Feds Move to Throw Pot Smokers in Prison for Impaired Driving

http://www.prisonplanet.com/feds-mov...d-driving.html

Feds Move to Throw Pot Smokers in Prison for Impaired Driving

Infowars.com May 20 2010

If you smoked marijuana last week or even last month and you drive a
car, you may be sent to prison under new guidelines drafted by the
federal government.

The Obama administration released its National Drug Control Strategy
guidelines last week. The federal government wants all of the states
to adopt its authoritarian and draconian diktat and expand the drug
war. From the guidelines:

Cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in the urine for up to 100
days or longer for a regular cannabis consumer and up to fifteen days
for the casual consumer, according to NORML, the marijuana advocacy
organization. In other words, even if a pot smoker is conscientious
and does not drive while intoxicated, that person can be arrested and
convicted for DUID days or weeks after consuming marijuana. It would
not matter if you are sober as a teetotaler — if THC molecules are
detected with a urine or blood test, you are probably going to prison.
You can kiss the right to vote and own a firearm sayonara.

The following states enforce “zero tolerance” draconian DUID laws:

Arizona: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours
jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.
Delawa Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites.
Georgia: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours
jail, up to 12 months upon conviction.
Illinois: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 12 moths upon
conviction.
Indiana: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 60 days upon
conviction.
Michigan: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 93 days upon
conviction, vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days.
Nevada: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites.
Ohio: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 72 hours in jail,
up to 6 months upon conviction, 6 month to 3 year license suspension.
Pennsylvania: DUID for cannabis metabolites, amount unclear.
South Dakota: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites for persons
under the age of 21.
Utah: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 48 hours
jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.



Obama’s new guidelines will criminalize and add to the system hundreds
of thousands of people and add thousands of people to the prison
industry slave labor complex. In 2007 an American was arrested on
marijuana charges every 36 seconds. Obama will increase this
criminalization rate significantly.

DUI checkpoints are on the rise around the country. In California, for
instance, the state increased grants in 2009 by 47% for DUI
checkpoints, including “roving” DUI patrols. 2010 was predicted to be
“the year of the Checkpoint” in California. In California and
elsewhere, these unconstitutional checkpoints are a highly profitable
business for the state, netting billions of dollars every year.

Behavioral impairment is not the issue. Expanding the criminal class
is the issue. Government will never rest until it categorizes most of
us as criminals.

(snip)

Drugged drivers are killers and maimers and deserve prison time but
that's too expensive for the taxpayers. Better to hit them with loss
of license and huge fines. Criminal drivers are a bigger threat to
each of us than all other criminals put together!!

Infowars is an obvious corporate shill. The auto industry loves car
crashes cause that means car sales and they bribe the scum at infowars
into opposing the war on drunk and drugged drivers.

> If you smoked marijuana last week or even last month and you drive a
> car, you may be sent to prison under new guidelines drafted by the
> federal government.

That's not impaired driving. That's lawmaking-while-dimwitted. Reason has a
good article about this bill this month.

Any law that takes away a driver's license for reasons other than bad driving
only provokes, and justifies, driving without a license.

On May 20, 1:40*pm, John David Galt >
wrote:
>
>
> Any law that takes away a driver's license for reasons other than bad driving
> only provokes, and justifies, driving without a license.

YOu libertarian loons are all alike. You think you should be allowed
to drive as crazy as you want until you actually kill someone

On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:00:14 -0700 (PDT), "Criminal Drivers Murder
40,000 Americans a Year" > wrote:


>Drugged drivers are killers and maimers and deserve prison time but
>that's too expensive for the taxpayers. Better to hit them with loss
>of license and huge fines. Criminal drivers are a bigger threat to
>each of us than all other criminals put together!!

There has never, ever been an automobile accident attributable to
cannabis when alcohol was not a contributing factor. In other words,
cannabis doesn't cause driving impairment at all. Alcohol does.

On May 20, 8:50*pm, hal wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:00:14 -0700 (PDT), "Criminal Drivers Murder
> 40,000 Americans a Year" > wrote:
>
> >Drugged drivers are killers and maimers and deserve prison time but
> >that's too expensive for the taxpayers. * Better to hit them with loss
> >of license and huge fines. Criminal drivers are a bigger threat to
> >each of us than all other criminals put together!!
>
> There has never, ever been an automobile accident attributable to
> cannabis when alcohol was not a contributing factor. *In other words,
> cannabis doesn't cause driving impairment at all. *Alcohol does.

Well hell - lets just start making stuff up around here.

SFB spewed:

>Drugged drivers are killers and maimers and deserve prison time but
>that's too expensive for the taxpayers.

Since when do you know anything about being a taxpayer, you welfare
queen?

--
Aunt Judy demonstrates its lack of understanding
of the concept of "</killfile>," and "<killfile>,"
and what a "thread," is:

"Now that takes nerve. You claim to killfile
me TWICE in the same thread and you expect
people to take you seriously???"

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/r5qp9

On Thu, 20 May 2010 20:46:28 -0700 (PDT), "Criminal Drivers Murder
40,000 Americans a Year" > wrote:

>On May 20, 8:50=A0pm, hal wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:00:14 -0700 (PDT), "Criminal Drivers Murder
>> 40,000 Americans a Year" > wrote:
>>
>> >Drugged drivers are killers and maimers and deserve prison time but
>> >that's too expensive for the taxpayers. =A0 Better to hit them with loss
>> >of license and huge fines. Criminal drivers are a bigger threat to
>> >each of us than all other criminals put together!!
>>
>> There has never, ever been an automobile accident attributable to
>> cannabis when alcohol was not a contributing factor. =A0In other words,
>> cannabis doesn't cause driving impairment at all. =A0Alcohol does.
>
>Well hell - lets just start making stuff up around here.

It's true. You try to find one single example of a car accident
attributed conclusively to cannabis when alcohol was also not a
factor. Just one. You can't because it never happened.

On May 20, 10:03*pm, hal wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 20:46:28 -0700 (PDT), "Criminal Drivers Murder
> 40,000 Americans a Year" > wrote:
>
> >On May 20, 8:50=A0pm, hal wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:00:14 -0700 (PDT), "Criminal Drivers Murder
> >> 40,000 Americans a Year" > wrote:
>
> >> >Drugged drivers are killers and maimers and deserve prison time but
> >> >that's too expensive for the taxpayers. =A0 Better to hit them with loss
> >> >of license and huge fines. Criminal drivers are a bigger threat to
> >> >each of us than all other criminals put together!!
>
> >> There has never, ever been an automobile accident attributable to
> >> cannabis when alcohol was not a contributing factor. =A0In other words,
> >> cannabis doesn't cause driving impairment at all. =A0Alcohol does.
>
> >Well hell - lets just start making stuff up around here.
>
> It's true. *You try to find one single example of a car accident
> attributed conclusively to cannabis when alcohol was also not a
> factor. *Just one. *You can't because it never happened.

Do you enjoy being the board laughingstock?

On May 20, 9:58*pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 40,000 Americans a Year"
> wrote:
> On May 20, 1:40*pm, John David Galt >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Any law that takes away a driver's license for reasons other than bad driving
> > only provokes, and justifies, driving without a license.
>
> YOu libertarian loons are all alike. You think you should be allowed
> to drive as crazy as you want until you actually kill someone

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I read John's post and
no where did John state that people should be allowed to drive "as
crazy as you want".

John's statement was merely expressing opposition to a law that
allowed a government to arrest a person who as driving NORMALLY and
NOT under the influence of any drugs.

Do you think a person should be arrested for driving a week after
having a a few beers?

Jane