Breaking News From Michael Komorn Re Driving

[peanutbutter]

Breaking News: Michigan Supreme Court Driving with any presence of marijuana protected by the MMMA

 

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/145259%20Opinion.pdf

 

[peanutbutter]

 

The MMMA does not define what it means to be “under the influence,” but the

phrase clearly contemplates something more than having any amount of

marijuana in one’s system and requires some effect on the person.

Thus, the MMMA’s protections extend to a registered patient who internally possesses marijuana while operating a vehicle unless the patient

is under the influence of marijuana.

[peanutbutter]

 

Zero tolerance is DEAD according to the supreme court!!!

 

[peanutbutter]

Remember that jerk that said we should turn in our licenses!!!

[Bisharoo]

If I am reading this right, I am amazed that we have judges who can make a sound decision and not be bought off by political and econimic interests.  Is this saying that folks under the act can drive unless they are impaired?  So, they now have to test a patient to see if they are impaired.  Should have always been that way.  Millions of Americans now drive with cannabis in their systems every day.  Where are the millions of cannabis caused accidents?  They were never there.  Wow, what will they do next?  Some more good things I hope. 

Peace...

[Celliach]

Wow!  PB you are such an idiot!!!!!  What were the last nine words in your post above?  Here I'll refresh your memory:

unless the patient
is under the influence of marijuana.

That doesn't seem like something  you should be jumping up and down about and it certainly doesn't mean zero tolerance is dead.

 

What it means is that you are protected unless you are under the influence.  In other words, I pee test will not prove that you were driving intoxicated.  They will need to do a blood test instead.

 

Seriously dude, get a freaking brain!

[ozzrokk]

Agree 100%.... with PB.....There is a big difference between driving with thc in your system and driving while being impaired. The fact that anyone ever said that the impairment part does not matter only thing that matters is if you have thc in your system is just plain stupid. The impairment is what would make it a danger not the thc.....

Edited May 21, 2013 by ozzrokk

[peanutbutter]

Wow!  PB you are such an idiot!!!!!  What were the last nine words in your post above?  Here I'll refresh your memory:

That doesn't seem like something  you should be jumping up and down about and it certainly doesn't mean zero tolerance is dead.

 

What it means is that you are protected unless you are under the influence.  In other words, I pee test will not prove that you were driving intoxicated.  They will need to do a blood test instead.

 

Seriously dude, get a freaking brain!

 

Hey .. tell Komorn he's an idiot

[ozzrokk]

Wow!  PB you are such an idiot!!!!!  What were the last nine words in your post above?  Here I'll refresh your memory:

That doesn't seem like something  you should be jumping up and down about and it certainly doesn't mean zero tolerance is dead.

 

What it means is that you are protected unless you are under the influence.  In other words, I pee test will not prove that you were driving intoxicated.  They will need to do a blood test instead.

 

Seriously dude, get a freaking brain!

 

 

I disagree...... I think it is saying that there has to be some proof of impairment not just simple presence of thc........ Maybe I am reading it wrong?     But I do not think I am.

 

 

Edited to add that a blood test will not show impairment

Edited May 21, 2013 by ozzrokk

[peanutbutter]

I disagree...... I think it is saying that there has to be some proof of impairment not just simple presence of thc........ Maybe I am reading it wrong?     But I do not think I am.

 

That is what i, Michael and the MSC are saying.

[ozzrokk]

That is what i, Michael and the MSC are saying.

 

 

Right I was disagreeing with Cellis accessment

[GanjaWarrior]

ive read it a few times..... and it says rather plainly zero tolerance doesnt apply to us. you can try n weasel your way around bunny muffin all you want..... zero tolerance means any trace amount in your system means your guilty, its not the same as driving under the influence. what the court has said now is that zero tolerance contradicts the act and can not apply to us, they must prove we are under the influence. or thats how i have read it.....and i am just as qualified as the rest of the do nothing crew thats all barking mad now that we won one....

 

 

 

why do some people insist on being an ahole to pb? he maybe a bit off, or dif, he may have a dif take on things than you guys, but you really make this site look bad with your constant belittling of people. pb isnt a cg, not that that should matter, he just a pt, and some of you are  just asrsholes when you talk to him.

[Petyr]

So how long until the legislature takes the court's advice and establishes a max limit of THC you can have in your system and not be impaired.  They did it in Colorado and the number they chose is ridiculously low for daily users.  

[Celliach]

Doesn't this go back to old MSC decision on delta-9 and delta-11?

[Petyr]

If one reads both the original COA decision, and the new opinion, it is obvious that a blood test alone will not be enough to prove impairment.

 

But this from the opinion

 

It goes almost without saying that the MMMA is an imperfect statute, the 

interpretation of which has repeatedly required this Court’s intervention.18 Indeed, this 

case could have been easily resolved if the MMMA had provided a definition of “under 

the influence.”19 As the Legislature contemplates amendments to the MMMA, and to the 

extent it wishes to clarify the specific circumstances under which a registered patient is 

per se “under the influence” of marijuana, it might consider adopting a “legal limit,” like 

that applicable to alcohol,20 establishing when a registered patient is outside the 

MMMA’s protection

 

That reads to me that they want the legislature to establish a limit, like they are trying to do in Colorado.  A limit that would be determined by a blood test.  And the limit they are looking at is the same cut off for a tinkle test.

[+Malamute]

Once they prove impairment, the zero tolerance statute applies and its penalties.

 

This is what we fought for.  Not that it is spectacular.  We may end with a per se limit that disallows you from driving even 12 hours after use.

 

*shrug*

 

We shall see. :-)

[+Malamute]

why do some people insist on being an ahole to pb? he maybe a bit off, or dif, he may have a dif take on things than you guys, but you really make this site look bad with your constant belittling of people. pb isnt a cg, not that that should matter, he just a pt, and some of you are  just asrsholes when you talk to him.

 

 Stealing money from patients is one good reason.  Taking advantage of donated compassion for personal gain is another reason.

 

 Constantly being completely wrong(which is ok) until you influence others to break the law under the guise it is legal.

 

 So a thief, a cheat and purposefully putting patients in danger.  Good enough reason for me not to like the guy.

[sho]

I am a patient, and if you check my post history I was convicted of a felony for this -exact- thing. Hired a new attorney and went to court while I was still in jail to set the groundwork to withdraw my plea pending outcome of MSC. I am happy to see this. I was convicted with NO impairment, (per officer testimony at Prelim Exam), so this should be pretty cut-and-dry to get this conviction on MY record overturned. I sat 3 1/2 months in jail for this, which I won't get back, but to get my license back before 2017, be a non-felon, and be allowed to be a CG once more.

 

We already have been to court and got the Judge to agree that if the MSC overturned it, we could go back. I've been waiting a LONG time for MSC to act on this, and I'll be back in court ASAP!

 

HELL YEAH FOR MICHIGAN FROM ME!

[CaveatLector]

 Stealing money from patients is one good reason.  Taking advantage of donated compassion for personal gain is another reason.

 

 Constantly being completely wrong(which is ok) until you influence others to break the law under the guise it is legal.

 

 So a thief, a cheat and purposefully putting patients in danger.  Good enough reason for me not to like the guy.

You wouldn't have convinced Al Capone that a fellow ganster was scum.  It is going to be hard to convince one slimeball that another slimeball is scum.  It doesn't matter how many times you say it, some will ignore it because they have their own personal interests that may be intertwined with another's.

 

Actually, I guess I take that back.  If you say it enough probably some will eventually come around.

 

Anyway, this is all hypothetical of course.  Not directed at anyone in particular.

[pic book]

great to hear it sho.  and congrats for such prescience.  where do you get the good attitude about the chronicle you endured?

[GanjaWarrior]

 Stealing money from patients is one good reason.  Taking advantage of donated compassion for personal gain is another reason.

 

 Constantly being completely wrong(which is ok) until you influence others to break the law under the guise it is legal.

 

 So a thief, a cheat and purposefully putting patients in danger.  Good enough reason for me not to like the guy.

and yet you voted for obamma....does any of the above have any bearing on the topic at hand? really id love to know about all this info.... in its proper place.

[pic book]

and this is really great lemon cake.

[GanjaWarrior]

and this is really great lemon cake.

oh man.... drop me a pm and let me know all the cake info, please... just got it home safe n sound last week....excited to run it.

[+Malamute]

I am a patient, and if you check my post history I was convicted of a felony for this -exact- thing. Hired a new attorney and went to court while I was still in jail to set the groundwork to withdraw my plea pending outcome of MSC. I am happy to see this. I was convicted with NO impairment, (per officer testimony at Prelim Exam), so this should be pretty cut-and-dry to get this conviction on MY record overturned. I sat 3 1/2 months in jail for this, which I won't get back, but to get my license back before 2017, be a non-felon, and be allowed to be a CG once more.

 

We already have been to court and got the Judge to agree that if the MSC overturned it, we could go back. I've been waiting a LONG time for MSC to act on this, and I'll be back in court ASAP!

 

HELL YEAH FOR MICHIGAN FROM ME!

 

 

 That is good news. Well,... better news for you.

 

 Still did the time for the crime.

[TheHarvester]

This sounds like a win for us. It might not be as complete (for lack of a better word) as we hoped but I take it as good news.