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."
Several points for you to think about:
Percoset is not THC.
Marijuana is illegal and should stay that way FOREVER.
DeVos is conservative Republican...therefore I support him. Sowhat are you doing on this forum???
If you don't like AMWAY products don't buy them.
Do not force people to live and work and drive with marijuana addled idiots!
The law says one cannot have a controlled substance in one's body. THC is in the list of controlled substances. Carboxy THC is not. Ergo, the law has presumed to redefine a scientific fact for its own enrichment.
Have a good day.
Please see Merchants of Deception. The Amway organization has taken the Word of the Lord and twisted it around in order to produce billions of dollars for a very small group of people. As a Christian you should be appalled. There is a special place in hell for people like the Amway higher-ups.
I know you're a rational enough guy to realize that this law is gay and you're just too stubborn to admit it. I've gotta run. Will pick this up on Monday. Enjoy the weekend.
THC isn't THC because you say so. Uh huh.
Delta-9 tetrahydrocannbinol and 11-carboxy tetrahydrocannbinol are both forms of THC.
"In a 4-3 decision released Wednesday, the court ruled that 11-carboxy-THC, which is released when the body breaks down the marijuana's psychoactive ingredient THC, is a schedule 1 controlled substance."
Gimme a break! Wat a crybaby.
Amway is captitalism at its finest. In fact, the only country where it was restricted was China.
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.
Last month we had a pot head run all through my stone work in my ditch. He said it was days since he had any weed, but he had two wrecks in a weeks time...
He was under court order not to drive with his children in the car, but he called his mother and she picked up the baby before the police arrived. I was not so worried about his baby in the car, as I was over him possible running over my kids in my yard. LOL.. but my rock wall, two feet deep or more in areas did a wonderful job. He car/SUV was ripped from one end to the other, and my stone wall hardly had a scratch. My garbage can fared pretty well also, it was full of lumber and old cast iron sewer pipes I had recently pulled out of the basement and replaced. It had to weigh close to 600lbs when he slammed into it.
Just a real life experience.. with a pot head that decided not to keep it to himself.
I imagine you consider any form of government that can't guarantee that to be seriously flawed.
Would you support a law that makes it illegal for someone who took a Percoset 3 weeks ago to drive?
Opiates are not evident in the urine or blood that long (only about 72 hrs.) and they are heavily regulated. Nice try.
Cannabis is absorbed by fatty tissue and it is detectable for about two weeks... Why not have your doctor prescribe a different pain med?
Now that marijuana is considered medicine to relieve pain, how should it be treated any different than any other pain medication that restrict driving???
It is an opiate and is only detectable for about 72 hrs.
More like arresting you for driving on the 27th of the month because of the beer you drank on the 1st.
Mojave: Let me know when you're the majority.
Actually, it would seem that Michigan law does call for arresting individuals under the influence of Paxil, Zoloft, etc. (which after all are "controlled substances.") Equal protection under the law and all...
Heh, heh...funny how when one agrees with a court ruling, the judges become "voters' representatives." Otherwise, they're over-reaching judicial activist bastards.
Funny how you make things up. Legislators, not judges, enacted the law.
No quote, no cite, no link, no surprise.
The larger effect you seek is all out war.
If you know you are going to jail then you ought to make it worthwhile by
poppin a cap into some treasonous jack booted thug.
Right. No logic on your part... No surprise.
Your bluff was called, you folded.
S.O.P.
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.