Why “Legal” Pot May Turn Out to Be Bad News

[WM_in_MO]

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/01/02/legal-pot-may-turn-bad-news/

Legalizing pot may turn out to be a not very good idea. Not because the state (or anyone) has the right to tell a person what they may or may not ingest, freely buy or sell . . . but because of the excuse it will give the police state to become even more authoritarian than it already is.

And yes, such a thing is possible.

Over the course of the last couple of weeks in at least two states (CA (http://www.prisonplanet.com/lapd-deploys-drug-detection-swab-test-at-sobriety-checkpoints.html) and PA (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/18/pa-town-latest-to-force-drivers-over-and-ask-for-cheek-swabs-for-federal-study/)) motorists have been stopped at random and “asked” to submit to swab-testing in order to ascertain whether they’ve been using “drugs” (that is, other than the drug alcohol).
Some have been “voluntary” – but expect them soon to become mandatory.

The LAPD, for one, will be forcing drivers at random “safety” checkpoints to submit to having their mouths swabbed for evidence of pot usage (and so on) since conventional Breathalyzers can only detect alcohol.
The authoritarians are using the legalization movement’s successes to argue for widespread, routine use of swabbing-at-gunpoint, arguing that people will be more likely to smoke and drive (and so on) as a way to get around the Alky Nazis.

“There’s a growing recognition that driving under the influence of drugs is something we need to be clamping down on more effectively . . . (t)raditionally, our office has focused on drunken driving cases … we’re expanding drug collection and aggressively enforcing all impaired-driving laws,” says LA City Attorney Mike Feuer.

Consider it blowback – the lashing back at us Mundanes over the minor successes the decriminalization movement has had partially repealing the imbecilic (and evil) “war” on some “drugs.”

A little freedom gained here – more freedoms surrendered there.


One of the farcical aspects of this business not yet commented upon – so far as I have been able to determine – is that pot (to say nothing of other “drugs”) affects the body quite differently than the drug alcohol. Time sense may be altered, but physical coordination may not be affected. It is a very debatable question – in terms of hard facts – whether a person is “impaired” after having smoked a quantity of pot vs. a quantity of alcohol. There are – as yet – no objective standards defining impairment. Merely to test “positive” is sufficient insofar as the law is concerned. This seems unfair on the face of it. But then, it is equally unfair to define a person as “drunk” according to a generalized and arbitrary BAC threshold, even in cases where the person’s drivingcannot be faulted.

Much more unfair, though – and also not yet remarked upon – is the fact that while alcohol in the bloodstream dissipates within hours of drinking (and no trace will remain after 12 hours or so) the physical evidence of smoking pot (and probably partaking of other “drugs” as well) can remain in the body for weeks after imbibing. A person who tests positive for pot, in other words, is by no means “stoned” at the time of testing. Yet he may be thrown in prison and his vehicle taken away from him regardless.

Minimally, these tests are outrageous on that account alone.
People who’ve given no indication they’re “impaired” or “high” forced to submit to testing of their bodily fluids and tissues – and then presumed “impaired” or “high” if the tests detect the presence of residual compounds in their system.
These tests are abusive in another way, too.

Swab testing is also DNA testing. A way to collect biological fingerprints of entire populations. Remember: These tests are performed generally, without anyindividualized suspicion or specific probable cause. Everyone who has the bad luck to roll up on a “safety” checkpoint is required to Submit and Obey.

Is it really going too far to imagine – in this day and age, given what is now happening routinely in this country, including forced anal/vaginal probing (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/06/second-anal-probe-lawsuit-filed-against-nm-police) by the side of the road – that this power will not be abused? That our DNA will not be collected – and (like everything else) kept somewhere for eventual (inevitable) use against us?

Keep in mind the fact – not “conspiracy theory” – that the U.S. Supreme Court has decreed that any person merely taken into custody – that is, prevented from leaving by being forcibly detained, but not convicted of having committed any crime – can be forced to submit to a DNA test (see here (http://rt.com/usa/supreme-court-dna-police-171/)).
“DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, representing the court’s majority decision.
Ah yes, “reasonable.”


Just like the “reasonable” random, bereft of any specific reason to suspect impairment (or anything else fishy) checkpoints that now litter the landscape of the former home of the free but increasingly land of the cowed.
Back in January of 2012, Dear Leader Obama signed into law the (get hold of your gag reflex) Katie Sephich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, which provides states with oodles of federal taxpayer-looted “funds” to facilitate DNA collection by your local Officers-Not-So-Friendly.
If you think those funds will not be used – and the latest power conferred not abused – then perhaps you will be interested in purchasing a bridge I own in Brooklyn. I can make you a very good deal, I swear.
Will Americans ever reach their breaking point?
Or are they already broken?


Throw it in the Woods?

[phill4paul]

I think ericpeters reads RPF. :p http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?437043-Drug-detection-DNA-swab-roll-out-L-A-sobriety-checkpoints

[dannno]

Sounds like a market for a new mouthwash.

Maybe Visine will invest in making one.

But seriously, there are plenty of studies that show that smoking small to moderate quantities of cannabis can actually increase driver safety and decrease accidents including deadly accidents. Many stoned drivers drive more safely than many sober drivers because they are more relaxed, don't drive as fast and can be more attentive.

[Anti Federalist]

Already broken...broken, docile and compliant.



Why “Legal” Pot May Turn Out to Be Bad News

by eric • January 2, 2014 • 18 Comments

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/01/02/legal-pot-may-turn-bad-news/

Legalizing pot may turn out to be a not very good idea. Not because the state (or anyone) has the right to tell a person what they may or may not ingest, freely buy or sell . . . but because of the excuse it will give the police state to become even more authoritarian than it already is.

And yes, such a thing is possible.

Over the course of the last couple of weeks in at least two states (CA and PA) motorists have been stopped at random and “asked” to submit to swab-testing in order to ascertain whether they’ve been using “drugs” (that is, other than the drug alcohol).

Some have been “voluntary” – but expect them soon to become mandatory.

The LAPD, for one, will be forcing drivers at random “safety” checkpoints to submit to having their mouths swabbed for evidence of pot usage (and so on) since conventional Breathalyzers can only detect alcohol.

The authoritarians are using the legalization movement’s successes to argue for widespread, routine use of swabbing-at-gunpoint, arguing that people will be more likely to smoke and drive (and so on) as a way to get around the Alky Nazis.

“There’s a growing recognition that driving under the influence of drugs is something we need to be clamping down on more effectively . . . (t)raditionally, our office has focused on drunken driving cases … we’re expanding drug collection and aggressively enforcing all impaired-driving laws,” says LA City Attorney Mike Feuer.

Consider it blowback – the lashing back at us Mundanes over the minor successes the decriminalization movement has had partially repealing the imbecilic (and evil) “war” on some “drugs.”

A little freedom gained here – more freedoms surrendered there.

One of the farcical aspects of this business not yet commented upon – so far as I have been able to determine – is that pot (to say nothing of other “drugs”) affects the body quite differently than the drug alcohol. Time sense may be altered, but physical coordination may not be affected. It is a very debatable question – in terms of hard facts – whether a person is “impaired” after having smoked a quantity of pot vs. a quantity of alcohol. There are – as yet – no objective standards defining impairment. Merely to test “positive” is sufficient insofar as the law is concerned. This seems unfair on the face of it. But then, it is equally unfair to define a person as “drunk” according to a generalized and arbitrary BAC threshold, even in cases where the person’s driving cannot be faulted.

Much more unfair, though – and also not yet remarked upon – is the fact that while alcohol in the bloodstream dissipates within hours of drinking (and no trace will remain after 12 hours or so) the physical evidence of smoking pot (and probably partaking of other “drugs” as well) can remain in the body for weeks after imbibing. A person who tests positive for pot, in other words, is by no means “stoned” at the time of testing. Yet he may be thrown in prison and his vehicle taken away from him regardless.

Minimally, these tests are outrageous on that account alone.

People who’ve given no indication they’re “impaired” or “high” forced to submit to testing of their bodily fluids and tissues – and then presumed “impaired” or “high” if the tests detect the presence of residual compounds in their system.

These tests are abusive in another way, too.

Swab testing is also DNA testing. A way to collect biological fingerprints of entire populations. Remember: These tests are performed generally, without any individualized suspicion or specific probable cause. Everyone who has the bad luck to roll up on a “safety” checkpoint is required to Submit and Obey.

Is it really going too far to imagine – in this day and age, given what is now happening routinely in this country, including forced anal/vaginal probing by the side of the road – that this power will not be abused? That our DNA will not be collected – and (like everything else) kept somewhere for eventual (inevitable) use against us?

Keep in mind the fact – not “conspiracy theory” – that the U.S. Supreme Court has decreed that any person merely taken into custody – that is, prevented from leaving by being forcibly detained, but not convicted of having committed any crime – can be forced to submit to a DNA test (see here).

“DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, representing the court’s majority decision.

Ah yes, “reasonable.”

Just like the “reasonable” random, bereft of any specific reason to suspect impairment (or anything else fishy) checkpoints that now litter the landscape of the former home of the free but increasingly land of the cowed.

Back in January of 2012, Dear Leader Obama signed into law the (get hold of your gag reflex) Katie Sephich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, which provides states with oodles of federal taxpayer-looted “funds” to facilitate DNA collection by your local Officers-Not-So-Friendly.

If you think those funds will not be used – and the latest power conferred not abused – then perhaps you will be interested in purchasing a bridge I own in Brooklyn. I can make you a very good deal, I swear.

Will Americans ever reach their breaking point?

Or are they already broken?

[phill4paul]

Someone already covered it. Still I think ericpeters is reading RPF. :p

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?437043-Drug-detection-DNA-swab-roll-out-L-A-sobriety-checkpoints

[Anti Federalist]

Someone already covered it. Still I think ericpeters is reading RPF. :p

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?437043-Drug-detection-DNA-swab-roll-out-L-A-sobriety-checkpoints

I see it...search Fail.

[phill4paul]

I see it...search Fail.

It's all good. ;)

[rambone]

Legalizing pot may turn out to be a not very good idea. Not because the state (or anyone) has the right to tell a person what they may or may not ingest, freely buy or sell . . . but because of the excuse it will give the police state to become even more authoritarian than it already is.

And yes, such a thing is possible.

Over the course of the last couple of weeks in at least two states (CA and PA) motorists have been stopped at random and “asked” to submit to swab-testing in order to ascertain whether they’ve been using “drugs” (that is, other than the drug alcohol).
Some have been “voluntary” – but expect them soon to become mandatory.


The portable pot testing technology is somewhat new and not something many departments have access to. From what I understand, the devices are capable of detecting marijuana, narcotics, and "other drugs" (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/police-take-saliva-blood-drivers-new-years-checkpoints/) which could include prescriptions. Anything the driver may be "under the influence" of while driving.

Departments will use this just like they do with Breathalyzers currently. Which means, in some states, forcefully with "no refusal."

The expansion of DUI checkpoints is going to come with increased access to the technology, not the legality of pot.

[devil21]

Decline the swab. What's the big deal?

[Cap]

The way I see it, the police state will amp up inspite of what is happening on the pot front. State/Feds are writing new law by the truckload. Jaywalking, not picking up dog shit, protesting in other than a free speech zone, etc... you get the picture. The police state is going to be rolled out regardless.

[tod evans]

The way I see it, the police state will amp up inspite of what is happening on the pot front. State/Feds are writing new law by the truckload. Jaywalking, not picking up dog shit, protesting in other than a free speech zone, etc... you get the picture. The police state is going to be rolled out regardless.

Now now, don't be such an alarmist...:rolleyes:

[Anti-Neocon]

I don't even consider breathalyzers to be anti-liberty. As long as the pot test is no more invasive, what's the hullabaloo?

When you consume alcohol or other mind-altering drugs and then choose to put other peoples lives in danger on public property, you should expect to be punished.

[tod evans]

I don't even consider breathalyzers to be anti-liberty. As long as the pot test is no more invasive, what's the hullabaloo?

When you consume alcohol or other mind-altering drugs and then choose to put other peoples lives in danger on public property, you should expect to be punished.

Bullshit!

[Cap]

I don't even consider breathalyzers to be anti-liberty. As long as the pot test is no more invasive, what's the hullabaloo?

When you consume alcohol or other mind-altering drugs and then choose to put other peoples lives in danger on public property, you should expect to be punished.You really don't get it do you?

[Anti-Neocon]

Please help me to get it.

I believe in complete legalization of all drugs, the ability to grow, produce, and use any drug that one would wish to, but for the life of me I just don't understand why given that we have a public road system, that we should allow people to be actively putting others lives in danger through their own poor decisions.

A crime to me involves a perpetrator and a victim other than oneself. Using drugs and then getting in the controlling station of a 2 ton missile is doing just that.

Let's put it this way as well. I believe in the right to play board games, but while you're driving a vehicle on public property? Not a chance.

[tod evans]

Please help me to get it.

I believe in complete legalization of all drugs, the ability to grow, produce, and use any drug that one would wish to, but for the life of me I just don't understand why given that we have a public road system, that we should allow people to be actively putting others lives in danger through their own poor decisions.

A crime to me involves a perpetrator and a victim other than oneself. Using drugs and then getting in the controlling station of a 2 ton missile is doing just that.

You're buying into the belief that people who consume XYZ are incapable of operating a vehicle responsibly and that government agents must be brought to bear to assure that people do not consume XYZ before driving.

On it's face the initial assumption is wrong.

[Anti-Neocon]

You're buying into the belief that people who consume XYZ are incapable of operating a vehicle responsibly and that government agents must be brought to bear to assure that people do not consume XYZ before driving.

On it's face the initial assumption is wrong.
Not all people who do XYZ are incapable of operating a vehicle responsibly, but many fatalities of innocent people exist as a result of these drunk drivers, and there is no other reasonable way to deal with these potential killers other than to criminalize the activity of driving while drunk. If a study comes out that shows that THC does not impair driving, then let people drive high till their hands fall off.

Criminalizing drunk driving has actually been a legislative success from my point of view, as there has been a continually decreasing trend of drunk driving related fatalities as shown here (http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics). I like the freedom to transport myself on roads with a reduced amount of drunken maniacs.

[tod evans]

Before DWI laws and enforcement there were C&I and reckless driving laws that permitted punishment for actually driving erratically.

The laws and requisite enforcement surrounding DWI focus on what might happen instead of what has happened..

Pre-crime is a term used here frequently.

"Drunken maniacs" have NEVER been a menace on the roads and DWI laws don't change that.

[Anti-Neocon]

Is it ok to play with matches and firecrackers in a public place? "Oh but this guy, he's so responsible! He'd never hurt anyone!" Keep your dangerous stuff to yourself.

Calling drunken driving pre-crime is kind of silly in my opinion, as a crime is the decision to do something with potential consequences to other people, and its not like these drunken people are choosing to drive erratically. The choice is made when they get behind the wheel drunk, and that's the crime to me. Also the prosecution of drunken driving has led to less drunken driving fatalities so it has succeeded in its goal.

[tod evans]

Is it ok to play with matches and firecrackers in a public place? "Oh but this guy, he's so responsible! He'd never hurt anyone!" Keep your dangerous stuff to yourself.

Calling drunken driving pre-crime is kind of silly in my opinion, as a crime is the decision to do something with potential consequences to other people, and its not like these drunken people are choosing to drive erratically. The choice is made when they get behind the wheel drunk, and that's the crime to me. Also the prosecution of drunken driving has led to less drunken driving fatalities so it has succeeded in its goal.

Outlawing testicles would alleviate a large portion of domestic violence incidents as well as rape and child molestation....

It's the exact same principle.


Buying into propaganda and then citing statistics used to support propaganda as validation is kind of silly.

DWI/drugs and protecting the children are all justification to permit government to infringe on privacy in the name of greater good or "safety"...

If you're really concerned about safety give up your testicles.

[Anti-Neocon]

There's no decision being made about being born with testicles, so the analogy fails at the basic level.

[tod evans]

There's no decision being made about being born with testicles, so the analogy fails at the basic level.

No analogy, truth........"domestic violence incidents as well as rape and child molestation" are by and large crimes committed by men.

Statistically in much greater numbers than "drunks" causing accidents...

But since we're discussing highway safety how about examining road rage and speeding statistics by gender...Once again giving up your testicles would assure others safety...

[Origanalist]

You really don't get it do you?

Obviously.

[Origanalist]

Is it ok to play with matches and firecrackers in a public place? "Oh but this guy, he's so responsible! He'd never hurt anyone!" Keep your dangerous stuff to yourself.

Calling drunken driving pre-crime is kind of silly in my opinion, as a crime is the decision to do something with potential consequences to other people, and its not like these drunken people are choosing to drive erratically. The choice is made when they get behind the wheel drunk, and that's the crime to me. Also the prosecution of drunken driving has led to less drunken driving fatalities so it has succeeded in its goal.

I feel safer now.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/WX6_QWieZlU/hqdefault.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/law-media/uploads/131/6731/large/img-forced-blood-draws.jpg?1382925241

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuYgnvmSa3_NksPIPcwKNWFG6h-WAOSypk0ERLsu388TecXmQG

[tod evans]

as a crime is the decision to do something with potential consequences to other people,

Here is where your logic fails...

In an actual crime damage is done and not just a probability...

I've pointed out several instances where possession of testicles drastically increases the "potential" for crimes far more grievous than a traffic accident...

[Scrapmo]

Armed and roided up members of the government enforcement class, inserting a long slender objects into the mouths of private citizens against their will, is fitting symbolism for the condition of Amerika today.

[pcosmar]

Also the prosecution of drunken driving has led to less drunken driving fatalities so it has succeeded in its goal.

I doubt that is the case..
The statistics used by MADD to push this bullshit have been proven to be false..and it has been proven that only a small % of fatalities actually involve drunk drivers.
In the range of 10 to 20 percent,, 20% being on the generous benefit of doubt.

If traffic fatalities are down ,,I would credit Air Bags, and gas prices,, and not the bullshit laws.

[WM_in_MO]

Please help me to get it.

I believe in complete legalization of all drugs, the ability to grow, produce, and use any drug that one would wish to, but for the life of me I just don't understand why given that we have a public road system, that we should allow people to be actively putting others lives in danger through their own poor decisions.

A crime to me involves a perpetrator and a victim other than oneself. Using drugs and then getting in the controlling station of a 2 ton missile is doing just that.

Let's put it this way as well. I believe in the right to play board games, but while you're driving a vehicle on public property? Not a chance.
Start here:
http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=62316

The Fair DUI book will be one I pick up soon, so I'll be able to see the entire argument.

It boils down to this,

In the name of safety a one-size fits all system of rigged procedures is rolled out that throws your rights to the wind and assumes everyone is guilty until proven innocent.


No analogy, truth........"domestic violence incidents as well as rape and child molestation" are by and large crimes committed by men.

Statistically in much greater numbers than "drunks" causing accidents...

But since we're discussing highway safety how about examining road rage and speeding statistics by gender...Once again giving up your testicles would assure others safety...


He's being flippant but it's the exact same logic the nanny-staters and control freaks use to assume everyone is a danger and must prove themselves NOT to be before being granted privileges. These people have long ago given up the idea that individual rights exist. You get your privileges and you get them taken away if they deem you a threat. It is the very embodiment of exercizing petty control over their fellow men. They are the worst of all tyrants, the ones that do everything for your own good.

[Grubb556]

My concern was always that the only "legal" pot would be the ones that were grown by the large corporations. I heard in Canada they were considering something like legalizing pot, but giving the government a monopoly on it.

[KurtBoyer25L]

I'm not ready to panic, and as someone who has a hard time staying connected to the black market, I'm pleased that I can just go buy a pack of joints.

That said, what I find ridiculous is that the Colorado govt./weed retailers are currently price-gouging everyone, while at the same time passing a law that says anyone over 21 can grow six plants in their backyard. Talk about encouraging the black market. It could create a new era of *everyone* getting arrested & becoming a cash cow for the prison industry, except cops in CO pretty much collectively decided to stop enforcing marijuana laws last year.

[BSWPaulsen]

Please help me to get it.

I believe in complete legalization of all drugs, the ability to grow, produce, and use any drug that one would wish to, but for the life of me I just don't understand why given that we have a public road system, that we should allow people to be actively putting others lives in danger through their own poor decisions.

A crime to me involves a perpetrator and a victim other than oneself. Using drugs and then getting in the controlling station of a 2 ton missile is doing just that.

Let's put it this way as well. I believe in the right to play board games, but while you're driving a vehicle on public property? Not a chance.

Let's replace that "2 ton missile" with a firearm. Should people who have been drinking, et al, have access to a gun?

For consistency's sake, you seem to be arguing that a certain standard of cognitive function is necessary for people to conduct their affairs vis-à-vis potentially dangerous objects. Citing "public property" would fit in with the idea of "gun free zones", etc.

You believe controlling people by force, absent damage to person, property, or precisely defined behavior that make it likely such harm could occur (ie: driving the wrong way down a street), is reasonable in the pursuit of safety. This has resulted in the modern-day insanity of a drunk person sleeping it off in their car getting ticketed for drunk driving. Actual harm done? None. A moral hazard to give the government the power to prosecute such inanities? Definitely. This is a natural logical extension of Authoritarian behavior, however.

This is the difference between Authoritarians and Libertarians. Authoritarians believe any and all behavior that can be construed as a threat to the public not only should be controlled, but that it `must` be controlled. This, of course, is for the greater good. If the justice system needs to destroy lives so that perceived social ills can be purged, then the imperative of public safety wins out.

Libertarians, rightly as far as I'm concerned, use a different measuring stick and say, with confidence, that individual rights trump the hazy idea of public safety. Punishing people who have not only done no harm, but also weren't demonstrating precise behavior that made such harm likely (meaning, of course, that the only reason they didn't harm anyone was sheer luck, a standard of which simply driving under the influence does not satisfy) is abhorrent to anyone that wants to live and let live.

[Brian4Liberty]

I mentioned this in another thread, but another downside is that neighboring states may set up mandatory checkpoints at the "border crossings". No doubt this could involve dogs, searches, "checking papers", and various physical tests.

And in CO, the new law creates regulations on growing, which everyone must follow. Will there be house to house "inspections" for compliance? Do you have too many plants? Are your plants properly secured and locked?

[Brian4Liberty]

Please help me to get it.


A basic pillar of neo-conservatism is to be afraid of others, and to take pre-emptive measures just in case they might possibly be a danger to you. You don't want to be a neo-conservative do you? ;)

[tod evans]

Bump for Monday morning...

http://www.lusseautoscooters.com/assets/images/LUSSE_CAR_53_PIC_25.jpg

[Czolgosz]

Stated early on. C'mon peeps, this is easy to crack outta the park.


...
A crime to me involves a perpetrator and a victim other than oneself.
...

[Czolgosz]

Fuck legalization.

No victim, no crime.

Stay free.