Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court's marijuana ruling a victory for authorities(zero tolerance in the real world)
http://www.mlive.com/news/ ^ | 6 22 06 | Steven Hepker

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: a; authorities; constitutionlist; courts; for; govwatch; marijuana; michigan; michigansupremecourt; mrleroybait; real; ruling; supremecourt; victory; wod; wodlist; world; zerotolerance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-194 next last
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.

follow the money er um i mean its for the children yeah thats it it s for the children the money they make has nothingot do with convicting people of driving while they are high when they arent high and havent been for up to a month

1 posted on 06/22/2006 9:52:10 PM PDT by freepatriot32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

ping


2 posted on 06/22/2006 9:52:53 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
3 posted on 06/22/2006 9:54:02 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

"toast a joint?"


4 posted on 06/22/2006 9:55:07 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

So, you can be busted for being high when you're not high? How does this make the least bit of sense in the way of preventing accidents? I hold these judges in contempt.


5 posted on 06/22/2006 9:59:23 PM PDT by claudiustg (¡En español, por favor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
Good.

If we actually enforced our drug laws more, there'd be less drug use. Do a Rudy Guliani on the drug issue....go after every drug crime, no matter how small, and you'll see a larger effect.
6 posted on 06/22/2006 10:04:15 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

So, you can be busted for being high when you're not high?

If the chemical is found in your blood then you are guilty of breaking the law.


7 posted on 06/22/2006 10:05:28 PM PDT by garylmoore (Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

A victory for the authorities...Another defeat for the Constitution.
.


8 posted on 06/22/2006 10:06:34 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Hey, I think they should simply shoot pot and heroin users on sight, if they're serious about it. Let's war on drugs, if we're going to war on them, instead of having a police action. Then we'll have a real public policy argument instead of the no-see-um effect we have right now, where people like Al Gore Jr. get off entirely and others go to jail.


9 posted on 06/22/2006 10:12:35 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile ('Is' and 'amnesty' both have clear, plain meanings. Are Billy Jeff, Pence, McQueeg & Bush related?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore

They're being busted for driving while intoxicated not for being drug users. You're in favor of arresting and convicting people for things they didn't do?


10 posted on 06/22/2006 10:14:03 PM PDT by claudiustg (¡En español, por favor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

"How does this make the least bit of sense in the way of preventing accidents?"

It doesn't. Neither do drug laws, generally--but you weren't supposed to know that.


11 posted on 06/22/2006 10:15:06 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile ('Is' and 'amnesty' both have clear, plain meanings. Are Billy Jeff, Pence, McQueeg & Bush related?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

More WOD nonsense that won't make one tiny bit of idfference... except maybe to provide new leather furnitire of the DA's office.


12 posted on 06/22/2006 10:17:34 PM PDT by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
Another defeat for the Constitution.

constitution....constitution...let me see oh yeah I rember that vagely from school. that the document that some old dead guys wrote a couple of hundred years ago that states that all power derives from the big central federal government but if you are lucky sometimes our masters grant priviliges to us lowly peons on a temparary basis is that the document you are refering too ?

13 posted on 06/22/2006 10:20:33 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Ridiculous. THC can stay in the system for weeks. A THC high lasts hours, not weeks. This is just more revenue gathering for our cancerous tumor of a government.


14 posted on 06/22/2006 10:22:51 PM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Yeah, the one that's alive and keeps growing into a new and improved version!


15 posted on 06/22/2006 10:23:06 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
They're being busted for driving while intoxicated not for being drug users.

He was given a blood test. There was no THC in his blood. He was not driving intoxicated. Mission creep will take this court decision into areas not yet dreamed of.
.
16 posted on 06/22/2006 10:28:39 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

I manage a multi-million dollar business in a very competitive industry. We employ 12 people and the business donates heavily in the community. I have been an alcoholic, dope runner, dealer and smoker and a 2 pack a day cigarette habit. I am no longer most of these...lol!
In order of most dangerous to myself and those around me, I would rank cigarettes and alcohol the worst. And I will never go to jail for abusing them when I am not driving.


17 posted on 06/22/2006 10:33:42 PM PDT by When do we get liberated? ((Multi-culturism, go for a dirt nap. If you cant stand behind our troops, stand in front of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

ping


18 posted on 06/22/2006 10:35:05 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore
"If the chemical is found in your blood then you are guilty of breaking the law."

Not if the law is "driving under the influence". Having a metabolite in your system that is not psychoactive is not influencing anything.
19 posted on 06/22/2006 10:51:53 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 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.

How dare those statists!!! Don't they realize that there's a secret unwritten Constimuhtushunal emanation of a penumbra that guarantees the right to smoke dope and then drive on the public streets?

20 posted on 06/22/2006 11:02:30 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

Baby kennedy wets pants!


21 posted on 06/22/2006 11:06:33 PM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Don't bogart that constitution, my friend.


22 posted on 06/22/2006 11:34:19 PM PDT by budwiesest (I don't do that much diversity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest

It was printed on hemp, so it's clear who is getting high from burning it.


23 posted on 06/22/2006 11:38:56 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
It was printed on hemp,

"I did not know that." < /Johnny Carson>

Thanks. Wonder what other revenue-raising schemes may emerge from the alliance between scientists and The State?

24 posted on 06/22/2006 11:49:50 PM PDT by budwiesest (I don't do that much diversity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
Don't bogart that constitution

Darn, I forgot that the Constituton included a state traffic laws section.

25 posted on 06/23/2006 12:08:54 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

The laws are "under the influence" if they ban driving with a non psychoactive, non impairing substance in the body.


26 posted on 06/23/2006 12:16:36 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Come on now think... Yes I know, It makes my head hurt too.

You know liberals are lying sacks of Cow pies and nothing in Government is ever what it first seems when they are around.

So why would you ever not examine the potential implications and hidden agenda behind every ruling and piece of legislation.


This is a setup!!!!

The objective here is not what you see.

The objective is to be able to require blood tests of all persons involved in an accident.

You are witnessing another Insurance "Seat Belt Law" Scam.
Chapter 2


It maybe 5-10 years down the road but what will happen is contingent upon your recieving a driving license you will as with alcohol today be "consenting" to blood testing if you are in an accident.

This will be expanded to include many other substances beyond some Pot heads THC. Your sleeping pill, your antihistamine, your caffene levels. It doesn;t matter if you are the crasher or crashee. It will be a "brief detention" a manditory "quick trip" to the hospital (profit for the Emergency Crews).

At first only the "scummy and suspicious" until it is well estabished they you will be next.

Thats rediculous? Oh really?

Which Insurance Company do you know does not try to avoid Liability on the flimsiest of pretexts now.

"Your home was not distroyed by the Hurricane it was distroyed by flood and I am sorry your policy does not cover flooding"

"Your Home was not distroyed by the Hurricane it was distroyed by wind I am sorry your policy does not cover
"wind damage"

WAKE up !!!

This is Free Republic not "Liberal Stooge City.COM "

Sorry, I am so distressed that so many right thinking people are falling for this most recient New Con of the Insurance industry.

Belive me, like the hand of Saruman this filth has latent Insurance Industry prints all over. Like someone said
Just follow the money.

W


27 posted on 06/23/2006 1:15:53 AM PDT by WLR ("fugit impius nemine persequente iustus autem quasi leo confidens absque terrore erit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
The laws are "under the influence" if they ban driving with a non psychoactive, non impairing substance in the body.

The doper had that residue in his body from using an illegal psychoactive impairing substance. A policy of keeping dopers off the public roads is one that's "under the influence" of the public interest.

28 posted on 06/23/2006 1:39:17 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore
If the chemical is found in your blood then you are guilty of breaking the law.

Positively Orwellian.

29 posted on 06/23/2006 3:10:42 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

What if he smoked the marijuana legally, either in a country where it is legal or in a state where medical marijuana is available? Next time you think about posting...don't.


30 posted on 06/23/2006 3:16:10 AM PDT by opinionator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

Great post.

Have you ever read Albert Camus short article on 'Capital Punishment"?


31 posted on 06/23/2006 4:51:54 AM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Moderate Mooslims.....what's that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ndt
Having a metabolite in your system that is not psychoactive is not influencing anything.

Now that marijuana is considered medicine to relieve pain, how should it be treated any different than any other pain meds that restrict driving???

32 posted on 06/23/2006 5:32:36 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: opinionator
What if he smoked the marijuana legally, either in a country where it is legal or in a state where medical marijuana is available?

Now that marijuana is considered medicine to relieve pain, how should it be treated any different than any other pain meds that restrict driving???

33 posted on 06/23/2006 5:34:05 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

Yeah! Let's wipe out alcohol and cigarette use also! Arrest the users, confiscate their possessions, and throw them in jail! Hell, Let's just start enforcing Sharia law!


34 posted on 06/23/2006 5:38:54 AM PDT by jrg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

The "residue" was up to a month old. It indicated that he had smoked marijuana at some time in the past month, and the lack of THC itself indicated that he was not currently under the influence.

This is not much different than the police arresting you (or me) for having a beer after we get home from work - after all, we were drinking and had been driving, right? Since the two no longer have to be simultaneous, why would the order matter?


35 posted on 06/23/2006 5:39:32 AM PDT by MortMan (There are 10 kinds of people in the world... Those that understand binary and those that don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
The doper had that residue in his body from using an illegal psychoactive impairing substance

I think that we should arrest all individuals driving under the influence of Paxil, Zoloft, and any other mood altering drugs, as well as anyone smoking while driving. Can you imagine the effect nicotine has on the body? My god, they shouldn't be on the road!
What about caffiene? One day soon they will have a study showing how this contributes to road rage. They should be arrested!
What about the guy driving in to work with a hang-over? I think his ass should be arrested too! He's under the influence.
Attitudes like this will get you far in our new police state of Amerika.
36 posted on 06/23/2006 5:46:50 AM PDT by jrg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: All
So - a government forces cannabis users to find another substance for pleasure or medicine.

Is the world a better place?

I venture to say that if all cannabis users were to be forced to choose another substance - the world would be a more dangerous place.

Governments - leave those marijuana users alone if they are causing no harm or real potential harm to others!

If you've never tried cannabis - don't you wonder why it is the most popular "illegal" substance in the world?

In brief - it's because it is a great mind and body experience - and not a significant health risk. There are thousands of years of history to prove this.

37 posted on 06/23/2006 5:47:52 AM PDT by winston2 (In matters of necessity let there be unity, in matters of doubt liberty, and in all things charity:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

Exactly.


38 posted on 06/23/2006 6:04:00 AM PDT by Vote 4 Nixon (EAT...FISH...SLEEP...REDUX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Constimuhtushunal emanation of a penumbra

Kind of like that "substantial effects" clause.

39 posted on 06/23/2006 6:09:11 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp
If we actually enforced our drug laws more, there'd be less drug use. Do a Rudy Guliani on the drug issue....go after every drug crime, no matter how small, and you'll see a larger effect.

Yep. But we need to start adding tests for any drug, or the by-products of any drug that comes with a warning to not drive or operate machinery while using, and bust anyone found with any trace of alcohol along with any trace of any drug (otc or prescription) that comes with a warning not to consume alcohol while taking it.

40 posted on 06/23/2006 6:12:51 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
he was not currently under the influence.

So what? The voters through their representatives have decided to keep potheads and other illegal drug users off of the public streets while they still have dope residue in their systems.

Their roads, their rules.

41 posted on 06/23/2006 7:08:36 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jrg
I think that we should arrest all individuals driving under the influence of Paxil, Zoloft, and any other mood altering drugs

Let me know when you're the majority.

42 posted on 06/23/2006 7:09:46 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Kind of like that "substantial effects" clause.

State law. Try to keep up.

43 posted on 06/23/2006 7:15:17 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
>So, you can be busted for being high when you're not high? How does this make the least bit of sense in the way of preventing accidents? I hold these judges in contempt.<

"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."

The article clearly states that Kurts was driving erratically, a potential deadly threat to others. I've know long term marijuana users who over the years have essentially become "rubber heads," as the saying goes. Even when not officially "high," they exhibit poor judgment and pose a danger to themselves and others. This, in my opinion, is why the judges were correct in their ruling.

George
44 posted on 06/23/2006 7:18:24 AM PDT by George - the Other (Ever notice how Narrow-Minded atheists are?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jrg
Yeah! Let's wipe out alcohol and cigarette use also! Arrest the users, confiscate their possessions, and throw them in jail! Hell, Let's just start enforcing Sharia law!

The irony of your screed is that Amsterdam, where marijuana law enforcement is so lax it's considered legal, is now majority Muslim. Sharia can't be too far off in the future.

45 posted on 06/23/2006 7:29:39 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: George - the Other

---I've know long term marijuana users who over the years have essentially become "rubber heads," as the saying goes. Even when not officially "high," they exhibit poor judgment and pose a danger to themselves and others. This, in my opinion, is why the judges were correct in their ruling.---

Well, we can't have "rubber heads" running loose can we?


46 posted on 06/23/2006 7:34:09 AM PDT by claudiustg (¡En español, por favor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
Well, we can't have "rubber heads" running loose can we?

Better running than driving.

47 posted on 06/23/2006 7:43:29 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
The voters through their representatives have decided to keep potheads and other illegal drug users off of the public streets while they still have dope residue in their systems.

Interesting... So anyone who has ever had a drink should also be arrested? Even if it was the night before, and their system has (mostly) cleared itself to be under the limit?

48 posted on 06/23/2006 7:44:40 AM PDT by MortMan (There are 10 kinds of people in the world... Those that understand binary and those that don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
So anyone who has ever had a drink should also be arrested?

Really? Where's that the law?

49 posted on 06/23/2006 7:46:38 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Where is it the law that the byproduct of metabolizing THC is the same as THC? Despite the fact that the court has decreed it so, the two are not the same.

The law in this case was against driving while under the influence. The evidence for marijuana was established to be THC under that law. By fiat, the judiciary has now negated the chemistry that differentiates THC from its metabolized derivative.

The intent of the law, IMO, was to use THC levels to detect the impairment of driving in a measurable manner. The rewriting of the law to include non-impairing derivatives - in direct contradiction of the physical properties of the two substances - is breathtaking.


50 posted on 06/23/2006 7:52:13 AM PDT by MortMan (There are 10 kinds of people in the world... Those that understand binary and those that don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-194 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson