Drivers take hit over pot smoking [Michigan drugged driving law]

[High Plains]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060623/METRO/606230342/1
003

Drivers take hit over pot smoking

Mich. Supreme Court rules blood test showing marijuana smoked weeks ago can
be used in court.

John Wisely / The Detroit News

Pot smokers beware! That joint you smoked four weeks ago could come back to haunt you under a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court. In a 4-3 vote, the court ruled that motorists can be prosecuted for driving under the influence of drugs if they test positive for any trace of marijuana, including a metabolized remnant that experts say can stay in a person's system for weeks after the smoke.

"They are automatically guilty even though they are no longer impaired by it," said Tim Beck, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which wants the drug legalized, taxed and regulated for adult use as alcohol is. "It's not based on common sense or justice."

Officers still need probable cause to believe a crime was being committed before they can request a blood test, but motorists who refuse could be found guilty of a civil infraction and lose their license. Officers can compel a blood sample if a judge approves a search warrant for it.

The ruling stemmed from two cases. In the first case, a woman admitting smoking marijuana four hours before she crossed into oncoming traffic on a snowy road, striking another vehicle. That car's front-seat passenger was killed and three children were injured. In the second case, a man stopped for erratic driving admitted smoking marijuana 30 minutes before. In both cases, blood tests found 11 carboxy-THC, a byproduct created when the human body metabolizes marijuana. The ruling turned on the court's interpretation of the law that prohibits driving under the influence of drugs.

The four justices in the majority -- Maura Corrigan, Stephen Markman,Clifford Taylor and Robert Young -- concluded that 11 carboxy-THC is a drug under the law even though experts testified that it has "no pharmacological effect on the body and its level in the blood correlates poorly, if at all,
to an individual's level of THC-related impairment."

<snip>

More at link

[High Plains]

1. We are through the looking glass here, folks!

You can now be charged as a "drugged driver" even if you're not impaired, based solely on the leftover chemical residues from the body's elimination of THC.

Anyone who smoked a joint Friday night could theoretically be arrested for drugged driving on his way to work Monday morning. Anyone who smokes pot on a regular basis would be eligible for a drugged driving charge at any time because the metabolites take days or even weeks to disappear.

Here's the story I wrote about it:

http://www/stopthedrugwar.org

Drugged Driving: Michigan Supreme Court Upholds State DUID Law—Now You Don’t Even Have to Be High to Get Busted

If you smoke a joint Friday night and drive to work bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Monday morning in Michigan, you can be arrested, charged, and convicted as a drugged driver because inactive chemical traces of THC, or metabolites, remain in your bloodstream. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that motorists can be convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) even if they are not under the influence of drugs. According to the Supreme Court opinion in the consolidated cases Derror v. Michigan and Kurts v. Michigan (http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/20060621_S129269_71_derror3jan06-op.pdf) authored by Justice Maura Corrigan, actual innocence of driving while impaired is “irrelevant.”

In both cases, authorities charged the defendants under the Michigan DUID law based on the presence of cannabis metabolites, an inert byproduct of the body’s breakdown of THC, in their blood. The presence of metabolites does not indicate impairment or being “under the influence;” it only indicates that someone ingested THC at some time in the past, as the state Supreme Court acknowledged in its ruling. Both trial courts held that the metabolite was not “marijuana” and thus a controlled substance under state law, a position upheld on appeal.

Both a majority on the Supreme Court disagreed. Neither the DUID nor the controlled substances law “requires that a substance have pharmacological properties to constitute a schedule 1 controlled substance,” the majority held. Neither does the DUID law “require that a defendant be impaired while driving. Rather, it punishes for the operation of a motor vehicle with any amount of schedule 1 controlled substance in the body.”

Then, breathtakingly, Justice Corrigan wrote, “It is irrelevant that a person who is no longer ‘under the influence’ of marijuana could be prosecuted under the statute. If the Legislature had intended to prosecute only people who were under the influence while driving, it could have written the statute accordingly.”

Now, any Michigan driver who has smoked marijuana in the last few days or, in the case of heavier smokers, up to three or four weeks, is subject to a DUID arrest based on the presence of inert leftover metabolites that do not actually indicate impairment. In a harsh dissent, Justice Michael Cavanaugh warned the court it would criminalize a huge class of people.

“Today¹s holding now makes criminals out of numerous Michigan citizens who, before today, were considered law-abiding, productive members of our community,” he wrote. “Now, if a person has ever actively or passively ingested marijuana and drives, he is breaking the law, because if any amount of can be detected ­ no matter when was previously ingested ­ he is committing a crime. The majority¹s interpretation, which has no rational relationship to the Legislature’s genuine concerns about operating a motor vehicle while impaired, violates the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution.”

The ruling could have an impact beyond Michigan. Twelve other states have enacted laws making it a criminal offense to drive under the influence of drugs. They use standards similar to those upheld this week—the presence of trace levels of drugs or metabolites—to assume impairment. Unlike drunk driving laws, which assume a certain blood alcohol level after which one is considered impaired, the DUID laws assume that the presence of any metabolite or trace proves impairment.

[zonkers]

14. How long till someone is convicted due to second hand smoke exposure?

Only a matter of time.

[JNelson6563]

17. Very good article.

I'd like to print it up and put a stack in our county Dem office if that's ok with you.

Many thanks for posting this. :toast:

Julie

[High Plains]

20. Feel free. Here's the best link:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/441/michigan.shtml

And thank you.

[JNelson6563]

22. Great stuff. Bookmarked

Will use it to inform the troops. If you ever find yourself in northern MI let us know you're comin'.

Peace.

[High Plains]

2. Mind-boggling quote from the decision:

Then, breathtakingly, Justice Corrigan wrote, “It is irrelevant that a person who is no longer ‘under the influence’ of marijuana could be prosecuted under the statute. If the Legislature had intended to prosecute only people who were under the influence while driving, it could have written the statute accordingly.”

[notadmblnd]

21. geesh, even the amount alcohol in the blood stream has a legal limit

nt

[MGD]

3. If you give them your piss, they'll take your blood.

I remember saying this a few years ago as I complained about urine toxicology screening and the invasion of our privacy that it is.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. And if you give them your blood,

They'll take your spinal fluid.

Welcome to DU!

[maxsolomon]

4. stay out of michigan

once again, the greatest danger to pot smokers is the law, not the drug.

the only erratic driving i've ever done after using MJ is driving too fucking slow.

[Zensea]

5. the problem here is that marijuana is illegal

Essentially they're prosecuting you for having smoked marijuana whenever you may have done so.
This is reminiscent of the laws that used to be on the books (and may still be for all I know) that if you had taken more than 3 hits of LSD you can be committed and are considered legally insane.
Anyhow, I'm betting it's a tough defense to acknowledge that you have broken the law at some point in the past (even if not at the moment they arrest you) and to try to get off on that basis.
I'm not saying this is right, just that's the way the law enforcement mind is going to look at it.

[MGD]

7. the problem is selective enforcement of laws

For example, do we see the immigration laws being enforced with the same comittment as the drug laws? No. I'm sure I could think of other examples if I weren't so fucking high right now. Just kidding...but not really.
Note: I'm not trying/wanting to change the subject here.

[Jed Dilligan]

11. DUI is a way, way bigger crime

than simple possession (which includes in the blood).

[High Plains]

6. There is a nationwide push for DUID laws like this one.

It is portrayed as a highway safety matter, but it is actually another weapon in the drug warrior's struggle against marijuana. If you want to stop impaired drivers--and who doesn't?--try testing for impairment, not the presence of metabolites that DO NOT INDICATE impairment.

This law is a travesty, and the justices who upheld are a disgrace.

[Carni]

8. OMG Michigan is getting SOOOO ridiculous

I haven't engaged in this type of thing since the 70's but this is just asinine--what next? If you drank three days ago you can't drive?

This right leaning supreme court in MI SUCKS!

[90-percent]

9. Mass Criminalization and selective enforcement....

frank Zappa predicted this in the early 80's.

there's so many laws basically we're all guilty of something.

If you're a creep, first they will arrest you and then figure out what they've arrested you for.

The virtuous upstanding people - that may have Rush Limbo on the radio when they're pull over, get a free pass, because they are ONE OF THEM!

-85% Jimmy

[fishwax]

12. Is it possible to determine from the amounts how long it's been since

the person smoked? I would guess not, given individual variances in metabolism/absorption rates, etc.

Anyway, I guess this is probably not surprising, given how these laws are usually worded, but it seems to me like driving under the influence is the problem, not driving with residual amounts of THC in the blood. I suppose the law has no minimum level for THC, as it does for alcohol?

[High Plains]

15. This is a zero tolerance law, as are the laws in most of the other

12 states that have DUID laws. Both the DWI and the DUID are "per se" laws. They assume per se that amount X of a substance is evidence of impairment. The difference is that the DWI sets a point, usually 0.08% blood alcohol level, that is actually related to actual impairment, while the DUID laws assume per se that ANY DETECTABLE LEVEL, anything above 0.00%, is evidence of impairment. Setting DUID laws at 0.00% has NO RELATION to actual impairment, unlike the DWI blood alcohol levels.

Bizarrely, most of these state DUID have an exemption for people legally taking prescription drugs. NOw, stop and think about that for a moment. If I bought a tablet of Oxycontin on the street yesterday and got tested today, I would be charged with DUID, because although the effects of the drug have worn off, some metabolites remain, but if I took a prescribed tablet of Oxycontin yesterday and got tested today, I would not be charged with DUID. Similarly, if I legally took Oxycontin today and got in a wreck because I was all fucked up, I could not be charged under the DUID law, but I could if it were illicit Oxycontin.

THESE LAWS ARE NOT ABOUT IMPAIRED DRIVING; THEY ARE ABOUT PERSECUTING DRUG USERS. And far and away, the largest population of drug users--about 15 million regular users--are marijuana smokers. This is part of the drug czar's war on marijuana, and nothing but.

[MindPilot]

13. the real crime is having the incorrect substance in your blood

even though experts testified that it has "no pharmacological effect on the body and its level in the blood correlates poorly, if at all, to an individual's level of THC-related impairment."

Reminds me of when I got thrown off the jury on drunk driving case because I dared to suggest that the BAC test at levels below 0.10 is not a reliable indicator of impairment.

[sweetheart]

16. Michigan, the new third world

Gosh, when they get that stupid in government, its a sign the foxes are running
the henhouse... not a place worth visiting, or doing business exept for teh poor
souls who are trapped there.

[JNelson6563]

19. Well actually there is hope

We are close to taking the House back. If we can keep Granholm in and take back House that would be a good start. Also, many local races are seeing Dems on the ballot for the first time in ages and there is a good chance of many victories on county levels on down.

We need all the help we can get though! I hope all DUers will help out good Dems in MI who are running hard to reclaim our great state from the right wing lunatics who have had it in a strangle-hold for far too long!

Remember, in spite of the rampant lunacy here we still managed to go blue for Kerry. It wasn't easy and it proves we're still salvagable!

Julie

[sweetheart]

23. Really, that's cool

You rock. That is cool about michigan. Well, again, the irony of an insane "official" culture
and a sane human one. Hmmm... perhaps constitutional democracy is not all its cracked up to.
The written paper is letting us all down, when we "KNOW" better in our common sense.

I'm sure the police men know better too, and the judges, but the corrupt paper factory,
that has printed ballots (dollars) and held constant elections to which of them is to have
the political power to totally subvert and corrupt civil insitutions.

We have a problem, houston, the constitutional system is letting us all down. Its time to return
to a common law system where the spirit of the law is allowed to flex with common sense. This
literalist fundamentalism is rigid, too slow, way too slow in our modern era, and the supreme
court has sold us out that that means it has to be unilateral, that the speed of collective
mind is too slow on paper to do justice, is a time to go digital. And still, people will
vote with ballots they print (dollars) and the votes will go to the most pandering and corrupt.

I'm glad for local victories indeed, its good news and i'm really sorry if my being turfed
rolls wrongly to the better half of michgan, mea culpa, i'm sorry. I'm just frustrated that
the path they are taking is to a witts end, and when we are all dragged to this stupid place,
a war can then kill us, we can destroy the planet, we just painfully observe the stupid
people of this bloody planet tearing the place up ruthlessly, paving over the soul of the land.

And in to the soulless feudal temples and their parking lots, the worshippers gather in smug
purity at the elevation of their clan, for look around, is there not marble, is that not
mercedes, are we not wearing suits... then we're cool, man, and we can make laws to screw
the poor, to really fuck people over, 'cuz we're cynical, we're mentally ill and sick,
abusing our fellow humanity with a little power; degenerates have taken the surface.

And here in this underground tunnel, doth you shine the light, and its holy and bright.
O8)

[JNelson6563]

24. Most eloquent!

And believe me, we share your frustration, we appreciate the sympathy!

:toast:

Julie

[Rex]

18. This should make the future crime police happy!

You might not be high now, but you've been high in the past so off to jail with you! I guess the penal institution contractors want more jails so more money. :eyes:

[splat]

25. Ask for equal consequences for detectable alcohol byproducts n/t