• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Colorado Cops What is your opinion?

Phil1

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 3, 2009
465
7
Minot N.D.
During each shift at her drive-through window, once an hour, Cordelia Cordova sees people rolling joints in their cars. Some blow smoke in her face and smile.

Cordova, who lost a 23-year-old niece and her 1-month-old son to a driver who admitted he smoked pot that day, never smiles back. She thinks legal marijuana in Colorado, where she works, is making the problem of drugged driving worse — and now new research supports her claim.

"Nobody hides it anymore when driving," Cordova said. "They think it's a joke because it’s legal. Nobody will take this seriously until somebody loses another loved one."

As medical marijuana sales expanded into 20 states, legal weed was detected in the bodies of dead drivers three times more often during 2010 when compared to those who died behind the wheel in 1999, according to a new study from Columbia University published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

“The trend suggests that marijuana is playing an increased role in fatal crashes,” said Dr. Guohua Li, a co-author and director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia University Medical Center. The researchers examined data from the federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), spanning more than 23,000 drivers killed during that 11-year period.

Alcohol remains, by far, the most common mind-altering substance detected in dead drivers, observed in the blood of nearly 40 percent of those who perished across six states during 2010, the Columbia study notes. (That rate remained stable between 1999 and 2010.)

Cannabinol, a remnant of marijuana, was found in 12.2 percent of those deceased drivers during 2010, (up from 4.2 percent in 1999). Pot was the most common non-alcoholic drug detected by those toxicology screenings.

“The increased availability of marijuana and increased acceptance of marijuana use” are fueling the higher rate of cannabinol found in dead drivers, Li told NBC News.

Researchers limited their analysis to California and five others states where toxicology screenings are routinely conducted within an hour of a traffic death. They note that California allowed medical marijuana in 2004. Since then, California has posted “marked increases in driver fatalities testing positive for marijuana,” Li said.

Minutes after the crash that killed Cordova's niece, Tanya Guevara, and Guevara's 5-week-old son, police arrested the driver who struck Guevara's car. Steven Ryan, then 22, admitted to smoking pot earlier that day, according to court records. Ryan later pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2012.

Tanya Guevara and her son, Adrian, were killed in 2010 when a driver, impaired after smoking marijuana, hit Guevara’s car head-on in Colorado.

That same year, Cordova testified before Colorado lawmakers about a proposed impairment limit for stoned drivers. Under Colorado law today, drivers who test positive for 5 nanograms per milliliter of THC — an active ingredient in marijuana — can be charged and punished as drunk drivers.

That law has not, however, led Howard Myers to feel safer on local roads. He, too, takes the issue personally: In 2002, his three children were seriously injured when their car was struck by a driver who, Myers said, had smoked marijuana a short time earlier. (A police record provided by Myers showed that oncoming driver was charged with vehicular assault). Myers' children were returning from school to their home near Colorado Springs.

All three now are adults and their injuries have become chronic, Myers said. His daughter, who was driving, receives physical therapy for neck and back pain. One of his sons is recovering from a traumatic brain injury. Another son had a leg partially amputated.

"The attitude here is it's safe," Myers said. "So more people are driving under the influence.”

“If the current trends continue, non-alcohol drugs, such as marijuana, will overtake alcohol in traffic fatalities around 2020.”

But marijuana can be detected in the blood for one week after consumption, perhaps leading chronic consumers to be wrongly arrested, critics of the law assert.

A separate study — also based on FARS data — found that in states where medical marijuana was approved, traffic fatalities decrease by as much as 11 percent during the first year after legalization. Written by researchers at the University of Colorado, Oregon and Montana State University, the paper was published in 2013 in the Journal of Law & Economics.

Those authors theorized pot, for some, becomes a substitute for alcohol. They cited a recent, 13-percent drop in drunk-driving deaths in states where medical marijuana is legal.

“Marijuana reform is associated with … a decrease in traffic fatalities, most likely due to its impact on alcohol consumption,” said Michael Elliott, executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group, a trade association in Colorado.

Overall, though, drugged driving is closing the gap with drunk driving.

The rate of traffic deaths in which drivers tested positive for non-alcohol drugs climbed from 16.6 percent in 1999 to 28.3 percent in 2010, according to the Columbia study.

Among dead male drivers, 4.0 tested positive for narcotics in 2010, up from 2.2 percent in 1999. Among female drivers killed, 7.6 percent tested positive for narcotics, up from 4.3 percent.

“If the current trends continue,” Li said, “non-alcohol drugs, such as marijuana, will overtake alcohol in traffic fatalities around 2020.”
Pot Fuels Surge in Drugged Driving Deaths - NBC News
 
Those studies seem to be very biased or not very thought out. Marijuana stays in your system for quite some time even though the effects wear off a short time after usage compared to alcohol. So if someone smoked a joint today, and then gets into a fatal accident three weeks later are we gonna say "hey that joint caused the accident", sounds pretty stupid.

As for the increase of weed fatalities compared to drunk driving fatalities, some may choose to have a smoke instead of a drink. Now that its "legal" for some states they have a choice of what they choose. The real problem will be how they enforce the driving under the influence as stated above. I'm not a Leo so take this with a grain if salt. I have tried it when I was a kid so I'm basing my limited knowledge from that.
 
Shocking!

Who'd of thunk it?

A drug addicted society, addicted in the sense that we are bombarded daily through the media and our care providers that if it hurts "take this", if your sad "take this", if you cant sleep "take this", if it wont get hard "take this". I understand the drug industry does provide some very good meds for those that need them but we are an "I want it now" culture and instead of letting nature take its time for those that don't need powerful meds we resort to the easy path of pills and the negative side effects of that option. Oxycodone has created more pain in society than the broken bone it was initially intended to soothe.

The libertarian in me agrees with the legalization of drugs but I demand it be done on the premise you are responsible for the results of your experimentation. You pay for your own addiction treatment and you pay a harsh penalty for your mistakes with the zero tolerance policies we inflict upon the users of legal chemistry altering products like nicotine and alcohol.

We have a sick society, add in a bad economy, and bleak prospects for the future and it is easy to see now is not the time to add to the mayhem. Yet this is exactly what is being done because dependence and mayhem are the tools of the power hungry.

Getting a conviction at present based on drug recognition expert testimony is about slim to none. The 4th amendment still applies when dealing with criminals, not so much the upstanding citizen, so blood and other more invasive analysis of "intoxication" is not happening except in the extreme cases. MA has decriminalized weed and as far as law enforcement of the MJ prohibitions goes we might as well have put our cops nuts into a castration device.

Defense lawyer "So Trooper your sense of smell is such that you could tell by odor only that the amount of marijuana my client had in the vehicle exceeded the civil fine amount of 1 ounce? Your nose is a registered scale I assume Trooper? Judge I request motion to dismiss on grounds the Trooper had no grounds to search my clients car based on the smell of unburnt marijuana. He had no way of knowing whether or not it exceeded the one ounce civil violation threshold therefore searching the car and finding a pound of pot was a violation of my clients 4th Amendment rights."

Judge "Motion to dismiss allowed"

Yeah for the win!
 
Im in favor of legalization. That said, if you drink and fuck up you pay, the same should be true for other substances. It all boils down to 'RESPONSIBLE' usage.
 
Im in favor of legalization. That said, if you drink and fuck up you pay, the same should be true for other substances. It all boils down to 'RESPONSIBLE' usage.

That might have been a reasonable opinion in the 1880s and maybe even early 1900s. but not today. There is no responsibility. If little Johnny screws up it is because he had no father or suffers from affluenza, or...

When was the last time a drunk was put to death for killing an innocent because he had no self control and was too selfish to call a cab? Not in my lifetime.

We go after cigarettes like the plague, now we legalize pot...really? Ignorance is rampant, responsible behavior and self control are all but gone.
 
I did vote in favor of legalization but I don't smoke. Though I am VERY MUCH SO starting to regret that vote and probably wouldn't vote in favor of it again. The lack of respect (should have known) shown by these smokers and the way they flaunt it is really pissing me off. I'm sick of people being rude and in your face about it, if they acted like it was just a cigarette I wouldn't mind but now it's all fan-fair and show and it's all we hear about on the news. I'm fucking sick of it. I voted for it out of a libertarian stance, but I expected more from the people it directly benefited.

The people in my state disrespected my vote so it's not a vote I'll make again.

So think about that when the issue comes up on your state ballot...
 
I did vote in favor of legalization but I don't smoke. Though I am VERY MUCH SO starting to regret that vote and probably wouldn't vote in favor of it again. The lack of respect (should have known) shown by these smokers and the way they flaunt it is really pissing me off. I'm sick of people being rude and in your face about it, if they acted like it was just a cigarette I wouldn't mind but now it's all fan-fair and show and it's all we hear about on the news. I'm fucking sick of it. I voted for it out of a libertarian stance, but I expected more from the people it directly benefited.

The people in my state disrespected my vote so it's not a vote I'll make again.

So think about that when the issue comes up on your state ballot...

You reap what you sow brother Binder!
 
Shocking!

Who'd of thunk it?

A drug addicted society, addicted in the sense that we are bombarded daily through the media and our care providers that if it hurts "take this", if your sad "take this", if you cant sleep "take this", if it wont get hard "take this". I understand the drug industry does provide some very good meds for those that need them but we are an "I want it now" culture and instead of letting nature take its time for those that don't need powerful meds we resort to the easy path of pills and the negative side effects of that option. Oxycodone has created more pain in society than the broken bone it was initially intended to soothe.

The libertarian in me agrees with the legalization of drugs but I demand it be done on the premise you are responsible for the results of your experimentation. You pay for your own addiction treatment and you pay a harsh penalty for your mistakes with the zero tolerance policies we inflict upon the users of legal chemistry altering products like nicotine and alcohol.

We have a sick society, add in a bad economy, and bleak prospects for the future and it is easy to see now is not the time to add to the mayhem. Yet this is exactly what is being done because dependence and mayhem are the tools of the power hungry.

Getting a conviction at present based on drug recognition expert testimony is about slim to none. The 4th amendment still applies when dealing with criminals, not so much the upstanding citizen, so blood and other more invasive analysis of "intoxication" is not happening except in the extreme cases. MA has decriminalized weed and as far as law enforcement of the MJ prohibitions goes we might as well have put our cops nuts into a castration device.

Defense lawyer "So Trooper your sense of smell is such that you could tell by odor only that the amount of marijuana my client had in the vehicle exceeded the civil fine amount of 1 ounce? Your nose is a registered scale I assume Trooper? Judge I request motion to dismiss on grounds the Trooper had no grounds to search my clients car based on the smell of unburnt marijuana. He had no way of knowing whether or not it exceeded the one ounce civil violation threshold therefore searching the car and finding a pound of pot was a violation of my clients 4th Amendment rights."

Judge "Motion to dismiss allowed"

Yeah for the win!

Not in NM it isn't. I have had several very successful convictions based upon my testimony and the results of blood work. In NM, the Implied Consent Act requires all drivers, licensed or not, to give a sample of breath or blood or both upon request of a LEO. (predicated upon Probable Cause of course) Failure to do so leads to an immediate charge of Aggravated DWI, which, presuming your PC for stop and arrest was good, you will win both at the DMV hearing and in court. If there are circumstances like a fatality or this is a felony level DWI, a blood warrant will be signed by the on call judge and yes, I have assisted in holding people down in the ER while blood was drawn. DRE's are the thin line between chaos and sanity when it comes to drugged driving.
 
Not in NM it isn't. I have had several very successful convictions based upon my testimony and the results of blood work. In NM, the Implied Consent Act requires all drivers, licensed or not, to give a sample of breath or blood or both upon request of a LEO. (predicated upon Probable Cause of course) Failure to do so leads to an immediate charge of Aggravated DWI, which, presuming your PC for stop and arrest was good, you will win both at the DMV hearing and in court. If there are circumstances like a fatality or this is a felony level DWI, a blood warrant will be signed by the on call judge and yes, I have assisted in holding people down in the ER while blood was drawn. DRE's are the thin line between chaos and sanity when it comes to drugged driving.

MA has Implied Consent and that typically means breathalyzer. Blood will be had if the case warrants. During the DRE process they do take urine while completing the survey. Used as intended the officer testimony and the evidence would be strong tools to get a conviction but it is not proving so in court. More often the DRE testimony gets tossed for your no victim OUI Drugs case.

Again these are the no victim cases that seem to get tossed. Part of that is lawyering but the other part is recognition that in the jury there is a tendency toward "there but for the grace of God go I" or suspicion of officer testimony based on subject observation.

The problem with that thinking is that instead of nipping the problem in the bud the mayhem continues until the repeat offender wipes out a family and than the call goes out "How could they let this happen?"
 
Libertarian principles in a society of irresponsible sheeple is called chaos.

I'll take that chaos over infringement and Totalitarianism.

The problem still falls on responsibility of the individual. It's the state that has been removing responsibility over the years, to present itself as a nanny, and protector while striping the rights of the people. Blame the state.

As for the shitheads taunting their legal MJ, they are the idiots of stoner culture. Every culture has them from homosexuals to gun guys.
 
Not a Colorado cop, but here in AZ with the medical marijuana we see the same thing to a smaller degree with people who think it is perfectly legal to smoke MJ and then get behind the wheel. False. Drive impaired, you're getting hooked. DUI is DUI. Alcohol, Marijuana, Rx drugs, whatever, if you're DUI I am hooking you up and good luck proving that you're not impaired so long as I do my job and document the signs of impairment I observed.

If you think the marijuana is the biggest source of concern I'll have to say that I think the biggest issue we face is the use of prescription drugs. Doctors hand them out like candy now and people get hooked on them and abuse them heavily. But I see this belief in people I arrest that there really is no problem with it because it is a prescription.

I am fine with decriminalizing all drugs in the US, however I fear what the end result will be with a society that heavily medicates itself and abuses drugs more than it already does.
 
I did vote in favor of legalization but I don't smoke. Though I am VERY MUCH SO starting to regret that vote and probably wouldn't vote in favor of it again. The lack of respect (should have known) shown by these smokers and the way they flaunt it is really pissing me off. I'm sick of people being rude and in your face about it, if they acted like it was just a cigarette I wouldn't mind but now it's all fan-fair and show and it's all we hear about on the news. I'm fucking sick of it. I voted for it out of a libertarian stance, but I expected more from the people it directly benefited.

The people in my state disrespected my vote so it's not a vote I'll make again.

So think about that when the issue comes up on your state ballot...

You reap what you sow brother Binder!

I think that all changes come with transition times. Your seeing a bunch of that now but my bet is that in time it will become more normalized and the newness will wear off. Lets hope so. Most of the problem is due to the long term effects of the criminalization of a substance that should never have ben illegal in the first place. People used it for thousands of years with no harm, in fact with great benefits both medicinally and industrially...for rope, and cloth...the original 'Levis' were made of hemp, not cotton. . Then it was made illegal and we instituted a 'drug war' which failed miserably and now we are reaping the consequences of that. give it time. Put those who drive stoned in jail just like you would a drunk. they'll learn. I've always found a stoner a much more tolerable entity than a drunk.
 
People used it for thousands of years with no harm, in fact with great benefits both medicinally and industrially...

That is one of the great lies of the pro-pot group. The concentration of the desired drug (THC) is significantly higher today. In the 1970s, the THC content was about 1% having risen from a "natural" concentration of about 0.6%. Today the numbers range from about 4% to over 14% with most of it being around 6%. Looking at the physiological effects, infrequent use has little to no long term physical damage, but all that "data" is based on analysis with the lower grade drug. Looking only at the medical side, when the THC concentration increases, since the take-up is so quick, the neurological receptors are more prone to being altered. Consistent use of higher potency marijuana results in a permanent change in the neurological receptors so that the drugs naturally produced in our bodies lose efficacy. This leads to increased use, which then leads to other issues. The point is that once the receptors are damaged, they do not regenerate to a normal state. As a result, the chemical balance in the body is off leading to emotional instability. The solution is then medication from the drug companies to keep the addicted marijuana user on an even keel. Do the research and read the tests and data from both sides of the aisle.
 
That is one of the great lies of the pro-pot group. The concentration of the desired drug (THC) is significantly higher today. In the 1970s, the THC content was about 1% having risen from a "natural" concentration of about 0.6%. Today the numbers range from about 4% to over 14% with most of it being around 6%. Looking at the physiological effects, infrequent use has little to no long term physical damage, but all that "data" is based on analysis with the lower grade drug. Looking only at the medical side, when the THC concentration increases, since the take-up is so quick, the neurological receptors are more prone to being altered. Consistent use of higher potency marijuana results in a permanent change in the neurological receptors so that the drugs naturally produced in our bodies lose efficacy. This leads to increased use, which then leads to other issues. The point is that once the receptors are damaged, they do not regenerate to a normal state. As a result, the chemical balance in the body is off leading to emotional instability. The solution is then medication from the drug companies to keep the addicted marijuana user on an even keel. Do the research and read the tests and data from both sides of the aisle.

That's so full of shit and ignoranceit doesn't even rate this meager reply.
 
I voted for the legalization thing. I now have mixed feelings.
We now have tourists here for the Rocky Mountain High bringing their money into our state and we need the money as well as high taxes on it going into the states coffers.
We also have a strain that failed to produce the THC content that gets you high but produced a high amount of cannabinol that when converted to an oil is being used to treat seizures in children with good results. This has brought parents into our state seeking that treatment for their kids.
I wish they could just export it to them rather than them having to pull up stakes and move here to help their kids, but the FDA blocks that for years as they study this phenomenon.
I have a brother in law who works for the electric company for a source of this little tidbit.
These grow operations are centered along the front range for the most part and use massive amounts of electricity for grow lights and heat for the plants and have caused the electric providers all kinds of problems keeping up with the demand for electricity. Another unforeseen problem. These grow operations are big warehouses and can use around $30,000 each per month during the winter according to the local news. Regards, FM