| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Gaming | VB Image Host | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #21 | |
| New Member Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 61
Grams: 1,366.65 Groans: 12
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanks: 30
Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts
| Quote:
Say you get pulled over and somehow they get you to take a blood test. Drug testing isn't like carbon dating, you can't find the date of use its just positive or negative. You could argue you smoked 28 days ago... Last edited by Fryguy22 : 06-04-2008 at 07:11 AM. Reason: spelling | |
| | |
| The Following User Says NO Thank You to Fryguy22 For This Un-useful Post: | shibshib (06-04-2008) |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |
Advertisement | |
| | #22 | |
| Sr. Member ![]() Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,366
Grams: 15,130.50 Groans: 51
Groaned at 15 Times in 13 Posts
Thanks: 359
Thanked 720 Times in 415 Posts
| First off, let me just say that I used to be very against the idea of "driving while high"... but that was before I started smoking when I thought "high" was a very different thing. Since I never smoke myself silly, I find driving to not be a problem. If anything, I drive much much safer and aware lol. In fact the only "study" i can think of was on a british motor show where they found the same results... people drove much more safe while high than sober. Quote:
As for driving... same point... if you are high enough to warrant them doing a blood test on you, then you're probably up shit-creek without a paddle... however if it is just some random blood test, then yeah it could be argued that you weren't high at the time... but then again, if you have to argue that at all, you are probably going to court, and that's just not fun. | |
| | |
| | #23 | |
| New Member Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 61
Grams: 1,366.65 Groans: 12
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanks: 30
Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts
| Quote:
So I'll reiterate my point: You cannot be pulled over, questioned, or arrested just because a cop suspects you are high. | |
| | |
| | #24 |
| Banned ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,214
Grams: 30,837.21 Groans: 21
Groaned at 27 Times in 21 Posts
Thanks: 783
Thanked 1,404 Times in 887 Posts
| Fryguy22, you're giving horrible legal advice. You might be correct in your state or jurisdiction, however you're not putting that in context, and you are incorrect in general. In many states you can be given a DUI ticket (and Public Intoxication, in some states) for having THC in your system. |
| | |
| | #25 |
| Sr. Member Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 536
Grams: 4,912.60 Groans: 1
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 70
Thanked 71 Times in 58 Posts
| If you want to really know law, call a lawyer, this is about vapes. |
| | |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |
Advertisement | |
| | #26 | |
| New Member Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 61
Grams: 1,366.65 Groans: 12
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanks: 30
Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #27 |
| New Member Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12
Grams: 869.30 Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 4 Posts
| I dont have a volcano, but as i mentioned in previous posts I REALLY like my herbalaire, which i use soley for bag filling. So to add to the discussion: I think the volcano bags from what i have seen are much too large. I have no idea how fast it fills those giant things, but damn, I just have two bags which i regularly replace, regular oven bag sized, and alternate them, which makes the wait far far less, as you can fill one whilst using the other. Apart from that, for caning large amounts at once, the da buddha wipes out the other vapes I own, but I dont really find myself filling it to that extent very much. It definately gives the most fulfilling tokes, full and tasty, but at the same time the herbalaires consistency means I can often vape used herbs from the dabuddah and get more out. The one thing I would say though is, I got the herbalaire first, and wouldnt give it up for any of the others. Course, comparisons of this sort arent too useful, because it comes down to personal preference, but its good to remember your personal preference may not match that of the original poster ![]() |
| | |
| | #28 | |
| Slacker ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,451
Grams: 7,673.47 Groans: 6
Groaned at 5 Times in 5 Posts
Thanks: 297
Thanked 755 Times in 498 Posts
| Quote:
__________________ "Make the most of the Indian Hemp Seed and sow it everywhere." George Washington "The drug is really quite a remarkably safe one for humans, although it is really quite a dangerous one for mice and they should not use it." J.W.D Henderson Director of the Bureau of Human Drugs, Health and Welfare, Canada | |
| | |
| | #29 | |
| Banned ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,214
Grams: 30,837.21 Groans: 21
Groaned at 27 Times in 21 Posts
Thanks: 783
Thanked 1,404 Times in 887 Posts
| Quote:
Read up on any state-specific laws. Most do not define public intoxication as a alcohol only, and depending on the state Quick list... * Georgia: In Georgia, public intoxication is a class B misdemeanor. Public intoxication is defined as a person who shall be and appear in an intoxicated condition in any public place or within the curtilage of any private residence not his own other than by invitation of the owner or lawful occupant, which condition is made manifest by boisterousness, by indecent condition or act, or by vulgar, profane, loud, or unbecoming language.[1] * Indiana: In Indiana, public intoxication is a class B misdemeanor, punishable with up to 60 days in jail, and a 500 dollar fine. The assessment of public intoxication is at the discretion of the arresting officer, who has the option, in addition to the citation, of detaining the individual in jail, or transporting the individual to his or her home or to the home of a responsible caretaker. (See IC 7.1-5-1-3, 12-23-15). * Iowa: the Code of Iowa states that "a person shall not be intoxicated or simulate intoxication in a public place". However this would not normally invite arrest unless the person had caused a nuisance or posed a danger to themselves or others. * Missouri has no state public intoxication law. Missouri's permissive alcohol laws both protect people from suffering any criminal penalty (including arrest) for the mere act of being drunk in public, and prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting criminal public intoxication laws on their own. * Montana state law states that public intoxication is not a crime. However, the law allows law enforcement to take an intoxicated person home, or to detain them, if they are a danger to themselves or others. The law also states that no record can be made that indicates the person was arrested or detained for being intoxicated.[4] * Nevada has no state public intoxication law. Nevada state law both protects people from suffering any criminal penalty (including arrest) for the mere act of being drunk in public, and prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting criminal public intoxication laws on their own. | |
| | |
| | #30 | |
| New Member Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 61
Grams: 1,366.65 Groans: 12
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanks: 30
Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |
Advertisement | |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |