Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Does legalization of Marijuana...

I can�t speak for all states but the ones with which I am familiar have a �per se� standard and a general standard to the effect of being impaired to the point of being unable to properly operate a vehicle.

The per se standard for alcohol is .08% BAC. Colorado adopted a �permissible inference� THC standard of 5ng/ml or higher, which is the barest minimum detectable in blood. The current issue is whether the 5ng standard actually correlates with the .08% BAC standard.



The standard field sobriety maneuvers work with THC intoxication as well as with alcohol. Right now here is no equivalent of the portable breath tester for THC. Lots of people are working on a minimally intrusive field test kit. Some are working on breath testers and I think that some are working on test kits similar to those used by diabetics. Aside from being a money maker for the person who patents the technology, it can be used by proponents of legalization because it takes away an �unknown� that can be used to oppose legalization. Of course, it will greatly assist the police as well when conducting maneuvers and determining impairment.



Don�t know about Colorado, but there is no �mandatory arrest� rule for federal violations by local police. A report can be sent to the feds or obtained by them and they can figure out if they want to do something with it. The feds are better at determining what their laws mean anyway, plus they have their own rules about grand juries and time frames for prosecution from time of arrest. The local police can certainly be subpoenaed to testify in a federal prosecution.



Can the license be used to hunt with archery gear? Does applying for a license to hunt establish probable cause or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person possesses firearms? It certainly seems relevant but may not be dispositive. The same issue arises with people convicted of domestic violence.

Other comments:

I have been trying to keep up with what is going on in Colorado because I live in a border state in which more than one quarter of the state population is within an easy drive of Colorado store bought pot.

I think that Colorado lawmakers got blindsided by the legalization. It was a ballot measure that got started as a grass roots campaign. The legislature probably would not have passed it. After the ballot measure passed, the legislature tried to clamp down on it by making it expensive and a revenue generator. (I don�t know about Washington�s situation.) Once people start growing their own at home, which is permitted in Colorado, I suspect that the tax revenue from state residents will decline.

Colorado and Washington are now experimental labs for how everything is going to work out in the long run. Data will become more readily available concerning the impact. Governments and business will learn the potential economic impact, whether from direct sales, taxation or things like additional tourism. The Denver Post has a section devoted to pot and pot issues. Because of the openness, studies are coming out every day concerning degree of impairment of alcohol versus pot versus cell phones. The issue involving edibles is mixed in there also. There are huge legal issues involving things like employment, lawyer regulation, financial institution money laundering rules, and housing laws in addition to DUI. These are largely caused or compounded by the fact that the stuff is still illegal federally. It is totally stupid to have the stuff illegal at one level and legal at another. The law should be consistent. Pick one, whatever the voters want, and stick with it.

I wonder what percentage of the nation�s population lives within an easy drive of Colorado or Washington? Unless the feds decide to put the hammer down again, it is really hard to stop people from getting the stuff at a store and creating the mental impression in the general public that it is no different than buying a Big Mac or a bottle of Jack Daniel�s. My perception may be skewed because of my proximity to over-the-counter sales, but it looks like to me like things are trending toward taking pot off Schedule I. Any politician of any party who wants to bring young people to the polls can use it as a campaign issue. Further, as more and more states �legalize� it either for medical or recreational purposes, it is going to be harder and harder for politicians to say that, when they get elected, they are going to shut it down. Don�t forget the campaign money or PAC ads from the businesses who profit from it directly or indirectly. That can go to the R�s as well as the D�s and L�s. Again, this is purely a personal perception, about like who is going to win an election or a sporting contest or how certain stocks will do (I am really bad at that), and maybe my perception is skewed.

By the way, I think that anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of the stuff right now, including those in an advisory capacity and those taking money from them as service providers, landlords, etc. is downright crazy, as is anyone who openly flaunts using the stuff. Anyone who owns or possesses firearms and messes with the stuff for recreation or medicinal purposes is double crazy.