Posted on 07/02/2006 4:39:39 PM PDT by neverdem
Should last week’s joint disqualify a pot smoker from driving today?
A police officer pulls you over at a checkpoint and asks, "Have you been drinking?" Assuming he wants to know whether you have consumed alcohol in the last few hours, such that it might be affecting your ability to drive, you say no. "Not at all?" he asks. Well, you admit, you did have a beer the night before, whereupon he arrests you for driving under the influence.
If that scenario makes sense to you, you should have no problem with Michigan's new policy regarding driving and drug use. As recently interpreted by the state Supreme Court, Michigan law prohibits marijuana smokers from driving long after the drug's psychoactive effects have disappeared. A dozen states have similar policies, and federal drug officials think all of them should, which would in effect revoke or periodically suspend the driver's licenses of more than 25 million Americans.
Michigan law bars someone from driving "if the person has in his or her body any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1," which includes marijuana, THC (marijuana's main active ingredient), and their "derivatives." So even before last week's decision by the Michigan Supreme Court, unimpaired drivers could be arrested with tiny, inconsequential traces of THC in their blood. In contrast with this "zero tolerance" rule, the legal cutoff for drinkers is a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent.
The Michigan Supreme Court made the double standard worse by declaring that 11-carboxy-THC, a nonpsychoactive marijuana metabolite that can remain in a person's blood or urine for days or weeks, counts as a forbidden THC "derivative." The upshot is that many regular marijuana smokers can never legally drive in Michigan, whether they're intoxicated or not, while occasional smokers are barred from driving for days after each dose.
"It is irrelevant that an 'ordinary' marijuana smoker allegedly does not know that 11-carboxy-THC could last in his or her body for weeks," the court said. "It is also irrelevant that a person might not be able to drive long after any possible impairment from ingesting marijuana has worn off."
The four judges in the majority bent over backward to reach this bizarre conclusion. They cited several definitions of derivative that could be read to include 11-carboxy-THC, most of which also would render ubiquitous chemicals such as carbon dioxide "controlled substances," meaning that no one would be allowed to drive. They chose the one definition of derivative that avoided this absurd result while still allowing 11-carboxy-THC to be counted as a disqualifying blood contaminant.
The three dissenters noted that such a conclusion is contrary to the law's intent (to protect the public from impaired drivers) and inconsistent with state and federal criteria for Schedule I substances (which are supposed to be psychoactive chemicals or precursors to them). They also argued that the ruling results in an unconstitutionally vague law that invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Given variations in metabolism and laboratory standards, marijuana smokers can never be sure whether they're legally permitted to drive in Michigan. The statute as interpreted by the Michigan Supreme Court therefore does not give people enough information to know when they are violating it--a basic requirement of due process and the rule of law.
Treating unimpaired drivers as if they were intoxicated is fundamentally unfair, and treating a drug metabolite with no pharmacological action like the drug itself makes no sense if the goal is preventing accidents. But the drug warriors who see Michigan as a model for the nation have other goals in mind.
Proponents (PDF link) of "zero tolerance" laws, such as drug testing consultant J. Michael Walsh and former federal drug czar Robert DuPont, see them as a way of deterring drug use and forcing users into "treatment." If the point is to make the penalties for smoking marijuana more severe, let's have a debate about that, instead of pretending the issue is traffic safety.
© Copyright 2006 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. His weekly column is distributed by Creators Syndicate. If you'd like to see it in your local newspaper, please e-mail or call the editorial page editor today.
Second hand pot smoke, maybe, as your question seems to imply.
11-nor-delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid has a halflife of 6 days according to that link. If it's second hand tobacco smoke, they look for a metabolite of nicotine called cotinine.
"It is not our place to second-guess the Legislature’s intent when the language in the statute is plain and unambiguous.1"
The dissenters: 'argued that the ruling results in an unconstitutionally vague law that invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.'
Key words: unconstitutional(ly); vague; arbitrary
I will leave aside the words 'discriminatory enforcement' because the word arbitrary makes it redundant.
Apparently the three disinters did NOT find the law "plain and unambiguous."
"Ah, and aren't we supposed to rally against those activist judges that legislate from the bench instead of deciding by law?"
It's strange. Have we gone so far afield that judges that follow the constitution (that includes the INTENT of the founding fathers)are considered activist?
Also, there is a difference between striking down a law -- as unconstitutional -- and legislating from the bench, that is: reading INTO the constitution rights and privileges that are not granted nor implied.
The former is done by good Jurists; the later by 'activist' judges.
It protects against unreasonable searches. It is not unreasonable to search a person for the presence of drugs following a traffic violation. Even you allow for probable cause! So what are you talking about -- a head-on accident that kills people is not probable cause?
Well said. -- Its quite evident that there is a clear intent -- a presumption of freedom, - built into the document.
Also, there is a difference between striking down a law -- as unconstitutional -- and legislating from the bench, that is: reading INTO the constitution rights and privileges that are not granted nor implied.
Yes indeed. -- And reading [in the 5th amendment], that it is our rights to life, liberty, or property that cannot be deprived; -- pretty well covers any rights not enumerated.
Being arbitrarily deprived of your right to drive [without due process - as per this 'law'] clearly infringes on life and liberty.
Only if you ask for and accept a driver license, which is unnecessary.
That's why they were in the minority. Anybody with a fifth grade education can read it correctly. Only a judge with an agenda would find otherwise.
Do you drive without a license? I would doubt it.
Kurts was charged with:
1) operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, MCL 257.625(9);
2)operating a motor vehicle with the presence of a schedule 1 controlled substance in the body, MCL 257.625(8); and
3)operating a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, MCL 257.904(3)(a).
And I doubt that I would say anything about that on an open forum.
It seems you spend more time posting about pot than the worst potheads I've ever known waste actually SMOKING pot.
I'm starting to think pot is as bad as you say, because it appears to destroy the lives of people who don't even smoke it.
Now THAT'S powerful stuff!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bob - What you seem to be suggesting is that the state of Michigan should have the right to trample the 4th Amendment rights of citizens. I know you are much more patriotic than that.(winston2)
It protects against unreasonable searches. It is not unreasonable to search a person for the presence of drugs following a traffic violation. Even you allow for probable cause! So what are you talking about -- a head-on accident that kills people is not probable cause?It protects against unreasonable searches. It is not unreasonable to search a person for the presence of drugs following a traffic violation. Even you allow for probable cause! So what are you talking about -- a head-on accident that kills people is not probable cause?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What I deem unreasonable is the search for the mere trace evidence of a person having once consumed an inebriating substance and being charged as guilty of DUI in the absence of evidence of the accident being caused as a direct results of the intoxicant in question.
It is clear that both of the cases mentioned in the court records were persons who admitted having recently consumed cannabis and thus were guilty of DUI, but the broad interpretation of any trace of cannabis found in the body of a person deeming that person liable of guilt of DUI is preposterous - IMHO.
I really don't think our citizens will benefit if the United States gets any more Orwellian than it is already. If a motorist is found to be driving while inebriated - punish them - if they are not inebriated while driving - don't punish them for DUI.
Which brings us back to an earlier discussion - Why would a rational person smoke pot knowing that it could ruin his life and the lives of his family members who don't even smoke it?
AND ALCOLHOL.
There was no broad interpretation. The judges decided very narrowly - no pot in the system means no pot in the system. That was the law, the law was upheld.
There was no broad interpretation. The judges decided very narrowly - no pot in the system means no pot in the system. That was the law, the law was upheld.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
s/ In that event - let us begin a program of drug testing every 6 months for every driver in the nation - that way we could get every person who ever used a non-government approved substance off the road. That would only leave those who fall asleep at the wheel, are distracted by a myriad of "legal" act ivies and the drinkers of alcohol for you to be worried about./s
Your position is more than an "honest opinion".. -- It is the base fact enumerated in the 14th amendment, "-- nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; --".
The 'law' at issue here is an unreasonable and arbitrary infringement on due process, -- in that it claims "the mere trace evidence of a person having once consumed an inebriating substance" --- "is guilty".
Are there any "law makers" out there that have an understanding of the principle of "one being responsible for their own actions"?
A citizen should be judged by their actions not by the cannaboids that might be found in their urine.
But they didn't find him DUI based on trace cannibis.
Uh, tokin' cannibis is ILLEGAL.
These citizens were judged based on their actions. They were drinking and tokin' within 1/2 hour of driving.
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.