[jon.kiparsky]

Considering that most economists don't have any idea how the economy works, I don't think that's such a fierce indictment as all that.

Honestly, the Dismal Science is in about the same state as physics was in the 19th century - some glimmerings that there are patterns, a few broad general rules, but there's not really any there there.

[creativecoding]

I'm worried the new DUI laws in Washington will be abused. If you've consumed marijuana within the past month or so, you can get a DUI, even if you weren't under the influence at the time. Someone needs to figure out a way to test people to see if there are under the influence at the time of the test.

[BenignDesign]

Easy solution: Don't smoke the weed, don't fail the test.

[creativecoding]

That's not a very good solution. If the law is being used for the wrong purpose you're still punishing innocent people. The DUI laws were made to prevent people from driving under the influence, not to prevent people from using marijuana on their own time away from the public.

[jon.kiparsky]

He's got a point, I have to admit. If you're testing for "under the influence" the test should not register usage over the last month.
That's like nailing someone for driving while having drunk last weekend.

[Bort]

I have a foolproof way of testing if someone is on marijuana...

"Dude, would you like a Mars Bar?"

[Python_4_President]

Just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

Similarly, just because something is illegal doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.


As far as testing goes, the capacity to test for content in the parts per million exists and is used quite often in employment screenings.

A simple month-long case study of a few hundred people that were made to consume various amounts of the substance in a controlled environment would be adequate to set a baseline ppm value indicative of recent, excessive, consumption of the substance.

Same as a breathalyzer.

The bad part, though, is you'll have tarded cops working with blood... Recipe for disaster, I'm sure. Non-smokers should have an alternative means of affirming their non-use of such substances. Perhaps an implanted LCD screen with real-time statistics on chemicals present in the bloodstream that can be read by any moron.

This post has been edited by Python_4_President: 08 November 2012 - 10:07 AM

[modi123_1]

So it sticks in your system and you are "influenced" for a longer time than alcohol... it is what it is.

[Craig328]

Let's be clear here though: an officer can administer a field sobriety test, you can pass with flying colors and he can still arrest and charge you with DUI. It's entirely up to the officer's discretion because there is no codified field sobriety test that describes objectively what is a pass and what is a fail.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

So it sticks in your system and you are "influenced" for a longer time than alcohol... it is what it is.

Detectable levels of metabolites do not indicate that someone is "under the influence", any more than the fat around my middle indicates I'm still having the sugar high from the ice cream I had last week.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 08 November 2012 - 10:07 AM

[BenignDesign]

Python_4_President, on 08 November 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

just because something is illegal doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

I disagree.

There are plenty of things I do not do simply because they are illegal.

That is why I don't do them.

That is why laws exist - to prevent the majority of people from doing the bad things under threat of punishment.

[h4nnib4l]

Regardless of my beliefs about civil disobedience and unjust laws, I accept the fact that I should be punished if I break a law. If I think I should have the right to do something, the burden of proof (and action) is upon me, even if the law "shouldn't" (subjective here) be in place.

[jon.kiparsky]

h4nnib4l, on 08 November 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Regardless of my beliefs about civil disobedience and unjust laws, I accept the fact that I should be punished if I break a law. If I think I should have the right to do something, the burden of proof (and action) is upon me, even if the law "shouldn't" (subjective here) be in place.

Right, the point of civil disobedience is to break a law publicly in order to force people to decide whether your punishment is justifiable - not to get away with breaking the law.

[BenignDesign]

creativecoding down-voted me. I feel a smack-down coming on.

[modi123_1]

Ha.. or rep needs an breathalyzer to test if you are under the influence of da' smoke before using.