Posted on 06/22/2006 9:52:05 PM PDT by freepatriot32
Marijuana users can be arrested for drugged driving weeks after they toast a joint, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a Jackson County appeal.
A veteran prosecutor hailed the ruling as a correct interpretation of the zero-tolerance law that will make enforcement easier. A longtime defense attorney said the high court has opened the floodgates on overreaching government.
"This goes to show the Supreme Court does not seem to care about individual rights," Jackson attorney Jerry Engle said.
At issue were cases from Jackson and Grand Traverse counties. The local case involved the prosecution of Dennis Kurts for driving under the influence of marijuana.
Blackman Township police in February 2004 cited Kurts, 44, of Michigan Center, after he was stopped for driving erratically. He admitted smoking marijuana, police said. The time frame in which he smoked is unclear.
A blood test did not detect the narcotic THC, or tetrahydrrocannabinol, which is in marijuana. Instead, the test showed the presence of carboxy THC, a benign product of metabolism that can remain in the blood for a month after marijuana use.
Jackson County Circuit Judge Chad Schmucker dismissed the case in 2004 on the basis that the THC remnant was not an illegal controlled substance. Wednesday's ruling sends the case back to Schmucker's court.
"The Supreme Court makes it clear carboxy THC is a controlled substance, and the Michigan Legislature says it is against the law to drive with any controlled substance in the body," said Jerrold Schrotenboer, appellate attorney for Prosecutor Hank Zavislak.
Had the ruling gone the other way, prosecutors and defense attorneys would have to offer dueling expert witnesses to argue the issue, Schrotenboer said. The high court's ruling considers the THC derivative and the actual narcotic one in the same, rather than circumstantial evidence that a driver might have been high.
"This makes it vastly easier for prosecutors to convict on drugged-driving charges," Schrotenboer said.
That alarms Engle, who argued against Schrotenboer before the Supreme Court in January. Not all police and prosecutors use discretion, and some might see the same dollar signs that drive drunken-driving convictions, Engle said. The Legislature in recent years passed fees of up to $3,500 against drunken drivers, and those same fees apply to drugged driving, he said.
"Suppose someone runs a red light into your car. The cop asks if you have smoked marijuana in the last several weeks," Engle said. "A blood test shows carboxy THC. The other guy gets a traffic ticket, and you go to jail."
Send your resume to the Democraps Party of Michigan...they need more cult kooks like you.
You never answered me. Are you an Amway distributor or involved with them in some way?
In a free country no one - and certainly not me - is obliged to reply to a stupid question like yours.
I'll take that as a yes. I genuinely feel bad for you, as Amway is a terrible organization which attracts good people with good intentions, and then ruins them financially and psychologically. I'll pray for you.
Your sourness betrays your very personal dislike for AMWAY. I guess you are one of those who failed at AMWAY too.
My sourness comes from how they twist the Word of the Lord out of greed.
I guess you are one of those who failed at AMWAY too.
Never was involved. I had had a friend, however, who was involved with Excel Communications, another multilevel marketing cult and I was immiediately put off by the tactics used by the higher-ups. Luckily he got out quickly, though too you guys, he would be considered a "loser".
As I said before, I hold no personal animosity against you and wish the best for you outside of the organization you are now in. Unfortunately, you've been taught to believe that I am either evil for being so outspoken about such a wonderful organization or am a "loser" who failed the business. My prayers for you and yours.
Now that I have seen some of your postings on Amway and against great Republicans like De Vos ...I can suggest you start posting at DU not here.
Let me get this straight. If you have residue in your blood that you did something that means that you can't drive now without getting arrested. Tell me, does this put an end to alcohol limits? After all, if you drank too much a while back, but you are now below the legal limit that doesn't mean that you weren't impaired at one time.
I have one more point to make on this topic and then I'll drop it or will happily take this to freepmail if you desire. A post you made earlier in this thread...
Most critics like this bozo Hassan are those who quit and couldn't do anything or want to sell a book... I prefer to learn from winners not losers.
...Is the EXACT same thing said by both Scientologists and Moonies about Hassan. Think that over.
Again, I am not being hostile towards you personally, but if you are a Christian, I beg of you to really contrast what you are taught by Amway with what the Bible has to say. You will continue to be in my prayers.
I doubt it. Drug screening is way overrated. The only drugs that urine screening are good for are marijuana and benzodiazapines.
The drugs and alcohol aren't the problem. The people are the problem. See this to its end and it isn't all that dissimilar to the gun control debate.
Straight? Your statement is euphemistic obfuscation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.