Jump to content

Impaired Driving Program Assessment April 2014


t-pain
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Michigan_Impaired_Driving_Assessmet_Final_2014_460152_7.pdf

 

PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS

 

• Repeal the constitutional prohibition of sobriety checkpoints.

• Enact legislation setting a per se presumptive tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level of 5
nanograms per milliliter of blood, to specify when a Michigan Medical Marihuana
Act (MMMA) registered patient is intoxicated and no longer entitled to the
MMMA's immunity and protection provisions when charged with Operating While
Intoxicated (OWI), Operating While Visibly Impaired (OWVI), or Operating With
the Presence of Drugs (OWPD).

 

 

 

Michigan’s trial courts and prosecutors are faced with a confusing issue when attempting to
adjudicate certain cases in which a defendant is charged with violation of MI ST 257.625 (8).
Immunity from prosecution is provided under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act
(MMMA) to a registered patient who drives with indications of marijuana in his or her system
but is not otherwise under the influence of marijuana. This provision conflicts with the “zero
tolerance” provision in subsection 257.625 (8) which prohibits operation if the person has in
his or her body “….any amount of a controlled substance….” listed in schedule 1 of the public
health code. When the MMMA conflicts with another statute, the MMMA provides that “[a]ll
other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with [the MMMA] do not apply to the medical use of
marihuana....” See MI ST 333.26427(b)(4).

Consequently, the Michigan Vehicle Code's zero-tolerance provision, MI ST 257.625(8),
which is inconsistent with the MMMA, does not apply to the medical use of marijuana. See
People v. Koon 494 Mich. 1, 7, 832 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Mich., 2013). The Court in Koon
gratuitously pointed out that Michigan’s legislature could resolve this issue by adopting
amendments to the MMMA to clarify the specific circumstances under which a registered
patient is per se “under the influence” of marijuana. The Court suggested that the Legislature
might consider adopting a “legal limit” to specify when a registered patient is no longer
entitled to the MMMA's protection. Other states, including Colorado, Nevada, and
Washington have adopted such limits in the form of limits quantified in nanograms. For
example, Washington has set a legal limit for the blood concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) at 5ng/ml. See Wash. Rev. Code 46.61.502(1)(b).

 

 

Enact legislation setting a per se presumptive tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level of
5 nanograms per milliliter of blood, to specify when a Michigan Medical
Marihuana Act (MMMA) registered patient is intoxicated and no longer entitled
to the MMMA's immunity and protection provisions when charged with
Operating While Intoxicated (OWI), Operating While Visibly Impaired (OWVI),
or Operating With the Presence of Drugs (OWPD).

 

 

Utilize legally and ethically permissible lobbying efforts to urge Michigan legislators to
adopt a per se presumptive tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level of 5 nanograms per
milliliter of blood to establish when a Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA)
registered patient is intoxicated in Operating While Intoxicated (OWI), Operating
While Visibly Impaired (OWVI), or Operating With the Presence of Drugs (OWPD).

 

 

Michigan’s prosecutors are faced with a difficult situation when attempting to adjudicate
certain cases in which a defendant is charged with violation of MI ST 257.625(8). Immunity

from prosecution is provided under Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act
(MMMA) to a registered patient who drives with indications of marijuana in his or her system but is not otherwise under the influence of marijuana. This provision conflicts with the “zero tolerance”
provision in subsection 257.625(8) which prohibits operation if the person has in his or her
body “….any amount of a controlled substance….” listed in schedule 1 of the public health
code. When the MMMA conflicts with another statute, the MMMA provides that “[a]ll other
acts and parts of acts inconsistent with [the MMMA] do not apply to the medical use of
marihuana....” See MCL 333.26427(b)(4).

 

 

 

• Utilize the lobbying prerogatives of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan to
urge Michigan legislators to enact a per se presumptive tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level
of 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood to be applied when a Michigan Medical Marihuana
Act (MMMA) registered patient is charged with Operating While Intoxicated (OWI),
Operating While Visibly Impaired (OWVI), or Operating with Presence of Drugs (OWPD).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just a-holes, but ignorant a-holes.

 

When this law was established the prosecutors warned of an Armageddon of traffic accidents involving marijuana. It hasn't happened. Why go in search of a solution when there is no problem?

 

They apparently still have an innate hatred for anything marijuana and that hatred is clouding their judgement to the point that they are no longer able to even think rationally about pot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have a Dept. of Transportation study saying the heavy users showed no difference in driving ability.  Casual and beginner smokers showed signs but they weren't near as severe as alcohol impairment.  How can you set a level if there is no consistency.  As I've said before I'm much more relaxed and much less road rage while driving stoned.  I have over a million miles driving this way with NO accidents and only 1 speeding ticket. 

 

But hey, if you have to CREATE fear to justify your job....

 

How about focusing on our politicians.  They are supposed to set examples but yet they face no repercussions for drug use, alcohol use and just about every other slimy unethical thing they do.  Payoffs, ripoffs, and the things nobody saw.  What happened to Christie for the lane closures?  Why did Richardville change his mind after a fundraiser?  Why are all these cops getting away with desk work, retirement or some other saving face gesture rather than criminal proceedings for unwarranted searches, lying to obtain warrants and breaking constitutional rights?  What the hell do we have a constitution for if people(politicians and law enforcement) are just going to tinkle all over it?  I thought these were inalienable rights?  Seems like their just suggestions to me.  Why the hell do they expect us to follow the law when they don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Michigan_Impaired_Driving_Assessmet_Final_2014_460152_7.pdf

 

PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS

 

• Repeal the constitutional prohibition of sobriety checkpoints.

i came across this pdf again and i just wanted to make it clear what the "technical assessment team" thinks of everyones right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...