OT - Initiative 65 and Initiative 65a

I haven't bought into anything. I've seen it with my own eyes in other states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgoneyall

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

---

Don't police do field sobriety tests? Breathalyzers aren't 100% accurate and there are times that people are arrested without failing one. What do police do now if someone is driving while high? Just because it is legal doesn't mean they can't arrest you for driving impaired.

That is a very weak argument for keeping it illegal.

Might not be such a weak argument when it?s your butt or your fAmily killed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgoneyall

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

---

This doesn't make any sense. Weed being legal would not make it legal to drive high. If they already are not able to test for it DUI wise, then what difference would it make for weed to be legal? It's not like you can't find weed extremely easily if you want it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgoneyall

Might not be such a weak argument when it?s your butt or your fAmily killed

---

You never hear about people getting killed by someone smoking weed. They fall asleep in a drive thru maybe. And anyone can smell it and have their cars searched. Besides, if killing someone on the road is the issue, alcohol and scripts will far exceed the weed concerns. People ride around on pain killers already and there's no sobriety test for those either, plus they're addictive as hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgoneyall

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

---

This is the absolute worst mj take you can possibly have. There are 2 types of DUI. Regular DUI and DUI other. DUI other covers every single substance not named alcohol including numerous legal substances including opioids & Xanax as well as your illegal drugs like cocaine, crack, meth, etc.... There are literally thousands upon thousands of DUIs given where drivers refuse the breathalyzer and field sobriety test. You know why? Cops are vigorously trained to identify impaired drivers. They do it every single day. DUI others, just like regular DUIs, do not have to have a roadside test. If you?ve ever been to a DUI trial you?ll see when they put the officer on the stand. 100% of the time you?re going to get testimony that says, Through ____ years of training and experience i could tell with my expert opinion the driver was impaired?. As long as there was no procedural loopholes its a closed case after that phrase 95% of the time.

When you know the current law, how it?s applied, and how it?s applied in court it?s impossible to have the take that they need a roadside test first. If you don?t think a cop can tell someone is barbecued behind the wheel, you have a police problem, not a lack of test problem.

Y?all keep these coming. There isn?t a single talking point that I can?t debunk but it?s easy when it?s propaganda.

65A is a poorly thought out attempt by the gov't to muddy the waters. Period. Typical MS politics.

https://tibbee-creek.com/images/65v65a.png

Lolz at Mississippians who think 65 or anything of the likes will pass.

MS will be last at getting with the times (per usual) and reaping the tax revenues amongst medical benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeastMan

This is the absolute worst mj take you can possibly have. There are 2 types of DUI. Regular DUI and DUI other. DUI other covers every single substance not named alcohol including numerous legal substances including opioids & Xanax as well as your illegal drugs like cocaine, crack, meth, etc.... There are literally thousands upon thousands of DUIs given where drivers refuse the breathalyzer and field sobriety test. You know why? Cops are vigorously trained to identify impaired drivers. They do it every single day. DUI others, just like regular DUIs, do not have to have a roadside test. If you?ve ever been to a DUI trial you?ll see when they put the officer on the stand. 100% of the time you?re going to get testimony that says, Through ____ years of training and experience i could tell with my expert opinion the driver was impaired?. As long as there was no procedural loopholes its a closed case after that phrase 95% of the time.

When you know the current law, how it?s applied, and how it?s applied in court it?s impossible to have the take that they need a roadside test first. If you don?t think a cop can tell someone is barbecued behind the wheel, you have a police problem, not a lack of test problem.

Y?all keep these coming. There isn?t a single talking point that I can?t debunk but it?s easy when it?s propaganda.

---

I think there already is a test ... I don't know this for fact but I have heard there is a breathalyzer now for pot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fader21

There is a field sobriety test for other substances besides alcohol. The problem with it is there is not a secondary test such as the intocxilyzer 8000 to test for a person being intoxicated. Also only about less than .05 % of Dui officers are able to do the other substances field sobriety tests. The other thing is the only way to find out if someone is intoxicated by another substance is to pee or blood test. Which you can only get through consent or warrant with no consequences for refusing. Also as backed up as the crime lab is. It will take longer for the results to come back.

---

I've heard there is now a breathalyzer for pot that is available to law enforcement ... I don't know this for fact, just something I heard from someone that should know. Mississippi has some unusual laws and omissions - like it's legal to drink and drive as long as you're below the legal limit (thereby nullifying an open container law that so many other states have in place) ...... but hey, cannibalism isn't illegal in Mississippi.
Caveat - these are things my Georgia wife throws at me from crap she claims to have read ... I really don't know for fact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FISHDAWG

I think there already is a test ... I don't know this for fact but I have heard there is a breathalyzer now for pot

---

They’ve been testing some. There aren’t any in MS. It’s not even needed. You ever heard them talk about needing an opioid breathalyzer? Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeastMan

Uh big no there. 65a is a joke. Vote 65. It?s past damn time to give folks access to medical cannabis.

---

If doctors were prescribing cannabis under prop65, then possibly, but that is not the case. Prop65 is to create/open cannabis shops where all you need is a card to get in. This is the first step to legalizing marijuana in general. Follow the money!

Vote No!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FISHDAWG

I've heard there is now a breathalyzer for pot that is available to law enforcement ... I don't know this for fact, just something I heard from someone that should know. Mississippi has some unusual laws and omissions - like it's legal to drink and drive as long as you're below the legal limit (thereby nullifying an open container law that so many other states have in place) ...... but hey, cannibalism isn't illegal in Mississippi.
Caveat - these are things my Georgia wife throws at me from crap she claims to have read ... I really don't know for fact

---

I think the problem with those things is how far back they can test and what is the window of impairment from weed. Hell smoking a bowl doesn't last nearly as long as eating a mild edible. And they are totally different highs

Say I smoke a bowl at 8pm. Wake up the next morning and get pulled over at 10am for speeding. No way am I even remotely impaired still. But if the test goes back 24-48 hours you're toast.

I know you aren't claiming to know the answer. But we are a long way from having a legal limit and a system of determining whether someone is too impaired to drive while high or not. It's easy for legislation to put a cap on alcohol content in each can or serving. How do you account for the difference between dirt weed and some potent ass Sour Diesel and how long each one lasts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extendedcab

If doctors were prescribing cannabis under prop65, then possibly, but that is not the case. Prop65 is to create/open cannabis shops where all you need is a card to get in. This is the first step to legalizing marijuana in general. Follow the money!

Vote No!

---

https://media.tenor.com/images/81f2c...f631/tenor.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StateDawg44

I think the problem with those things is how far back they can test and what is the window of impairment from weed. Hell smoking a bowl doesn't last nearly as long as eating a mild edible. And they are totally different highs

Say I smoke a bowl at 8pm. Wake up the next morning and get pulled over at 10am for speeding. No way am I even remotely impaired still. But if the test goes back 24-48 hours you're toast.

I know you aren't claiming to know the answer. But we are a long way from having a legal limit and a system of determining whether someone is too impaired to drive while high or not. It's easy for legislation to put a cap on alcohol content in each can or serving. How do you account for the difference between dirt weed and some potent ass Sour Diesel and how long each one lasts?

---

I had the same exact questions and was told the test went back about 24 hours - which really wouldn't help anything at all - except for that jurisdictions revenue ... at least MS decriminalized simple possession I'm told

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeastMan

65 isn’t vague. You’ve bought in to the propaganda. Don’t be a sheep my brother. It absolutely will not be on every street corner. It will be like liquor stores but even less so b/c there would be significantly less prescribed users than drinkers. Even if you’re gonna play that card that they can’t be zoned, and they will, the market will not allow an over saturation of stores especially in a Covid economy. Econ 101

One thing I want everyone against it to think about.... All the opposition talking points, not a single one talks about the efficacy of the medicinal use. All fear tactics about crime and pot shops on every corner etc.... That tells you all you need to know. They think we’re dumb. I hope enough of us aren’t.

---

You mean like vape shops. I'm out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StateDawg44

I know you aren't claiming to know the answer. But we are a long way from having a legal limit and a system of determining whether someone is too impaired to drive while high or not. It's easy for legislation to put a cap on alcohol content in each can or serving. How do you account for the difference between dirt weed and some potent ass Sour Diesel and how long each one lasts?

---

They account for it the same way they do for every single other substance. This is a made up issue. Where is the push for benzo roadside testing? Where I live doctors write scripts for Xanax, Valium, and klonopin like pez and NO ONE says a word about they’re impaired driving.

Here is MS law since y’all refuse to read what I keep telling y’all

DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT REQUIRED:

(a) Driving/Operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or "common law" DUI (usually no BAC test results available, or the BAC test results are ruled inadmissible): the prosecution must prove impairment, that is "commonly understood to mean driving in a state of intoxication that lessens a person's normal ability for clarity and control." Leuer v. City of Flowood, 744 So. 2d 266, 269 (Miss. 1999);

(b) Driving/Operating under the influence of any other substance: the prosecution must prove impairment;

(c) Driving/Operating under the influence of any drug or controlled substance which is unlawful under the Mississippi Controlled Substances Law: the prosecution must simply prove that one was "under the influence" in this narrow context, and there is no "per se" requirement if any toxicological test was given;

(d) Driving/Operating with an alcohol concentration .08% or more for persons twenty-one (21) or .02% or more for persons who are below the age of twenty-one (21); has an alcohol concentration of .04% or more for persons operating a commercial motor vehicle: the prosecution must prove the accuracy of the machine, that the machine's operator was certified, and that all proper procedures were followed in the administration of the test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooterpoot

You never hear about people getting killed by someone smoking weed. They fall asleep in a drive thru maybe. And anyone can smell it and have their cars searched. Besides, if killing someone on the road is the issue, alcohol and scripts will far exceed the weed concerns. People ride around on pain killers already and there's no sobriety test for those either, plus they're addictive as hell.

---

Agreed. Pills and alcohol is definitely more dangerous than weed ever has been, including in states that have had this legalized for damn 10 years. If alcohol is legal and taxed, pills are legal and widespread due to over medication, then weed should be 100% legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RezDog7

You mean like vape shops. I'm out.

---

Funny thing, you really do not see that many Vape shops anymore. Maybe 1 or 2 per town. If you have an issue with shops, then pay day loan services should all be shut down. They do more to harm your community both from a property value standpoint and from its preditory practices than weed shops ever would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extendedcab

If doctors were prescribing cannabis under prop65, then possibly, but that is not the case. Prop65 is to create/open cannabis shops where all you need is a card to get in. This is the first step to legalizing marijuana in general. Follow the money!

Vote No!

---

Even if all of this is true, still vote yes. Nothing you said convinces me this shouldn't be legal in our United States of America. This should be legal in every single way, and taxed the shit out of it.