Impaired Driving Safety Commission And Legislation To Begin The Assault On Cannabis And Driving.

[bobandtorey]

LANSING — A bill that would authorize the Michigan State Police to set up a roadside drug testing pilot program in three Michigan counties is on its way to the Senate after getting unanimous support in a Senate committee Tuesday afternoon.

The bill, inspired by the fatal car crash that killed Thomas and Barbara Smith in the Upper Peninsula in 2013, would allow police officers to take both a breathalyzer and a saliva sample during a traffic stop to determine if a person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The man who was driving the logging truck that hit the Swifts, both 73-years-old, was found to have marijuana in his system. He was found guilty and sentenced to “a measly five years in prison,” the Swift’s son Brian Swift told committee members.

 

 

“We remain committed to change the law or build on existing ones,” Swift said. “We loved our mom and dad and don’t want other families to deal with the nightmare we have had to deal with.”

House Fiscal analysts determined the one-year pilot program would cost between $30,000 and $50,000. The drug testing kits could identify six different controlled substances, including THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. The Michigan State Police would set up the pilot program and determine which counties would be involved in the project.

The bill — SB 434 — moves to the full Senate for consideration.

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/06/road-side-drug-testing-project-approved-senate-panel/73475214/

 

They also talked about this Bill  but the date on this one is  October 6, 2015

 

So this one may have already passed i do not know ?

[imiubu]

I don't think they care what we say, they do however care about how we vote.

 

Are You Ready for a Political Revolution!

 

Bernie Sanders 2016

 

That's one way to avoid having lunch w/ me

 

And... I beg to differ.  I have seen where public testimony does sway minds.

[beourbud]

That's one way to avoid having lunch w/ me

 

And... I beg to differ. I have seen where public testimony does sway minds.

Public testimony and demonstration are effective to those with an open mind. I don't think the Kesto Cartel cares about us.

 

Please don't let my synacism dissuade you or anyone. There are a lot of issues we need to address and it is hard to be everywhere.

 

That's why we need more folk to stand up and stand together.

 

Momentum is building and We Are Winning, it's just hard to see it in the fog of War or Cannabis.

 

Thank You for Standing up and Standing in for us who could not be there.

 

As far as Lunch and stimulating conversation with a beautiful woman...count me in!

 

You know, maybe we should organize a rally of Cannabis Supporters in Flint to show our solidarity with our brothers and sisters poisoned by Snyder.

We are on the same team, in the same boat and fighting the same fknrepublicans.

I think it would be very successful and a more effective show of unity and compassion.

Michigan is ripe for change!

Bernie Sanders / Abrogate. 2016

Edited February 14, 2016 by beourbud

[Timmahh]

We are not supposed to make deals with Terrorist.

Governments are Terrorist.

Terrorism is a form of Government Control


What did you expect when you walk into the vipers pit? You were immune from being Bitten?

Abrogate Prohibition Michigan and Bring some Real Immunity into the game.

[imiubu]

What I am having such a difficult time understanding is why isn't the entire cannabis community raising HE LL about this? 

 

Apathy maybe. 

[t-pain]

roadside drug testing is unconstitutional. just another unconstitutional law by our legislature.

 

nor would it apply to mmma patients anyway.

 

for non-patients, smoking marijuana and driving is illegal anyway.

[imiubu]

oookay t.  I guess I read the writing on the wall a bit differently... not based on what should be but rather what is.

[t-pain]

contact your reps, these unconstitutional laws are stupid and will open the state up to lawsuits.

[imiubu]

And in the mean time they will swab your mouth on the road side then take your azz to the station for a chemical analysis (blood draw).

 

I think we should all stand up against this and not wait until it is law to file lawsuits. 

 

 

Write to your reps!

[imiubu]

SUBSTITUTE FOR

 

SENATE BILL NO. 207

 

 

 

 

 

     A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled

"Michigan vehicle code,"

 

(MCL 257.1 to 257.923) by adding sections 62a, 625r, and 625s.

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

 

 

     Sec. 62a. "Standardized field sobriety test" means 1 of the

standardized tests validated by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration. A field sobriety test is considered a standardized

field sobriety test under this section if it is administered in

substantial compliance with the standards prescribed by the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

 

     Sec. 625r. (1) A peace officer who is certified as a drug

recognition expert as that term is defined in section 625q in a

county participating in the roadside drug testing pilot program

under section 625q who has reasonable cause to believe that a

person was operating a vehicle upon a highway or other place open

to the public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including

an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state

and that the person by the consumption of a controlled substance,

may have affected his or her ability to operate a vehicle, or

reasonable cause to believe that a person had in his or her body

any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1 under

section 7212 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7212,

or a rule promulgated under that section, or of a controlled

substance described in section 7214(a)(iv) of the public health

code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7214, may require the person to submit

to a preliminary oral fluid analysis administered under this

subsection.

 

     (2) A peace officer who is certified as a drug recognition

expert as that term is defined in section 625q in a county

participating in the roadside drug testing pilot program under

section 625q may arrest a person in whole or in part upon the

results of a preliminary oral fluid analysis.

 

     (3) The results of a preliminary oral fluid analysis are

admissible in a criminal prosecution for a crime enumerated in

section 625c(1) or in an administrative hearing for 1 or more of

the following purposes:

 

     (a) To assist the court or hearing officer in determining a

challenge to the validity of an arrest. This subdivision does not

limit the introduction of other competent evidence offered to

establish the validity of an arrest.

     (b) As evidence of the presence or nonpresence of a controlled

substance in the defendant's oral fluid if offered by the defendant

to rebut testimony elicited on cross-examination of a defense

witness that a preliminary oral fluid analysis of the defendant's

oral fluid showed the presence of a controlled substance that was

not found to be present when a chemical test of the defendant's

blood or urine was administered under section 625a.

 

     © As evidence of the presence or nonpresence of a controlled

substance in the defendant's oral fluid if offered by the

prosecution to rebut testimony elicited on cross-examination of a

prosecution witness that a preliminary oral fluid analysis of the

defendant's oral fluid showed no presence of a controlled substance

that was found to be present when a chemical test of the

defendant's blood or urine was administered under section 625a.

 

     (4) A person who submits to a preliminary oral fluid analysis

remains subject to the requirements of sections 625a, 625c, 625d,

625e, and 625f for purposes of chemical tests described in those

sections.

 

     (5) Except as provided in subsection (9), a person who refuses

to submit to a preliminary oral fluid analysis upon a lawful

request by a peace officer is responsible for a civil infraction.

 

     (6) A peace officer who is certified as a drug recognition

expert as that term is defined in section 625q in a county

participating in the roadside drug testing pilot program under

section 625q shall use the results of a preliminary oral fluid

analysis conducted under this section to determine whether to order

a person out of service under section 319d.

    

      (7) A peace officer who is certified as a drug recognition

expert as that term is defined in section 625q in a county

participating in the roadside drug testing pilot program under

section 625q shall order out of service as required under section

319d a person who was operating a commercial motor vehicle and who

refuses to submit to a preliminary oral fluid analysis as provided

in this section. This subsection does not limit use of other

competent evidence by the peace officer to determine whether to

order a person out of service under section 319d.

 

     (8) A person who operates a commercial motor vehicle and who

is requested to submit to a preliminary oral fluid analysis under

this section by a peace officer who is certified as a drug

recognition expert as that term is defined in section 625q in a

county participating in the pilot program under section 625q shall

be advised that refusing the request is a misdemeanor punishable by

imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than

$100.00, or both, and will result in the issuance of a 24-hour out-

of-service order.

 

     (9) A person who operates a commercial motor vehicle and who

refuses to submit to a preliminary oral fluid analysis upon the

request of a peace officer who is certified as a drug recognition

expert as that term is defined in section 625q in a county

participating in the pilot program under section 625q is guilty of

a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days

or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

 

     Sec. 625s. A person who is qualified by knowledge, skill,

experience, training, or education, in the administration of

standardized field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze

nystagmus (HGN) test, shall be allowed to testify subject to

showing of a proper foundation of qualifications. This section does

not preclude the admissibility of a nonstandardized field sobriety

test if it complies with the Michigan rules of evidence.

 

     Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect 90 days

after the date it is enacted into law.

 

     Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect

unless Senate Bill No. 434 of the 98th Legislature is enacted into

law.

[imiubu]

SB-0434, As Passed Senate, January 20, 2016

 

 

 

 

SUBSTITUTE FOR

 

SENATE BILL NO. 434

 

 

 

(As amended January 14, 2016)

 

 

 

 

 

     A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled

"Michigan vehicle code,"

 

(MCL 257.1 to 257.923) by adding sections 43b and 625q.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

 

 

     Sec. 43b. "Preliminary oral fluid analysis" means the on-site

taking of a preliminary oral fluid test, performed by a certified

drug recognition expert, as that term is defined in section 625q,

from the oral fluid of a person for the purpose of detecting the

presence of a controlled substance, as that term is defined in

section 7104 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7104.

 

     Sec. 625q. (1) The department of state police may establish a

pilot program in <<5>> counties in this state for roadside drug testing

to determine whether an individual is operating a vehicle while

Senate Bill No. 434 as amended January 14, 2016

under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of

section 625.

 

     (2) A pilot program established under this section shall be

for a period of 1 calendar year. The funding of a pilot program

established under this section is subject to appropriation.

 

     (3) Except as provided in subsection (8), the department of

state police shall select <<5>> counties in which to implement a pilot

program established under this section.

 

     (4) A county is eligible to participate in the pilot program

if the county has a law enforcement agency within its boundary,

including, but not limited to, a state police post, a sheriff's

department, or a municipal police department, that employs not

fewer than 1 law enforcement officer who is a certified drug

recognition expert.

 

     (5) The department of state police shall develop a written

policy for the implementation of the pilot program and the

administration of roadside drug testing.

 

     (6) The department of state police may promulgate rules under

the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201

to 24.328, to implement a pilot program established under this

section.

 

     (7) Not more than 90 days after the conclusion of a pilot

program established under this section, the department of state

police shall submit a report to the legislative committees of the

senate and house of representatives with primary responsibility for

judicial and criminal justice issues. The report shall cover all of

the following:

 

 

Senate Bill No. 434 as amended January 14, 2016

 

     (a) How pilot program participant counties were selected.

 

     (b) The different types of law enforcement agencies in the

pilot program participant counties that engaged in roadside drug

testing.

 

     © Relevant statistical data, including, but not limited to,

the following:

 

     (i) The number of traffic stops resulting in an arrest for

operating under the influence of a controlled substance in

violation of section 625 as a result of roadside drug testing by a

certified drug recognition expert.

 

     (ii) The number and type of convictions resulting from an

arrest made based on the result of a roadside drug test by a

certified drug recognition expert.

 

     (8) Upon the conclusion of a pilot program established under

this section, the department of state police may, subject to

appropriation, establish additional pilot programs in eligible

counties not included among the <<5>> counties initially selected under

subsection (3). The duration of a pilot program established under

this subsection shall be for a period of 1 year.

 

     (9) As used in this section:

 

     (a) "Certified drug recognition expert" means a law

enforcement officer trained to recognize impairment in a driver

under the influence of a controlled substance rather than, or in

addition to, alcohol.

 

     (b) "Controlled substance" means that term as defined in

section 7104 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7104.

 

     Enacting section 1. This amendatory act shall be known and may

be cited as the "Barbara J. and Thomas J. Swift Law".

 

     Enacting section 2. This amendatory act takes effect 90 days

after the date it is enacted into law.

 

     Enacting section 3. This amendatory act does not take effect

unless Senate Bill No. 207 of the 98th Legislature is enacted into

law.

[beourbud]

You know I didn't see 10,000 people cheering for more drug tests, at the Sanders Rally at EMU yesterday.

 

In fact They Were Out of their seats cheering for Free the Weed

 

We the People are DONE with establishment politics.

 

We are going to Vote out All of the MOST DANGEROUS PARTY.....GOP. First

Then we will see if the other parties take the hint.

How's that for a game plan?

 

There is a Political Revolution Happening, Can You Feel The Bern?

Edited February 16, 2016 by beourbud

[Alphabob]

These bills are just unbelievable, I will definitely be writing to reps if not more; RIP MMMA if 207 passes. Here’s what these bills actually mean:

 

Sec. 625r (1): Gives officers the right to roadside drug test you if there is reasonable cause to believe that you have any medical marijuana in your system.

 

Sec. 625r (3): Allows prosecutors to use positive roadside saliva tests to rebut negative follow-up blood/urine tests.

 

Bill 434: Gives the state police full control over policy and implementation.

 

Even beyond how unreliable roadside saliva tests are (see http://www.rosita.org/execsumm.htm), this law puts a significant amount of power into the hands of the people who were just caught for lab fraud… what could go wrong.

 

Let me give you some examples of how this will destroy the MMMA.

1. You just picked up your medication from a dispensary. Your clothes smell like marijuana from the store, and your car also smells. You get pulled over by LEO, and due to the odor they claim to have reasonable cause for an oral swab. Even though you haven’t smoked in 6-12 hours, the swab comes back positive and you go to jail.
2. You get pulled over for a minor traffic violation. When grabbing your insurance from your wallet, the officer notices that you have a medical marijuana card. After questioning you about it, the officers say that they have reasonable cause to swab you. Even though you haven’t smoked in 6-12 hours, the swab comes back positive and you go to jail.
3. You smoked a few hours before going out to shop. Even though your breath smells like marijuana, you are not intoxicated in any way. Your car breaks down and an officer stops by to see what is going on. Due to the odor, they have reasonable cause to swab and your off to jail.
4. Where we are headed: You get pulled over and test positive for THC. Since the officer can’t find any plant material in your saliva, you get charged with felony synthetic THC.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Alphabob

[beourbud]

seems like they are Literally Jaming unproven and untested technology down our throat.

 

Boy, those fknrepublicans claim small gov but they craw up your azz and Gina every chance they get

 

Abrogate is the antidote to this poison .

Edited February 17, 2016 by beourbud

[mrdizee]

Sounds like a lot of folks want to be able to drive stoned. I think that's a really bad idea, regardless of any laws that are, or are not in place. Driving a 2000 to 10,000 lbs (or larger) vehicle under the influence of any substance, legal or not, prescription or not, is not a good thing. I'm all for the legalization of cannabis, in all its forms, but there has to be some responsibility on the part of the user to protect the general public as well as your own behind.  Perhaps the laws are a bit restrictive, but you can always change your behaviors to be a safe responsible user. 

 

1. I don't know what it's like in MI but in OR the dispensaries don't smell like pot. All herb is in closed containers so there would be no reason for your clothes to smell like pot.

 

2. Why would you be pulled over for a minor traffic violation? Are you stoned? Are you driving stupid? If so, you shouldn't be driving in the first place. For gosh sakes, put your card in a different place in your wallet where the officer can't see it...sheesh!!!

 

3. If it's been a "few hours" since you smoked, you wouldn't smell like pot. Plan a little better...don't go shopping if you've smoked. Supposed you downed a fifth of whiskey a "few hours" ago...would you drive then? If so, you deserve to be arrested. And, how often does your car break down, anyway? I've been driving for 50 years and have only had two breakdowns in that time and a cop didn't show up either time.

 

I think you're viewing this from an alarmist perspective; your logic needs a bit of work. If you want to change the law then work towards changing it so everyone can drive stoned with no repercussions. Is that what you want? People shouldn't drive drunk, they shouldn't drive stoned, and they shouldn't drive under the influence of any mind/mood altering substances, even prescribed by a doctor. Be responsible. 

[Alphabob]

I don’t think it’s as simple as saying people want to drive stoned, or more specifically impaired. Medical marijuana should not be treated any differently from other medicinal drugs. If you are recommended xanax via prescription, you can drive on it as long as you are not impaired. If you are recommended opiates via prescription, you can drive as long as you are not impaired. Regardless of what you are on, it is not ok to be impaired while operating a motor vehicle; there shouldn’t be any restrictions on top of this. So it’s not that people want to drive stoned, its that they want to be treated like a human being instead of a criminal. These proposed test are highly inaccurate, can give false positives and the "ANY" amount in your system is in conflict with the MMMA; i.e. it is unconstitutional.

1. Regardless of where the odor comes from, have you ever been around someone who smokes cigarettes? There is a cloud of tobacco following them even if they haven’t smoked in hours. What makes medical marijuana any different? Why is it ok for cigarette users to smell like what they smoke, but not legal medical marijuana patients? Did you know that cigarettes increase the likelihood of automobile accidents by 1.5x? As with the dispensary, I guess that really depends on where you go, how you judge your bud (smelling the containers), how much you get, ect.
2. Let me tell you a story… I was driving home after going to my caregiver’s for a 2 week supply. As I approached my exit on the highway, there were two police vehicles with someone pulled over in the shoulder. The law says that I just need to slow down because it’s a 1-lane exit (I was going 30-40 mph in a 70 at this point), yet the officers didn’t know the law. In fact, they didn’t know any laws and charged me with 3 bogus misdemeanors (1 for possession of marijuana, 1 for possession of paraphernalia, 1 for failure to move over; I had my card and was significantly under limit), which I had to pay a lawyer $3000 to dismiss. So it happens, you can get screwed over for doing absolutely nothing wrong, even if you are a perfect driver. License issues, headlights, taillights, ect. are another gotcha that has nothing to do with your driving performance.
3. We shouldn’t have to plan in the first place… period. It’s called discrimination. I don't know how you can plan around something being in your system for days anyways. You may be under a 5ng/ml blood limit after 2-4 hours, but were not talking about some type of reasonable limit here but instead ANY amount. Simply having a medical marijuana card provides reasonable cause that you have at least SOME THC in your system. If you read the literature on saliva testing, chronic users often alternate between positive and negative results long after cessation... long in terms of days.

If you see what has happened with other laws, peoples real experiences, then you will realize that this is not being an alarmist. If you word a law as to give LEO unprecedented, civil rights violating powers, they will use it. Unfortunately, it takes YEARS to get an unconstitutional law removed or fixed. What I really want is civil rights, the ability to use the only medication that really helps and my $3000 back.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Alphabob

[beourbud]

I don’t think it’s as simple as saying people want to drive stoned, or more specifically impaired. Medical marijuana should not be treated any differently from other medicinal drugs. If you are recommended xanax via prescription, you can drive on it as long as you are not impaired. If you are recommended opiates via prescription, you can drive as long as you are not impaired. Regardless of what you are on, it is not ok to be impaired while operating a motor vehicle; there shouldn’t be any restrictions on top of this. So it’s not that people want to drive stoned, its that they want to be treated like a human being instead of a criminal. These proposed test are highly inaccurate, can give false positives and the "ANY" amount in your system is in conflict with the MMMA; i.e. it is unconstitutional.

 

• Regardless of where the odor comes from, have you ever been around someone who smokes cigarettes? There is a cloud of tobacco following them even if they haven’t smoked in hours. What makes medical marijuana any different? Why is it ok for cigarette users to smell like what they smoke, but not legal medical marijuana patients? Did you know that cigarettes increase the likelihood of automobile accidents by 1.5x? As with the dispensary, I guess that really depends on where you go, how you judge your bud (smelling the containers), how much you get, ect.
• Let me tell you a story… I was driving home after going to my caregiver’s for a 2 week supply. As I approached my exit on the highway, there were two police vehicles with someone pulled over in the shoulder. The law says that I just need to slow down because it’s a 1-lane exit (I was going 30-40 mph in a 70 at this point), yet the officers didn’t know the law. In fact, they didn’t know any laws and charged me with 3 bogus misdemeanors (1 for possession of marijuana, 1 for possession of paraphernalia, 1 for failure to move over; I had my card and was significantly under limit), which I had to pay a lawyer $3000 to dismiss. So it happens, you can get screwed over for doing absolutely nothing wrong, even if you are a perfect driver. License issues, headlights, taillights, ect. are another gotcha that has nothing to do with your driving performance.
• We shouldn’t have to plan in the first place… period. It’s called discrimination. I don't know how you can plan around something being in your system for days anyways. You may be under a 5ng/ml blood limit after 2-4 hours, but were not talking about some type of reasonable limit here but instead ANY amount. Simply having a medical marijuana card provides reasonable cause that you have at least SOME THC in your system. If you read the literature on saliva testing, chronic users often alternate between positive and negative results long after cessation... long in terms of days.

If you see what has happened with other laws, peoples real experiences, then you will realize that this is not being an alarmist. If you word a law as to give LEO unprecedented, civil rights violating powers, they will use it. Unfortunately, it takes YEARS to get an unconstitutional law removed or fixed. What I really want is civil rights, the ability to use the only medication that really helps and my $3000 back.

RIGHT ON

 

That's the problem with out of state comments..they are irrelevant.

The kochhead republicans are turning Michigan into a fascist police state with a concerted effort to squash cannabis unless they can monopolize the manufacture sale and distribution.

Our only recourse is to Vote everyone of those fknrepublicans out!

Yes We Can

It's not about driving stoned, it about being left alone.

Cannabis is medicine, alcohol, tobacco and pills kill

Get OFF My Grass!

[bobandtorey]

What I am having such a difficult time understanding is why isn't the entire cannabis community raising HE LL about this? 

 

Apathy maybe. 

 

 

What i did was print out a bunch of flyers of the Bill's  and take them to the Grow stores  and smoke shops in your area most people do not know what is happening i send them here to the MMMA site and too the PGT show 

[bobandtorey]

I don’t think it’s as simple as saying people want to drive stoned, or more specifically impaired. Medical marijuana should not be treated any differently from other medicinal drugs. If you are recommended xanax via prescription, you can drive on it as long as you are not impaired. If you are recommended opiates via prescription, you can drive as long as you are not impaired. Regardless of what you are on, it is not ok to be impaired while operating a motor vehicle; there shouldn’t be any restrictions on top of this. So it’s not that people want to drive stoned, its that they want to be treated like a human being instead of a criminal. These proposed test are highly inaccurate, can give false positives and the "ANY" amount in your system is in conflict with the MMMA; i.e. it is unconstitutional.

1. Regardless of where the odor comes from, have you ever been around someone who smokes cigarettes? There is a cloud of tobacco following them even if they haven’t smoked in hours. What makes medical marijuana any different? Why is it ok for cigarette users to smell like what they smoke, but not legal medical marijuana patients? Did you know that cigarettes increase the likelihood of automobile accidents by 1.5x? As with the dispensary, I guess that really depends on where you go, how you judge your bud (smelling the containers), how much you get, ect.
2. Let me tell you a story… I was driving home after going to my caregiver’s for a 2 week supply. As I approached my exit on the highway, there were two police vehicles with someone pulled over in the shoulder. The law says that I just need to slow down because it’s a 1-lane exit (I was going 30-40 mph in a 70 at this point), yet the officers didn’t know the law. In fact, they didn’t know any laws and charged me with 3 bogus misdemeanors (1 for possession of marijuana, 1 for possession of paraphernalia, 1 for failure to move over; I had my card and was significantly under limit), which I had to pay a lawyer $3000 to dismiss. So it happens, you can get screwed over for doing absolutely nothing wrong, even if you are a perfect driver. License issues, headlights, taillights, ect. are another gotcha that has nothing to do with your driving performance.
3. We shouldn’t have to plan in the first place… period. It’s called discrimination. I don't know how you can plan around something being in your system for days anyways. You may be under a 5ng/ml blood limit after 2-4 hours, but were not talking about some type of reasonable limit here but instead ANY amount. Simply having a medical marijuana card provides reasonable cause that you have at least SOME THC in your system. If you read the literature on saliva testing, chronic users often alternate between positive and negative results long after cessation... long in terms of days.

If you see what has happened with other laws, peoples real experiences, then you will realize that this is not being an alarmist. If you word a law as to give LEO unprecedented, civil rights violating powers, they will use it. Unfortunately, it takes YEARS to get an unconstitutional law removed or fixed. What I really want is civil rights, the ability to use the only medication that really helps and my $3000 back.

 

 

Thank you for your post i agree 

 

What Mr. Jones wants is to find out when and how many opiates someone has taken and if you take to many and that is not his job its up to a Doctor and not Leo 

 

Most people know that these Bills are only a way to make money off the sick 

 

I see it going as Lansing legalizing small amounts of cannabis and then making $$$ off those young people not knowing about a Law like these 

[Alphabob]

Well it’s clear that our government in Michigan does not have any of our backs; emergency manager law, the poisoning of Flint, illegal transport law, fraudulent felony charges… the list goes on. Here’s an article I found from April 2014 when roadside testing for marijuana was first getting a house hearing: http://www.theweedblog.com/roadside-saliva-testing-for-marijuana-gets-house-hearing-in-michigan/

 

 

“Saliva tests have been rejected for use by the federal government and the industry reports no FDA approval for the methodology.”

 

“How long will the saliva tests detect marijuana use? Depends on who you ask. Narco Check says, ‘whatever the test used, THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) can never be detected more than 4 to 6 hours in saliva.’ Competitor Test Country says the tests are good for up to 12 hours. ‘Delta 9 THC has been measured in oral fluid up to 72 hours after smoking,’ says another competitor, Forensic Fluids. Medical Health Test, an industry website, reports that, ‘Drugs like marijuana and cocaine can be detected up to 24 hours after consumption.’”

 

“At what threshold will the test detect marijuana presence? Again, the result depends upon whom you ask. Narco Check will not detect THC at a level below 25 nanograms per [milli]liter. Test Country advertises the cutoff for detectable amounts of THC is 50 ng/ml.  Other testing companies reported a wide variety of detection ranges.”

 

Not only is saliva testing lacking approval in any standardized way, but the length that substances can be detected for is highly dependent on what test kit is used. The second aspect I’m trying to look into is what tests they would be using, as this could cause some to be harassed more than others. The law in its current form includes all schedule 1 and 2 drugs in ANY amount (MCL 333.7212 and 333.7214), so this has far reaching consequences even for non-MMJ users. This includes but not limited to: (schedule 1) Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, Mescaline, MDMA, GHB, Psilocybin, Bath Salts (schedule 2) Amphetamines, Oxycodone, Methadone, Fentanyl, Morphine, Hydrocodone, Opium, Cocaine, PCP, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, Buprenorphine, Medical Marijuana, ect. If you take Marinol or Dronabinol (schedule 3) you would also be at risk.

 

5 Panel Tests: Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Opiates, Marijuana (THC)

 

12 Panel Tests: Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Opiates, Marijuana (THC), PCP, Benzodiazepines, Oxycodone, Methadone, Barbiturates, Buprenorphine, Alcohol

 

So yes, this would mostly be targeting the sick and poor with little effect on reducing accidents, a hallmark of Michigan governance. Who needs science when you have fear mongering.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Alphabob

[BirdHunter]

The original bills made refusal a $100 civil infraction. These substitutes criminalize refusal.

[bobandtorey]

Watch it here 

 

http://www.house.mi.gov/MHRPublic/PlayVideoArchive.html?video=JUDI-020916.mp4

[bobandtorey]

  The MMJ Law  doesn't define what it means to be under the infunce ? so Loe says in Lansing 

[trichcycler]

"Don't drive or operate machinery until you know how this drug affects you"

 

When I medicate with my cannabis I don't want to go anywhere except a walk in the woods or my hammock with a book maybe.

I'm in pain and need to stop, find a cozy place to rest and get real for awhile. Driving on the road with cell phone jugglers and

people on morphine is dangerous imo, and the LAST place I want to be while healing this way. I swear some drivers are contemplating suicide on the road, maybe one missed rx away..... that's scary to me.

[Alphabob]

Couldn’t get the mp4 to work, but the “under the influence” thing has been going on since Koon with respect to clarity. The reasons behind previous rulings however are quite clear; a zero tolerance law would prohibit medical marijuana patients from being able to medicate and thus such interpretation cannot be consistent with what the writers intended.

 

However, I think “under the influence” has a more direct interpretation. For example, if you drank a beer would you say that your under the influence of alcohol? More precisely, would that single beer influence your actions in any way? Probably not. Would 2 or 3 beers influence your actions? Possibly socially, but it would be unlikely to significantly affect your driving or sobriety tests.

 

The same thing can be applied for medical marijuana; is the THC influencing the way you walk? Your speech? Your driving? Obviously this can all be determined through basic sobriety tests, which is the way things work right now. I would expect that none other than MSP are behind this push for per se limits and saliva testing.