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.
Take another hit off your bong, everything will become clearer.
Trolls suck.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a long tradition of lies that support the war against cannabis users that must go on to (attempt to) justify the 10 billion $ plus budget per year that the narcotics division is addicted to.
Determine whatever you want, but I am free to form my own opinion about people without your permission.
Thanks! We've determined you're a belligerent poster who needs some time off.
Without your permission, of course....
See you tomorrow...
"Take another hit off your bong, everything will become clearer.
Trolls suck."
Yeah I am a troll because I believe in personal liberties and very small government. Not to mention I believe in personal and human experience to base my opinions/justification.
Yeah that would go over well on DU.
I believe I called you moronic in my last post, I am sorry, I was giving you too much credit.
Quick thinking to throw up you "beliefs" as a strawman. Your rebuttal has nothing to do with your original statements but it includes a bonus of sacred socialist words - ...believe...personal...human...experience..DU Nice touch!
Oooooh!
Here's what you should do:
- Get yourself into a locked down rehab
- Stay with a twelve step program after they release you
- Once you've got a couple of years of sobriety behind you, enroll and complete the basic English and reading comprehension courses offered at your local CC
- Come back here and, with your new understanding of sarcasm and irony reread, the whole thread.
BTW - Trolls still suck
However, name calling such as druggie, drug head, doper, pothead, dopertarian, or stoner is perfectly acceptable.
Carry on.
It does? The subject content of posted articles on a public web forum
FR is not just any forum. Or do you disagree?
is a reliable indicator of the types of laws being passed by our legislators??
I believe I can rely on WOD-worshippers like you to dredge up every iota of anti-legalization news that's out there.
Because he implied it ... as your quotation supports. Your failure to refute that point is noted.
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.