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."
Pathetic. We won't suffer tyrants very long.
You mean you're not used to being disagreed with.
< yawn > troll
Disagreeing with me and the law is pretty much all you do.
Did you read the article? It is now illegal in Michigan if you smoked pot three weeks ago. Would you apply the same standard to other drugs?
Even Mojave, one of the biggest FR drug warriors considers this a "stretch". Doesn't surprise me coming out of Michigan though. The idiots in their GOP nominated scumbag Dick DeVos, one of the patriarchs of the Amway cult.
Don't feed the trolls.
This is from the article in this thread. The court has made sure that the legal and scientific definitions of THC and carboxy THC are not the same. The issue is simple, really.
The law now says that science can only mean what the law wants it to.
When I find either one disagreeable, yes. You're being arrogant enough to think you know what I do is disagreeable enough, but typical.
Even if it's troll-bait? ;-P
It's a pity that some cannot see a clear scientific distinction when it bites them on the opinion.
You are exactly right...manditory drug screening within 24 hours of the accident to keep your policy in force and submit a claim. Pretty smart too since most insurance scammers are of the marijuana smoking variety.
If you ignore the trolls, there's a better chance they'll go away. He consistently adds nothing of relevance nor any logical positions to any WOD thread.
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.
THC is in your blood for over 30 days at least. So that is a stretch. I don't take drug or even tried them, but I don't condone this action by the court.
I'll try, but educating the scientifically ignorant is one of my missions in life! ;-P
See ya 'round.
I'm done, too. He's looking to get the thread pulled.
If only FR's software had an ignore feature...
So what? What does the law say?
Anarchists hate the law pretty much 24/7.
You said earlier in the thread that you yourself don't like this law.
No, I only said it was a stretch. See also post #52.
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.