What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

New Law in Cali coming, DUI for testing positive for pot in blood

OrganicBuds

OrganicBuds

Active member
Veteran
My brother was telling me about this new law in cali that isn't even being voted on. It is just being pushed through the legal system. From what he was telling me you can get a DUI for testing positive for pot in a blood test. Obviously this would mean you could get a DUI 30 days after smoking.

Has anybody seen this, or know more info about it?

EDIT: here is the link www.canorml.org/news/2552oppose.html Thank you BM-504
 
circadian clock

circadian clock

Active member
im pretty sure it dosn't mean u can get a dui a month after smokin. they measure ur thc level and if its above whatever they deem intoxicated then yea u can get a dui.
 
Maj.PotHead

Maj.PotHead

End Cannibis Prohibition Now Realize Legalize !!
Mentor
Veteran
HUGE said:
In Nevada we already have this. Anything over 2ng/ml and you are DUI.
Click to expand...
it's 5 ng for duid but 25 ng or less on a drug test for a job and you dont get a call from the lab.

pretty simple pimple in 1999 i stoped smoken for 1 month to pass a drug test i failed. i failed 5 tests in 5 wks the last failed test i asked what my levels where and found out 150 ng thats after 1 month of no smoken drinking hella water working out sweating bad because i worked in a steel shop and i still failed. i'll bet the 1st failed test was off the charts.


so if you dont wish a duid dont smoke and drive actually most MmJ states have duid laws in effect
 
BM-504

BM-504

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I heard about it from the Doc when I renewed my rec. I think the CalNormal website has the scoop on it. From what the Doc said it's gonna suck big time!

Stay safe
BM
 
Z

Zen Master

Cannasseur
Veteran
with a good lawyer I dont see how you couldn't beat this.

I mean you could drop an extremely high level test the day after smoking bowls for a week straight, yet still be completely sober. Prove there was IMPAIRMENT, not just weed in my system!

You aren't actually 'impaired' at that point and I think we can all agree on that, its just a number on a test. When doing field sobriety tests there are physical indications of impairment.

How would a cop tell a jury "he was unsafe to be driving because he had ____ ng/ml of THC in his system" regardless of what was actually happening while driving that was unsafe? "did he swerve officer? did he crash? what was the cause for the traffic stop".

it is well known that larger people with more body fat will release THC half lifes or whatever they call the metabolites they measure, slower.

So a fat person can be DUI, even after not smoking for days, however a skinny person could be 'safe' sooner.

Its not a correlation as in "oh a fat person can have more drinks and have a lower BAC than a skinny person" this deals with zero impairment whatsoever, just residual molecules being broken down by the human body.


I don't see this passing unless there is a standardized test that doesn't test urine but rather saliva or possibly blood as it can give you a much clearer window as to when the actual consumption of cannabis happened. Still not concrete timing but far better than a piss test with accuracy of timing.



so when's the Oxy/Vicodin/Percocet/Morphine et all ("legal" drugs) DUI law getting passed, God knows we've got countless sheep all mushed up on pharms driving our roads.
 
Z

Zen Master

Cannasseur
Veteran
so MMJ users cannot own guns, and now they cannot legally drive...

way to go Cali!

/sarc

god I fucking hate election years.
 
Crusader Rabbit

Crusader Rabbit

Active member
Veteran
Wow, this is really bad. It is described as "zero tolerance". It is like Nevada, where actual impairment isn't the issue, you're just deemed guilty if the illicit substance is detected in your system. So in reality it would be illegal for most people to drive for a month after smoking it. What is the standard for probable cause to require someone to submit to a test? Heavy handed enforcement of this could effectively remove a segment of the population from the economy.

www.canorml.org/news/2552oppose.html
 
S

SeaMaiden

Norma Torres is the representative who's sponsored this bill, and there's a facebook (useless IMO) called "Recall Norma Torres" and she's disabled her facebook as I recall.

If you're in California, write your representative and TELL them, don't ask, that they vote against this proposed legislation. It is called AB2552, and you can read the text here (and a note to say that was a FUCKING PAIN IN THE ASS TO FIND!): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2551-2600/ab_2552_bill_20120409_amended_asm_v98.html

Please note(!): This bill was proposed in February of 2012, and this most recent amendment apparently occurred just yesterday.

Text of proposed bill:

BILL NUMBER: AB 2552
AMENDED BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 9, 2012

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Torres

FEBRUARY 24, 2012

An act to amend Section 11160 of the Penal Code, and to amend and repeal Sections 23152 and 23153 of the Vehicle Code, relating to driving under the influence vehicles.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 2552, as amended, Torres. Driving under the influence.
Vehicles: driving under the influence: controlled substances.
Existing
(1) Existing law prohibits a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, who has 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood, or who is addicted to the use of any drug, to drive a vehicle. Existing law also makes it unlawful to drive under the influence and cause bodily injury to another person.

This bill would make it a crime for a person who has any level of cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoid compound, as defined, in his or her blood or urine to drive a vehicle. This bill would establish a rebuttable presumption that a person had cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoid compound in his or her blood or urine at the time he or she drove a vehicle if the substance is present in his or her blood or urine at the time of a chemical test performed within three hours after driving. This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the definition of a crime.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This bill would revise and recast these provisions and would additionally make it a crime for a person who has any detectable amount of a specified controlled substance that has not been administered, dispensed, or prescribed by a person licensed by the state to do so, including metabolites and their derivatives, to drive a vehicle.

(2) Existing law requires a health practitioner employed in a health facility, clinic, physician's office, local or state public health department, or clinic or other type of facility operated by a local or state public health department who, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, provides medical services for a physical condition to a patient whom he or she knows or reasonably suspects is a person suffering from any wound or other physical injury inflicted by his or her own act or inflicted by another where the injury is by means of a firearm, to make a specified written report to a law enforcement agency.

This bill would also require a health practitioner to make this written report to a law enforcement agency when the health practitioner knows or reasonably suspects the person is suffering from any wound or other physical injury inflicted by his or her own act or inflicted by another where the injury is the result of a vehicle accident involving the suspected use of alcohol or drugs.
By expanding the duties of local public officials and creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 11160 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
11160. (a) Any A health practitioner employed in a health facility, clinic, physician's office, local or state public health department, or a clinic or other type of facility operated by a local or state public health department who, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, provides medical services for a physical condition to a patient whom he or he knows or reasonably suspects is a person described as follows, shall immediately make a report in accordance with subdivision (b):
(1) Any person suffering from any wound or other physical injury inflicted by his or her own act or inflicted by another where the injury is by means of a firearm or the result of a vehicle accident involving the suspected use of alcohol or drugs.
(2) Any person suffering from any wound or other physical injury inflicted upon the person where the injury is the result of assaultive or abusive conduct.
(b) Any A health practitioner employed in a health facility, clinic, physician's office, local or state public health department, or a clinic or other type of facility operated by a local or state public health department shall make a report regarding persons described in subdivision (a) to a local law enforcement agency as follows:
(1) A report by telephone shall be made immediately or as soon as practically possible.
(2) A written report shall be prepared on the standard form developed in compliance with paragraph (4) of this subdivision, and Section 11160.2, and adopted by the California Emergency Management Agency, or on a form developed and adopted by another state agency that otherwise fulfills the requirements of the standard form. The completed form shall be sent to a local law enforcement agency within two working days of receiving the information regarding the person.
(3) A local law enforcement agency shall be notified and a written report shall be prepared and sent pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) even if the person who suffered the wound, other injury, or assaultive or abusive conduct has expired, regardless of whether or not the wound, other injury, or assaultive or abusive conduct was a factor contributing to the death, and even if the evidence of the conduct of the perpetrator of the wound, other injury, or assaultive or abusive conduct was discovered during an autopsy.
(4) The report shall include, but shall not be limited to, all of the following:
(A) The name of the injured person, if known.
(B) The injured person's whereabouts.
(C) The character and extent of the person's injuries.
(D) The identity of any person the injured person alleges inflicted the wound, other injury, or assaultive or abusive conduct upon the injured person.
(c) For the purposes of this section, "injury" shall not include any psychological or physical condition brought about solely through the voluntary administration of a narcotic or restricted dangerous drug.
(d) For the purposes of this section, "assaultive or abusive conduct" shall include any of the following offenses:
(1) Murder, in violation of Section 187.
(2) Manslaughter, in violation of Section 192 or 192.5.
(3) Mayhem, in violation of Section 203.
(4) Aggravated mayhem, in violation of Section 205.
(5) Torture, in violation of Section 206.
(6) Assault with intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation of Section 220.
(7) Administering controlled substances or anesthetic to aid in commission of a felony, in violation of Section 222.
(8) Battery, in violation of Section 242.
(9) Sexual battery, in violation of Section 243.4.
(10) Incest, in violation of Section 285.
(11) Throwing any vitriol, corrosive acid, or caustic chemical with intent to injure or disfigure, in violation of Section 244.
(12) Assault with a stun gun or taser, in violation of Section 244.5.
(13) Assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, assault weapon, or machinegun, or by means likely to produce great bodily injury, in violation of Section 245.
(14) Rape, in violation of Section 261.
(15) Spousal rape, in violation of Section 262.
(16) Procuring any female to have sex with another man, in violation of Section 266, 266a, 266b, or 266c.
(17) Child abuse or endangerment, in violation of Section 273a or 273d.
(18) Abuse of spouse or cohabitant, in violation of Section 273.5.
(19) Sodomy, in violation of Section 286.
(20) Lewd and lascivious acts with a child, in violation of Section 288.
(21) Oral copulation, in violation of Section 288a.
(22) Sexual penetration, in violation of Section 289.
(23) Elder abuse, in violation of Section 368.
(24) An attempt to commit any crime specified in paragraphs (1) to (23), inclusive.
(e) When two or more persons who are required to report are present and jointly have knowledge of a known or suspected instance of violence that is required to be reported pursuant to this section, and when there is an agreement among these persons to report as a team, the team may select by mutual agreement a member of the team to make a report by telephone and a single written report, as required by subdivision (b). The written report shall be signed by the selected member of the reporting team. Any member who has knowledge that the member designated to report has failed to do so shall thereafter make the report.
(f) The reporting duties under this section are individual, except as provided in subdivision (e).
(g) No A supervisor or administrator shall not impede or inhibit the reporting duties required under this section and no a person making a report pursuant to this section shall not be subject to any sanction for making the report. However, internal procedures to facilitate reporting and apprise supervisors and administrators of reports may be established, except that these procedures shall not be inconsistent with this article. The internal procedures shall not require any employee required to make a report under this article to disclose his or her identity to the employer.
(h) For the purposes of this section, it is the Legislature's intent to avoid duplication of information.

SECTION 1. SEC. 2. Section 23152 of the Vehicle Code, as amended by Section 31 of Chapter 455 of the Statutes of 1995, is amended to read:
23152. (a) (1) It is unlawful for any a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

(2) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle.

(3) It is unlawful for a person who is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle.

(b) It is unlawful for any a person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

(1) For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

(2) In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.
(c) It is unlawful for any a person who is addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a person who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(d) (1) It is unlawful for any a person who has 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210.
(2) In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1992, and shall remain operative until the director determines that federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.) contained in Section 383.51 or 391.15 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations do not require the state to prohibit operation of commercial vehicles when the operator has a concentration of alcohol in his or her blood of 0.04 percent by weight or more.
(f) The director shall submit a notice of the determination under subdivision (e) to the Secretary of State, and this section shall be repealed upon the receipt of that notice by the Secretary of State.
(g) It is unlawful for any person who has any level of cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoid compound in his or her blood or urine to drive a vehicle. For purposes of this subdivision, "synthetic cannabinoid compound" has the same meaning as defined in Section 11357.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
For purposes of this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that a cannabinoid or synthetic cannabinoid compound is in a person's blood or urine at the time of driving the vehicle if the substance is present at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after driving.
(e) (1) It is unlawful for a person who has a detectable amount of any controlled substance identified in Section 11550 of the Health and Safety Code to drive a vehicle, except when the controlled substance was administered, dispensed, or prescribed by a person licensed by the state to administer, dispense, or prescribe controlled substances.
(2) In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had a detectable amount of a controlled substance identified in Section 11550 of the Health and Safety Code in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle, if the person had a detectable amount of the controlled substance in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after driving.
SEC. 3. Section 23152 of the Vehicle Code, as amended by Section 32 of Chapter 455 of the Statutes of 1995, is amended to read:
23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.
(c) It is unlawful for any person who is addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a person who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(d) It is unlawful for any person who has any level of cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoid compound in his or her blood or urine to drive a vehicle. For purposes of this subdivision, "synthetic cannabinoid compound" has the same meaning as defined in Section 11357.5 of the Health and Safety Code. For purposes of this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that a cannabinoid or synthetic cannabinoid compound is in a person's blood or urine at the time of driving the vehicle if the substance is present at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after
driving.
(e) This section shall become operative only upon the receipt by the Secretary of State of the notice specified in subdivision (f) of Section 23152, as added by Section 25 of Chapter 1114 of the Statutes of 1989.
SEC. 3. Section 23152 of the Vehicle Code , as amended by Section 32 of Chapter 455 of the Statutes of 1995, is repealed.
23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.
(c) It is unlawful for any person who is addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a person who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(d) This section shall become operative only upon the receipt by the Secretary of State of the notice specified in subdivision (f) of Section 23152, as added by Section 25 of Chapter 1114 of the Statutes of 1989.
SEC. 4. Section 23153 of the Vehicle Code , as amended by Section 18 of Chapter 974 of the Statutes of 1992, is amended to read:
23153. (a) (1) It is unlawful for any a person, while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.
(2) It is unlawful for a person, while under the influence of any drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.
(3) It is unlawful for a person, while under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.
(b) (1) It is unlawful for any a person, while having 0.08 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.
In (2) In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after driving.
(c) In proving the person neglected any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, it is not necessary to prove that any specific section of this code was violated.
(d) (1) It is unlawful for any a person, while having 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, and concurrently to do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver except when the controlled substance was administered, dispensed, or prescribed by a person licensed by the state to administer, dispense, or prescribe controlled substances.
In
(2) In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of performance
of a chemical test within three hours after driving.
(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1992, and shall remain operative until the director determines that federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.) contained in Section 383.51 or 391.15 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations do not require the state to prohibit operation of commercial vehicles when the operator has a concentration of alcohol in his or her blood of 0.04 percent by weight or more.
(f) The director shall submit a notice of the determination under subdivision (e) to the Secretary of State, and this section shall be repealed upon the receipt of that notice by the Secretary of State.

(e) (1) It is unlawful for a person who has a detectable amount of any controlled substance identified in Section 11550 of the Health and Safety Code to drive a vehicle and concurrently to do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver except when the controlled substance was administered, dispensed, or prescribed by a person licensed by the state to administer, dispense, or prescribe controlled substances.
(2) In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had a detectable amount of a controlled substance identified in Section 11550 of the Health and Safety Code in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle, if the person had a detectable amount of the controlled substance in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after driving.
SEC. 5. Section 23153 of the Vehicle Code , as amended by Section 19 of Chapter 974 of the Statutes of 1992, is repealed.
23153. (a) It is unlawful for any person, while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.
(b) It is unlawful for any person, while having 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.

In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after driving.
(c) In proving the person neglected any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, it is not necessary to prove that any specific section of this code was violated.
(d) This section shall become operative only upon the receipt by the Secretary of State of the notice specified in subdivision (f) of Section 23153, as added by Section 30 of Chapter 1114 of the Statutes of 1989.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or
changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CannabisTHC

CannabisTHC

Member
Colorado its 5ng/ml, which like a few others have said is hardly any in your system. You can not smoke for days and be above that. I did a roadside for Cannabis several months back and luckily I passed because I'd just smoked several hours earlier, if the state trooper would have taken me in for a drug test it would have been a for sure DUI, so lucky to get off that one.

Be great when we can actually change these ridiculous laws.
 
MadBuddhaAbuser

MadBuddhaAbuser

Kush, Sour Diesel, Puday boys
Veteran
It won't stay in your blood for thirty days, more like a week.

And in the eyes of most people, any weed in your system means you ar impaired.

sucks, but thats how it is.

I've seen people pass sobriety tests, but still be given a breathalyzer and failed (me for one). And I'm sure this will be employed much the same way.

The best way they have to keep it illegal is to make it too much of a hassle to enjoy.
 
HUGE

HUGE

Active member
Veteran
A person who has a registry identification card issued by the Division of Health is NOT exempt from prosecution if:
1. They drive, operate, or control a vehicle or vessel under power or sail while under the influence of medical marijuana. Unlawful amounts of marijuana in the blood or urine, per N.R.S. 484.379, are 10 nanograms per milliliter of urine and 2 nanograms per milliliter of blood.
2. They water ski, surfboard or use any similar device while under the influence of medical marijuana.
3. They operate an aircraft while under the influence of medical marijuana.
4. They have physical possession of a firearm while under the influence of medical marijuana.
5. They embark on an amusement ride while under the influence.
6. The possession of the marijuana or drug paraphernalia
is discovered because the person engaged or assisted in the medical use of marijuana:
1. In a public place.
2. In a detention facility, county jail, state prison.
3. While delivering marijuana to another person, even if they
hold a registry card.
SPECIAL NOTE:
Holding a marijuana registry card does NOT exempt a person from the laws that apply to marijuana. It ONLY allows the holder of the card to possess:
1. One ounce of usable marijuana (defined in NRS 453A.160)
2. Three mature marijuana plants (defined in NAC 453A.080, sec. 2) 3. Four immature marijuana plants (defined in NAC 453A.080, sec.1)
All other laws apply.
2/12/09


Like I said 2ng/ml

And to all you saying well they have to prove impairment. I say lol. Presence o THC is "prima facia evidence" o your impairment according to the law. What's weird is the DMV issues the cards. How can they give you both a drivers liscence and a med card when one proclides you from using the other?
 
L

LouDog420

you're going to have a hard time getting me to take a blood test. sorry but I don't have to consent and won't ever

Refuse the test, they charge you with DUI

Take it to court, get it dropped to reckless driving or some other misdemeanor... Burden of proof is on them... Just like ya never blow into the breathalyzer, don't consent to a blood test either.
 
Herbophile

Herbophile

Member
WTF kind of bullshit is that. You can't use a surfboard or go on an amusement ride while under the influence. This world is fucking nuts!
 
S

SeaMaiden

I've posted the amended text of the proposed bill in post #11. If you don't know who your representative in the state assembly is, go here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

I find a BLOOD TEST to be highly, HIGHLY invasive. I likely won't submit to such a test either. I will write my own assembly member even though I have never been pulled over for DUI.
 
HUGE

HUGE

Active member
Veteran
SeaMaiden said:
I've posted the amended text of the proposed bill in post #11. If you don't know who your representative in the state assembly is, go here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

I find a BLOOD TEST to be highly, HIGHLY invasive. I likely won't submit to such a test either. I will write my own assembly member even though I have never been pulled over for DUI.
Click to expand...

Lol... You might not submit to the test. but you bet your ass they will take it weather you consent or not. Wake the fuck up people.
 
HUGE

HUGE

Active member
Veteran
LouDog420 said:
you're going to have a hard time getting me to take a blood test. sorry but I don't have to consent and won't ever

Refuse the test, they charge you with DUI

Take it to court, get it dropped to reckless driving or some other misdemeanor... Burden of proof is on them... Just like ya never blow into the breathalyzer, don't consent to a blood test either.
Click to expand...

They don't need consent. They will strap you to the chair and take what they want. You can't refuse the blood test. I have seen it happen. When my friend was too drunk to breath test. They beat the shit out of him tied him down and took his blood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top