cannabisnews.com: Nevada Marijuana Measure Would Undercut DUI Cases
Nevada Marijuana Measure Would Undercut DUI Cases
Posted by CN Staff on August 01, 2002 at 17:35:39 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Reno Gazette-Journal
A Clark County prosecutor is warning that a November ballot initiative legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana would be "a gigantic step backward in public safety," and would undercut driving under the influence cases in Nevada.Deputy Clark County District Attorney Bruce Nelson, a top driving and traffic case prosecutor in Las Vegas, focused on the wording "driving dangerously" in the proposed law. He said it conflicts with the state's current driving under the influence statute.
"None of our present misdemeanor DUI drug statutes require the state to prove a person is driving dangerously while under the influence,"Nelson told reporters in Las Vegas on Tuesday,"so all of our present laws would conflict with the marijuana initiative."The main proponent of the initiative dismissed Nelson's argument a "smoke screen" to try to sway people to oppose the measure."There is nothing in this initiative that prevents the prosecution of people driving under the influence of marijuana," said Billy Rogers, of Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement.Nevada voters are being asked to decide whether the state should legalize the possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana.Until last year, Nevada had the strictest marijuana law in the nation. It made smoking a single marijuana cigarette a felony, punishable by a a year or more in prison. Now, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor.The initiative would tax marijuana like cigarettes and other tobacco products, and allow it to be sold only in state-licensed shops. Public use would be banned and driving under the influence would be illegal. Minors would be prohibited from possessing the drug, and private individuals would not be allowed to sell it.If the initiative passes, voters would have to approve it again in 2004 to change the state constitution.Nelson said he was particularly concerned about a provision of the initiative nullifying any conflicting statute or regulation."Unfortunately, with the law, one word can screw it all up," he said.Complete Title: Prosecutor: Nevada Marijuana Measure Would Undercut DUI CasesSource: Reno Gazette-Journal (NV)Published: July 31, 2002Copyright: 2002 Reno Gazette-Journal Website: http://www.rgj.com/Contact: rgjmail nevadanet.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Marijuana Drive Would Derail DUI Enforcement http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13594.shtmlState at Front Line in Pot Debatehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13513.shtmlReno-Area Officials Oppose Marijuana Measurehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13502.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #22 posted by slimpickins on August 02, 2002 at 04:44:58 PT
thats why...
guys like me drive taxi'sdont tell the insurance guy i was here
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by FoM on August 01, 2002 at 22:38:32 PT
VitaminT
I agree that we shouldn't drive impaired. I remember one time I had been working really hard and was driving home and started to seriously fall asleep. I knew I was and kept shaking my head to stay awake and opened the window and let fresh air in the car. I finally pulled off the road and rested a while and then continued until I made it home. I was impaired and could have been a danger but knew I was not responding correctly and did something about it. That is personal responsibility. We can take care of ourselves most times. If a friend drinks too much and shouldn't be behind the wheel then we should take their keys and make them stay with you or someone until they are capable of driving. I don't drink but that's what I'd do and laws don't make me think that way but common sense.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by BGreen on August 01, 2002 at 22:33:06 PT
I could smoke a quarter ounce of primo bud
and still drive better than the person talking on their cell phone!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by VitaminT on August 01, 2002 at 22:21:55 PT
for me it's about my neighbors
I am suspicious of insurance companies, and most other large corporations, but I think I have a responsibility to my neighbors to not be impaired when I drive my car. I'm willing to police myself on this I don't need help from the cops.Your point is well taken though. "Do insurance companies back drug testing or invest in it?" I'm guessing they do both and I know it's a bad thing for people. It'll only benefit big corporate executives and pay for their $100 million golden parachutes
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by FoM on August 01, 2002 at 22:18:26 PT
Ohio Medical Marijuana Law
I don't know if this is in effect or not. PS: 24 years ago makes me tireder. Is there such a word as tireder? Heck I'm that tired I should check but na.http://www.mpp.org/states/OHmedmj.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by BGreen on August 01, 2002 at 22:15:19 PT
You're tired?
I can't even do basic math. Try 24 years ago, not 22.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by FoM on August 01, 2002 at 22:12:42 PT
BGreen
I understand now. It's late and I'm not too swift. Well not when I'm tired. LOL!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by BGreen on August 01, 2002 at 22:08:41 PT
Look at comment #10
I typed out a NORML ad from 1978 to prove my hypothesis. I gave the source as Head Monthly, which was the magazine it was in, but the part I put in italics was the wording of that 22 year old ad. We're still trying to get the fine down to $100 (like Ohio and Nevada already do,) and some are also trying to get all penalties removed, just like we were 22 years ago. That was the end of my sophmore year of high school, and our message remains the same.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by FoM on August 01, 2002 at 22:04:24 PT
Low Settlements
They won't pay up very easily if a person has been drinking or using drugs so who wins in a case like that? The insurance companies.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by FoM on August 01, 2002 at 22:02:29 PT
BGreen
What do you mean an ad for NORML?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by BGreen on August 01, 2002 at 21:59:25 PT
Insurers can refuse to pay if you're using illegal
drugs, and they'll refuse to insure you if you piss dirty. Just wait until they get a hold of our DNA. We'll ALL be refused coverage for some genetic marker which will show a predisposition for some illness or disease.BTW, The advertisement I typed below was an ad for NORML.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by FoM on August 01, 2002 at 21:50:37 PT
BGreen and VitaminT
We live in a society where we can drive fast cars on high speed super highways and we no longer travel a few miles a week but many miles a week and the risk is much higher now. Do insurance companies back drug testing or invest in it? Are we all just a scapegoat for the insurance companies? I can't help but think so.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by BGreen on August 01, 2002 at 21:44:29 PT
FoM
I've noticed something about the prohibitionists, and I mentioned it to my wife earlier when we were going to see Trace Adkins in concert.Our message has remained constant since the 70's, their message changes every time we refute one of their lies. This is their newest slant, and we must throw the facts back in their faces.To research my hypothesis, I just perused through High Time, HEAD, and Stone Age magazines from the late 70's, and the advertisements from NORML and CAMP could be used verbatim (revising some statistics, of course) in any magazine today.Sometimes the government makes big mistakes. Remember Vietnam? Watergate?The laws against marijuana are another costly mistake.A legacy of the 30's, they are outdated, unfair, and expensive.Last year more than 400,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens were arrested on minor marijuana charges. The taxpayer's cost was $600 million. For those arrested, ruined lives and careers cost more.In Congress the Javits/Koch bill (S. 601/H.R. 432) reduces federal penalties for marijuana smoking to a maximum $100 fine. It would work like a traffic ticket, with no arrest. Or jail. The Kastenmeier bill (H.R. 2997) eliminates all federal penalties for private smoking, with a possible $100 fine for public use.These bills need your immediate support.Write your Senators and Representatives, U.S Congress, Washington, D.C., 20515 and President Jimmy Carter at the White House, Washington, D.C., 20500. Tell them you support the removal of federal penalties for marijuana smoking.Let's put this mistake behind us.Source: Head Monthly, April 1978
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by VitaminT on August 01, 2002 at 21:20:01 PT
I hear ya FoM . . .
but must say that I believe impairment to be a more Just measure of danger to society than the presence of a substance in the blood. That's why I might bring it up in conversation.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by FoM on August 01, 2002 at 20:36:22 PT
Question
Why do we spend so much time worrying about impairment? We can become impaired by just being distracted by a problem or maybe a person isn't feeling very well and an accident occurs? We can't prevent much in life from happening but if a person causes injury to another person and they are cited because it was their fault then the insurance companies will have to pay up. Isn't that why we carry car insurance really?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by Dan B on August 01, 2002 at 20:29:53 PT:
Who's the Victim?
"None of our present misdemeanor DUI drug statutes require the state to prove a person is driving dangerously while under the influence,"Nelson told reporters in Las Vegas on Tuesday," so all of our present laws would conflict with the marijuana initiative." This is a sign that there is a problem with the current laws, not a sign that there is a problem with the initiative. If an adult can have a beer or two and still drive responsibly (not "dangerously"), why do we need to saddle that adult with a DUI? The only reasons why a cop should have to pull a person over are (1) because he or she committed a moving violation (which includes "dangerous driving"), (2) a person's vehicle has a problem, such as a broken taillight, or (3) because someone in the vehicle is known to have committed a crime. Laws that allow police to conduct "fishing expeditions" are immoral, unjustified and uncivilized.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by freedom fighter on August 01, 2002 at 20:28:00 PT
Thanks GWC
Send my following msg.."Thank you for not promoting "Yellow Journalism".I am talking about John Stossel's recent ABC Special.Watching that show is like breathing fresh air.
I do believe we need more shows like this."Respectfully Yours"Me"ff
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by observer on August 01, 2002 at 20:24:35 PT
cannabis drivers ... safer
... there are many International studies showing drivers using cannabis are not automatically unsafe drivers and in some instances are actually safer than those who drive with out cannabis.True ... here are the facts that drug warriors like to hide:Australia: No Proof Cannabis Put Drivers At Risk (2001)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1849/a09.htmlUK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.html University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\1999\03\990325110700.htm Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by mayan on August 01, 2002 at 18:18:16 PT
Thanks GCW...
We should all thank John Stossel. I sent a letter of appreciation to MSNBC thanking them for the Donahue show too.unrelated:Part 3 of a six-part series -
The United States in the Philippines: post-9/11 imperatives
The Philippines: Gateway to the Golden Triangle -
http://onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin080102/chin080102.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by The GCW on August 01, 2002 at 17:58:10 PT
Yes...
... there are many International studies showing drivers using cannabis are not automatically unsafe drivers and in some instances are actually safer than those who drive with out cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by The GCW on August 01, 2002 at 17:42:57 PT
Passing it on...
Dear friend of drug reform:On Tuesday of this week (July 30, 2002), ABC News aired a
breakthrough special on the drug war and discussion of
legalization by John Stossel. The one hour report, titled "Just
Say No: Government's War on Drugs Fails," included interviews of
California judge James P. Gray, Detroit police chief Jerry
Oliver, New York priest Father Joe Kane, drug reform advocate
Sanho Tree of the Institute for Policy Studies, DEA chief Asa
Hutchison and others.Drug warrior organizations like the Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America (which is more rabidly prohibitionist than
many of its members) are now waging a letter writing campaign to
ABC to pressure them against questioning drug war dogma in the
future. Your help is needed to show ABC that good drug war
reporting like Stossel's is not only appreciated by viewers but
is needed.Please write a letter in support of the Stossel special to: David Westin, President
ABC News
47 West 66th Street
New York, NY 10023Please fax us a copy of your letter to (202) 293-8344 or mail a
copy to: DRCNet, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 210, Washington, DC 20036.If you don't have time to write a paper letter (the most
effective method for making an impression), please visit
http://abcnews.go.com/service/Help/abcmail.html to submit your
comments to ABC News online. You can also visit
http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=stossel
to state and discuss your views on ABC's web board devoted to the
Stossel special.DRCNet will provide info on ordering a video of the program in
the near future. In the meantime, you can read an excerpt from
it at http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_drugs_020730.html
online.The following is a sample letter you can use (preferably modified
and personalized) in your communication to ABC, provided by Marc
Brandl of the Libertarian Party's Drug War Task Force:----------- SAMPLE LETTER -----------Dear Mr. Westin:I wanted to thank you for your excellent choice to air John
Stossel's segment entitled "The War on Drugs: A War on Ourselves"
on Tuesday, July 30th. I found it to be a fresh, engaging look
at the issue of drug policy, and I believe it represented a level
of journalistic integrity that has not been seen on the issue of
drug reform for quite some time.I hope you will not believe any who might tell you that airing
Mr. Stossel's piece was a poor choice. Indeed, it is of the
utmost importance that Americans see both sides of an issue that
has gone practically uncontested for far too long.Thank you again for your choice in programming like John
Stossel's. I sincerely hope that ABC News will continue this
level of quality analysis in the future, and I will be watching
more frequently in the hope that it does.Sincerely,{sign your name here}
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by overtoke on August 01, 2002 at 17:41:16 PT:
Uninformed Cop - As Usual
Someone fax this oinker the documents and stories describing the fact that cannabis makes you drive more safely.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment