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.
"A hair test goes back 6 months. If some one has a past conviction for possession on their record why isn't that probable cause for a dwi arrest/conviction? It's all evidence of past use. This law is simply ridiculous."
Well, I can see that hair test not working because you technically wouldn't have the illegal substance in your blood at the time you were driving. But the law isn't ridiculous, the law is the law. What's ridiculous is that the legislature passed it. The police SHOULD enforce the law as is--enforce ALL the ridiculous laws, as is--and make the legislature change it. If ever sworn in as a cop, I'd be arresting fornicators, sodomits, and adulterers like you would not BELIEVE, if only to get them to change the stupid law.
http://etd.vcu.edu/theses/available/etd-05032004-154113/
If you want to tell yourself that, ok. But don't pretend it's an actual fact.
"He admitted smoking marijuana, police said. The time frame in which he smoked is unclear"
What's the penalty for being stupid?
>"Cognitive impairment by continuing or overuse of cannabis creates a form of mild dementia that may persist for up to several weeks after discontinuing the drug. Individuals sensitive to the drug report a persistent ì hangoverî that diminishes the ability to pay attention and concentrate. The onset may be insidious, subtle, and gradual.
"Paranoia and delusional thinking are not uncommon effects of cannabis both acute and chronically. In chronic use paranoid and delusional thinking appear to be the consequences of the suppression of feelings, the dulling of feelings may alienate the cannabis users from others by diminishing empathetic capabilities."
http://www.rxcbc.org/exd.html
see also: http://etd.vcu.edu/theses/available/etd-05032004-154113/
" Medical opinion, however, holds that marijuana contains 360 compounds besides cannabinoids, and the smoke of a marijuana cigarette contains noxious vapors of carbon monoxide, acetaldehyde and vinyl chloride, as well as phenol, creosol and naphthalene. Marijuana smoke also has twice as many cancer-producing substances (benzanthracene and benzopyrene) as tobacco cigarettes. Prolonged smoking of marijuana can result in persistent impairment of memory and of psychomotor performance, as well as emphysema-like symptoms."
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/bala/1994/BA940313.html
"Chronic health effects of cannabis use
*selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
*prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;
*development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
*cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/
"Exactly! This isn't about driving safely, this is about the nanny state being able to bilk perfectly good drivers out of more money"
According to post 17, it was about driving safely. The driver was stopped for driving erraticly and admitted smoking pot.
If impaired thinking disqualified an individual from driving there would be no liberals on the road
Such as the article of this thread.
Yeah, I think the government should seize the cars of everyone in the immediate family of anyone who has ever smoked a joint. Also those neighbors that might have known (shown complicity). That will solve the problem.
</ sarcasm >
Methinks the legislature is happy with the law, and the author is trying an end-around the will of the people. Figures.
"In Docket No. 129269, defendant Delores M. Derror was driving east on snow- 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."
I thought we were told by the pro-marijuana-while-driving crowd that marijuana actually makes you a better driver.
Only because you choose to remain ignorant of them.
tallhappy gave you, as an example, the article of this thread. In the article, the author gives a link to the court case. If you read the court case, you'd see the intent of the legislature.
"The dissent claims that the statute’s objective is to prevent people from driving under the influence of a controlled substance. Not so. The statute’s stated objective is to prevent persons from driving with any amount of a schedule 1 controlled substance in the body, whether or not the substance is still influencing them. This is clearly a legitimate exercise of the Legislature’s police power since 11-carboxy-THC is indisputably only present in the body after someone has ingested marijuana, i.e., done something illegal."
In other words, the Michigan legislature couldn't care less if marijuana is "influencing" you -- they simply don't want you driving after you smoked. That, to me, is a valid example of "actual Americans ... enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction."
Who's doing that? This legislation concerns marijuana, not alcohol.
That depends, I guess. Is he still stoned?
This article. This example. This is pretty harsh and draconian. Comi8ng down on the stoners a lot more than anything I've ever heard of.
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.