San Fran to expunge over 9000 cannabis convictions

[fredd bear]

Yon, lol..thc stays in the system longer than alcohol.    When a person says that we're incapable of determining whether a person was high when they were driving it's not about them being able to smoke a ton of weed..it's the fact that measuring concentration does not indicate relevant use.  

It just tells you that you're dealing with a pothead.  Not that the pothead is high at present moment.

It's gonna be really hard to legislate.  I think we'll go draconian like usual.

You are getting as bad as Bwian about not understanding what you read. Did you notice the part where I said that we don't currently have a way of testing for it easily? 

Breath analyzers currently exist that will detect use within the past couple of hours. But arguments are being made that we don't know what constitutes legal impairment. Personally, I think that any use at all within two hours prior to being tested should constitute impairment, since the only reason for smoking pot is to get high. We can have a single drink just for enjoyment, and not to get intoxicated. But everyone smokes pot exclusively to get high. So if you smoke pot and then drive, you're intentionally driving while high.

In Oz we have had random breath testing  alcohol for decades. Polices set up on the side of the road, sometimes with a van for blood testing, and pull drivers in. If you refuse to be tested, you will be required to submit to blood test, if you refuse. You will be arrested.,and may be tested with force.

If your blood alcohol level is above .005 (I think) you receive an on the spot fine, and cancellation of your driver's licence. Laws vary from state-to-state, but not much.

A test for drug use has been included for several years, same conditions.

"Probable cause'' does not have quite the same cachet in Oz as in the US.

All states in Oz also have mandatory seat belt laws. This is due to our deep respect and admiration for ambulance para medics; so they won't be inconvenienced by having to look for the body.  



In my state:

Blood Alcohol Limits SA
As in all other states in Australia, drivers with learner’s and probationary licenses are subject to 0.0% blood alcohol limits. This means that they cannot drive when they’ve had any amount of alcohol. If they are apprehended with a blood alcohol level higher than the prescribed limit then the learner’s license will be cancelled and he will have to take the driver’s practical test all over again. The probationary license will have to revert to the previous license he had.

Professional drivers or those who drive vehicles for hire to carry goods or passengers are also required to maintain a 0.0% blood alcohol concentration. For all holders of full licenses, the blood alcohol limit is 0.05%. If the drink driver’s blood alcohol concentration is higher than 0.05% but not higher than 0.08% this will be dealt more serious penalties. Blood alcohol concentration which is higher than 0.08% will mean that the driver will automatically lose his license. Driving with blood alcohol concentration levels which are higher than 0.15% is an indictable offense.
 
 http://www.drinkdrivinglaws.com.au/sa/bl...limits.php

[EgoDeath]

I'm not trying to make something seem more clear than it is. I gave you that link specifically because of its balanced perspective about the correlation between legalization of weed and car accidents. I have no anti recreational drug use agenda. I would certainly rather encounter stoned people than drunk people. But I don't want to encounter either while they are driving.

I agree, but there's no clear-cut correlation with cannabis legalization and an increase in accidents. Also, where did you get the number that 1,800 more people will be dead per year with a six percent increase in car accidents. Care to explain the math there or is everyone just supposed to take your word for it?

I think we should be clear when presenting facts like this so we can avoid misunderstandings.

[Rev. Rye]

I think the math is 30,000 deaths in car accidents*.06 increase in car accidents due to legalization=1800 more deaths.

Granted, I'm not sure things will actually end up that way, but his math at least makes sense from the propositions he gave.

[no one]

The thing about people is, there will always be the gianormus fucktards who ruin everything. Personally, I think any drug that occurs naturally, that goes from nature to human body with little to no human interaction, should be legal to do in the privacy of one's own home. As long as what you are doing poses no threat to the public, have at it I say. The instant your actions cross the line, you should be punished. No exceptions.

[EgoDeath]

I think the math is 30,000 deaths in car accidents*.06 increase in car accidents due to legalization=1800 more deaths.

Granted, I'm not sure things will actually end up that way, but his math at least makes sense from the propositions he gave.

Assuming that the 6% increase in accidents will actually mean a 6% increase in fatal accidents as well, then sure, theoretically, yea.

Still, no clear-cut correlation has been established between the legalization of cannabis and the 6% increase in reported collisions.

The thing about people is, there will always be the gianormus fucktards who ruin everything. Personally, I think any drug that occurs naturally, that goes from nature to human body with little to no human interaction, should be legal to do in the privacy of one's own home. As long as what you are doing poses no threat to the public, have at it I say. The instant your actions cross the line, you should be punished. No exceptions.

There's even a good case for the legalization of hard drugs, with countries like Switzerland actually seeing a decrease in the amount of heroin users since beginning their legalized heroin program in '94, offering help and therapy to people who find themselves unable to quit using the drug.

[Yonadav]

I think the math is 30,000 deaths in car accidents*.06 increase in car accidents due to legalization=1800 more deaths.

Granted, I'm not sure things will actually end up that way, but his math at least makes sense from the propositions he gave.

Exactly.

[EgoDeath]

I think the math is 30,000 deaths in car accidents*.06 increase in car accidents due to legalization=1800 more deaths.

Granted, I'm not sure things will actually end up that way, but his math at least makes sense from the propositions he gave.

Exactly.

First of all, it's not a six percent increase. So that's plain wrong.

"Legalizing recreational marijuana use in Colorado, Oregon and Washington has resulted in collision claim frequencies that are about 3 percent higher overall than would have been expected without legalization"

https://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopne...ed-crashes

So not only is it not a six percent increase because of cannabis (more like a 3 percent increase), but it's also still not 100% clear if cannabis legalization is what cause this 3 percent increase, as stated in the studies.

"researchers haven't been able to definitively connect marijuana use with more frequent real-world crashes."

We need to be careful about throwing around information.

I think, with the information we have, it's, at best, safe to assume that cannabis legalization MAY cause a small increase in reported car collisions, but it still isn't clear whether drivers are impaired during said collisions or whether they simply have THC and other cannabinoids present in their blood. It's not as clear-cut as saying "legalizing weed causes a 6% increase in car collisions" - that's simply not true.

[Yonadav]

Exactly.

First of all, it's not a six percent increase. So that's plain wrong.

"Legalizing recreational marijuana use in Colorado, Oregon and Washington has resulted in collision claim frequencies that are about 3 percent higher overall than would have been expected without legalization"

https://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopne...ed-crashes

So not only is it not a six percent increase because of cannabis (more like a 3 percent increase), but it's also still not 100% clear if cannabis legalization is what cause this 3 percent increase, as stated in the studies.

We need to be careful about throwing around information.

I think, with the information we have, it's, at best, safe to assume that cannabis legalization MAY cause a small increase in reported car collisions, but it still isn't clear whether drivers are impaired during said collisions or whether they simply have THC and other cannabinoids present in their blood. It's not as clear-cut as saying "legalizing weed causes a 6% increase in car collisions" - that's simply not true.

So are you being careful with throwing numbers around when you go and look for the lowest number you can find?
Did you notice that your source is older information?
Did you notice that my information was from the most recent studies?
I didn't exactly pull the 6% number out of my ass.  More studies are being done.

It's pretty much a fact that states with legal weed are having more accidents.  I'm not happy about this either. I basically think that smoking a little weed on our own time in our own homes shouldn't be illegal. But we do apparently have some dumbasses who think that legal weed means that it's OK to drive while stoned. I'm not arguing that we should not legalize weed. But we certainly need to address the stoned driving thing.

[EgoDeath]

First of all, it's not a six percent increase. So that's plain wrong.

"Legalizing recreational marijuana use in Colorado, Oregon and Washington has resulted in collision claim frequencies that are about 3 percent higher overall than would have been expected without legalization"

https://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopne...ed-crashes

So not only is it not a six percent increase because of cannabis (more like a 3 percent increase), but it's also still not 100% clear if cannabis legalization is what cause this 3 percent increase, as stated in the studies.

We need to be careful about throwing around information.

I think, with the information we have, it's, at best, safe to assume that cannabis legalization MAY cause a small increase in reported car collisions, but it still isn't clear whether drivers are impaired during said collisions or whether they simply have THC and other cannabinoids present in their blood. It's not as clear-cut as saying "legalizing weed causes a 6% increase in car collisions" - that's simply not true.

So are you being careful with throwing numbers around when you go and look for the lowest number you can find?
Did you notice that your source is older information?
Did you notice that my information was from the most recent studies?
I didn't exactly pull the 6% number out of my ass.  More studies are being done.

It's pretty much a fact that states with legal weed are having more accidents.  I'm not happy about this either. I basically think that smoking a little weed on our own time in our own homes shouldn't be illegal. But we do apparently have some dumbasses who think that legal weed means that it's OK to drive while stoned. I'm not arguing that we should not legalize weed. But we certainly need to address the stoned driving thing.

I didn't "look for the lowest number," I simply found the IIHS article that your article was referring to. The article you posted is referencing the information put out by the IIHS. If you have a study that is supposedly newer than the one done in 2017 by the IIHS, please link it so we can both be clear about what we're talking about. The article you posted also says, "The new reports do not prove there’s a direct risk caused by the use of marijuana among motorists."

You seem to be much more concerned about cannabis than about alcohol, with drunk-driving contributing to over 10,000 car deaths annually. If the issue is lowering the number of deaths from impaired drivers, certainly we should be weary of keeping alcohol legal as well.

Like I said, with the information we have, it's POSSIBLE that cannabis is causing more reported car collisions, but it's not proven. I also think it's very early in the game to start making any blanket statements.

[Yonadav]

So are you being careful with throwing numbers around when you go and look for the lowest number you can find?
Did you notice that your source is older information?
Did you notice that my information was from the most recent studies?
I didn't exactly pull the 6% number out of my ass.  More studies are being done.

It's pretty much a fact that states with legal weed are having more accidents.  I'm not happy about this either. I basically think that smoking a little weed on our own time in our own homes shouldn't be illegal. But we do apparently have some dumbasses who think that legal weed means that it's OK to drive while stoned. I'm not arguing that we should not legalize weed. But we certainly need to address the stoned driving thing.

I didn't "look for the lowest number," I simply found the IIHS article that your article was referring to. The article you posted is referencing the information put out by the IIHS. If you have a study that is supposedly newer than the one done in 2017 by the IIHS, please link it so we can both be clear about what we're talking about. The article you posted also says, "The new reports do not prove there’s a direct risk caused by the use of marijuana among motorists."

You seem to be much more concerned about cannabis than about alcohol, with drunk-driving contributing to over 10,000 car deaths annually. If the issue is lowering the number of deaths from impaired drivers, certainly we should be weary of keeping alcohol legal as well.

Like I said, with the information we have, it's POSSIBLE that cannabis is causing more reported car collisions, but it's not proven. I also think it's very early in the game to start making any blanket statements.

I seem to be more concerned about cannabis than alcohol? Where the hell did that come from?  Of course I have a problem with drunk drivers. A huge one. And if we have a problem with drunk drivers, then it totally makes sense to have a problem with stoned drivers as well.