Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Grapefruits

Washington voters approved legalized marijuana

136 posts in this topic

Taking a page out of the playbook of the evangelical Christian anti-abortion movement... the Bible (aka Book of Fairy Tales) supports the legalization of marijuana. Even a whole bunch of different versions of it. Unlike the abortion issue.

Verily... per Genesis 1:11-12

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

(New International Version)

11 God said, “I command the earth to produce all kinds of plants, including fruit trees and grain.” And that’s what happened.

12 The earth produced all kinds of vegetation. God looked at what he had done, and it was good.

(Contemporary English Version)

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

(King James Version)

11 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth”; and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

(21st Century King James Version)

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.

(American Standard Version)

11 God said, “Let the earth grow plant life: plants yielding seeds and fruit trees bearing fruit with seeds inside it, each according to its kind throughout the earth.” And that’s what happened.

12 The earth produced plant life: plants yielding seeds, each according to its kind, and trees bearing fruit with seeds inside it, each according to its kind. God saw how good it was.

(Common English Bible)

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.

12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

(English Standard Version Anglicised)

11 God said, “Let the earth put forth grass, seed-producing plants, and fruit trees, each yielding its own kind of seed-bearing fruit, on the earth”; and that is how it was.

12 The earth brought forth grass, plants each yielding its own kind of seed, and trees each producing its own kind of seed-bearing fruit; and God saw that it was good.

(Complete Jewish Bible)

11 Let the earth, he said, yield grasses that grow and seed; fruit-trees too, each giving fruit of its own kind, and so propagating itself on earth. And so it was done;

12 the earth yielded grasses that grew and seeded, each according to its kind, and trees that bore fruit, each with the power to propagate its own kind. And God saw it, and found it good.

(Knox Bible)

11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so.

12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good.

(New American Standard Bible)

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce plants. Let them bear their own seeds. And let there be trees on the land that bear fruit with seeds in it. Let each kind of plant or tree have its own kind of seeds.” And that’s exactly what happened.

12 The land produced plants. Each kind of plant had its own kind of seeds. The land produced trees that bore fruit with seeds in it. Each kind of tree had its own kind of seeds. God saw that it was good.

(New International Reader's Version)

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

(New International Version 1984)

There are lots more at this link for comparison:

http://www.biblegate...version=NIV1984

I wonder if my point was too subtle for the Christian evangelicals???

And Wetcoaster surveyed what he had wrought... and Wetcoaster saw that it was good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Already know the legal status of marijuana at the federal level has to do with lack of control over the crop versus tobacco and not anything else. There's never been a legitimate reason for it's legal status, and I can't imagine how much money and prison space could have been saved if the US government didn't stupidly attempt to control it so fervently.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not true.

The police officer would offer testimony of what he observed as general demeanour, impaired behaviour and judgment and then it would be up to the judge to to decide if the evidence was sufficient to convict. That is how things were done for many years.

Under the Criminal Code you can be convicted of impaired driving even if you do not blow over .08 - all the breathalyser does is establish a statutory benchmark where no evidence of impairment need be led.

Section 253(1)(a) makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle or to have care or control of a motor vehicle while that person's ability to operate is impaired by the alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two.

Section 253(1)( B) makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle or to have care or control of a motor vehicle while that person's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is in excess of 0.08 percent (representing 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

A person may be charged with either or both of the offences under section 253.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the.. ?

- Tystick is talking about observation used as grounds to conduct a test, nowhere did he imply a guilty conviction in a court.

- No person in Washington state, or any US state, would be charged under the Canadian criminal code :huh: I'm at a loss as to why you cited it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the... ?

The statement was framed as a generality but in any event BC and Washington state operate under the same statutory criminal code regime in respect of operating a vehicle while one's is impaired by alcohol or drugs

There is no test for marijuana impairment because of the pharmacology of THC which is where the discussion began about this.

In Canada like Washington state, observations of driving conduct and general observations of impaired judgment and operation by a peace officer would be sufficient to ground a charge and if believed and passes the criminal standard of proof would ground a conviction for drug impairment as it always has been.

In Washington state like Canada, there is a statutory presumption of driving under the influence of alcohol when a person has a reading of breath or blood beyond an alcohol concentration of 0.08. However for other drugs the statutory presumption is inapplicable as set out in Washington state criminal code. Do try to follow along.

RCW 46.61.502

Driving under the influence.

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

( B) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

© While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

(2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be variability in proving impairment from the officer's side but that's why they have DRE's as I'm sure you're well aware :lol:, but once again how a judge/jury looks at proving impairment is not what the poster you were responding to was talking about but grounds for initiating a test which, for no reason, you're five steps ahead of. Do try to take your own advice and follow along.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no test for marijuana impairment comparable to a roadside screening breathalyser - unless you mean some variant of a field sobriety test (walk a straight line toe to toe, extend our arms outward at shoulder level and bring each arm in and touch your nose, etc.

I am quite familiar with the Drug Recognition Expert process. The Drug Recognition Expert uses a 12-step procedure in performing the evaluation to reach an opinion as to drug impairment levels once a potential drug imparied driver has been identified by an arresting officer:

1) Breath test to rule out alcohol as the primary cause of impairment

2) Interview of the arresting officer

3) Preliminary examination (includes the first of three pulses)

4) Eye examinations (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Vertical Gaze Nystagmus and the ability of the eyes to converge)

5) Divided attention tests (SFSTs plus finger to nose and Romberg balance test)

6) Vital signs examinations (blood pressure, temperature, second pulse)

7) Darkroom examination of pupil sizes (includes examination of nasal and oral cavities)

8) Muscle tone

9) Search for and examination of injection sites

10) Statements and interview of the suspect

11) Opinion of the DRE

12) Toxicological sample (urine and oral fluid or blood)

And as the RCMP itself has noted in respect of a DRE opinion:

The toxicological sample is sent to a forensic laboratory for analyses to confirm or refute the findings of the evaluator. The mere presence of a drug in the sample does not constitute sufficient evidence to charge a person as being impaired by a drug. The evaluation must show impairment, indicia consistent with one or more drug categories, and the evaluator’s findings must be supported by the toxicology.

So my original observations stand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your observations? :lol:

The only part that addressed that person's post is in bold, and it took 3 responses plus weeding through a bunch of crap, I don't see much observational skill to be in awe of, more like irrelevance. All they were talking about is identifying impairment (in the few ways an officer can) to proceed to those steps. I'm not sure if you're under the impression that posting a bunch of details from G to Z is going to scare me away from pointing out your inability to follow along with the poster you're responding to who is all the way back at A, but have fun there reaffirming.. whatever it is there you're trying to prove. Did you convince yourself?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, they even admitted it wouldn't fly in court and might not be enough to press charges, but that poster's assertion you made a rebuttal to was about an officer in the field identifying an impaired driver to proceed to any next steps, then you went off on a tangent about the court while telling them "that's not true". lolwut? You sure it's me with reading comprehension issues? I got what that poster was saying just fine, it was you who went on a wild tangent, and boy do you have an ego problem after someone tries to reiterate their post three times.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So prices are starting to surface estimating $300/ounce in Washington.. which is pretty damn cheap for an ounce, and can only get cheaper as legalised marijuana further legitimises and people who fell for government propaganda slowly realise your brain isn't an egg getting smashed by a frying pan when you take a hit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people have a sensitivity to smoke. And, the Cancer Society suggests maybe you're wrong:

I'm not really worried either way...doesn't bother me if others want to indulge but, as I no longer do, don't really want my clothes, hair, etc. smelling of it. I'd say applying the same standard as liquor (not in public, although people still would/do), while driving, etc. is likely appropriate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a user and I agree 100% that it should not be allowed in public, except in designated areas, like smoking and drinking. What you will see is coffee shops popping up everywhere which keeps it in confined areas. Also age to use should be the same as cigarettes or alcohol. Of course young kids will get it, but that is the same as alcohol and cigarettes. Lastly, tax the hell out of it and put that tax money to good use. Get the country out of debt and help people. It is a huge money maker that Canada is ignoring because they are dictated by the neighbours down south.

Anyone who argues that marijuana is a gateway drug has no idea. I have never done anything harder then grass. All my friends are the same.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, same here too.

But once again, tax the hell out of it? Do you really trust where they are going to put that "tax money"? Is it necessary with all of the public (and now private too) non-smoking laws?

I don't like encouraging government to tax things merely because of the substance, they will come right back with open hands wanting more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really trust where they are going to put that "tax money"?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US federal government is still formulating its response to the recent initiatives passed in Washington and Colorado legalizing marijuana.

Washington Governor Chris Christie plans to push ahead unless the feds obtain a court injunction.

U.S. gov't hasn't made a decision on possible block of Washington marijuana legalization: governor

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire said Tuesday the federal government still hasn't decided whether to take action to block new laws legalizing marijuana in her state and Colorado.

Gregoire met with Deputy Attorney General James Cole in Washington, D.C. She told Cole she would prefer to know "sooner rather than later," because Washington state is in the process of getting ready to decriminalize pot, which is still illegal under federal law.

"I told them, 'Make no mistake, that absent an injunction of some sort, it's our intent to implement decriminalization,'" Gregoire told The Associated Press. "I don't want to spend a lot of money implementing this if you are going to attempt to block it."

Initiative 502 passed last week with 55 per cent of the vote in the state. It decriminalizes the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana beginning Dec. 6. The state would license the growing, processing and labeling of marijuana, but state officials have a year to come up with those rules before sales can begin.

Colorado also passed a measure legalizing the drug.

Federal lawyers are reviewing the two new state laws, trying to determine what their response will be, Gregoire said.

"It's not a simple analysis for them," she said. "There's a difference between our two initiatives, and they want to look at that. They clearly want to know how things are going to flow, how regulations develop, how enforcement would be taken, taxes would be gathered."

She said she pressed Cole as to whether the ultimate federal response would treat both Washington and Colorado the same way, and Justice Department officials indicated to her that that was their intent.

In Washington, home-growing marijuana for recreational reasons remains barred, as does the public display or use of pot. The measure also establishes a standard blood test limit for driving under the influence, and Gregoire says the head of the Washington State Patrol has to begin training officers to enforce that portion of the measure.

"He can't wait, he's got to start doing this," Washington's governor said.

Gregoire said she promised to keep the Justice Department fully informed as to the progress the state is making in implementing the new marijuana law.

Colorado's governor and attorney general spoke by phone Friday with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, with no signal whether the U.S. Justice Department would sue to block the marijuana measure.

If Colorado's marijuana ballot measure is not blocked, it would take effect by Jan. 5, the deadline for the governor to add the amendment to the state constitution. The measure allows adults to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, and six marijuana plants, though public use of the drug and driving while intoxicated are prohibited.

Colorado's new law also directs lawmakers to write regulations on how pot can be sold, with commercial sales possible by 2014.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/hasn+made+decision+possible+block+Washington/7549998/story.html#ixzz2CFxD73o6

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.