Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion >> Drug Policy Reform

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Toilet Paper

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 5 months, 17 days
Presence Of THC Metabolite Alone Not Evidence Of Driver Impairment, Court Says
    #4473329 - 07/30/05 01:12 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

This is good news.


July 28, 2005 - Traverse City, MI, USA

Traverse City, MI: The presence of cannabis' primary metabolite, THC-COOH, is insufficient evidence of impairment to warrant a conviction under the state's "zero tolerance" per se drugged driving law, according to a recent ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals. The decision upholds a trial court ruling that found the "prosecution must prove that the presence of a controlled substance in a defendant's body is proximate cause of an accident resulting in death or serious injury" in order for the defendant to be guilty of violating the state's two-year-old drugged driving statute.

Michigan is one of ten states that have enacted so-called "zero tolerance" drugged driving laws. Under Michigan's law, it is a criminal offense for an individual to operate a motor vehicle with any detectable level of a Schedule I substance present in his or her bodily fluids. (In six states - Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, and Utah - individuals may be criminally prosecuted if they operate a vehicle with any level of a Schedule I drug or drug metabolite in their system. Three additional states - Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia - have enacted per se drugged driving standards, prohibiting individuals from operating a motor vehicle if they have levels of Schedule I drugs present in their body above a specific threshold.)

In the case before the court, the defendant tested positive for the presence of the THC metabolite THC-COOH (a non-psychoactive compound produced during the body's biological process of converting THC into a water soluble form), but maintained that she was unimpaired at the time of her accident. The prosecution argued that it was not required under Michigan's "zero tolerance" drugged driving law to establish that the defendant's impairment caused the accident, only that she had an illegal substance present in her body. The appellate court upheld the trail court's ruling, affirming that marijuana's metabolite is neither psychoactive nor classified as an illegal substance, and that the prosecution had failed to prove a causal relationship between the presence of a controlled substance in the defendant's body and the accident.

Michigan's Supreme Court had previously held that the legislature did not "intend to impose strict liability on an individual" involved in a driving-related accident, the appellate court determined. Rather, the legislature's intent is to criminally punish only individuals whose impaired driving causes another person's injury.

"The defendant's purposeful operation of [a] vehicle while under the influence must have been a substantial cause of the victim's death," the court of appeals determined. It further found that the "legislature did not intend to include [the cannabis metabolite] as a Schedule I controlled substance because it has no pharmacological effect on the human body ... and its levels in the blood correlates poorly, if at all, to an individual's level of THC-related impairment."

As a result, the appellate court ruled, "Imposing a penalty on a driver when the ... accident would have occurred regardless of that intoxication would ... fail to serve the purpose of the statute."

Prosecutors have not announced whether they intend to appeal the court's decision to the Michigan Supreme Court.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 376
Loc: Inside my head
Last seen: 11 years, 5 months
Re: Presence Of THC Metabolite Alone Not Evidence Of Driver Impairment, Court Says [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #4473404 - 07/30/05 01:37 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

Wonder how long that ruling will hold up.

Think for yourself. Question authority.

Forgiveness is the ultimate sacrifice.

You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator

Registered: 10/03/03
Posts: 2,957
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Presence Of THC Metabolite Alone Not Evidence Of Driver Impairment, Court Says [Re: Sycronica]
    #4473967 - 07/30/05 05:33 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

Hopefully this is something that gets a bit more recognition, as it's something that we've already known for years and years.

Fuck, I learned to drive standard while stoned. Each and every time it was with a buddy who took me to some back roads and I learned it perfectly. I can also drive sober, but it's much more fun and noticeably accurate while I'm stoned.

Driving under the influence while stoned versus drunk is of absolutely no comparison. Apples and oranges. I hope that some Joe Asshat doesn't ever bring up that arguement or I'll probably end up shitting my pants with disappointment.

When the stress burns my brain it's like acid raindrops
maryjane is the only thing that makes the pain stop

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Registered: 07/24/05
Posts: 28
Loc: 4th Federal Judicial Circ...
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Presence Of THC Metabolite Alone Not Evidence Of Driver Impairment, Court Says [Re: browndustin]
    #4495887 - 08/04/05 06:06 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

Even if THC did cause severe impairment, the presence of THC metabolites only really proves that the defendant used weed some time in the past one or two weeks. It would be like convicting someone for DWI because they drank some beer two weeks before driving.

Ironically, someone who has just smoked will not have any measurable THC metabolites in the urine because it takes some time for the drug to be metabolized. So someone who hadn't smoked in a while could drive right after smoking a lot of weed, yet test negative for THC metabolites.


"...the primary reason to outlaw marihuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
-Harry Anslinger

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: Presence Of THC Metabolite Alone Not Evidence Of Driver Impairment, Court Says [Re: votelp2008]
    #4574966 - 08/24/05 03:28 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Fuck yeah. I almost lost my liscence and got a DUI. Thank God for a fast metabolism, otherwise I could have spent a year in jail. Thank God that stupid law is getting overturned. That is in the truest sense an injustice and I'm glad somebody did something about it.

1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: Presence Of THC Metabolite Alone Not Evidence Of Driver Impairment, Court Says [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4593074 - 08/29/05 12:35 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

This is just one case of a rational decision made among dozens of irrational decisions.

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop for: Toilet Paper

General Interest >> Political Discussion >> Drug Policy Reform

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* News from the DEA: Marijuana: The Myths Are Killing Us
( 1 2 all )
Pirate_Patrick 8,834 24 02/05/15 07:45 PM
by Oeric McKenna
* Forum Rules ThorA 7,627 2 06/20/05 10:26 AM
by Thor
* Bongs Away! The stupidity of paraphernalia laws Green_T 1,319 1 01/22/09 08:13 PM
by Alan Rockefeller
* About Denver's I-100 Intitaive cherokee 967 0 11/10/05 01:11 PM
by cherokee
* California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2008 Compass 1,291 5 12/20/07 04:49 AM
by Alan Rockefeller
* Low life marijuana addicts Luddite 1,286 3 09/13/08 09:58 AM
by MisterMuscaria
* food for thought [careful lots of reading] meatcakeman 1,097 1 07/19/07 12:06 AM
by EntheogenicPeace
* D.U.High...legalization and traffic laws
( 1 2 all )
MrBump 3,474 26 08/01/05 04:25 PM
by Sycronica

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
1,381 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.043 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 14 queries.