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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-194 next last
To: MortMan
Where is it the law that the byproduct of metabolizing THC is the same as THC?

Michigan penalizes driving with the presence of carboxy THC in the body. Read the article.

51 posted on 06/23/2006 7:56:46 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

Man pleads guilty in child's traffic death
Saturday, June 17, 2006
By Steven Hepker
shepker@citpat.com -- 768-4923
A 25-year-old Jackson man who has never had a driver's license pleaded guilty Friday to causing the traffic death of his girlfriend's son.

Circuit Judge Chad Schmucker will sentence Mario Morgan on July 26.

Morgan was driving a 1999 Mitsubishi on Lansing Avenue at 6:30 a.m. Nov. 10 when he claims he fell asleep. The car crashed into a bridge abutment.

Da'Shaun Ingram, the 4-year-old son of Shiree Thomas, died instantly in the crash, according to Blackman Township police.

Police did not order blood tests because they did not suspect Morgan had been drinking. However, blood drawn as part of his treatment at Foote Hospital showed traces of marijuana, prosecutors allege.

Assistant Prosecutor Nick Mehalco Jr. received the test results through a court order.

Prosecutors charged Morgan with driving on a suspended, revoked or denied license causing death. Morgan told Schmucker he never had a license.

While Morgan was not charged with driving under the influence of drugs, the presence of the marijuana byproduct carboxyl THC in his blood could impact his sentence, Mehalco said in a Friday hearing.


52 posted on 06/23/2006 8:01:07 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

This is good news.

And more good news in the WOD:

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/06/20/nocannabis.shtml


53 posted on 06/23/2006 9:32:22 AM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Michigan penalizes driving with the presence of carboxy THC in the body. Read the article.

Thank you, but I did read the article.

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.

The "high" court has now ruled that two separate substances are the same - which is a physical unreality. Chemistry by fiat.

This is the basis for my opposition to this ruling. If carboxy THC is not, on its own, listed as a controlled substance, then the law does not make it illegal to have it in your system when you drive. THC - the narcotic - is obviously listed. Annulling the scientific identities of these two substances by word of judge is a crock.

54 posted on 06/23/2006 9:52:05 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 51 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

If you don't want to talk about the Constitutional issues, don't start.


55 posted on 06/23/2006 10:20:27 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
The "high" court has now ruled that two separate substances are the same

No, they ruled that THC is THC. They didn't try to weasel out of enforcing the law as it was written, as you would have them do.

Too bad they didn't have a chance to Mario Morgan and his carboxyl THC laden butt off the road before he killed the 4-year-old.

56 posted on 06/23/2006 10:24:09 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If you don't want to talk about the Constitutional issues

The police powers of a state don't originate in the Commerce Clause.

Read a book.

57 posted on 06/23/2006 10:25:32 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
The police powers of a state don't originate in the Commerce Clause.

No, they just stop there.

58 posted on 06/23/2006 10:26:48 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
The police powers of a state don't originate in the Commerce Clause.

"By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

59 posted on 06/23/2006 10:31:59 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Sorry, but the two chemical substances are not identical. If they were, there would be no separate name for carboxy THC. Neither your statement nor the court's can change that scientific fact.

I believe that Mario Morgan has never had a license, according to the story. How does this ruling change the fact he was driving illegally?

BTW - If the court had ruled that carboxy THC were a controlled substance, were to be added to the controlled substance list, and were to be henceforth treated the same as THC, I would not have a problem with this ruling. But the court retroactively redefined THC to include its cousin, carboxy THC.


60 posted on 06/23/2006 10:39:00 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 56 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government

Michigan isn't the federal government. Swing and a miss!

61 posted on 06/23/2006 10:39:47 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Sorry, but the two chemical substances are not identical.

So what? They're both forms of THC.

Jack Daniels isn't identical to Johnny Walker.

62 posted on 06/23/2006 10:41:59 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

More like dead nuts on.


63 posted on 06/23/2006 10:47:07 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp
Do a Rudy Guliani on the drug issue....go after every drug crime, no matter how small, and you'll see a larger effect.

Do you agree with Rudy's way of dealing with guns too?

64 posted on 06/23/2006 10:51:22 AM PDT by jmc813 (The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

I'll never figure out how a freeper can be so good on illegal immigration yet so dopey on WOD issues.


65 posted on 06/23/2006 10:55:05 AM PDT by jmc813 (The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
So what? They're both forms of THC.

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.

66 posted on 06/23/2006 10:55:44 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 62 | View Replies]

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

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?

67 posted on 06/23/2006 10:57:00 AM PDT by jmc813 (The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
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.

Fair enough point. But I would hope that you personally are intelligent enough to realize that it is a stupid law, right?

68 posted on 06/23/2006 10:58:24 AM PDT by jmc813 (The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
This is good news.

Would you support a law that criminalized somebody driving who had consumed a Percoset 3 weeks ago or are you a hypocrite?

69 posted on 06/23/2006 11:01:07 AM PDT by jmc813 (The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

It's a stretch. But it's Michigan's call to make.


70 posted on 06/23/2006 11:03:04 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
That's irrational.

No, it's fact. You want to court to invent distinctions not contained in the law.

71 posted on 06/23/2006 11:04:53 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
More like dead nuts

Dopers who have overdosed?

72 posted on 06/23/2006 11:05:58 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

It's a machinist's term. Probably not something a career pencil pusher would understand.


73 posted on 06/23/2006 11:08:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
No, it's fact. You want to court to invent distinctions not contained in the law.

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.

74 posted on 06/23/2006 11:09:32 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 71 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
It's a stretch. But it's Michigan's call to make.

Fair enough.

75 posted on 06/23/2006 11:10:47 AM PDT by jmc813 (The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It's a machinist's term.

Misused and corrected.

76 posted on 06/23/2006 11:12:20 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

consumed a Percoset 3 weeks ago
_________________________________________________

Where's that in the law?

Or are you making things up as you go along?


77 posted on 06/23/2006 11:13:03 AM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Misused and corrected.

Feel validated now?

78 posted on 06/23/2006 11:13:57 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
The court invalidated a scientific distinction that WAS contained in the law.

Quote, cite and link, please.

Or are you blowing smoke?

79 posted on 06/23/2006 11:14:30 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

No, I'm used to you being wrong.


80 posted on 06/23/2006 11:15:25 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Pathetic. We won't suffer tyrants very long.


81 posted on 06/23/2006 11:16:13 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

You mean you're not used to being disagreed with.


82 posted on 06/23/2006 11:16:54 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
We won't suffer tyrants very long.


83 posted on 06/23/2006 11:18:28 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

< yawn > troll


84 posted on 06/23/2006 11:18:48 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You mean you're not used to being disagreed with.

Disagreeing with me and the law is pretty much all you do.

85 posted on 06/23/2006 11:19:43 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: eleni121; Mojave
Where's that in the law? Or are you making things up as you go along?

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.

86 posted on 06/23/2006 11:19:56 AM PDT by jmc813 (The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

Don't feed the trolls.


87 posted on 06/23/2006 11:26:15 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
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 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.

88 posted on 06/23/2006 11:26:54 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 79 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Disagreeing with me and the law is pretty much all you do.

When I find either one disagreeable, yes. You're being arrogant enough to think you know what I do is disagreeable enough, but typical.

89 posted on 06/23/2006 11:27:19 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain

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.


90 posted on 06/23/2006 11:28:19 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 87 | View Replies]

To: WLR

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.


91 posted on 06/23/2006 11:28:23 AM PDT by willyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

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.


92 posted on 06/23/2006 11:30:49 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore

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.


93 posted on 06/23/2006 11:32:07 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain

I'll try, but educating the scientifically ignorant is one of my missions in life! ;-P

See ya 'round.


94 posted on 06/23/2006 11:32:16 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 92 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain

I'm done, too. He's looking to get the thread pulled.


95 posted on 06/23/2006 11:33:00 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

If only FR's software had an ignore feature...


96 posted on 06/23/2006 11:38:00 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
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.

So what? What does the law say?

97 posted on 06/23/2006 11:48:23 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
When I find either one disagreeable

Anarchists hate the law pretty much 24/7.

98 posted on 06/23/2006 11:54:17 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Anarchists hate the law pretty much 24/7.

You said earlier in the thread that you yourself don't like this law.

99 posted on 06/23/2006 11:56:41 AM PDT by jmc813 (The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

No, I only said it was a stretch. See also post #52.


100 posted on 06/23/2006 11:59:33 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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