Soda Bans ! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/19/2013 03:00:51 PM · #101

Sir, my advanced age has given me a vestibular problem. I get dizzy when I try to walk a straight line.

Robert, I didn't need that. I understand. The question is if there is no test for the legal or illegal drug, how do you establish the fact a drug is the cause for the driving?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/19/2013 03:01:48 PM · #102

I'm pretty sure the Washington statute specifies the legal limit for driving under the influence of THC, and the methods to test for same.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Pot, on the other hand, has no other redeeming factor. Perhaps an important difference, and perhaps part of the reason I find no need to legalize it. It has no redeeming benefit to society.

This statement is incomprehensible coming from someone who is currently licensed to practice medicine. I'm tempted to ask what you've been smoking ...

1. Marijuana has been used medicinally for about 3000 years, with no documented adverse effects other than those attributable to smoking any vegetable matter.
2. Marijuana is currently used medicinally by thousands of people without demonstrable harm to themselves or society. For some cancer patients, it is an essential component of their treatment.
3. Most of the "harm" caused to families by the use of illegal drugs is a direct consequence of their condition of illegality, not the biologic effects of the substance. I dare you to prove otherwise.
4. According to some old document, "our creator" endowed us with an unalienable right to "pursue happiness" -- so who the heck are you to decide what route (or with which mind-altering substance) someone takes in that pursuit, as long as they're not doing anything to interfere with your own journey to nirvana?
5. Drugs have been made illegal because of arbitrary political decisions, not medical analysis.

When I was looking through the Merck catalog back in the mid-1970s, cocaine HCl USP was available for about $100/ounce (street value at the time about $2000). My mom was prescribed Dexedrine (similar to methamphetamine) for years.

Marijuana was made illegal at a time when it was almost exclusively used by Blacks (really screwed up Louis Armstrong's life, didn't it?) and newly-arriving Mexican immigrants, when it appeared white kids were starting to discover a safer and cheaper high than alcohol, and DuPont was seeking to create a market for their newly-developed artificial fiber, Nylon® ...

Reefer Madness, anyone?

ETA; See if your library has a copy of Jack Herer's The Emperor Wears No Clothes: The Authoritative History of the Cannabis Plant ...

Message edited by author 2013-03-19 15:28:03.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/19/2013 03:44:04 PM · #103

You know Paul, I remember back in undergrad seeing the people who had their signs and swore that our society would be so much more advanced if we only had hemp products. Our ropes would be stronger and our clothes would be more stylish. Even back then I was already smart enough to know it was just so much hyperbole because there was an alternate agenda. Medical marijuana is similar in my eyes. Sure there are some benefits and, sure, if you have end stage cancer I don't really care what you do if you feel it helps, but the healing powers of pot are the same shill game as the hemp ropes and the hemp clothes. It's ballyhoo in order to bring about legalized pot for everybody. That's my official medical opinion.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/19/2013 04:25:48 PM · #104

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

the healing powers of pot are the same shill game as the hemp ropes and the hemp clothes. It's ballyhoo in order to bring about legalized pot for everybody. That's my official medical opinion.

I have to disagree and agree. Some of the folks who are promoting industrial hemp are mostly only out to try to legalize pot for smoking, but you could smoke a cubic yard of hemp and not get high. It is illegal to grow because it is similar enough to confuse those who are unwilling to see a difference, not because it is the same. The big however is that the fiber itself used to be a staple of industry, because it grows so fast and is such a strong fiber.

Hemp used to be fine. Early laws in some American colonies actually required farmers to grow hemp. Many of our earliest presidents, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, all grew hemp. The American Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper. Abraham Lincoln used hemp seed oil to fuel the lamps in his home.The U.S.S. Constitution was rigged with 60 tons of hemp sails and rigging.In 1942, Henry Ford built an experimental car body out of hemp fiber, which is ten times stronger than steel. C-class Mercedes-Benz automobiles have more than 30 parts made of natural fibers, including hemp.

But in these days of not enough space to grow the trees we need to build our houses and make paper to dry our hands on, it is idiotic that we can import hemp, but we are not allowed to grow it. Global production of wood pulp in 2006 was 175 million tons, and trees are not as efficient at making fiber as hemp is. We should use it. Nice paper published by Purdue on the subject

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/19/2013 04:41:36 PM · #105

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If you live in a jurisdiction that classifies them separately, DUI is the lesser charge.

That was not how the judge saw the law in the case I sat on a jury for. the defendant was charged with both DUI and separately DWI.

It's illegal to drive a car while "impaired" by the effects of alcohol or drugs (including prescription drugs). This means that there must be enough alcohol or drugs in the driver's body to prevent him from thinking clearly or driving safely. Many people reach this level well before they'd be considered "drunk" or "stoned." In this case the officer stopped the defendant and had him do some tests, there after he was charged with DUI. The officer felt alcohol had impaired his ability to drive. The jury was to consider the testimony of the officer and the defendant and make a finding, but not to consider the blood test since that was a separate charge.

An adult who has a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .08% or above is guilty of a DWI (driving while intoxicated) -- no matter how sober the driver feels, or how well that person was driving. If the test is accurate and well administered, there is no issue of she said he said, no shadings of truth. It is chemical.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/19/2013 05:51:55 PM · #106

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you live in a jurisdiction that classifies them separately, DUI is the lesser charge.

That was not how the judge saw the law in the case I sat on a jury for. the defendant was charged with both DUI and separately DWI.

It's illegal to drive a car while "impaired" by the effects of alcohol or drugs (including prescription drugs). This means that there must be enough alcohol or drugs in the driver's body to prevent him from thinking clearly or driving safely. Many people reach this level well before they'd be considered "drunk" or "stoned." In this case the officer stopped the defendant and had him do some tests, there after he was charged with DUI. The officer felt alcohol had impaired his ability to drive. The jury was to consider the testimony of the officer and the defendant and make a finding, but not to consider the blood test since that was a separate charge.

An adult who has a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .08% or above is guilty of a DWI (driving while intoxicated) -- no matter how sober the driver feels, or how well that person was driving. If the test is accurate and well administered, there is no issue of she said he said, no shadings of truth. It is chemical.

The sources I'm tracking all have it the other way around:

"DWI and DUI refer to driving while intoxicated and driving under the influence. DWI typically refers to intoxication due to alcohol, whereas, DUI can refer to a variety of different drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and other judgment impairing substances used by themselves or in conjunction with alcohol. Here, we discuss the common terms and definitions associated with DWI and DUI.

Breathalyzer is a term that you may have heard frequently when discussing a DUI or a DWI case. This is a test that is usually administered when the driver is pulled over, at roadside. The driver blows into a device, and readings indicate the suspect's blood alcohol content level (BAC). If someone's blood alcohol content level is 0.08 or higher, then he or she is not considered fit to drive and can be arrested for DWI."

Here's one of them. I haven't seen anything anywhere saying DUI is a worse offense than DWI, although it seems that most of the time the terms are interchangeable, with just SOME states using both terms for different degrees of intoxication or whatever...

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

03/19/2013 06:20:02 PM · #107

Just to say how I was using it...I had always associated DWI with alcohol in particular and DUI with a more general "under the influence". However, I have also heard it used as a "lesser DWI" type charge. I think years ago in Washington at least there was a 0.1 limit for DWI and a 0.08 limit for DUI. These days I think it's all 0.08.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/19/2013 06:31:19 PM · #108

It would appear the two terms are both interchangeable and swappable, LOL. That is to say, some states have only one or the other, and those that have both may rank them differently...

I have a reasonably close relationship to these laws, in a way, because I have a nerve deafness, meaning I have no feeling in my semi-circular canals and no natural sense of balance. I can't even easily "walk a straight line" heel-to-toe in daylight, let alone at night. Couple that with the fact that my speech is not natural-sounding, and often slightly slurred, and I became a frequent target of hassle in roadside sobriety checks, which were abundant in the beach town where I lived for so many years, Ocean Beach in San Diego.

They'd pull over every fifth car or whatever at a roadside sobriety check, and I wouldn't understand what the policeman was saying because he'd be shining a light in my face. I'd explain as best I could that I was deaf etc etc, but invariably I'd be invited out of the car, put through the finger-to-nose and straight-line tests, and prepared for transport downtown. Seriously. This happened several times. This was before on-site breathalyzers. Always I was released, but then I had to go get my car out of impound, and it all took hours.

Finally an attorney friend of mine had words with the police, and I actually got a signed letter from the Chief of Police telling officers to leave me alone unless I was clearly a rolling drunk, and that did the trick.

Life was interesting in those days...

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

03/19/2013 07:31:55 PM · #109

Well, that should give us a shot of confidence for those field sobriety tests. ;) You are definitely full of interesting anecdotes Robert.

And just to see if Ed is watching...Skunk head! Just thought I'd shout it out. :D

K3Master

Pentax K-3

03/20/2013 03:14:42 AM · #110

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm always watching. Narcissism and arrogance make for entertaining reads.