and working, exactly what good would legal pot be?

[Romulox]

353. Dude. You make zero sense. Just thought you might benefit from a third party assessment.

:hi:

[Lost4words]

153. he wont get a second term anyway, IMO

[ima_sinnic]

163. yes, "driving while intoxicated on pot" is such a HUGE problem in Amsterdam

your imagined scenario is a crock of shit. what would motivate the cops to waste their time checking to see if people had pot in their urine? it's not like stoned drivers have this huge reputation of injuring and killing people the way drunk drivers do, like they're a huge public hazard or something.

what you will see is when people ARE involved in accidents, they will be checked for substances, the same way they are now--and a finding of "positive THC metabolites" is going to look pretty weak in court when it's known that they persist for 30 days or more.

even the cops themselves (I'm starting to believe a goodly percentage) want to legalize pot because it's a huge time waster for them and they see the injustice themselves of busting people for growing or possessing a fucking PLANT.

[dsn]

176. You know EXACTLY what would motivate the cops to do it

There's about $2000 in clear profit for the city every time they bust a drunk driver.

Right now, the City of Spokane is looking at a $10 million budget shortfall. (I picked them because I don't know the budget shortfall here in Kootenai County.) Nail fifteen pot smokers for driving every day--probably not all that hard to do if they used mouth swab tests on everyone they stopped for anything--charge them what a drunk driver's charged, and the deficit is gone.

Incidentally, this is not Amsterdam.

[ima_sinnic]

181. bullshit. cops have to do a bunch of paperwork and make court appearances

every time they bust someone--and they complain about it all the time for petty offenses, including pot busts. cops are NOT in favor of keeping pot illegal.

local economies will make money if pot is legal because they will get a share of revenues from state licensing fees for growing and selling. that is one of the arguments in favor of legalizing pot.

[scubadude]

323. Since when was a DUI a minor offense?

I think the police wouldn't mind showing up for that one. Nor would the lawyers. Tens of millions of dollars intake is what my guess would be. There would be a huge increase in fines. How about repeat offenses? Now there is some tall cash...

This is almost a logical extension of the Arizona "let me see your papers" law.

Scuba

[reggie the dog]

190. you misunderstand

the poster is not saying that you need to drug test for cannabis, he is saying that once legalized the cops will, and they will use piss tests and bust people who are not under the influence, so they thing that a test actually showing impairment is needed to avoid having the cops bust lots of folks who smoked days or weeks earlier. Plus in the Netherlands it is illegal to smoke cannabis and drive or ride a bike but there is no test, so you can only get busted if you smoke while you are driving.

[ima_sinnic]

228. I just thought he was assuming too much about the cops wanting to waste time on this

I just can't picture them bothering to set up "checkpoints" when they know damn well a residue in urine could be 30 days or more old, just for the sake of finding people who have smoked pot. They have all kinds of excuses they can use now, ferchrissake, if they really want to pick people up and drug test them, since pot IS illegal to use.

I am under the impression that checkpoints are kind of a drastic solution to a real problem--when drunk drivers are getting out of hand, say, on New Years Eve. They are drastic because they skirt constitutionality and are costly, I would imagine, and distracting to police, who are now engaged in collecting urine from stoners instead of responding to real emergencies or working to solve real crimes like murder, robbery, and rape. I have heard numerous cops complain online or even in person that they'd rather not have to bother with people who smoke pot--they consider it a victimless crime that really hurts no one. A good many of them smoke it themselves.

[Ignis]

311. You've "been saying" this in the past 10 days over 50 posts?

Or is there some other narrative we're missing here?

:shrug:

[Romulox]

354. He's obviously a zombie poster. Vawdawg or OperationPronCrime or whatever he used to go by...

:shrug:

[Ignis]

363. Obviously, but it's amusing to catch one admitting as much.

Vive Les Marionnettes De Chaussette! :evilgrin:

[TK421]

22. I guess this is the nail in the coffin for me...that is quite enough bad news

for one week

[anarch]

23. that's just stupid

I mean, really really stupid.

[Warpy]

24. This is beyond stupid, shame on you, Obama!

He experimented with drugs when he was a kid, he should know that the duration of action of pot is about three to four hours, even if trace amounts are released from fatty tissue over the next several weeks.

Instead of a drug screen, something that doesn't turn up acute intoxication with anything but alcohol, they need to return to the field sobriety test as a means of determining fitness to drive. No one part of it is accurate, but taken as a whole, it's remarkably accurate and even turns up those drivers who are too exhausted to continue safely.

If the nanny state wants to protect us from ourselves, they're going to have to figure out a better way to do it than use a test that jails the maximum number of citizens possible instead of focusing on the problems.

[KamaAina]

27. So I guess drving's out if you use medical MJ?

So's working, at least in corporate America. Why bother? :shrug:

[Oregone]

28. Yep...guess you can't drive to the voting booth you know.

Too bad, eh?

[CrispyQ]

33. LOL

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[anarch]

29. hey, I've got an idea! how about any trace of DMT in a person's body

can be used as justification for locking them up! It's a powerful psychoactive substance, after all, and probably a sign of radicalism or something.

From wikipedia: "N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is a naturally-occurring psychedelic drug of the tryptamine family. This drug is found not only in many plants, but also in trace amounts in the human body, where its natural function, if any, is undetermined."

See that? "undetermined" function! It must be some bad stuff! We must lock up everyone on earth, forever! It's the only way.

[Echo In Light]

31. "Undetermined," "per se," fuzzy intel," "bad guys," etc.

[kenny blankenship]

34. So, do we take our drug test first thing every morning? Or just when we want to start our car?

I say everyone takes it daily, before showering or breakfast. (And maybe put a test unit on the car ignition too, just to be extra safe.) Otherwise, you could end up with people taking the bus or subway after being stoned the night/week/month before, or hanging on for dear life in a taxi with a residual buzz. Marijuana fiends will do anything to evade the law.

The government HAS a compelling interest in the productivity of all taxpaying workers! Who would be so foolish or antisocial as to argue it has no such interest? Without taxes paid, the government can't exist - case closed! Already something like 47% of adults pay no income tax because they aren't productive enough to owe taxes. That must change! Some doubters say we can't have the govt. intrude into people's lives this way, but new precedent shows they are wrong. We can make them purchase things if Congress believes it is in their interest, even if those products like health insurance, are historically defective. We can make them drug free, too, because it's self-evidently in their interest and likewise in the interest of the state, as demonstrated conclusively above. It's against the law to possess sell or use scheduled narcotics. Can it be in the interest of the state to have large numbers of citizens breaking its laws? Of course not. Widespread flouting of the authority of one law is a threat to the integrity of all the other laws. Tolerating a drug using populace is an invitation to anarchy and crimes against property. The state must execute and see its laws enforced; the state must also secure the tax monies to provide for this enforcement. We can, therefore, lawfully and with all the justice in the world force the taxpayers to be the most productive workers they can be, and police their bloodstream to that end. Yes, we can.

[elehhhhna]

62. they'll have to pry my pee from my cold, dead bladder

to paraphrase Charleton Heston

[callous taoboy]

30. Seriously, I am more of a menace driving while having severe allergies.

[Schema Thing]

35. Smoke a joint one week, become POTUS some other week

see the abject hypocrisy there Obama?

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. I doubt he does.

x(

[nashville_brook]

36. so -- when do the mass piss tests begin? and, how many states will use this to confiscate your car?

[ixion]

37. Way to carry on the bogus war on the populace, Mr. Obama

Yet another disappointment.

[TexasObserver]

38. Finding new ways to disappoint.

[Boxerfan]

40. Six freakin weeks for me to test clear & I'm not kidding

I've been a pothead just about forever. I'm also a carded user now but have zero protection in the workplace if tested.

Now if I get pulled over & have to pee-I guarantee you I will fail despite the fact I barely get "high" from my medicine.

I also know just how effed up one can be from a hangover-drinking almost killed me. 15 years w/o a drop but I always used the good herb.

They would acomplish one thing in my case-destroying a functioning family.

[reggie the dog]

192. their goal is to destroy as many of our families as they can

in an effort to break us down into peasants again

[Scuba]

42. OMG I'm DUI

[Zix]

43. You racist GOP loving purist, you!!!!

Naughty Naughty!

[Blue_In_AK]

44. I hate this so much.

At least on this issue, I thought he might be more liberal.

[Echo In Light]

50. It's not a matter of who or which b/c *any* "electable" admin will fulfill the same role

[izzybeans]

45. Clearly somebody forgot the realities of their pot smoking days.

This is a de facto drug testing law, if it is taken this far.

[ecstatic]

47. Are most of the people pissed at Obama regular weed smokers?

That would explain a lot. LOL

[krabigirl]

53. Nope.

[Downtown Hound]

63. So what the fuck if I am?

I have a medical card, and I grow my own. And I'm quite the fuck open about it too. This law essentially makes it illegal for me to drive, even if I'm not stoned.

Explain to me why I shouldn't be pissed about that?

[ecstatic]

73. 6 to 11 percent of fatal accidents are contributed to by marijuana side effects

But by all means, keep smoking and driving.

[Incitatus]

78. He didn't say he drove while stoned.

This is like saying if there was a test to tell if you drank in the past month, it could be used to say you were driving drunk.

[muffin1]

85. You'll have to forgive some folks.

The rose-colored glasses make it difficult to read.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

79. bullshite

You better cite a source for that one, Bunky. Let's see how many of those incidents include alcohol as the main factor.

We're on to your lies.

[Flaneur]

100. Where did you come up with that statistic?

[Moochy]

125. his

ass

[Oldenuff]

108. What a load of crap.

Prove to me that those numbers reflect the number of people under the influence at the time of the accident,and not because they had puffed in the last 30 days.

6 to 11 percent..Bulldab!

[liberation]

115. Well, it is still less than the 64% of fatal accidents which are contributed

by people who make up statistics without sources.

[dorkulon]

124. Citation needed

Source? Link?

[Mopar151]

127. Please cite your sources

And did they also test for antihistamines or sedative hypnotics?

[ecstatic]

151. Simply google "marijuana driving statistics"

Again, I am for legalization of all drugs and herbs, but any discussion about legalization should contain facts, not wishful thinking.

[pundaint]

132. That statistic is absolutely bullshit. Accident causes have been skewed to suit legislative

approaches since NHTSA was formed.

[eShirl]

174. more like 6-10% of the people involved had smoked at some point in the past month

because we all know there is no test currently in existence to tell if someone is currently stoned

[Dogtown]

182. Citation, please?

If it's the study I remember, it's seriously flawed.

[reggie the dog]

195. from studies conducted in France, the Czech Republic and Switzerland

highly impaired driving while on cannabis raises the risk of deadly accident by 2 times, whereas the legal .08 alcohol limit raises it by over 5 times. In other words smoking grass is less dangerous than the LEGAL level of alcohol. The Czech Republic lowered its alcohol level to 0.00 to remain fair when they made cannabis and driving illegal, here in France the justice minister laughed and said there was no question of lowering the alcohol limit even when journalists said that people had a legal right to raise the risk of death with alcohol that they did not have with cannabis.


in your 6 to 11 percent you forget that many of those people have multiple drugs in them, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine etc.

[Dreamer Tatum]

375. There you have the idiocy of the dope advocate

"It's less than HALF the increased risk of alcohol, and alcohol is legal!"

:eyes:

[nebenaube]

206. oh bullshit.... n/t

[Rebubula]

209. Citation please

Please give me a reputable link to that bullshit fact that you just posted.

You know that 27% of people can pull facts out of their asses...

[Lost4words]

217. you are riding on the wrong part of that unicorn!

it has effected your thinking, or you are speaking about something you know nothing about.

[no limit]

251. Do you not understand that this makes it illegal to drive even 30 days after you smoked?

Put the fucking pom poms down.

[ecstatic]

349. Marijuana stays in your body for 30 days? is that safe?

:shrug:

[Leo 9]

351. Yes, it's entirely safe.

Now I need to go have a fresh hit of reefer, cause any month old THC that might be still in my system is not going to do the trick when your ignorance is bumming me out to such a degree.

[no limit]

371. Lol. You have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about, do you?

Yes, it's perfectly safe. Weed after a few hours has no effect on your mental abilities.

[freebrew]

272. LINK?

I don't believe you.
Did you just make that up?

How would that be proven anyway?

[Downtown Hound]

287. Oh wow, please cite me that bullshit statistic

I would JUST love to see where you got that.

For your information, I don't drive when I'm stoned. I've been driving since I was 16, and I haven't had a ticket in 14 years, never had an accident that wasn't a minor fender bender (and I've only had one of those, and no, marijuana had nothing to do with it), and never had a DUI.

So do me a favor, take your puritanical phony bullshit right wing reactionary statistics and kindly shove them up your ass.

Have a nice day.

[Leo 9]

347. See post 346.

The DEA’s Top 10 “Facts” on Marijuana Legalization
Opinion by NORML
(April 05, 2010) in Society / Drug Law

snip

Fact 8: Alcohol has caused significant health, social, and crime problems in this country, and legalized drugs would only make the situation worse.
The Legalization Lobby claims drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol. But drunk driving is one of the primary killers of Americans. Do we want our bus drivers, nurses, and airline pilots to be able to take drugs one evening, and operate freely at work the next day? Do we want to add to the destruction by making drugged driving another primary killer?


No, I actually claim that cannabis is far safer than alcohol, see the therapeutic index data above. This is another talking point that pivots from a fact (drunk driving is a serious problem) to a falsehood (the implied threat that legalization of cannabis would lead to more highway fatalities).

Nobody's suggesting you hot-box your ride and see how well you do on the test... but you will out-perform a drinker.

First of all, the US Dept. of Transportation fact sheet on cannabis states, “Effects from smoking cannabis products are felt within minutes and reach their peak in 10-30 minutes. Typical marijuana smokers experience a high that lasts approximately 2 hours.” So if the bus driver, nurse, and airline pilot want to smoke a joint before bed and drive, treat, or fly me the next day, I’m not at all worried; no more so than if they decide to have shot of bourbon the night before work.

Then we have to remember that if cannabis smokers are driving, they are driving now. If pot smoking were such a threat on our roadways we’d have seen the bodies pile up by now. Numerous studies have confirmed what we all know:

•Drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them;
•Drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation;
•Drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana;
•Drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for high concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml).

In other words, even the highest cannabis-using driver is less dangerous than an alcohol-buzzed driver who is still below the per se impairment limits (0.08%) for alcohol.

snip


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/the-dea%E2%80%99s-top-10-%E2%80%9Cfacts%E2%80%9D-on-marijuana-legalization

[Greyhound]

348. 87% of uncited statistics are pulled straight out of the writer's ass. n/t

[RainDog]

66. are you fucking stupid or do you just type that way?

do you not give a shit about people's civil liberties?

are you aware, did you read the article - that notes that someone could snort angel dust and go free but if they smoked a joint two months ago they could go to jail?

what is YOUR PROBLEM?

are you so fucking stupid that you don't see that this is more creeping police state bullshit from Obama?

he is wrong about this, as he has been wrong about just about EVERYTHING he has done.

why bother to vote if you get fucking idiotic laws like this from a democrat?

why live in this nasty ass nation?

is this the best this nation can do? if so, yeah, it deserves to become the third world country that corporate rule is making it.

[Downtown Hound]

68. +1. Amen RainDog! n/t

[ecstatic]

74. I think it should be legalized... but violent, delusional rants are not

the answer either.

[RainDog]

87. then don't post them. nothing in my post is violent or delusional

angry words are words.

please tell me what you think is delusional in my post. point out the things that I typed that are delusions.

otherwise... you know.

[Joey Kidd]

265. You know what ? You have something in comon with Bush !

[muffin1]

377. .

:yourock:

[Downtown Hound]

292. Not delusional or violent

Just angry and heartfelt. It doesn't surprise me that you would interpret it as violent though, given the paranoid, fear-based world you seem to live in.

[reggie the dog]

196. I left, I live in France, you argue to the judge here that

a piss test just shows if you smoked in the last month and they find you innocent of DUI based on SCIENCE!

[EnviroBat]

219. I think I'm going to seriously start looking into migrating to somewhere else.

I've had just about enough of this bullshit with the direction this country is taking. The constant police state intrusions to our civil liberties are getting too numerous to count anymore, and what do we do to stand up against it? NOTHING, not a fucking thing. To make matters worse, we've become a nation of brain-dead morons that vote against every self-interest we have to advance as a people. A nation of complacent fucks who won't see what happening right before our eyes. The corporate powers are laughing their collective asses of in closed-door board rooms as we just happily give them all the ammunition they need to oppress us, and mold us into the indentured servants we've willingly become. There is no right or left, it's all just fascist bullshit.

Yeah, I'm starting to fucking hate this country.

[racaulk]

243. I think I love you.

:loveya:

[jgraz]

90. Are most of the people excusing this regular Constitution smokers?

Yes.

[progressoid]

91. Nope

Haven't smoked weed for over 25 years.

But I'm not really pissed at him. Just disappointed.

[icee]

94. I have a marijuana medical card but stopped smoking the stuff, but I'm

furious with Obama for a bunch of stuff. I am beginning to wonder who actually is farther right, he or Bush?

[liberation]

112. Obama smoked weed, or so he says. Does that explain him to you too

LOL now too?

[lame54]

113. no

[laughingliberal]

122. My guess would be most of the people pissed at Obama are against more intrusion of law enforcement

into the private lives of citizens. Perhaps those who believe there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution.

[sabrina 1]

142. No! It's the destruction of even

more rights that I am upset about.

To add more laws to the already failed 'drug war' can only mean that this is about controlling the population.

And to keep the prison industrial complex booming because we are a war and prison economy.

Because we know that it isn't about the welfare of the people.

[reggie the dog]

193. What would it explain???

that most of the country or close to half of it smokes pot???

[freddie mertz]

221. No. And thank the gods I'm not smoking what you are. nt.

[racaulk]

236. I have never smoked pot. Not even once.

But I do think Obama is wrong on this.


Edited for clarity.

[Joey Kidd]

259. What a brilliant reply.

:facepalm:

[Lorien]

340. Nope.

I tried it twice and didn't like it. No fan of alcohol either. But I do believe that medical marijuana would ease the suffering of many and increase cancer survival rates-plus the drug war has GOT to end. It's far too costly.

[Tailormyst]

48. Everytime you think he can't move more to the right......SURPRISE!!!!!!!!

[WeDidIt]

49. I firmly believe that the reason Cannabis remains illegal

is there has never been an accurate test to determine when you are under the influence.

[Sub Atomic]

75. Bullshit. There have been reliable, accurate tests in Europe for years and years.

They use saliva and can detect if you've smoked within 4 hours.

The hysteria needs to stop.

[WeDidIt]

82. Link please

I've never heard of one of these tests, but am certainly willing to be educated.

[Truth2Tell]

143. Here's an article that references the tests...

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/547/france_drugged_driving_saliva_test

It does question the reliability...

"...

The tests are not supposed to detect cannabis use for more than a few hours after smoking, but three of the first 10 tests tried at Antibes came back positive for marijuana. At least one of the drivers protested in vain that the last time he had smoked was three days earlier..."

[reggie the dog]

198. I live by antibes

and yes people have told me that sometimes the tests dont work, once a german gets popped this will go to the EU courts and they will do away with our unique French bs test.

In all of the EU the alcohol limits range from .05 (a four times greater risk of death) to .08 (nearly 6 times greater risk of death) except the Czech republic which put their level for alcohol at zero when they banned drugged driving too. Driving under the influence of cannabis became illegal in France in 2004, one year after I moved here. Heavy cannabis intoxication raises the risk of deadly accident 2 times (that is less than the legal alcohol level) so most EU countries do not consider it worth while to test people for it.

[reggie the dog]

197. France is the only country that uses these tests

they areconsidered unreliable by all other EU govts.....because they say you come down in 2 or 3 hours not 4......

[Romulox]

355. That's completely illogical. What's the roadside test for Oxycodone?

:hi:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krabigirl]

52. Horrific. I will not vote for him again if this passes to every state.

Ashamed that i even did....so what does he suggest, that people who use medical marijuana never drive? I have friends who use medical mm for serious conditions and they are treated poorly enough in society. This is just too much. It stays in your system lonnnggg after the impairing effects wear off.

The entire report was creepy. The government has no right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot put into their bodies. No right.

[muffin1]

58. I guess I have to quit my job now.

This is seriously fucked-up.

I don't even know what to say, besides K&R. Oh, and I'm off to smoke a BIG FAT ONE!

[Biker13]

59. K&R

[RainDog]

60. Obama takes the right wing fucktard approach... nice

not

[RainDog]

141. Arguments for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937

Direct quotes from the prohibitionist Harry Anslinger pushing the "Marijuana Tax Act of 1937:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

This continued prohibition is still racist.

[laughingliberal]

145. +1 nt

[reggie the dog]

199. so it leads to violence and pacifism

and dont forget that "large lipped negreos will use marihuana and jazz to lure away our fair white women" that was in hearsts papers back in the day....

[Joey Kidd]

275. Sounds familiar...

This administration obviously believe in homeopathy:Microscopic traces of THC = DUI and
an HCR Bill so watered down that it is an homeopathic bill that passed.

[Downtown Hound]

61. If this passes, then I am done with Obama and the Democrats

I'm sick of fighting tooth and nail to get a Democrat elected only to have them turn into Republicans when they enter office.

Shame on you Obama for even considering this.

[Horse with no Name]

114. It didn't happen after he was elected

It was there along.:(

[Bonobo]

64. He lost me.

Drone attacks
Corporate welfare
Lackluster leadership on Health care
Offshore drilling
DADT
Iraq withdrawal delays
ANd now...nauseatingly hypocritical drug policy

He lost me.

[mdmc]

65. Would Obama be willing to do time for the drugs he has done?

:mad:

[MadHound]

67. At this rate who does Obama thinks is going to vote for him in 2012?

This man is pissing off his base on a weekly, almost daily basis. Anti-war, teachers, LGBT, on and on, one group after another are thrown under the bus.

Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that he is better than his 'Pug opponent? 'Scuse me, but even that ultimate drug warrior Nixon wasn't this draconian.

[noamnety]

83. republicans? (nt)

[reggie the dog]

200. please don't insult my dog

Pugs are very friendly dogs.....

[Dr Morbius]

69. President Obama has my support on almost everything.

I disagree with him on this proposal. THC byproducts remain in human fat cells for up to six weeks. The effect (the "high") lasts for a few hours. It's ridiculous to claim someone is driving under the influence a month after smoking dope.

In fact, it's dopey!

"Tough on drugs" is just as effective and useful as "self-regulating markets;" it's a policy which sounds good to voters but does the nation tremendous harm. Our national marijuana habit will not decrease one whit by getting tougher with the laws; the only thing that will happen is continued, and indeed expanded, injustice.

Now, if the feds want to get tougher on people driving while actually stoned (because they block traffic, perhaps), then develop a test which not only detects the presence of these cannabinoid byproducts but measures them. Then driving over a certain level could constitute DUI. Or make a test which detects active cannabinoids in a driver's breath or urine, as opposed to byproducts.

As it is, the proposal and the laws are grossly unjust.

[RainDog]

72. there is a saliva test, from what I've read

that would actually detect if someone were driving under the influence. it indicates if someone ingested pot within the last 30 minutes.

this is a valid test if someone appears to be driving impaired.

there is no fucking way a piss test would hold up in court for cannabis - esp. if someone were drinking... because, let's face it, it's the alcohol drinkers on the road who are a danger to someone's safety.

this just galls me.

I voted for him in the primary. after seeing him in action... I don't know if I would again.

[lfairban]

160. Can I quote you on that?

I have been looking for something to send to my representatives, and maybe the president also.

[Dr Morbius]

194. Hey, if I post it here, it's fair game for everyone. Good luck. (nt)

[blueamy66]

70. Won't full blood drug toxicology tests have to be

performed, which are quite expensive, to detect pot?

I am under the impression that many cities in my state will not pay for the full drug screen...only to check for alcohol.

Anyone?

[Bluenorthwest]

76. When Obama can be both wrong and wildly hypocritical

it seems to please him deeply. Like a bonus. Extra hypocrisy sauce.

[UndertheOcean]

80. Wouldn't the officer still be required to have probable cause for him to request a drug test ?

and if you are not driving stoned , or smell of the stuff , how can he/she justify it.

I am opposed to this idiocy , just thinking out loudly.

[enuegii]

95. In some areas, probable cause might consist of things like

long hair on a guy, 'librul' stickers on the car, being black, etc.

[pundaint]

133. And if you don't believe it watch a Cops show sometime. It's so bogus

the cops are even proud of their ESP abilities.

[reggie the dog]

201. they still fuck with guys for having long hair in the USA?

I have lived in France for the past 8 years and here long hair is not singled out for anything. What states are you talking about? I am driving through illinois, iowa, nebraska, colorado, utah, nevada and california....

[muffin1]

212. Well, I would definitely stay of of Virginia.

Newly-elected Governor Bob McDonnell has given us 'Confederate History Month' (without even mentioning slavery), and his AG sent letters to all Virginia colleges letting them know they can discriminate against GLBTers at will. This guy is a HUGE asshole.

Even if this puts him on the same side as Obama, I can't imagine him not being all over this.

[blueamy66]

327. there is a new eye test

I was administered it once on my way back into jail.

I passed....some didn't.

[The Old Creak]

81. What would

the legalization of pot do to the alcohol industry? Its corporate bs once again, and we are fucked!!
Hello?

[-..__...]

84. States rights!...

There, I posted it.

:smoke:

This edict means nothing, really.

States have the right to set and enforce their own penal code with regard to traffic regulations and highway safety.

Unfortunately, however... there's the ol'standby 'blackmail'/card up their sleeve ploy where the feds can withhold

highway/road funds for states that fail to comply.

It's bullshit, but it happens all the time.

It's just a matter of which/how many states tell the feds to go pound sand.

[reggie the dog]

202. Illinois, Iowa, and Colorado have no helmet laws

they told the feds to get bent when the witheld funds because of that too....

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. And the hits just keep on comin'...

Pun intended.

[depakid]

88. Before I buy into this absurd interpretation, I'd like to see the documents for myself

Unfortunately:

"Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov."

(The link in the OP doesn't seem to be the problem- can't access the site at all).

[waiting for hope]

92. Page 23 ..

pdf format: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs10/ndcs2010.pdf

[depakid]

93. Can't access the link

"Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov."

Maybe I need VPN, since I'm in Oz?

[Bluebear]

96. I copied the pertinent paragraph from the link for you:

Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver’s body is per se evidence of
impaired driving. ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.

===

5. Preventing Drugged Driving Must Become a National Priority on Par with Preventing Drunk
Driving
Americans know the terrible consequences of drunk driving and are becoming more aware of the dangers
of distracted driving Drugged driving poses similar threats to public safety because drugs have
adverse effects on judgment, reaction time, motor skills, and memory According to the latest National
Roadside Survey conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than
16 percent of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for drugs This troubling news demands a
response on a level equivalent to the highly successful effort to prevent drunk driving The Department
of Transportation (DOT) has already taken some important steps, including publicizing the survey and
adding drugged driving to its public discussions of drunk and impaired driving However, considering
the severe public safety risk posed by drugged driving, much more needs to be done to enhance safety
on America’s roads and highways
Actions
A. Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws
State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense
for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) Therefore, few drivers are identified, prosecuted, or
convicted for DUID Law enforcement personnel usually cite individuals with the easier to prove driving
while intoxicated (DWI) alcohol charges Unclear laws provide vague signals both to drivers and to
law enforcement, thereby minimizing the possible preventive benefit of DUID statutes Fifteen states
have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver’s body is per se evidence of
impaired driving ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other
ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws
B. Collect Further Data on Drugged Driving
Much greater efforts are required by Federal and local agencies to focus on the serious drugged driving
threat, but these efforts must be built on a strong foundation of accurate data Data sources to track
drugged driving among the overall population include SAMHSA’s National Survey on Drug Use and
Health and NHTSA’s National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers In addition, NHTSA’s
Drug Evaluation and Classification program captures information on drug evaluations conducted on
drivers arrested on suspicion of impaired driving Further, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, known
as FARS, provides testing results for drivers in fatal car crashes FARS data on drug use for 80 percent or
more of all fatally injured drivers is available for 15 states The National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and
Drug Use by Drivers is the only survey of non-crash-involved drivers using a specific biomarker (generally
a blood or saliva test) that confirms the presence of drugs in those who volunteer to participate in the
survey NHTSA has conducted the National Roadside Survey on a 10-year cycle, most recently in 2007
The Survey estimates the use of alcohol and other potentially impairing drugs by drivers Federal drug
control agencies will reduce the length of time between National Roadside Surveys as one measure of
progress on drugged driving.

C. Enhance Prevention of Drugged Driving by Educating Communities and Professionals

There has been insufficient effort to educate all relevant stakeholders, including government agencies,
parents, schools, faith communities, community coalitions, and medical professionals, about the serious
threat posed by drugged driving ONDCP will provide educational materials on drugged driving in as
many venues as possible, as this information can be of value to a broad range of individuals Doctors
can help by learning to recognize patients with substance use problems Parents can help by talking to
their children about alcohol and drugs and the dangers of driving after drinking alcohol or using drugs
Communities can reinforce the message that there are serious consequences associated with abusing
alcohol or drugs Individuals who use drugs can seek help and make the choice to live a drug-free life
ONDCP will work with stakeholders to launch a national initiative to greatly expand our efforts to reduce
drugged driving
D. Provide Increased Training to Law Enforcement on Identifying Drugged Drivers

As with drunk driving, visible enhanced enforcement has a powerful preventive effect The Drug
Evaluation and Classification Program is a standardized, systematic method for law enforcement officers
to determine whether observed driver impairment is due to drug use and, if so, to identify the category
or categories of drugs involved More than 6,000 law enforcement officers have received extensive
training and have been certified as Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) In the training, participants learn
basic drug terminology and pharmacology and how to identify the seven categories of drugs and the
indicators of impairment Training is complete when the participant demonstrates proficiency as a DRE
and fully meets the national standards established by the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP) Recently, this training program has added more options to enable officers to gain a basic level of
training in a short period Expanding expertise among law enforcement officers in identifying impairment
from drug use is a vital public safety priority, and DOT is directed to consult with law enforcement
partners on how to supplement current efforts, as well as to seek advice from NIDA on how research
findings can be taken into account in the design of the program as they emerge
E. Develop Standard Screening Methodologies for Drug-Testing Labs to Use in Detecting the
Presence of Drugs
There are several important scientific issues that must be resolved to establish effective policies and
laws on drugged driving Better methods and technology to detect drug use by drivers would have a
preventive effect and greatly facilitate the enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication under existing
drugged driving laws First, research must be conducted to develop standards for laboratory screening
methodologies for detecting drugged driving Secondly, research must be conducted to better specify
the adverse effects of drug consumption on driving This information will facilitate the development
of model State drug laws to address drugged driving NIDA will work with its Federal partners to begin
this important research.

[depakid]

106. Seems as though the key is the interpretation of this:

"...the presence of any illegal drug in a driver’s body is per se evidence of impaired driving"

My guess is that means the establishment of some level as is done with alcohol. Otherwise, there are going to be a ton of unnecessary and conflicting court cases across the nation, along with some undue economic impact.

Might have been wise for the authors and editors to have clarified that somewhere before releasing the material.

[icee]

98. Here, I posted the thing to my picture site. See if you can get it there.

http://fmthesage.com/FM/ndcs2010.pdf

[depakid]

110. Opens pefectly, thanks!

(before anyone starts thinking conspiracy-like with the Oz government, I can open erowid (and any other drug related site) quickly and easily.

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/

Must be something whack on the US server's end.

[icee]

126. Glad to help. It may have to do with how the links are strung

between transmission centers.

[waiting for hope]

99. That's strange, I have Firefox and no problems

with the link - do you have anything on your blocker that would disable it?

[depakid]

103. Nope, should open as a PDF

There are a number of things that people abroad can't access in the states (without the workarounds) though government documents have never been a problem.

On edit: Safari can’t connect to the server.
Safari can’t open the page “http://www.ondcp.gov/” because Safari can’t connect to the server “www.ondcp.gov”.

[waiting for hope]

116. Bizarre ..

Hope you find a way .. it's pretty long but the passage in the OP is on Page 23.

[depakid]

117. Like I said, some servers and services (Hulu being the one that annoys most people)

restrict access to the US (or North America). Gotta mask your IP to get certain content.

Similarly, US users can't get some things, like Dr. Who on BBC.

[jgraz]

89. Here's what you do.

While smoking pot, destroy the Constitution, torture a bunch of brown people and then loot the national treasury. Obama will leave you alone for sure.

[Stinky The Clown]

97. We need a thread with puppy pictures and somebody's list of accomplishments .......

[jgraz]

134. Hey, what do you have against expanding Senior Corps???

That's a legacy-making accomplishment right there!

[inna]

101. unbelievably fucked up.

has even bush* attempted to do this kind of crap???

fucking disgusting.

[inna]

102. more like, smoke a joint 3 weeks ago....

pot, iirc, stays in the system for 3 weeks...

[daughter of liberty2]

105. This is complete BS.

I am truly disappointed to hear this coming from the Obama administration and I hope it gets challenged in court. :puke:

[pipoman]

109. He is living in the past

in case he hasn't noticed, state after state is telling the federal government to FUCK OFF!

medical mj adoption....FU feds

recreational mj bills....fu feds

immigration laws (as fucked up as they are)....fu feds

intrastate gun law adoption....fu feds

Can anyone think of others coming down the pike?

[Robeson]

129. Actually, it's a shame he isn't. Back then he toked Maui Wowie...

...and I'm sure HE enjoyed it while listening to Grover Washington, Jr. Who wouldn't.

[liberation]

111. Well, glad that Mr. Obama did his drugs early on...

... else he would be in trouble now, right?


LOL

[CountAllVotes]

248. Obama still smokes HIS drugs

it is called tobacco. Why don't we add that to his list of criminal acts?

:kick: & recommend. !!

[bertman]

118. Some of the most incredible gunship and Cobra pilots I knew in Viet Nam were stoned

every time they took off. They were so good they could fly close air support at night.

The Obama administration is in the thrall of the prisons-for-profit/police-as-adjunct-military/Christian-Puritan-prohibitionist lobby.

Dems are going to get slaughtered in November and it's because of uncalled-for shit like this.

[bobthedrummer]

119. Yet prescription drug big pharma drivers are all over the road, even overdosing at the wheel n/t

[laughingliberal]

123. Welcome to the Police States of America. nt

[david_vincent]

223. laughinglib, you are one of only a few on this thread who get it

This has nothing to do with a war on drugs, it's about a war against citizens.

[laughingliberal]

368. Why, thank you! Far too many examples of wars on citizens these days. nt

[Moochy]

128. .

Obama Harshing the nation's buzz with more Bush stay-behind-inspired policies!
Feel the Hypocrisy.... decriminalize? another fucking broken promise.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uncle ray]

144. bullshit.

after bush took office there was a HARD swing to the right on drug policy, everybody in the drug industry and porn industry was well aware of the "family values" crackdown the bush admin was ramping up. their plan was not to use the threat of terrorism to pass laws to take our rights away, they were hard at work going after the sin industries when they struck paydirt on 9/11.

that's a far cry from what is actually happening under the obama admin. we've been hearing this noise from the white house about stricter drug laws, but the reality is the feds have backed off here in colorado as long as you are following state law. the dea has said as much. the colorado dept of health is getting 1000 applications a day for medical cannabis, there are more dispensaries here than starbucks. it wasn't like this before the 08 election, not by a long shot.

what is really happening is the president is saying what he wants to see happen, but has done nothing to change drug policy. they can ask all they want to change the dui laws, but if the states don't act, then it's just empty rhetoric. we've gone from legal businesses like glass blowers being busted a few years ago, now you can drive down main streets in colorado and see signs for legal cannabis, we now have pot trade shows and events similar to Holland's cannabis cup.

[icee]

226. Speak for your own State. Here in California medical marijuana

clinics are drying up because they keep getting busted despite Obama's statements that he believes they are okay. What has he done to insure they are no longer hassled by the Feds? Very little. Nor has Holder. Now locales are passing laws forbidding the clinics except in certain locations. Much like many of the things Obama does, his programs and edicts lack force of follow-through. Colorado is an important State for Obama. They could probably erect cat houses and the Feds may well look the other way. At least the ones not themselves entranced by Buffy and Sherry.

[Irishonly]

247. Thank you

CA is going bat shit crazy. The city attorney of LA is trying to get all clinics closed or at least as many as he can. Depending on the city, police ignore the guidelines the government set but yet nothing is done. Obama has laughed at cannabis users and stated he was not for legalization. Medical patients with a recommendation only have a get out of jail free card many places. Most cannot afford the legal fees and often are not reimbursed for lost equipment or medication. If anyone had looked at Holder closely you knew he was no friend to a medical patient.

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uncle ray]

258. yes, it's a problem at the state and local level.

it is here too.

that isn't obama's problem.

[uncle ray]

257. drying up?

maybe it's because california's law isn't very good? everybody is moving their operations to colorado because we actually allow a profit here.

i don't watch the west coast scene real close, but like here in colorado, most busts i've heard of lately have been of people way over their numbers or otherwise operating outside of the state law by a significant amount.

i don't expect the president to encourage legalization or even significantly more lax drug laws, his ratings would plummet if he said anything that the straights could interpret as encouraging teen drug use. discouraging drug use is fine with me, encouraging states to pass tougher laws is fine. as much as i support any adults right to smoke or consume whatever they choose, i don't expect to hear that message from the president.

[icee]

260. Point taken.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shining Jack]

158. Personally I don't think that Obama is dumber than Bush...

But he clearly was breaking those marijuana laws on that picture and he admitted it several times
anyway so that makes him a hypocrite.I lost my illusions about him a while ago.

[ima_sinnic]

165. even Bush didn't introduce such an idiotic, clueless, backward policy

"trolling"? "upholding" marijuana laws?

even Bush was smart enough to know that such a policy would be total bullshit and not grounded in any kind of reality. Even Bush was smart enough to know that it was not in his best interests to openly antagonize The People any more than necessary. I mean, what does Obama hope to gain with this? It is totally unnecessary. It's not like "driving while intoxicated on pot" has become this huge public hazard that MUST be cracked down on.

It's just more extreme willingness to bend over to the big-money interests--something Obama has shown a particularly enthusiastic and curiously unquestioning willingness to do, strangely and frighteningly enthusiastic, to the point now of being an embarrassment in its eagerness.

[avaistheone1]

230. When Obama does dumb things he should be called on it.

That is not trolling, it is a fact. Obama is doing things that make him almost as bad as Bush.

Actually, often he seems worse because Obama is supposed to be so intelligent, hip and the candidate of change. Yet President Obama keeps showing that that is not who he is.

[liberal_at_heart]

131. WTF?

[tavalon]

136. Really Obama? I mean, really?!

Get out of the phony drug war business. Get out of the war business overall, it just isn't a good idea.

[Union Label]

137. It has to be some low joke

I remember seeing a picture of a young Obama smoking a dubie. :smoke:

[Shining Jack]

159. Yep.

See post 158.

[Union Label]

270. Thats the one thanks! nt

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lost4words]

146. How quickly they become bush!

[Shining Jack]

155. Well...

He smoked weed years ago so maybe he's not fit to drive the country under the influence ?



Sorry sir but you're a hypocrite and a sellout. :(

[Skittles]

157. LOL, he is so LIBERAL

:rofl:

[depakid]

164. As mentioned above, I don't think the clause says what many people here think it does

While poorly drafted (and poorly edited and vetted before publication) my bet is that it's meant to establish something akin to a .08 level for various substances.

Whoever signed off on this of course is- shall we, somewhat less than competent in the sense that all of the fuss is more than foreseeable and the administration's none too bright for creating an environment where people haven't been held accountable for these sorts of blunders.

[YOY]

305. Takin' BACK the liberal flag!!! Hoohah!

n/t

[ima_sinnic]

168. news flash for the seriously stupid Obama administration: a poppy seed roll gives false positive

and that's just the tip of the iceberg for stupidity.

I mean, drivers impaired by pot are such a HUGE public hazard! we MUST "do something" about them!

there is oil threatening to kill the oceans and take down the entire planet, Americans are increasingly losing their jobs and their homes and living under bridges, torture and war continue for no reason, war crimes go unpunished and in fact the number of war criminals has expanded with this administration, the economy is tanking, our food supply is threatened by honeybee extinction and Monsanto, water is drying up--and this is what he's thinking about?

[fishbulb703]

172. Great episode. Low flow shower heads.

[Shining Jack]

241. Well,you know...

I totally agree.

[PinkFloyd]

171. One thing I will never understand about Obama

Out of all of this humongous shit-storm that he has raining down upon him, why in the hell does he pick issues like this (doubling down on a bad drug policy), to even further piss of his base in a bad election year? One would think his plate would be full with the economy, the wars, terrorism, foreclosures, immigration, the BP oil disaster, elections, debt, and unemployment just to name a few. You'd think he wouldn't have enough time on his hands to worry about some dude who smoked a joint the other day and got pulled over without the presence of weed on them. Way to energize your base, sir.

[Fumesucker]

173. Hippie punching is always a win in 'Murkin politics..

Punch a hippie, get votes, it's been that way for a long time now.

There ain't nothin' more 'Murkin than punching hippies.

Look where Obama's coming from..

[ima_sinnic]

178. look where he wants people to THINK he's coming from

because as far as I can tell, he hasn't met a principle yet he would really adhere to.
if they want him to be a "Christian," he'll be it, it's all just part of the con artist schtick.

[Fumesucker]

289. It doesn't really matter whether he actually is coming from there or just wants us to think it..

The effect is the same, rampant hypocrisy on a major scale.

[reggie the dog]

203. once again the Christians are ruining my country

I am in a country where us athiests are nearly 40 percent of the people here, that is more than the practicing percentage of any religion.

[ima_sinnic]

177. apparently the rewards of kissing fascist butt are greater than what the voters can give

there is something really REALLY obscene about someone who would play on people's hopes and dreams to win their confidence, then not only walk away as he hands them over to the machine to be ground into pulp, but also add a few kicks of his own before doing so.

[barbtries]

180. that is absurd.

utterly and absolutely.
i don't believe any such law would make it past its first court case.

obama supports this? he just dropped like 10 points in my respect-o-meter. at least.

[LynneSin]

184. Honestly that should be the ONLY punishment for smoking Marijuana

Mind you this is only while driving a car - it should be treated just like a DUI.

I'm sure a dozen of you can talk about how you have driving a car perfectly fine while stoned and to be honest, I could tell you of a few times I drove home drunk from the bar without any issue. However, what you or I is capable of doing isn't the same as what the rest of the country can do.

(BTW, I have not driving drunk in probably 15+ years, it's not something to brag about it's just the concept that some folks have done this but in general not a good idea).

[muffin1]

191. Again, this isn't about driving WHILE STONED.

It's about being arrested because you smoked days or weeks ago.

[reggie the dog]

204. heavy pot intoxication raises risk of deadly accident by 2 times

the LEGAL alcohol level raises it by 4 times or more depending on the state. Either lower alcohol levels to about .15 or do not make it illegal to smoke and drive. Why do alcohol people have the right to raise my risk of getting killed on the road by 4 times LEGALLY but it is illegal for me to raise their risk by 2 times?

[LynneSin]

227. My point is simple - neither should be done white driving and

that's the ONLY punishment for any kind of pot use. Make it legal but hold accountable those who drive while using it - just like with Booze.

[reggie the dog]

239. the booze limit should be lowered

I respect the Czech republic for going after drugs, meds, and alcohol with the same energy

[LynneSin]

268. Many states have 'buzzed driving' laws enacted

Here in Delaware I don't have to go over the legal limit to be ticketed. Sure hitting .08 or higher will be much harsher but I could still get a ticket if I'm under including points that will screw up my car insurance.

[ieoeja]

264. Most states are .08. *Half* what you are suggesting.

.10 is the highest in any state.

[dmallind]

277. Sopeaking of cites - got one for the alcohol claims?

Believe it or not they are often as ridiculously exaggerated as marijuana claims so let's not take one as gospel.

[uncle ray]

262. i agree.

that is, if you are actually impaired. the same should hold true for driving impaired from prescription drugs or drowsiness too.

[reggie the dog]

186. Why shouldn't I vote Green?

When Greens will legalize and end the drug war? Democrats are pro patriot act, pro free speech zone, pro Iraq war, pro war in Afghanistan, pro drug war, want to expand guantanamo style jails, want private health care, are anti gay marriage... how is this different from Republicans? also why are Democrats so out of phase with the people who vote Democrat?????

[Flipper999]

210. No reason why you shouldn't at this point

The Democratic party has been been behaving like the Republican party of the 1980s. I know that they're better than the bat shit crazy Republican party of today, but that's just not good enough for me anymore.

I'm seriously thinking about switching my registration. That doesn't mean I'll never vote for another Democrat, but I'll have to look at their record thoroughly before I'm convinced they're not a worthless DINO.

I know that people keep clamoring for a viable third party, but no new and viable liberal party is just going to appear out of thin air. Parties need registered voters. They need funding (at least at the grass roots level). That doesn't happen suddenly.

I have never smoked pot, but this is just bullshit. Why does our government have to invent new reasons to arrest it's citizens every year? What excuse is there for such social controls? Maybe if enough of their supporters abandon them for the Green party (or a similar progressive movement), the Democrats will actually be forced to make concessions to that part of their base. Eventually.

It's a long shot, but it's better than the status quo.

[rucky]

205. Jury nullification would be appropriate in these cases.

[meow mix]

208. guess i have to remove the obama stickers today

and destroy the remainders,
i can no longer give him my support.

[muffin1]

215. Same here.

I've been holding on to mine. But now, I'm not sure I WANT someone asking me how that 'hopey-changey' thing is working out.
I might actually have to tell them the truth.:-(

[crim son]

211. I smoked,

snorted cocaine and dropped acid when I was in college. Maybe I should be pulled over for a DUI today? :sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

213. Obama is in the arms of the control freaks and he's playing the game. . . sickening!!

And shouldn't Obama know a bit about Marijuana -- so I don't see

this is about confusion on his part . . . ???!!!

Wow . . . if this is change, what could we possibly have expected from McCain???!!

Lifetime imprisonment for smoking a joint? -- and if you're a Mexican smoking a joint -- death!!!???

[SHRED]

214. Outrageous

But not a big surprise considering this President's tilt towards rightwing corporatism.

[Loge23]

218. Seriously Obama - offer hope last year, out of office in 2012 (eom)

[leeroysphitz]

222. Liberalism fail. n/t

[EnviroBat]

224. So how long does Vicodin remain traceable?

And Could I be busted for having it in my system days after I've taken one? I take a prescription drug for pain, so now I'm driving illegally for days after the fact? Someone, help me out here. I think I've just blown a micro-chip...

[icee]

229. I have a prescription for six 7.5's a day. Have had it for many

years since I blew my wrist from the computer mouse in 1998. I didn't know they could check for traces of Vicodin, the number one prescribed medication in the US. But I don't really take brand name Vicodi; I take the supposed clone Hydrocodone, laced with so much Tylenol it makes some people sick. I remember the old Vicodin, the real stuff. Not the same thing. It costs a lot more money now.

[blueamy66]

329. Definitely DUI

If they choose to do a full blood tox.

[fascisthunter]

232. wait a second... we now have to piss into a cup when pulled over

due to suspicion of marijuana or drug use? Is he fucking that stupid?!

[Echo In Light]

233. .

[Ozymanithrax]

234. Too many innocent people die because someone drives under the influence of something...

Take you own life in your hands, your choice.

Endanger others with that behavior, loose.

That is reasonable.

[muffin1]

244. Are you saying

if someone smokes a bowl yesterday, or the day before, that person is endangering lives by driving today?

[Ozymanithrax]

279. I am saying that driving under the influence kills people who did not have a bowl..or other drug.

Maybe it limits your freedom a little. But those people killed because some idiot drives impaired are left only with the freedom of the grave.

Until they come up with a device you can hook up to your care that does not let you drive when your brain isn't completely functional, then don't do a bowl and drive. Your use of intoxicants may be reasonable, and you may never in a million years endanger the lives of people you don't know, but not everyone is reasonable.

[Echo In Light]

281. You're mistaken; such legislation isn't created/enforced b/c those people 'care' about safety

... but created/enforced b/c america is quickly becoming more of an overt police state, its various phony 'war$' are carried out for sicko RW ideology and corporate profit

[Ozymanithrax]

314. Drive under the influence...go to jail...

Don't like it.

Don't drive under the influence. If you have to have a bowl or other intoxicant...surrender your drivers license.

Whether or not those laws are made with innocent people in mind, they work that way.

You see, I know no people who died because some asshole got a little high. The first time was in fire on an Aircraft Carrier, where twenty people died and all of them had marijuana in their system. Woud they have lived if they were clean and sober. I can't answer that and neither can than.

I had a cousin killed by an intoxicated driver. I can't get his opinion about the advisablity of being impaired.

A man I knew drove home one night under the influence. Next morning they found a dead child on the hood of his car. He went to prison. The freedom to get high or intoxicated must not take away the freedom of other people.

[Flaneur]

324. This is not about driving under the influence.

It's about setting a zero-tolerance per se presumption of impairment when it's not warranted.

Do you really want someone charged with DUI who is not impaired but whose use of marijuana a week ago shows up on a drug test? That's what this is about.

[Ozymanithrax]

334. If it is detectable, and there is evidence of impariment...yes.

There is this little thing called reasonable cause. If a cop stops a person because that person's driving abilities seem impaired or judgment on the highway lacking, and that person fails a field sobriety test, yes charge them. I am not suggesting that police should have the right to pluck one of your hairs and see if you've been using. Your hair preserves you history of such use, but is not sign of impairment.

You are stuck on this idea that just having canabanoids in your bloodstream for weeks after will cause police to stop you. That is not my experience. Police usually require resonable cause to stop you.

If a person's driving is impaired, then that person should be taken off the highway. If there is canabanoids in the bloodstream, charge that person with a DUI.

[Flaneur]

339. If a person's driving is impaired, they should be taken off the highway.

I agree. The problem with per se zero-tolerance drugged driving laws, especially regarding marijuana, is that the presence of metabolites days or weeks after ingestion DOES NOT indicate impairment.

Here'a hypothetical: Driver A, who smoked a joint last week, gets broadsided by Driver B, is hospitalized, and his blood is tested. Marijuana metabolites show up. Should Driver A be charged with DUID?

[Ignis]

316. You're in good company: "There ought to be limits to freedom." -- Shrub

Sorry about those civil liberties; you weren't using them anyway, right?

:puke:

[Ozymanithrax]

319. So it is better for an 8 year olds freedom to live should be sacrificed...

so you have the freedom to drive under the influence? That is what you are saying. That your personal freedom to put whatever you want into your body trumps the freedom of other people to live.

Your exercise of freedom can not remove the freedom of another. If it does, it is not the exercise of a personal freedom.

[Ignis]

320. "That is what you are saying." Really? Where, exactly? (nt)

[Ozymanithrax]

325. The issue is about driving under the inflence...haveing drugs in your bloodstreem...

You're in good company: "There ought to be limits to freedom." – Shrub

Sorry about those civil liberties; you weren't using them anyway, right?

From your words, you appear to feel telling you that you can not drive when you may be under influence of a drug is taking away your freedom. I don't know you. Maybe you are so supremely responsible that you would never consider driving after lighting up, or drinking a single glass of wine, eating a mushroom, or any other similar activity. Maybe the substances you imbibe never affects your judgment. But a lot people are not so responsible or so strong. They choose to drive under the influence. They kill people. I know this, because I have been to the funerals of people that died because some irresponsible puke thought he or she could handle whatever he put in his body. Such irresponsible pukes do not even realize that the first thing the loose after lighting up or drinking or whatever is their judgment. So I see nothing wrong with telling a person who has exercised his or her freedom to do whatever the hell he or she wants with their body that they can not drive if they may be impaired. Nor do I see any problem with stating that detectable residue of a drug in the bloodstream is sufficient to find that person guilty.

There is no remedy, no way to return freedom to a dead person whose life was taken by an irresponsible act. So people who wish to use lifestyle enhancemers must be responsible enough to keep their risky behavior to themselves. That is not limiting freedom, that is holding people responsible for taking way the freedom of others.

This is a good law.

[Flaneur]

328. No, the issue is not about driving under the influence.

You apparently do not understand that marijuana metabolites remain in the body long after any high has passed. That is the problem here. A test that detects marijuana metabolites DOES NOT measure impairment.

Test for impairment, not metabolites.

[Ignis]

333. +1 for science-based rather than fear-mongering policy.

:thumbsup:

[Ozymanithrax]

338. Are you saying this law authorizes the police to stop you without any...

probable cause and force you to have a blood test? That is not what I read. If it did that, then the law should be repealed. In my experience, however, the police generally have some reason of order a field sobriety test. If they do not,they should be taken to court.

If there is evidence of impaired driving, and a driver fails a field sobriety test, or refuses a field sobriety test, then that person should be charged if there is evidence of use. As I've stated elsewhere, I know people who died at the hands of people under the influence. You find me a way to return the freedoms to the dead, and I will advocate getting rid of such laws. Driving under the influence is a public safety issue. It requires citizens be responsible and not drive if they are impaired. I don't see this law as being an undue restraint on your freedom to drive responsibly.

[Flaneur]

342. I have been asked to blow into a breathalyzer on several occasions.

Once for merely pulling out of a bar parking lot. The pretext was "failure to have a turn signal flashing for two seconds before making a lane change."

If a test that measures marijuana metabolites had been used, I could have been charged with DUID--although I was not impaired. my high having vanished several days earlier.

These laws do not promote public safety; they are another means of criminalizing pot smokers.

If you want impaired drivers off the road, take impaired drivers off the road--not someone who is not impaired, but smoked a joint a week before.

[Ignis]

332. "you appear to feel" -- Ah, so you were just making stuff up?

Thanks for clarifying that you'd rather put words in my mouth than ask my opinion on the subject. :thumbsup:

telling you that you can not drive when you may be under influence of a drug is taking away your freedom.

This law isn't about preventing/catching people driving under the influence. This law is about catching stoners WEEKS after they've smoked a joint, and assuming that because they've smoked in the past, they are CURRENTLY under the influence.

I favor the former, but vehemently reject the latter. If you can't see the difference, then I doubt we have any common ground for discussion.

I've been at more than a few funerals for people who've died in auto accidents involving DUIs. Not a single one of those accidents pointed to a driver toking a joint weeks ago as the cause of the accident.

This is a bad law.

[U4ikLefty]

374. Dead 8 year olds vs draconian drug laws are the only two choices?

thanks for playing

[Romulox]

263. Link? nt

[Ozymanithrax]

278. Her are the drunk driving statistics. They are not hard to look up...

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Just use the google.

This isn't about pot, it is about driving under the influence. Risk your own life if you must. Don't risk others.

[Flaneur]

326. Again, this is not about driving under the influence.

It's about charging people with DUI who are not impaired but might have smoked a week earlier.

[Romulox]

352. The subject is MARIJUANA, not alcohol. Are you having trouble concentrating?

"Risk your own life if you must. Don't risk others."

Without any science to back this up, your is a "faith based" position--nothing more. :hi:

[Leo 9]

346. See post 345.

The DEA’s Top 10 “Facts” on Marijuana Legalization
Opinion by NORML
(April 05, 2010) in Society / Drug Law

snip

Fact 8: Alcohol has caused significant health, social, and crime problems in this country, and legalized drugs would only make the situation worse.
The Legalization Lobby claims drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol. But drunk driving is one of the primary killers of Americans. Do we want our bus drivers, nurses, and airline pilots to be able to take drugs one evening, and operate freely at work the next day? Do we want to add to the destruction by making drugged driving another primary killer?


No, I actually claim that cannabis is far safer than alcohol, see the therapeutic index data above. This is another talking point that pivots from a fact (drunk driving is a serious problem) to a falsehood (the implied threat that legalization of cannabis would lead to more highway fatalities).

Nobody's suggesting you hot-box your ride and see how well you do on the test... but you will out-perform a drinker.

First of all, the US Dept. of Transportation fact sheet on cannabis states, “Effects from smoking cannabis products are felt within minutes and reach their peak in 10-30 minutes. Typical marijuana smokers experience a high that lasts approximately 2 hours.” So if the bus driver, nurse, and airline pilot want to smoke a joint before bed and drive, treat, or fly me the next day, I’m not at all worried; no more so than if they decide to have shot of bourbon the night before work.

Then we have to remember that if cannabis smokers are driving, they are driving now. If pot smoking were such a threat on our roadways we’d have seen the bodies pile up by now. Numerous studies have confirmed what we all know:

•Drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them;
•Drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation;
•Drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana;
•Drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for high concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml).

In other words, even the highest cannabis-using driver is less dangerous than an alcohol-buzzed driver who is still below the per se impairment limits (0.08%) for alcohol.

snip

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/the-dea%E2%80%99s-top-10-%E2%80%9Cfacts%E2%80%9D-on-marijuana-legalization

[Warren DeMontague]

399. If this was even remotely about 'driving under the influence', you might have a point.

But it's not.

Don't even start with me about innocent victims of DUIs. My best friend died in his mid-20s at the hands of a drunk driver.

But when you expand the definition of a crime to suit a political agenda, you do a disservice to the victims of the ACTUAL crime. Like calling someone busted for taking a whizz in an alley a "sex offender".

When you try to claim that someone who smoked pot 3 weeks ago is "driving under the influence" you make a total fucking joke of very serious, legitimate laws designed to keep intoxicated drivers off the road-- and not to make the roads safer in any real sense, but just to penalize pot smokers and pump one last gasp into a dying, ideologically bankrupt 'drug war'.

If you honestly think that someone who smoked pot 3 weeks ago is still -in any real, functional sense- 'high', then you are... well, high.

[Romulox]

238. This is faith based politics at its worst. After 50 years of Drug War, it's the NEW GREEN MENACE

AND IT'S BEHIND THE WHEEL!!1!!!!!!!1!!1!!~

:eyes:

[B2G]

245. There goes the college vote. n/t

[asdjrocky]

250. Thanks again for nothing Obama.

Seriously, and people are mad at me for saying I'm only casting one vote in November.

[pattmarty]

253. Marijuana can stay in your system and BE DETECTABLE for up...............

........to a month. Does this mean you smoked a "bowl" on the 4th of July and you get busted for a busted tailight going to work the next week and you can be busted? BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

[Romulox]

261. Longer than a month for...ahem...enthusiasts. nt

[fatbuckel]

266. Smoke pot all you want...just don`t drive around me.

[Phlem]

300. Really?

you sound so well informed. I've been smoking since high school and at 40 + the only accidents I've been in were people rear ending me while I was stopped, once by the state.

I know you have your issues with this but please DO NOT PERPETUATE IGNORANCE!!!!!

-p

[pattmarty]

310. Did I fucking say that?

[fatbuckel]

267. You said "busted" three times in one sentence...did you lose track?

[pattmarty]

313. No, it was your eyesight that stuttered. That twitchy eye shit.

[Ignis]

317. Thanks for coming to DU to keep us in line.

:eyes:

[moriah]

295. If they only tested blood or saliva...

... I'd actually be okay with it.

Saliva and blood are the closest we have to impairment testing. It at least cuts cannabis detection from a month to three days if the saliva test has a very low threshhold, and 12-24 hours if it has a more normal threshold value for a positive.

[pattmarty]

315. If there was a test as accurate as alcohol/DUI I would have no..................

..............problem with a "field" test at all. AND, you can bet there will be shortly, if not in the marketing pipeline already.

[femrap]

256. Gotta keep those

prisons full! He is such a disappointment on so many issues. Bought and paid for. :mad:

[NoSheep]

269. I, for one, cannot drive when I'm smoking weed. Note: Edited...because I didn't understand!

If I understand now...this is insane.

[Silent3]

271. Isn't anyone just plain embarrassed by the stupidity of this?

Or is playing to the "get tough on crime!" crowd considered too much of a plus?

[Name removed]

298. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silent3]

302. Compared to the alternatives, I'm still glad I voted for Obama.

I'll vote for him again in 2012 most likely. My expectations for what Obama could or would actually do were modest, so even though I'm a bit disappointed, I'm not THAT disappointed.

[Deep13]

274. Federal over-reaching.

This is an intrusion into the power of the states to suppress common crime.

Plus, at a time when we really ought to be moving away from nonsensical drug policies, it moves in the wrong direction.

[tranche]

276. Obama! Just grow a Gd Damn Toothbrush Moustache Already!

[frylock]

280. my apathy level just reached its apex..

i no longer give two shits whether it's a dem or repub making my life miserable. the repubs could trot out zombie reagan in 2012, and i still couldn't bring myself to pull the lever for obama.

[skeptical cynic]

285. Another disappointment

Hypothetically, a person could get off of a plane a week after a trip to a place where using marijuana is legal, get pulled over, and be charged with DUI/DWI while not under the influence and having broken no laws.

The gap between the lesser and the greater of two evils in narrowing.

[The Old Creak]

290. I guess because he "SAID"

the right things during the campaign, he must be a "per se" progressive:evilgrin:

[RoccoR5955]

297. If they do it for THC, it should be the same for alcohol.

If they find ANY alcohol in your body, then there should be the same legal evidence that you were driving under the influence.

[uponit7771]

301. ***********ANOTHER KNEE JERK REACTION OP !!!**********

Which "rarely" occurs on DU :rolleyes:

Devil is in the details....this is for ANY illegal drug and cough surrop too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8330667&mesg_id=8332743

[frylock]

306. not entirely sure as to what it is you're trying to say..

q: is marijuana illegal?
a: yes.

q: can THC be detected in your system for up to 30 days?
a: yes.

[Bluebear]

312. Don't take cough surrop and drive?

[frylock]

318. but i dip my rocks in a PCP/ cough surrop concoction..

and smoke them as i drive to work. this is so unfair!

[Shining Jack]

384. Lol,good one !

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

367. ********IRRELEVANT AND UNIFORMED REPLY !!!*******

Due to a chemical/metabolic peculiarity THC can be detected in the body for days and days and days past the point the drug has any effect on driving safety.

You bust in to proclaim that the OP is hysterical because the rule applies to all drugs.

WTF? Who cares? That is beyond irrelevant. Testing positive for most drugs is, in fact, some sort of indication of impairment.

Thus that's not a big crisis. If you test positive for alcohol or cocaine or meth there is a reasonable chance you're impaired.

That is not the case with marijuana. Medically. Scientifically.

Your **breaking news** is not news, is irrelevant to the topic being discussed and is offered in such a way as to accuse the OP of a crime of which he/she is innocent but you are guilty... trying to make a big splash with irrelevant, limited information

[YOY]

304. Hey...where are the "Clearly you don't understand this/It's above your head." people???

n/t

[Ignis]

335. They had to get in line behind the "Think of the CHILDREN" crew.

Because every stoner I know is just itching to race around at 100mph near schools and playgrounds.

:eyes:

[YOY]

360. I don't smoke but once and a blue moon but I have driven stoned.

"Racing" is the last thing my paranoid ass thinks of when forced to drive stoned. If anything I'm ULTRA careful.

And I have not ever now nor ever will drive drunk.

[rocktivity]

309. What about marijauna's contact highs?

Remember that snowboarder who almost lost his Olympic medal because they found THC in his blood? He said he'd stopped smoking months earlier and got he probably it form a contact high at his sendoff party. It was decided that the THC level was so low, he was most likely telling the truth.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[ima_sinnic]

379. yes, it's true--being around someone else who smokes pot will make pot show up in your urine

--I was told that by a manager of a clinical trial who was giving people guidelines on qualifying to be in the trial, reminding them not to smoke pot for 30 days, and to avoid being around anyone smoking pot.

[Leo 9]

345. Here's some facts for any fools who would push such evil and insane nonsense.

The DEA’s Top 10 “Facts” on Marijuana Legalization
Opinion by NORML
(April 05, 2010) in Society / Drug Law

snip

Fact 8: Alcohol has caused significant health, social, and crime problems in this country, and legalized drugs would only make the situation worse.
The Legalization Lobby claims drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol. But drunk driving is one of the primary killers of Americans. Do we want our bus drivers, nurses, and airline pilots to be able to take drugs one evening, and operate freely at work the next day? Do we want to add to the destruction by making drugged driving another primary killer?


No, I actually claim that cannabis is far safer than alcohol, see the therapeutic index data above. This is another talking point that pivots from a fact (drunk driving is a serious problem) to a falsehood (the implied threat that legalization of cannabis would lead to more highway fatalities).

Nobody's suggesting you hot-box your ride and see how well you do on the test... but you will out-perform a drinker.

First of all, the US Dept. of Transportation fact sheet on cannabis states, “Effects from smoking cannabis products are felt within minutes and reach their peak in 10-30 minutes. Typical marijuana smokers experience a high that lasts approximately 2 hours.” So if the bus driver, nurse, and airline pilot want to smoke a joint before bed and drive, treat, or fly me the next day, I’m not at all worried; no more so than if they decide to have shot of bourbon the night before work.

Then we have to remember that if cannabis smokers are driving, they are driving now. If pot smoking were such a threat on our roadways we’d have seen the bodies pile up by now. Numerous studies have confirmed what we all know:

•Drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them;
•Drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation;
•Drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana;
•Drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for high concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml).

In other words, even the highest cannabis-using driver is less dangerous than an alcohol-buzzed driver who is still below the per se impairment limits (0.08%) for alcohol.

snip

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/the-dea%E2%80%99s-top-10-%E2%80%9Cfacts%E2%80%9D-on-marijuana-legalization

[Shining Jack]

373. Thanks.

I knew that I've read something similar a while ago but I didn't know where to start searching to get those facts.

[MindPilot]

357. The authoritarians are perfectly willing to give up freedom for safety

A few right here an DU are quite willing to trade a police state for even the most gossamer illusion of safety.

[YOY]

362. Even if the freedome they give up have NOTHING to do with safety.

n.t.

[glitch]

392. All that is required is that someone, anyone, tell them it has to do with safety.

They can't cheer loud enough.

[Posteritatis]

361. Gotta love internal possession laws. (nt)

[B2G]

369. Can that be far behind? n/t

[Posteritatis]

370. Behind? Those are common in the present. (nt)

[Flaneur]

382. The only two entities I know of with internal possession laws:

The state of South Dakota.

The United Arab Emirates.

[zulchzulu]

364. As an Obama fan, I remain vigilent to make sure shit like this ENDS n/t

[ZombieHorde]

372. So disapointing. I knew he said he was against legalization during his campaign, but I did expect

the laws to get tougher.

[MattBaggins]

381. He wasn't kidding when he said he would be happy with one term.

[deaniac21]

394. This is what bush has done.

[bamacrat]

396. How stupid. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

400. This stuff is last gasp desperation for the drug war, which is clearly foundering

on its last legs. The chorus to end the drug war is getting louder, and the amount of people in particular who believe we should legalize, regulate and tax pot has never been (excuse the pun) higher.

So, they're doing the old 'conflate and confuse' thing- conflate pot smoking with driving while fucked up, even if the pot was smoked 3 weeks ago. :eyes:

[Echo In Light]

402. Bump