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."
Michigan isn't the federal government. Swing and a miss!
So what? They're both forms of THC.
Jack Daniels isn't identical to Johnny Walker.
More like dead nuts on.
Do you agree with Rudy's way of dealing with guns too?
I'll never figure out how a freeper can be so good on illegal immigration yet so dopey on WOD issues.
That's irrational. The key to this drugged driving law is the existence of a controlled substance. Carboxy THC is not on the controlled substance list. THC is. In order to make the law fit the situation, the court had to redefine carboxy THC to include its metabolized derivative.
That means that the court has arrogated unto itself the right to define scientific terms.
"Roman red" isn't identical to "California gold", either. The alcohol contained in Jack and Johnny are chemically identical. So are the THC in both varieties of marijuana. Metabolized alchol, as well as metabolized (carboxy) THC are not the same as the alcohol and THC they come from.
A better analogy is that firewood and ashes are not the same - nor would most people be expected that they be treated the same.
Nobody here wants it to be legal to drive while stoned. Would you support a law that makes it illegal for someone who took a Percoset 3 weeks ago to drive?
Fair enough point. But I would hope that you personally are intelligent enough to realize that it is a stupid law, right?
Would you support a law that criminalized somebody driving who had consumed a Percoset 3 weeks ago or are you a hypocrite?
It's a stretch. But it's Michigan's call to make.
No, it's fact. You want to court to invent distinctions not contained in the law.
Dopers who have overdosed?
It's a machinist's term. Probably not something a career pencil pusher would understand.
Once again, you are incorrect. The court invalidated a scientific distinction that WAS contained in the law. Carboxy THC is not a controlled substance, unless it is unscientifically equated with THC itself.
I'm through arguing the point, however. You have adamantly demonstrated that you will not consider this ruling rationally, and invented "facts" do not bolster your point. Have a good day.
Fair enough.
Misused and corrected.
consumed a Percoset 3 weeks ago
_________________________________________________
Where's that in the law?
Or are you making things up as you go along?
Feel validated now?
Quote, cite and link, please.
Or are you blowing smoke?
No, I'm used to you being wrong.
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.