You can't draw the conclusion that 95% refused to comply until the 30-day deadline passes.

A copy of a letter I saw on FB was dated Nov 13.  The deadline was "30 days upon receipt of this letter," which would logically begin at least a day or two after the letter was dated.

Since the letter was rescinded on or before Dec 6, we'll never know if any would have refused.

Good point.  They were sending the letters out all year though, and the one dated  11/13, which should be among the last ones sent out was very close to being after the deadline.

Good point.  They were sending the letters out all year though, and the one dated  11/13, which should be among the last ones sent out was very close to being after the deadline.

So, we'd need to know the dates each letter was received by the gun owners before making any conclusions.  "All year long" for 30 letters doesn't add any detail.  Maybe the 2 who turned in their guns are the only ones sent out before Nov?  I don't think we'll ever know unless HPD makes that info public.  If anyone failed to comply in 30 days, I don't expect HPD to tell us that.  That wouldn't make the department look very good -- either they did nothing about it, or they illegally confiscated the guns.

How possible is this scenario in Hawaii? Arrested for "suspicion" of DUI-marijuana?

How possible is this scenario in Hawaii? Arrested for "suspicion" of DUI-marijuana?hpd

It could if the department puts a quota system on the number of drug DUI arrests. I was in a Cannabis in the Workplace presentation that was given by a HPD officer where he basically said that legalization would be the downfall of our civilization. I imagine he's not the only one in the department who feels like that.

It could if the department puts a quota system on the number of drug DUI arrests. I was in a Cannabis in the Workplace presentation that was given by a HPD officer where he basically said that legalization would be the downfall of our civilization. I imagine he's not the only one in the department who feels like that.

So next-step would be issuing of the letter advising seizure of firearms and HPD in possession of said firearms until the courts (3-6 months and $$$$s in legal fees) clear your name. After which point would firearms be returned? Does Rapback trigger and gun-taking-cycle start all over again?

Sorry, just trying to extrapolate the next step.

It could if the department puts a quota system on the number of drug DUI arrests. I was in a Cannabis in the Workplace presentation that was given by a HPD officer where he basically said that legalization would be the downfall of our civilization. I imagine he's not the only one in the department who feels like that.

Dumb down the population for total control. There is zero reason legalizing for recreational use.

So next-step would be issuing of the letter advising seizure of firearms and HPD in possession of said firearms until the courts (3-6 months and $$$$s in legal fees) clear your name. After which point would firearms be returned? Does Rapback trigger and gun-taking-cycle start all over again?

Sorry, just trying to extrapolate the next step.

Unlike the medical marijuana card, a drug DUI would be the proof they needed.

Dumb down the population for total control. There is zero reason legalizing for recreational use.

True, except that tourism would boom and the State would be rich enough to build a light rail completely around the island.

Unlike the medical marijuana card, a drug DUI would be the proof they needed.

True, except that tourism would boom and the State would be rich enough to build a light rail completely around the island.

If that was true they would of legalized gamabling a long time ago.

Just because they don't legalize it doesn't make it false.
That's like saying pistol mags over ten rounds are wrong or they would be legal.

Lottery and legal weed.
How many real social problems caused? Minuscule.
(Gateway drug? Are they high?)
How much tax money raised? Millions.

Story for another thread though I guess.

Drug and alcohol related auto fatalities have doubled in Colorado. A good portion of the profits/taxes are supposed to go towards increased prevention programs.

Drug and alcohol related auto fatalities have doubled in Colorado. A good portion of the profits/taxes are supposed to go towards increased prevention programs.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Please include the details of the stats on the claimed increase. What percentage increase due to alcohol, what percentage increase due to cannabis, and what percentage increase due to "other drugs"? Otherwise you're just blowing smoke in the newly-minted mold of "fake news". Unless all (or a substantially disproportionate percentage) of the increase is due to driving under the influence of cannabis, how do you make your case that any increase in alcohol or "other drug" related auto fatalities has anything at all to do with cannabis legalization? Please include enough detail to present a complete and coherent argument and supporting evidence.

Do you copy and paste your replies? I read the statistics in one of my safety trade magazine articles but will take some time to find the article again so you'll have to wait. Also, I don't really care. If you couldn't tell from my second sentence, I'm a supporter of marijuana legalization as long as a significant portion of the funds goes towards prevention. I believe the impact on the illegal drug trade will counteract any perceived increase in the auto fatality rate.

Do you copy and paste your replies? I read the statistics in one of my safety trade magazine articles but will take some time to find the article again so you'll have to wait. Also, I don't really care. If you couldn't tell from my second sentence, I'm a supporter of marijuana legalization as long as a significant portion of the funds goes towards prevention. I believe the impact on the illegal drug trade will counteract any perceived increase in the auto fatality rate.

I understand you resent that someone would question your unsupported assertions and actually have the temerity to ask you to provide an actual argument and supporting evidence, and also understand that your attitude that you "don't really care" goes hand in hand with your general practice of merely spewing unsupported nonsense. Once we see your actual argument and evidence we can all make our own judgments about the validity of your claim.

The only thing I copy and paste are quotes from other articles and/or people, such as the quote from judge Kozinski the other day on another thread. I admit that I do have a bad habit of asking people for evidence to support crap they spew, so it may seem like that's a copy and paste situation, but only because so many people here make unsupported claims.

The number of drivers involved in fatal crashes in Colorado who tested positive for marijuana has risen
sharply each year since 2013, more than doubling in that time, federal and state data
show.

Colorado transportation and public safety officials, however, say the rising number of pot-related traffic
fatalities cannot be definitively linked to legalized marijuana.

Positive test results reflected in the NHTSA data do not indicate whether a driver was high at the time of
the crash since traces of marijuana use from weeks earlier also can appear as a positive result.

There's no scientific way to determine how many of these fatalities would have happened anyway while using alcohol without the legalization of pot.

Also, as was in the article, the biggest problem in drug tests for pot is the drug remains in the system for longer than the individual is intoxicated, unlike alcohol in the bloodstream.  Workplace drug tests don't differentiate those getting high at work from those only using on the weekends or the night before.

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/

I understand you resent that someone would question your unsupported assertions and actually have the temerity to ask you to provide an actual argument and supporting evidence,...

I know that it's irritating to me when someone asks for references, but Puna's got a point.  Got a lot of people that blindly join the bandwagon, try to be the first one out with news on unreliable data, and trying to make the facts fit the agenda instead of the other way around.

Both sides of an argument should be putting up references when possible.

I know that it's irritating to me when someone asks for references, but Puna's got a point.  Got a lot of people that blindly join the bandwagon, try to be the first one out with news on unreliable data, and trying to make the facts fit the agenda instead of the other way around.

Both sides of an argument should be putting up references when possible.

It took me 10 seconds to Google the reference I posted which semi-supported RKLapp's assertion that pot-related fatalities are double in Colorado. 

When I say "related", it's in the context of "coincidentally."

I quoted the part where it also says, since "testing positive for marijuana" does not equal "driving while intoxicated," there is no causal connection between the test results and the fatal crash. 

So, the little "fact" RK posted from his reading says little more than there has been an increase in the number of people dying in car crashes who also smoked weed in the last 2 weeks or so.

More people testing positive makes sense, now that the drug is legal recreationally.  But without more specific tests being developed, there's no indication there is an increase in the number of people driving high.

I understand you resent that someone would question your unsupported assertions and actually have the temerity to ask you to provide an actual argument and supporting evidence, and also understand that your attitude that you "don't really care" goes hand in hand with your general practice of merely spewing unsupported nonsense. Once we see your actual argument and evidence we can all make our own judgments about the validity of your claim.

SNIP

Had to look that one up.  Gonna have to use that one!   

Drug and alcohol related auto fatalities have doubled in Colorado. A good portion of the profits/taxes are supposed to go towards increased prevention programs.

It's been 72 hours and the above poster has failed to respond with the requested data that would support his implication that cannabis is responsible for an increase in "auto fatalities" or any other vehicular events.

Personally, I don't see in the current totality of the data any way that any relatively objective analysis could lead one to rationally conclude that cannabis is responsible for any increases. I also don't rule out that it is possible that future research could discover some causal relationship, but it certainly isn't there now. The "studies" that claim such a linkage, especially the ones claiming cannabis is responsible for the increases, are "flawed", either in their design or their cherry picking of data that allows them to publish the conclusion they were seeking prior to doing the study itself.

Given the original poster's lack of response, I cherry picked a few quotes (I've included the links to all of the full articles) to counter his claim:

Traffic fatalities linked to marijuana are up sharply in Colorado. Is legalization to blame?

Authorities say the numbers cannot be definitively linked to legalized pot

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/

Colorado transportation and public safety officials, however, say the rising number of pot-related traffic fatalities cannot be definitively linked to legalized marijuana.

Law enforcement officials, prosecutors and public policy makers concede there’s still too little information about marijuana and how it’s detected to understand just how much the drug is affecting traffic fatalities.

The Colorado State Patrol said officers believed marijuana was a factor in more than 17 percent of all DUI arrests they made in 2016. The year before, it was about 13 percent. In the first six months of 2017, it was at 14.5 percent, although the number of fatal crashes in which alcohol and drugs were a factor has increased by 28 percent.

Also, FARS records only the presence of the drug — not its potency; how recently it had been used; whether it was a factor in the crash; and whether the driver who tested positive was at fault or even ticketed.
“That doesn’t mean we should dismiss any concern about cannabis-impaired driving,” NCIA’s Taylor said, “but it does mean we should be very careful about what gets read into data that doesn’t actually give us any specific insight into the issue.”

* * * * *

Traffic Fatalities in Colorado

[When looking at these comparisons between 2005 and 2016 keep in mind that cannabis wasn't legal recreationally until 2013, and that the population of Colorado has increased dramatically since 2005 (the past several years at a rate of 1.8% per year), thus in all likelihood also dramatically increasing both the number of drivers and the total number of miles driven in 2016.]

https://www.codot.gov/news/documents/safety-press-conference-boards-jan-31-2017

Total Crashes: Greater number in 2005 than 2016

Fatal Crashes: Virtually Identical number in 2005 and 2016

Serious Injuries: Greater number in 2005 than 2016

Serious Injury Rate: 15% LOWER in 2016 compared to 2005

Fatal Injury Rate: Virtually identical in 2005 and 2016

* * * * *

Marijuana legalization has not increased traffic fatalities

https://coloradopolitics.com/marijuana-legalization-has-not-increased-traffic-fatalities/

In fact, marijuana legalization has not increased overall traffic fatality rates nor the total number of non-fatal crashes, according to two separate studies conducted by Columbia University and the University of Texas-Austin.

Additionally, Colorado State Patrol reports a decrease in the number of driving impaired accidents since marijuana sales became legal.

A study released last week in the American Journal of Public Health evaluated crash fatality rates in Colorado and Washington before and after the states legalized marijuana. The researchers then compared those rates to eight control states with similar traffic, roadway and population characteristics that did not alter their marijuana laws.  The changes in motor-vehicle-crash fatality rates observed in Washington and Colorado were not “significantly different” from those observed in the control states.
Another study in the same journal last year found that states with medical cannabis laws had lower traffic fatality rates compared to states where marijuana is not legal.  And there was an immediate decline in car deaths following the establishment of a legal marijuana market – particularly among those under 44 years of age.

* * * * *

After states legalized medical marijuana, traffic deaths fell

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-marijuana-traffic-death/after-states-legalized-medical-marijuana-traffic-deaths-fell-idUSKBN14H1LQ

Legalization of medical marijuana is not linked with increased traffic fatalities, a new study finds. In some states, in fact, the number of people killed in traffic accidents dropped after medical marijuana laws were enacted.

“Instead of seeing an increase in fatalities, we saw a reduction, which was totally unexpected,” said Julian Santaella-Tenorio, the study’s lead author and a doctoral student at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City.

Deaths dropped 11 percent on average in states that legalized medical marijuana, researchers discovered after analyzing 1.2 million traffic fatalities nationwide from 1985 through 2014.

It’s not clear why traffic deaths might drop when medical marijuana becomes legal, and the study can only show an association; it can’t prove cause and effect.

* * * * *
American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) February 2017

US Traffic Fatalities, 1985–2014, and Their Relationship to Medical Marijuana Laws

Julian Santaella-Tenorio DVM, MSc, Christine M. Mauro PhD, Melanie M. Wall PhD, June H. Kim MPhil, MHS, Magdalena Cerdá DrPH, Katherine M. Keyes PhD, Deborah S. Hasin PhD, Sandro Galea MD, DrPH, and Silvia S. Martins MD, PhD

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303577

Objectives. To determine the association of medical marijuana laws (MMLs) with traffic fatality rates.

Methods. Using data from the 1985–2014 Fatality Analysis Reporting System, we examined the association between MMLs and traffic fatalities in multilevel regression models while controlling for contemporaneous secular trends. We examined this association separately for each state enacting MMLs. We also evaluated the association between marijuana dispensaries and traffic fatalities.
Results. On average, MML states had lower traffic fatality rates than non-MML states. Medical marijuana laws were associated with immediate reductions in traffic fatalities in those aged 15 to 24 and 25 to 44 years, and with additional yearly gradual reductions in those aged 25 to 44 years. However, state-specific results showed that only 7 states experienced post-MML reductions. Dispensaries were also associated with traffic fatality reductions in those aged 25 to 44 years.

Conclusions. Both MMLs and dispensaries were associated with reductions in traffic fatalities, especially among those aged 25 to 44 years. State-specific analysis showed heterogeneity of the MML–traffic fatalities association, suggesting moderation by other local factors. These findings could influence policy decisions on the enactment or repealing of MMLs and how they are implemented.
* * * * *
Unpacking Pot’s Impact in Colorado

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/unpacking-pots-impact-in-colorado/

Like the Rocky Mountain HIDTA’s 2015 report, the AAA report cautions that testing positive for THC doesn’t mean the driver was impaired or at fault for the crash. The AAA report added that many marijuana-positive drivers also had alcohol and other drugs in their system, “which in some cases likely contributed more significantly to the crash than did the THC.”

* * * * *
Study of fatal car accidents suggests medical marijuana may be helping curb opioid use

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160915163805.htm

A study conducted at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health found that there were fewer drivers killed in car crashes who tested positive for opioids in states with medical marijuana laws than before the laws went into effect. The study is one of the first to assess the link between state medical marijuana laws and opioid use at the individual level. Findings will be published online in the American Journal of Public Health.

* * * * *
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents

The safety hazards of smoking marijuana and driving are overrated, says University of Toronto researcher Alison Smiley, whose study of impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.

* * * * *