Smoke pot a month ago? That's good enough for a DUI in Michigan...
By jarespond - Posted on June 23rd, 2006
The author of a story in the Detroit News reveals that Michigan has passed a new law under which anyone found to have 11 carboxy-THC in his or her body during a traffic stop, a chemical by-product of marijuana use, can be punished for driving under the influence (DUI). This ruling is apparently based on several cases where marijuana was used within an hour of a fatal car accident. This may not seem significant at first, but it is a dangerous infringement on personal liberty.
The chemical itself, while indicative of marijuana use, lingers in the system for an extremely long period of time, during which it does not cause any impairment whatsoever. This means that, while there will be some drivers who will be rightfully prosecuted for DUI because they were actually impaired by marijuana use, there will be many others who will be punished for something that they did not do.
Supporters of the ruling note that this is a "hard line" against marijuana use, and that it will discourage adolescents and young adults from using marijuana. While this is undoubtedly true, our legal system is not based on a principle of punishing people for things that they have not done. Such a system would be even more tragedy-laden than our current system.
Many people who will be pulled over with 11 carboxy-THC in their blood will not be impaired, and thus it is wrong to punish them for DUI. Sure, it cuts down on marijuana use (in theory, I'm not convinced that the law will have such an effect). Sure, marijuana use is illegal, and people who use it run the risk of prosecution under the rule of law. But they run the risk of punishment in so far as they have used, sold, or possessed an illegal substance. If a driver is not impaired, there is no ethical standard under which he or she should be punished for impaired driving.
Are they blood tests or urine tests? Because blood evacuates evidence faster than urine. What about Delta-9 THC? Isn't that the big one?
At any rate, punishing someone for what they do to their own body is an infringement on personal liberty. That's why I'm in favor of the field sobriety test.
--Mike
There is no clear point at which an amount of a substance impairs the operater of a vehicle - the law draws lines because it has to. But just because someone can pass the field sobriety test doesn't mean they are entirely free of the damaging influence of drugs on physical and mental functions. As soon as you turn on the car, it's not just your own body at stake anymore.
This test for marijuana is too extreme because it can come out positive even when the effects of the drug are gone, but other tests, like BAC tests, are perfectly legit. Yes, I know such tests hold a 300 pound man to the same standard as a 100 pound woman, but such is the way of things. Mr. 300 Pounds shouldn't be driving if he's had any alcohol at all, anyway; whether he can physically "handle it" or not, his judgement will be impaired.
Relying purely on the field sobriety test makes arrests too contingent on the interpretation of the cop.
This is stupid, it is going to deter people who really want to smoke it.
Are there still fools who think America is a "free country"? I don't know why. It is obviously a fascist country in almost every way. You can't have it both ways: if you piss in the bushes or come to work twenty-three days after a toke, and lose all chances for future employment, you are the victim of the identical repression that is typical of totalitarian, and even fascist, countries. This is particularly true when considering the officer only has to suspect you are a "type" who might smoke marijuana.
You are jumping to conclusions. You can argue that the particular law is damaging to freedom, but America is still a "free country" in that we can contest such laws through the legal and/or political system(s) and speak out against them publicly and freely. Claiming that this is totalitarianism makes light of all the real totalitarianism that exists in the world.
I do not think it should fall under DUI, but I could see it as a posession charge. Clearly, you'd have to posess it to use it within 30 days.
Also, what else deposits this chemical into your system? I haven't researched at all about it,I'll admit, but sometimes there are things you can eat that can mess up the BAC test, as well as this test I'm sure.
If we can prove that you cannot get the amount listed under Michigan law without actually using marijuana, I would totally agree with it being under Posession, NOT DUI. And they can arrest you in both anyway.
While I'm for legalizing marijuana, I'm not against all legislation of it. It's a difficult stance to take, but as long as it's illegal, it should be legislated responsibly. Putting this under DUI is irresponsible.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
It couldn't be a possession charge, because in order for it to be a possession charge, they have to know how much you possessed/possess. It could fall under use of an illegal controlled substance.
--Mike