Natural Hallucinogens

FlamingGlory said:
There already is, just most people arent aware of it.

For example NY:



NY and most other states have two or three DWI statutes. There is the .10% "in its own right" statute, that no matter what your ability you are guilty if you have that amount of alcohol in your system. Then there is the intoxication statute, even without a blood test if you are in an 'intoxicated condition' it is a crime to operate. The last one takes away your defence for use of OTC and other drugs, essentially if your ability is impaired at all by any drug it is a crime.

I can get court cases to give you a better definition of the two other statutes but I think I explained it pretty well. The BAC statutes are essentially a tool to streamline the justice procedure, there is no defense to it once a person is tested. Most of the cases around here actually stem from the DUI/DWAI statutes. They only haul out the breath test stuff on holidays and friday night.
Click to expand...


It's actually .08 now in all states.

There are both quantitative and subjective methods of determining impairment for driving purposes. My point is that these would need to be applied to other (presently illicit) substances if they were to become legal. There would need to be less subjective standards for driving impairment, for what is defined as public intoxication, and any other situations.

It's clear that you can presently be charged with DUI if you appear impaired but don't blow over the BAC, or whatever, but that's not really what I was getting at. Right now, if I had any detectable quantity of an illicit substance in my system, was not impaired in any way, but was subjected to a random saliva test at a checkpoint of some sort (just imagine this scenario eventually becoming common with the increase in assaying technology), I could also be arrested for DUI. No amount of any illicit substance is okay notwithstanding lack of impairment. In contrast, some amounts of alcohol are okay if impairment above a threshold isn't obseved. This double standard couldn't exist in a world with more substances legal.
 
eileenbunny said:
I don't think it matters whether they define it or not. I've never taken a drug and thought "I'm okay to drive." I think that nobody else should either. Driving is a privilige, and a dangerous one at that. It is irresponsible to get behind the wheel of a large piece of metal when you don't have all your wits about you. We really shouldn't need any laws about this at all. If you are using, DON'T DRIVE!!! I think the whole BAC thing is a load of crap. One beer or twenty, I just think people shouldn't drive. Sadly, people are going to continue to do this and it's a problem, but all the laws in the world hasn't stopped it.

As far as being impaired in public, it's really easy to define, and I believe I did in my previous post. Don't bother anyone else so that their quality of life is effected. It really doesn't matter what you are on, this is just a good rule of thumb. If you can't act like a human being, don't go out.

Maybe we should just make the law state that if you are gonna use, do it at home and don't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

It's not realistic to think there can be a double standard for alcohol and "other drugs" in a world where those other drugs are also legal. I don't think it's realistic to ban use of all substances except to the confines of one's home. Do we include caffeine? Nicotine? Diet pills? OTC medicines? Refined sugar? The line between food and drug can be blurry. Who gets to decide what's okay and what's not? Yes, I'm being nitpicky, but this is actually my point. There are levels of behavioral change that are socially acceptable with alcohol, and the same holds true, or could hold true, with many other substances.

In a scenario where other substances were also legal, we'd have to either ban alcohol (and everything else) in public, instate a .00 BAC limit for driving, etc.; or we'd have to apply these kinds of level-of-impairment standards to other substances.
 
Epididymis said:
It's actually .08 now in all states.

There are both quantitative and subjective methods of determining impairment for driving purposes. My point is that these would need to be applied to other (presently illicit) substances if they were to become legal. There would need to be less subjective standards for driving impairment, for what is defined as public intoxication, and any other situations.

It's clear that you can presently be charged with DUI if you appear impaired but don't blow over the BAC, or whatever, but that's not really what I was getting at. Right now, if I had any detectable quantity of an illicit substance in my system, was not impaired in any way, but was subjected to a random saliva test at a checkpoint of some sort (just imagine this scenario eventually becoming common with the increase in assaying technology), I could also be arrested for DUI. No amount of any illicit substance is okay notwithstanding lack of impairment. In contrast, some amounts of alcohol are okay if impairment above a threshold isn't obseved. This double standard couldn't exist in a world with more substances legal.
Click to expand...

In your hypothesis and under NYS Law , you could fight that charge on the grounds that you werent actually impaired. It isnt codified that any amount of any substance (except alcohol) in your system while driving constitutes a crime. Of course you wouldnt win in court because the Police will say that your ability was impaired and youll have no credibility because of the fact you did have an illegal substance in your system.

Also drug use per se isnt a crime ROBINSON v. CALIFORNIA, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

Though under Virginia Law:

§ 18.2-266. Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc.

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (v) while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of ,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v).

For the purposes of this article, the term "motor vehicle" includes mopeds, while operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
eileenbunny said:
I'll bring some to Atlanta.

I find that the method of administration is key to experiencing the drug. You have to get it very hot. I've had mild and mind blowing experiences on it. I find it can be very relaxing and fun in very small quantities. If you just use a little or you don't get it hot enough you can have a reasonably mild experience with it. Most people think it's a waste, but I think it's nice and leaves me with a very peaceful and relaxed feeling.
Click to expand...

And what a coincidence...I just happen to have a lighter for that....


:shifty:
 
FlamingGlory said:
In your hypothesis and under NYS Law , you could fight that charge on the grounds that you werent actually impaired. It isnt codified that any amount of any substance (except alcohol) in your system while driving constitutes a crime. Of course you wouldnt win in court because the Police will say that your ability was impaired and youll have no credibility because of the fact you did have an illegal substance in your system.

Also drug use per se isnt a crime ROBINSON v. CALIFORNIA, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

Though under Virginia Law:
Click to expand...

I shouldn't have assumed this to be universal, because as you've pointed out, it's not (yet).

However, at least ten states have so-called zero tolerance per se laws for DUID (driving under the influence of drugs.) This means driving with any amount of illegal substance in one's system, regardless of impairment, is grounds for DUI. Several states also include drug metabolites. At least one state has an exemption for marijuana.

Within the past few years, there have been a few bills introduced to Congress to either encourage or mandate such zero tolerance laws across all states. Presently, federal legislation doesn't mandate this policy.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6492
 
Epididymis said:
I shouldn't have assumed this to be universal, because as you've pointed out, it's not (yet).

However, at least ten states have so-called zero tolerance per se laws for DUID (driving under the influence of drugs.) This means driving with any amount of illegal substance in one's system, regardless of impairment, is grounds for DUI. Several states also include drug metabolites. At least one state has an exemption for marijuana.

Within the past few years, there have been a few bills introduced to Congress to either encourage or mandate such zero tolerance laws across all states. Presently, federal legislation doesn't mandate this policy.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6492
Click to expand...
Hmm. I dont see any heavy handed federal legislation about it coming realistically, it is beyond the power of the federal government. They can reccomend, they can withold highway funding, but there is a definite limit to their police powers. As to each State that has adopted zero tolerance laws, it is the purview of the states what their laws are. All you can do is lobby.
 
FlamingGlory said:
Hmm. I dont see any heavy handed federal legislation about it coming realistically, it is beyond the power of the federal government. They can reccomend, they can withold highway funding, but there is a definite limit to their police powers. As to each State that has adopted zero tolerance laws, it is the purview of the states what their laws are. All you can do is lobby.
Click to expand...

I like Virginia's attempt at a per se policy. If I looked into their limits, I probably would think they were way too low for the legalization scenario I was depicting. Even so, that's closer to the idea I was thinking.

The federal government is the reason NY and other states are no longer .10 BAC . Every state has adopted .08 laws because the federal government threatened to withold highway funding otherwise.
 
Epididymis said:
I like Virginia's attempt at a per se policy. If I looked into their limits, I probably would think they were way too low for the legalization scenario I was depicting. Even so, that's closer to the idea I was thinking.

The federal government is the reason NY and other states are no longer .10 BAC . Every state has adopted .08 laws because the federal government threatened to withold highway funding otherwise.
Click to expand...
Minimum drinking age was part of highway funding too. With a lot of help from MADD (whom I hate more than the ACLU). Though in most states you can posses and consume even if you arent allowed to purchase.

I usually use NY and VA for state law examples. I live in NY, and their codes are well organized/clearly written. If you want a headache try reading NJ or TX law.
 
FlamingGlory said:
Minimum drinking age was part of highway funding too. With a lot of help from MADD (whom I hate more than the ACLU). Though in most states you can posses and consume even if you arent allowed to purchase.
Click to expand...

I just read in the Wikipedia entry for underage drinking that most states have a .02 BAC limit for <21 persons in public. That's interesting with respect to the quantitative definitions for public intoxication I was proposing. .02 BAC would not likley make a person appear intoxicated, but this would still legally be--in essence, not sure of the actual wording of the laws--public intoxication/underage consumption.
 
Epididymis said:
I just read in the Wikipedia entry for underage drinking that most states have a .02 BAC limit for <21 persons in public. That's interesting with respect to the quantitative definitions for public intoxication I was proposing. .02 BAC would not likley make a person appear intoxicated, but this would still legally be--in essence, not sure of the actual wording of the laws--public intoxication/underage consumption.
Click to expand...
This one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underage_drinking_in_America ?

I hate it when people dont cite their sources. It makes information nearly impossible to find. Some states do obviously have a prohibition on all underage stuff (yellow coloured ones): http://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/index.asp?Type=BAS_APIS&SEC={0D5C719E-FCE8-4E15-A367-4145C655505F}&DE={E6F19624-0ADC-437F-917D-5E7CBC9F58B9}

I'm fairly certain they are just pro se public intoxication statutes so even if there is not enough evidence to prove that you werent "intoxicated" they can still prosecute.
 
FlamingGlory said:
Though in most states you can posses and consume even if you arent allowed to purchase.
Click to expand...
Although LEO's and the media would have you think differently of course. During the summer months (When school is out) anyone 18+ with proper ID can buy booze in VT.

Now in CT IIRC, your parents can buy you a drink in a bar or something like that...

FlamingGlory said:
I usually use NY and VA for state law examples. I live in NY, and their codes are well organized/clearly written. If you want a headache try reading NJ or TX law.
Click to expand...
Or CA law, there's a reason you can't just waive the bar if you're practicing in another state. :fly:
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
There should be additional driving tests available for 'impaired' driving, so that those that could pass 'em don't have to worry about the pathetically low .08 BAC limit.
Click to expand...
Pathetically low is right, I've had BAC taken once by blood (nursing students are fun) and .251% for me is about when the room starts spinning. I'd guess and say that I'm not even buzzed at .08%.

I never drive though, it's just not ethical.
 
FlamingGlory said:
I never drive though, it's just not ethical.
Click to expand...

This is my point exactly. I personally have no problem with people wandering around in public drunk, high, tripping, nodding, zoning, whatever. Do it, have fun, don't bother anyone, DON'T DRIVE. If you want to go out on drugs, get a sitter/designated driver, call a cab, take the bus, walk...there's a lot of other options. It's really simple to do. The way I see it, the reason people get upset about the drunk driving laws the way they are now is because it's inconvenient. Everyone wants to believe that they are okay to drive impaired even though other people may not be. I've heard the argument a zillion times. I just don't understand what is so difficult about just not driving after doing drugs (alcohol included) that have the potential to impair your abilities.

Also, if Thorn and Pandora want to argue over Fuxx and I, might I suggest a wrestling contest that includes pudding or jello? Winner take all? I'll need to be there to witness the event though. I'm sure Fuxx would agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back