Michigan State Supreme Court Ruling
- Thread starter Win
- Start date
- Status
This ruling is on par with drinking a few beers at home and then weeks later being charged with DWI if it were detectable.
The ruling does not makes sense whether use of weed is legal or not.
However this is a blog and anything can posted be there.
The ruling does not makes sense whether use of weed is legal or not.
However this is a blog and anything can posted be there.
I've got no problem with it. Last time I checked all dope was illegal so if you have traces in your system it's pretty clear that you've broken the law.
Unlike beer, which isn't illegal when used responsibly (unfortunately).
The problem is many people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. If you want to play with drugs, then be prepared to face the penalty when/if you're caught-even if it's after you committed the crime.
Unlike beer, which isn't illegal when used responsibly (unfortunately).
The problem is many people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. If you want to play with drugs, then be prepared to face the penalty when/if you're caught-even if it's after you committed the crime.
"This ruling is on par with drinking a few beers at home..."
Aaaaaaaaaaoooooooooooogaaaaaah!!!!!!!
Bad analogy alarm.
Aaaaaaaaaaoooooooooooogaaaaaah!!!!!!!
Bad analogy alarm.
It's up to the citizens to have their legislators change the laws if they don't like it.
You say potato.....
Actually it's up to the citizens to change the legislators that make the laws if they don't like it.
The law doesn't make sense as a motive for catching impaired drivers, but I guess it does make sense as a way to catch marijuana users.
I guess I should stay away from Michigan.
I guess I should stay away from Michigan.
I see no problem with it. In many jobs you get fired for this. Here we have an individual smooking an illegal drug while driving on a Public Street where innocent people can be killed. This law more than passes muster in coparison to drugs in the workplace.
Im'm not so sure it should be the sams meaning as driving impaired though. Seems like they could just suspend your license bc of using illegal drugs.
And seems strange that we don't seem to care that millions of illegals are driving, many in complete ignorance of the law....and then this
. Oh well.
Im'm not so sure it should be the sams meaning as driving impaired though. Seems like they could just suspend your license bc of using illegal drugs.
And seems strange that we don't seem to care that millions of illegals are driving, many in complete ignorance of the law....and then this
you're all missing the problem, I think.. the problem is pot remains in your system for about 3 weeks. if you're going to charge somebody with something, how about possesion of a controlled substance, not DUI, since you can be 3 weeks removed from actually being intoxicated when you got tested. it ranks up there with losing your driver's license for riding a bicycle drunk (yet you don't need the license to ride the bike in the first place).
Yes..I agree with you. Its really not an appropriate charge.
t's the "well, he's certainly guilty of something" standard.
this is the most objectionable part of it. According to our legal doctrine (which is fast being changed to guilty until proven innocent) this goes against the idea that one must be charged with a specific crime, not a crime that might or might not have happned sometime in the past. Tests for byproducts of drugs can give false positives about 5% of time. So even when you have never smoked weed, the test still says you do.
Also this trips over the probable cause standard of a "resonable" man. Is it reasonable to think everyone stopped has smoked a joint and needs to have a blood test. If judged by that standard, the ruling becomes obivious for the idiocy it is.
This is tantamount to having cash in hand that is counterfiet and you just recieved it from the bank from cashing your check. Then you are charged with counterfieting. I dont think many of us would condone this, but then again, maybe i am wrong.
Dan
this is the most objectionable part of it. According to our legal doctrine (which is fast being changed to guilty until proven innocent) this goes against the idea that one must be charged with a specific crime, not a crime that might or might not have happned sometime in the past. Tests for byproducts of drugs can give false positives about 5% of time. So even when you have never smoked weed, the test still says you do.
Also this trips over the probable cause standard of a "resonable" man. Is it reasonable to think everyone stopped has smoked a joint and needs to have a blood test. If judged by that standard, the ruling becomes obivious for the idiocy it is.
This is tantamount to having cash in hand that is counterfiet and you just recieved it from the bank from cashing your check. Then you are charged with counterfieting. I dont think many of us would condone this, but then again, maybe i am wrong.
Dan
That's true they wouold have to do a sample splitting. Another part of the sample would have to undergo more extensiving testing and then possibly you might have the option to take another portion to another independent lab.
But I totally disagree with your assessment about innocent of guilty until proben innocent. We live in an age where almost every actual of guilt is subject to argument. Show me another country where shuch high standards are required for proof of innocense.
Even a verdict of "not guilty" doesn't presume innosence but its the same in terms of result.
And if a person has huge bucks, its a waste of time and money trying him bc he's likely wind up being "not guilty"
Al,
I guess you have not been the focus of a roadside search of your vehicle for refusing consent to search. I have. When a dog hits on drugs and the ensusing search discloses no drugs and you are let free with none of the three cops able to look you in the face, it kinda gets teh message across that you are guilty until you prove your innocence. And I quote the state trooper "only people who have something to hide refuse to be searched" typical of law enforcement at every level in my opinion.
Also being told loudly multiple times "you are going to jail" kinda gets the message across too.
Dan
[ June 23, 2006, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]
I guess you have not been the focus of a roadside search of your vehicle for refusing consent to search. I have. When a dog hits on drugs and the ensusing search discloses no drugs and you are let free with none of the three cops able to look you in the face, it kinda gets teh message across that you are guilty until you prove your innocence. And I quote the state trooper "only people who have something to hide refuse to be searched" typical of law enforcement at every level in my opinion.
Also being told loudly multiple times "you are going to jail" kinda gets the message across too.
Dan
[ June 23, 2006, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]
Yes, the law needs to be changed to make it a legal/controlled substance and leave people the FUNK alone. Odd how folks lose feathers over marijuana use but have no qualms about taking a powerful SSRI such as Prozac.
As for obeying the letter of the law? Right ... people obey the laws that are convenient. No one here speeds, jaywalks, copies sheet music from the church etc??
And THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is already made synthetically:
As for obeying the letter of the law? Right ... people obey the laws that are convenient. No one here speeds, jaywalks, copies sheet music from the church etc??
And THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is already made synthetically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol
Gang, It may be wise to keep this in mind when you are in Michigan, until it gets sorted out by The US Supreme Court.
http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/062306/loc_drugsey001.shtml
http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/062306/loc_drugsey001.shtml
Is pot smoking illegal?
Not a problem for me.
Not a problem for me.
JHZR2
Staff member
Drug testing at the workplace is legal, right? You can be penalized at work for having drug remnants in your system long times after using, right?
Last I checked, marajuana is illegal, right? Like it or not, its the law.
I see no issue, if you did it, you broke the law, right or wrong.
If you rob a convenience store, and then two weeks later the police match you with the camera at the store, does it not make you guilty because you werent caught red-handed, but rather by an after-the-fact matchup? I dont think so.
I dont know thatt the current drug laws are the solution. I dont know thatthey do anything for us. But while they are the laws, this is just another example of a spinning the wheels. Right? Wrong? large-scale fundamental shift is necessary to get things to happen.
JMH
Last I checked, marajuana is illegal, right? Like it or not, its the law.
I see no issue, if you did it, you broke the law, right or wrong.
If you rob a convenience store, and then two weeks later the police match you with the camera at the store, does it not make you guilty because you werent caught red-handed, but rather by an after-the-fact matchup? I dont think so.
I dont know thatt the current drug laws are the solution. I dont know thatthey do anything for us. But while they are the laws, this is just another example of a spinning the wheels. Right? Wrong? large-scale fundamental shift is necessary to get things to happen.
JMH
- Status
Similar threads
