So, you can be busted for being high when you're not high? How does this make the least bit of sense in the way of preventing accidents? I hold these judges in contempt.
posted on 06/22/2006 9:59:23 PM PDT
(¡En español, por favor!)
If we actually enforced our drug laws more, there'd be less drug use. Do a Rudy Guliani on the drug issue....go after every drug crime, no matter how small, and you'll see a larger effect.
posted on 06/22/2006 10:04:15 PM PDT
So, you can be busted for being high when you're not high?
If the chemical is found in your blood then you are guilty of breaking the law.
posted on 06/22/2006 10:05:28 PM PDT
(Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
"How does this make the least bit of sense in the way of preventing accidents?"
It doesn't. Neither do drug laws, generally--but you weren't supposed to know that.
posted on 06/22/2006 10:15:06 PM PDT
('Is' and 'amnesty' both have clear, plain meanings. Are Billy Jeff, Pence, McQueeg & Bush related?)
>So, you can be busted for being high when you're not high? How does this make the least bit of sense in the way of preventing accidents? I hold these judges in contempt.<
"Blackman Township police in February 2004 cited Kurts, 44, of Michigan Center, after he was stopped for driving erratically. He admitted smoking marijuana, police said. The time frame in which he smoked is unclear."
The article clearly states that Kurts was driving erratically, a potential deadly threat to others. I've know long term marijuana users who over the years have essentially become "rubber heads," as the saying goes. Even when not officially "high," they exhibit poor judgment and pose a danger to themselves and others. This, in my opinion, is why the judges were correct in their ruling.
posted on 06/23/2006 7:18:24 AM PDT
by George - the Other
(Ever notice how Narrow-Minded atheists are?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson