Legal Weed and Colorado Golf

[John Kavanaugh]

If anything the revenue from speeding tickets through Sterling should suffer.  What role can the legalization of recreational marijuana play in Colorado tourism?  I see it as a downer for golf.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Unless the course can be used for alternative purposes.
Don't supers know how to grow grass?

[Nigel Islam]

"This is a hybrid. This is a cross between bluegrass, kentucky bluegrass, Featherbed bent, and Northern California sensimilla. The amazing thing about this stuff is you can play holes on it in the afternoon, take it home, and get stoned to the bejeezus at night on this stuff. Ive got pounds of this stuff."

(Sorry couldn't resist)

[John McCarthy]

Pace of play reduced to seven hour rounds?  Exploding sales of Doritos at the halfway house? 

[Tim Martin]

Food operations will certainly spike in both volume and profitability. Who isn't going to lay down $10 for a Snickers after firing up a fatty? How about beefed up Pro Shop sales as well with the advent of the "Pipes, Papers and Paraphernalia" table while waiting to register for "The Cotton Mouth Classic"?

[Mark McKeever]

Pipes with Golf Course logos...

Mark

[Kris Shreiner]

Bring it on I say...what an innovative way to generate an additional revenue stream from "native areas!" 

Cheers,
Kris

[Tim Pitner]

Because of the type of people who tend to live in Colorado in the first place, and the near free-for-all facilitated by Colorado's medicinal marijuana law in the second, there previously weren't many people in Colorado who wanted to smoke up who weren't.  I doubt it will have much impact on anything. 

[Jud_T]

Well I suppose I'd rather hit into this than a huge patch of Gorse:

[John Kavanaugh]

Because of the type of people who tend to live in Colorado in the first place, and the near free-for-all facilitated by Colorado's medicinal marijuana law in the second, there previously weren't many people in Colorado who wanted to smoke up who weren't.  I doubt it will have much impact on anything. 

I am more interested in the affects on tourism. Of course for people like me who are participants in drug testing programs the issue is moot until they grow a water soluble plant. I also don't understand how testing for driving under the influence issues are handled. For those who do not know THC remains detectable in your system for 30 days. Maybe longer in a hair sample.

[Jud_T]

It's actually an interesting legal issue.  Seems like their methodical state by state conquest will eventually bring it to a head, no pun intended, at the national level. 

[Brian Potash]

I enjoy smoking pot.  Especially when I am playing golf in Colorado.

But the increase in drivers driving stoned makes me extremely nervous.  I haven't heard of any test that can prove that you have smoked within X amount of hours ago.  As a father this really scares me.

Brian

[Keith OHalloran]

JK,
Proving driving while ability impaired by marijuana is a very tough thing to do. (I can only speak for NY). For the most part, the PD will have to get a blood sample. That means that the driver will either have to consent, or be in an accident with physical injury which allows for a warrant for your blood. The lab will test the blood, and you will get 2 readings. One will be the active metabolite and one, for lack of a better term, will be the THC. Since THC lasts in your system for 30 days plus or minus, the lab tech has to testify whether or not the numbers equate to habitual use or recent use. Sometimes it means both which complicates matters more. The lab tech can not testify that any level is per se impairing (unlike in alchohol cases where a level has been determined to be per se intox), so the lab tech will have to testify that the levels he found in conjunction with what he knows about the operation means that the person's ability to operate was impared by the use of marijuana. As I said it is a tough thing for the prosecutor to prove.
Sorry for the long answer, but there was finally a question that I knew something about!

[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks, we have no problem detecting use from a simple piss test.  Of course when talking about operating heavy equipment in the confines of a oil refinery there is a zero tolerance policy. 

[Jud_T]

You're assuming that legalization will increase use, and therefore increase driving under the influence:

http://www1.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html

[Tim Pitner]

Because of the type of people who tend to live in Colorado in the first place, and the near free-for-all facilitated by Colorado's medicinal marijuana law in the second, there previously weren't many people in Colorado who wanted to smoke up who weren't.  I doubt it will have much impact on anything. 

I am more interested in the affects on tourism.

Again, I think most people who are interested in smoking pot have access to it now.  But, if legalization increases use, perhaps that will increase the demand for trippy courses like Fossil Trace.  Dude, is that a monolith in the fairway? 

[Keith OHalloran]

JK,
You can tell use from a piss test, but you have no way to tell when. As you said, you have a zero tolerance policy (thank god in your profession) but that is not what the criminal justice system uses. As most attorneys say in closings, it is not illegal to drink and drive, it is illegal to drive while intoxicated. Proving that someone has smoked weed is not enough, they must be impared by it.

[Michael Dugger]

Along the same lines as what Keith said, you can be under .08 (Oregon's limit) and still be cited for DUII, if the shoe fits.

I can see the weed question being a lot like pharmaceuticals.  How can you prove when someone took those either?

I suspect we'll find one intoxicant often goes hand in hand with the other. I.E. smoky smoke and then drinky drink.

[Alex Miller]

Along the same lines as what Keith said, you can be under .08 (Oregon's limit) and still be cited for DUII, if the shoe fits.

I can see the weed question being a lot like pharmaceuticals.  How can you prove when someone took those either?

I suspect we'll find one intoxicant often goes hand in hand with the other. I.E. smoky smoke and then drinky drink.

Not to say too much, but... I don't think that will be the case. At least not "often" which to me is >50% of the time.

What's wrong with the roadside sobriety tests they have now? If someone shows they are/aren't able to have full cognitive function then what is so different about alcohol and weed? I really don't think much will change.

[Keith OHalloran]

Alex,
Traditional roadside tests or Standard field Sobriety Tests (SFST) are not designe dto determine impairment by Marijuana or any other drug. An officer has to be certified as a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to administer tests that are specific to marijuana. Some of the indications are "exploded" taste buds on the toungue, delayed responses to questions and observations of the pupils.

[Alex Miller]

Alex,
Traditional roadside tests or Standard field Sobriety Tests (SFST) are not designe dto determine impairment by Marijuana or any other drug. An officer has to be certified as a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to administer tests that are specific to marijuana. Some of the indications are "exploded" taste buds on the toungue, delayed responses to questions and observations of the pupils.

Thanks Keith.

I really was curious and I don't want to just be told that I'm right (I'm not). So how easy is it for law enforcement officials to get certified as a DRE compared to getting certified in SFST? Will that have a large impact on being able to handle these new laws?

[Rick Shefchik]

The good news is that legalization failed in Oregon. I can only imagine the number of wrecks on Highway 38 between I-5 and Reedsport if that law had passed.

[Cory Lewis]

I think everybody should listen to this for a little clarity about pot vs other drugs by the great philosopher Bill Hicks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1HtfQZXl6U

My favorite part: 

“Cigarettes legal, alcohol legal, kill more people than all illegal drugs combined times 1000.”

[Alex Miller]

The good news is that legalization failed in Oregon. I can only imagine the number of wrecks on Highway 38 between I-5 and Reedsport if that law had passed.

Yes good thing no one smokes and drives now! 

I'm not saying it's not dangerous, nor that it doesn't need regulation, but the idea that all of a sudden 0 people driving high will become thousands of people driving high is unrealistic to me.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I see it as a positive if anything. Oregon Golf sure has not suffered by the love of weed there. Actually I doubt it will matter at all.