You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #94: Well, even conceding your point, we still arrive at a non-issue. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #89
94. Well, even conceding your point, we still arrive at a non-issue.
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 02:01 PM by Romulox
If you are debilitated after eating brownies (and I agree that eating the stuff produces a different result,) then surely the conventional indicators of intoxication are sufficient.

After all, driving recklessly while sober is also a violation. Our gman would have us believe that no conviction can be secured save if the person has pot stored in his fat cells. A bizarre contention, when unpacked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC