Court's marijuana ruling a victory for authorities(zero tolerance in the real world)

http://www.mlive.com/news/ ^ | 6 22 06 | Steven Hepker

[Mojave]

By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government

Michigan isn't the federal government. Swing and a miss!

[Mojave]

Sorry, but the two chemical substances are not identical.

So what? They're both forms of THC.

Jack Daniels isn't identical to Johnny Walker.

[tacticalogic]

More like dead nuts on.

[jmc813]

Do a Rudy Guliani on the drug issue....go after every drug crime, no matter how small, and you'll see a larger effect.

Do you agree with Rudy's way of dealing with guns too?

[jmc813]

I'll never figure out how a freeper can be so good on illegal immigration yet so dopey on WOD issues.

[MortMan]

So what? They're both forms of THC.

That's irrational. The key to this drugged driving law is the existence of a controlled substance. Carboxy THC is not on the controlled substance list. THC is. In order to make the law fit the situation, the court had to redefine carboxy THC to include its metabolized derivative.

That means that the court has arrogated unto itself the right to define scientific terms.

"Roman red" isn't identical to "California gold", either. The alcohol contained in Jack and Johnny are chemically identical. So are the THC in both varieties of marijuana. Metabolized alchol, as well as metabolized (carboxy) THC are not the same as the alcohol and THC they come from.

A better analogy is that firewood and ashes are not the same - nor would most people be expected that they be treated the same.

[jmc813]

Now that marijuana is considered medicine to relieve pain, how should it be treated any different than any other pain meds that restrict driving???

Nobody here wants it to be legal to drive while stoned. Would you support a law that makes it illegal for someone who took a Percoset 3 weeks ago to drive?

[jmc813]

So what? The voters through their representatives have decided to keep potheads and other illegal drug users off of the public streets while they still have dope residue in their systems.

Fair enough point. But I would hope that you personally are intelligent enough to realize that it is a stupid law, right?

[jmc813]

This is good news.

Would you support a law that criminalized somebody driving who had consumed a Percoset 3 weeks ago or are you a hypocrite?

[Mojave]

It's a stretch. But it's Michigan's call to make.

[Mojave]

That's irrational.

No, it's fact. You want to court to invent distinctions not contained in the law.

[Mojave]

More like dead nuts

Dopers who have overdosed?

[tacticalogic]

It's a machinist's term. Probably not something a career pencil pusher would understand.

[MortMan]

No, it's fact. You want to court to invent distinctions not contained in the law.

Once again, you are incorrect. The court invalidated a scientific distinction that WAS contained in the law. Carboxy THC is not a controlled substance, unless it is unscientifically equated with THC itself.

I'm through arguing the point, however. You have adamantly demonstrated that you will not consider this ruling rationally, and invented "facts" do not bolster your point. Have a good day.

[jmc813]

It's a stretch. But it's Michigan's call to make.

Fair enough.

[Mojave]

It's a machinist's term.

Misused and corrected.

[eleni121]

consumed a Percoset 3 weeks ago
_________________________________________________

Where's that in the law?

Or are you making things up as you go along?

[tacticalogic]

Misused and corrected.

Feel validated now?

[Mojave]

The court invalidated a scientific distinction that WAS contained in the law.

Quote, cite and link, please.

Or are you blowing smoke?

[Mojave]

No, I'm used to you being wrong.