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.
His link reminds me of the goofballs who attempt to prove why, constitutionally of course, you really don't have to pay income taxes.
I agree.
In Docket No. 129269, defendant Delores M. Derror was driving east ons now- and slush-covered M-72 when she crossed into oncoming traffic and collided with another vehicle, killing the front-seat passenger, paralyzing two children in the rear seat, and injuring a third child. The accident occurred at approximately 6:00 p.m. Derror admitted that she had smoked marijuana, at 2:00 p.m., earlier that day. Two blood samples were taken, one at approximately 8:00 p.m. and one at approximately 11:00 p.m. The first blood sample reflected 38 nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter, and the second contained 31 nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter. Derror was charged with operating 3 a motor vehicle with the presence of a schedule 1 controlled substance in her body, causing death and serious injury, under MCL 257.625(4), (5), and (8). Derror was also charged with possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d).
In Docket No. 129364, defendant Dennis Kurts was stopped at approximately 9:00 p.m. for driving erratically. The officer smelled the odor of alcohol on Kurts. Kurts also had glassy, bloodshot eyes. Kurts admitted consuming two beers. During a pat-down search, the officer found a marijuana pipe in Kurts’ pocket. Kurts then admitted that he had smoked marijuana a halfhour earlier. A blood sample was taken at approximately 10:00 p.m. Tests revealed that his blood contained eight nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter and 0.07 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters. Kurts was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, MCL 257.625(9); operating a motor vehicle with the presence of a schedule 1 controlled substance in the body, MCL 257.625(8); and operating a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, MCL 257.904(3)(a). Pretrial evidentiary hearings were held in both cases in
That sounds like one would be in favor of letting drunks drive? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your post.
Goofballs paulsen?
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
Link please.
Can't turn this board over to MrLeRoy, can I?
In the workplace if the person is operating heavy machinery or driving a dump truck and injures himself or someone else and a blood test shows drugs, the injured person can sue the living daylights out of the company he works for, and the insurance company can deny the claim, leaving the company with its butt hanging out.
And, on why 'majority rule' can trump the rest of our constitution.
OK. I can't comment on the post without a link. It sounds strange though.
Ignore the troll. He like to cause trouble by pulling up my three-year-old post taken out of context.
That is my general rule.
EGAD. Do you realize this page and all related pages are already in Google?
Oh - I see - we must define "conservative".
I love definitions!
Does being a Christian make one a Conservative?
Isn't there something in one of our important national documents about "separation of church and state"?
Weren't some of our founding fathers inclined to not practicing religion?
Is "pothead" your way of saying "connoisseur of cannabis"?
Live and let live?
His link reminds me of the goofballs who attempt to prove why, constitutionally of course, you really don't have to pay income taxes.
Goofballs paulsen?
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
No 'link' to the above is necessary. Paulsen admits he made the post, and is more than ready to expound, at length, on why States can ignore the 2nd.
And, on why 'majority rule' can trump the rest of our constitution.
Ignore the troll. He like to cause trouble by pulling up my three-year-old post taken out of context.
The "context" is self evident.. -- Do you deny believing that "-- California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. --"?
Your trolling started this by claiming "goofballs" believe weird things about our Constitution. -- Your own words confirm that claim..
If the contract says blacks or Jews or women or disabled or gay or whoever have less rights protected than others, then they have less rights protected. - posted on 08/21/2005 9:48:21 AM CDT by robertpaulsen
Thank you for the link. It shows how you have excerpted his words and labeled them incorrectly. His final words that you DIDN'T post were:
"But, attitudes change. Contracts are amended."
He is obviously NOT justifying the holocaust but arguing a point that once slaves had few rights (removed by our government) and now that attitudes have changed, those rights have been restored.
Thank you for showing me who is dishonest.
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.