cannabisnews.com: Weed Watch Weed Watch Posted by CN Staff on December 05, 2002 at 23:29:16 PT By Jordan Smith Source: Austin Chronicle During a press conference on Nov. 20 in San Diego, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration head Asa Hutchinson announced his drug warriors will be stepping up efforts to bust Ecstasy users and dealers. As reported by the Drug Reform Coordination Network, Hutchinson told the crowd that Ecstasy is "the Y generation's cocaine," and its use is reaching near-epidemic proportions. The DEA intends next year to double the number of club drug arrests. According to DRCNet, the DEA intends to step up enforcement in South Florida, where the bulk of European-manufactured Ecstasy makes its way into the country, along with beefing up enforcement measures at airports across the country. Meanwhile, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, headed by national drug czar John Walters, unveiled a new "drugged driving" campaign that has drug-policy reformers crying foul. The ONDCP initiative, in partnership with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, targets drivers who may be under influence of drugs. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the national advocacy group Drug Policy Alliance, called the plan nothing more than a "thinly disguised zero-tolerance policy that will do little to detect impaired driving and much to punish responsible citizens for crimes they did not commit." At issue is how law enforcement officers would go about testing for drugged motorists. Critics say that ONDCP's policy does not take into account the fact that certain drugs, including THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, remain in the body longer than alcohol without causing impairment. Nonetheless, ONDCP announced it is going forward with its plans and will be offering resources nationally to both state and local law enforcement officers who'd like to follow the czar's charge, as well as providing state legislators with a "framework" for drugged driving legislation.Source: Austin Chronicle (TX)Author: Jordan SmithPublished: December 6, 2002Copyright: 2002 Austin Chronicle Corp.Contact: louis auschron.comWebsite: http://www.austinchronicle.com/Related Articles & Web Sites: DRCNethttp://www.drcnet.org/Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/Drugged Driving Hopes - Cato Institutehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14867.shtmlGovernment Plans Crackdown on Drugged Driving http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14789.shtmlU.S. Plans Breathalyzer-Like Drug Test for Drivershttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14786.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #6 posted by ProhibitionKills on December 08, 2002 at 14:09:43 PT: How about Marinol?? Marinol is legal (expensive, Schedule III) THC which can be prescribed easily and would produce a positive test result.From www.marinol.com: "Do not drive a car or operate machinery until you know how MARINOL® affects you." and "MARINOL® affects people differently; therefore, do not drive or operate machinery until you are sure how MARINOL® affects you and you are able to perform these tasks safely."Sounds like they are saying you can drive as soon as you feel like you can drive safely.Sort of clashes with zero-tolerance. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Trystan on December 07, 2002 at 19:49:57 PT I saw that commericial I thought it was quite stupid myself. The message should've been don't smoke and drive if anything. Imagine if they replace the pot with alcohol. Then people would be like 'duh' shouldn't drink and drive. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Patrick on December 07, 2002 at 08:41:29 PT Seen the latest "drug" commercial? Last night while watching Golden Eye I saw a commercial with a car parked at the fast food drive up window and wasn't really paying that much attention to it. A child on a bicycle rode by in front of the car and it lurched forward as if to violently end the child's life. Then a message appeared something like Marijuana. Harmless? I was going to post this crap commercial observation last night but I was in sort of shock and my PC was not on at the time. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Naaps on December 07, 2002 at 08:13:58 PT bryd – Good Link. Appreciate the fact that the persecuted man’s story is extended enough to include his description of the police cars arriving outside the concert venue, eyeballing him. Later when they converge on him, asking him to perform various sobriety assessing stunts, while barking questions, and ultimately determining him to under the influence. The fact that he was determined innocent due to the clean urinalysis undermines the credibility of drug recognition experts. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by byrd on December 06, 2002 at 05:02:42 PT And as a perfect example http://www.boulderweekly.com/coverstory.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by byrd on December 06, 2002 at 04:54:15 PT IMHO This is going to be the next big push in Walters' war on marijuana smokers: try to take away their ability to travel by revoking drivers' licenses. Current laws on Driving While Impaired (at least in my state) require observations by a LEO that would lead the average citizen to believe that the operator was in fact impaired. Things like weaving or other traffic violations lead to contact with the operator, which leads to the infamous field sobriety test, which leads to a chemical test. What Walters is proposing would, in fact negate that "reasonable suspicion" clause. If these laws start going into effect, it won't matter if you're impaired or not. In theory, when Officer Friendly sees a seed in your car or smells, "an odor commonly associated with Marijuana" then they can go right to the chemical test. Cannabis metabolites are found in your blood from the joint you smoked 3 days ago or the contact buzz you got from the concert last night and suddenly you have no drivers' license. If you don't have public transportation in your area, you have no legal way to get to work and no way to support your family. Hmmmm. What's wrong with this picture? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment