no guns for you

[stonefly-2]

may pull some dem's on this one.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/03/marijuana_dui_mandatory_blood_law_california.php

[Nick Justice]

Now they may get a taste of what it's like to be a gun owner in CA.

Sucks, don't it, bro?

[Bsandoc40]

Medical marijuana?

Medical firearms... No, hear me out!! After a stressful day at work. Going to the range with my 1911s calms my nerves down. It really works!!! All the worries of the day are gone. Happy thoughts return.

I mean, if people can rationalize the use of marijuana (which is still an illegal controlled substance). Why can't I use my 1911s (which to my knowledge is legal)?

I know... it's a pipe dream! (no pun intended ... )

[Edwood]

Maybe it's time for Pro 2A folks to push this law through as revenge. Mawahahahaha.

Yeah, this law is stupid too, but liberals want to throw all gun owners under the bus, so fair is fair....

[travelingbiker]

Even if they were able to pass that law it wouldn't be enforceable. Smoking a month ago doesn't mean you're intoxicated today.

[Edwood]

Even if they were able to pass that law it wouldn't be enforceable. Smoking a month ago doesn't mean you're intoxicated today.

But it would show up in a test. That's the point of the law. All they need is a piece of hair, or blood. It's stupid, yes, but so are proposed and existing gun laws.

THROW THE HIPPIES UNDER THE BUS!!!!

Yeah, there's collateral damage to poor medical marijuana folks, but I'll bet most of them will vote for gun control.

[john67elco]

Full auto said it best about today my freedoms tomorrow it's yours

[nastyhabts26]

Can I get a perscription for 45 ACP

[travelingbiker]

But it would show up in a test. That's the point of the law. All they need is a piece of hair, or blood.

It doesn't matter if their test says I've smoked in the last month. Hell I'll admit to having smoked in the last 30 days under oath, that does not mean you're impaired while driving.

The tests they have for alcohol don't simply indicate you've consumed alcohol during the past month. They confirm alcohol is the cause of your impairment because we know if you had not consumed alcohol recently enough to show up in the test, then it's not in your system anymore and it's not impairing you any more. Marijuana works differently than alcohol does. Evidence of it can remain in your body long after the affects of it has worn off, and it no longer impairs you any more. What's next? A case suggesting LSD use 25 years ago means you're driving while impaired today? Evidence of LSD use can remain in your hair for a very long time.

You have to realize it's not about consuming alcohol or marijuana (two legal activities). It's about driving while impaired. You could be impaired by any number of legal activities. It's driving while impaired that is illegal.

A decent judge would look at the intent of the legislation (preventing impaired driving) and after reviewing the evidence of how marijuana works in the body and impairs us, would just throw it right out.

Under existing law, a police officer can detect someone driving under the influence of marijuana, and the officer has several test he can do to confirm the cause of the impairment and build a case against the driver.

[huntercf]

It doesn't matter if their test says I've smoked in the last month. Hell I'll admit to having smoked in the last 30 days under oath, that does not mean you're impaired while driving.

The tests they have for alcohol don't simply indicate you've consumed alcohol during the past month. They confirm alcohol is the cause of your impairment because we know if you had not consumed alcohol recently enough to show up in the test, then it's not in your system anymore and it's not impairing you any more. Marijuana works differently than alcohol does. Evidence of it can remain in your body long after the affects of it has worn off, and it no longer impairs you any more. What's next? A case suggesting LSD use 25 years ago means you're driving while impaired today? Evidence of LSD use can remain in your hair for a very long time.

You have to realize it's not about consuming alcohol or marijuana (two legal activities). It's about driving while impaired. You could be impaired by any number of legal activities. It's driving while impaired that is illegal.

A decent judge would look at the intent of the legislation (preventing impaired driving) and after reviewing the evidence of how marijuana works in the body and impairs us, would just throw it right out.

Under existing law, a police officer can detect someone driving under the influence of marijuana, and the officer has several test he can do to confirm the cause of the impairment and build a case against the driver.

In CA it is DUI, driving under the influence not necessarily driving impaired. If this law passes all they have to do is show that you were under the influence which they can argue is shown by a positive drug test.

[Rumline]

Check the date of the article: Tue., Mar. 27 2012. I think this is a moot point by now.

[travelingbiker]

In CA it is DUI, driving under the influence not necessarily driving impaired. If this law passes all they have to do is show that you were under the influence which they can argue is shown by a positive drug test.

You're right, the words the CVC uses is under the influence, but if you are under the influence you are impaired, it's the same thing. The intent of the law is to prevent you from driving when you are impaired, regardless if that is because you are drunk, or because you've been smoking marijuana, or because you've been taking prescription drugs, or whatever.

Having smoked marijuana doesn't three weeks ago doesn't make you under the influence of marijuana today.

I would like to see 22153 (c) challenged in court too. How is that enforceable? It's absolutely ridiculous the way this state writes laws.

[.30-06]

The way democrats would see this law is how any rational gun-owner sees anti-2nd amendment laws. It would be nice to see them get a taste of their own medicine.

[stonefly-2]

Even if they were able to pass that law it wouldn't be enforceable. Smoking a month ago doesn't mean you're intoxicated today.

it would mean you are guilty of a felony.

[SlobRay]

This would NEVER pass in the CA legislature, from the bottom to the top, it would affect way too many of the constituants that keep them in office. If any Dem voted for this law they would be out of a job by the next election.


Ray