Alright, so what?

Professur said:
Fourth, what advantage would deciminalisation have over legalisation, except to confuse a bunch of kids who don't know the difference, and will now think that it's all fine and dandy, coz it's not illegal anymore, so fuck what Mom and Dad have to say?

BTW, Bish .... when your boy's old enough, you gonna buy him his first splif? There's a proud poppa moment for ya.
Click to expand...

A lot of the above questions get answered if you just give it the same treatment as liquor.
 
Sawhney89 said:
Decrease the age to rent a car to 18.
Click to expand...

There's no law determining the rental age. That's determined by the car rental companies themselves, and their insurance carriers. Pretty much any car rental company will gladly rent to someone under 25... but it will cost you.
 
spike said:
A lot of the above questions get answered if you just give it the same treatment as liquor.
Click to expand...
One big problem with that: it's not liquor. There's no roadside test that can be administered by police for "driving under the influence". A dangerous volume is much easier to administer.

I'll toss this out for you guys. Where the pot plant "cannabis" is concerned, it shouldn't be illegal. It's that it's been 'bred' for it's increased toxicity. It it's natural form, a splif is on about equal footing with a commercial beer. But what's on the streets now is a hybrid, ramped up to moonshine standards.
 
Professur said:
One big problem with that: it's not liquor. There's no roadside test that can be administered by police for "driving under the influence". A dangerous volume is much easier to administer.
Click to expand...

Not so! Dilated pupils, slowed reaction time. A standard roadside sobriety test will suffice. Not to mention the smell of marijuana is quite pungent.
 
tonksy said:
Not so! Dilated pupils, slowed reaction time. A standard roadside sobriety test will suffice. Not to mention the smell of marijuana is quite pungent.
Click to expand...


That's enough to take you in, and make you spend the night. Not to arrest you and give you a DWI record, my dear. And no judge in the world will pass sentence without a quantifiable amount to judge on.
 
Not to mention how obvious it is that the guy went through the drive thru at Taco Bell and got 30 crunchy tacos.
 
Professur said:
That's enough to take you in, and make you spend the night. Not to arrest you and give you a DWI record, my dear. And no judge in the world will pass sentence without a quantifiable amount to judge on.
Click to expand...

That's where the stiffening of DUI laws comes into effect. If you can't pass the roadside sobriety test for agility and reaction and mental clarity than away you go!
 
Not to mention how obvious it is that the guy went through the drive thru at Taco Bell and got 30 crunchy tacos.
Click to expand...

isn't that normal food intake fer you americans? :laugh:

(kiddin')
 
tonksy said:
That's where the stiffening of DUI laws comes into effect. If you can't pass the roadside sobriety test for agility and reaction and mental clarity than away you go!
Click to expand...

Never happen. The moment an officer's 'opinion' is the basis for judgement .... it'll make your civil war look like a kid's water pistol fight.
 
Perhaps you have a point....but there must be some way of determining DUI's for marijuana. How do they arrest folks now for driving while high if they don't have any on them?
 
If you can pass the roadside test you're good to go.

If you can't, what did they do with drunk drivers before the breathalizer was around?
 
tonksy said:
Perhaps you have a point....but there must be some way of determining DUI's for marijuana. How do they arrest folks now for driving while high if they don't have any on them?
Click to expand...


Have to call a paramedic to draw a fluid sample. Urine or blood. Police will not draw either. And neither can be collected without consent without a judge's authorization (court order). Same rules as if you refuse a breathalizer. The difference is a cop can administer that. Refusal of a non-intrusive test is justifiable proof in the eyes of a court of guilt. Not enough to do time, without the quantatative result, but enough to pull your license.

and for the record .... I'm not pulling this outta my ass. this exact discussion took place when Canada in their marvelous obtuseness decided to decriminalize it.
 
If I were president? :lol:
I'd be too radical and would end up being hated.
 
ah! so ... for 30 candy tacos or whatever it was read 20 deep fried mars bars huh?

you read how Blair wants to target pre-featoul (sp?) ASBO kids ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top