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

[imiubu]

Collecting and cataloging DNA was on my mind when one of the rep's (can't remember which)

brought up the same concern.

 

I believe it was Irwin who voiced his concern about mmj patients and the bills.

 

 

This is insanity.

 

This kid and his sister want some legacy to their parents that were killed by a drunk driver (with some thc in his system).

Those who were pushing this that day consisted of the kid, Jones (ex leo) and msp.

 

Write your reps in opposition of of these nasty bills.

[Alphabob]

Yes, 333.26427e along with Michigan's constitution requires the MMMA to be modified in order to legally affect patients (I say legally because unconstitutional laws are still affecting us). There were also several SC rulings that have to do with driving and THC or metabolites in your system. I haven’t dived into this defense too much because there are several possibilities for fighting back. The proposed law itself leaves out medical marijuana while still including parts of schedule II; that would be the most straight-forward defense for refusing swabs, at least when dealing with the officer. If that doesn’t work, then you would be stuck arguing that the civil infraction charge is unconstitutional, which most won’t do because it’s only a CI. If a lot of MMJ patients are refusing to fight the illegal transport charge (a misdemeanor), I would imagine that even less will fight the refusal for a swab (or simply allow the swab and get charged with DUI). $$$ LEO needs more IPads, tanks and grenade launchers.

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/dod-orders-police-nationwide-give-grenade-launchers-bayonets-tanks/

 

I also came across this link which shows how much Michigan police care about it's people. Notice that all of their objections with having this stuff removed are about the safety of police officers, not the safety of citizens. It's always the people's perception that is wrong, heavily armored tanks and grenade launchers are a necessity they say. http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/12/02/federal-military-surplus-return/76605640/ Also, who needs proper training on MMMA laws; let's just steal the fees paid by patients and buy ourselves toys http://thecompassionchronicles.com/2015/11/17/cops-use-pot-money-to-buy-i-pads-truck-shirts/. So much scum in this state.

 

EDIT: Actually scrap the idea that MMJ would be considered schedule II, they left out the part in the law where the feds have to authorize it to take effect. So we would have no defense besides the same tactics applied in illegal transport or OWI/DUI cases.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Alphabob

[bobandtorey]

Yes, 333.26427e along with Michigan's constitution requires the MMMA to be modified in order to legally affect patients (I say legally because unconstitutional laws are still affecting us). There were also several SC rulings that have to do with driving and THC or metabolites in your system. I haven’t dived into this defense too much because there are several possibilities for fighting back. The proposed law itself leaves out medical marijuana while still including parts of schedule II; that would be the most straight-forward defense for refusing swabs, at least when dealing with the officer. If that doesn’t work, then you would be stuck arguing that the civil infraction charge is unconstitutional, which most won’t do because it’s only a CI. If a lot of MMJ patients are refusing to fight the illegal transport charge (a misdemeanor), I would imagine that even less will fight the refusal for a swab (or simply allow the swab and get charged with DUI). $$$ LEO needs more IPads, tanks and grenade launchers.

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/dod-orders-police-nationwide-give-grenade-launchers-bayonets-tanks/

 

I also came across this link which shows how much Michigan police care about it's people. Notice that all of their objections with having this stuff removed are about the safety of police officers, not the safety of citizens. It's always the people's perception that is wrong, heavily armored tanks and grenade launchers are a necessity they say. http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/12/02/federal-military-surplus-return/76605640/ Also, who needs proper training on MMMA laws; let's just steal the fees paid by patients and buy ourselves toys http://thecompassionchronicles.com/2015/11/17/cops-use-pot-money-to-buy-i-pads-truck-shirts/. So much scum in this state.

 

EDIT: Actually scrap the idea that MMJ would be considered schedule II, they left out the part in the law where the feds have to authorize it to take effect. So we would have no defense besides the same tactics applied in illegal transport or OWI/DUI cases.

 

 

Wow! Thanks for your input i couldn't  agree more

 

Also do you think someone would need a Lawyer to fight the illegal transport charge or could someone do it on their own ?

[bobandtorey]

A bill designed to help catch more people driving under the influence of drugs would treat people like "guinea pigs," an attorney opposed to the legislation says. 

The bill, which passed the Michigan Senate last month, would allow the Michigan State Police to run a pilot program in five counties to conduct roadside saliva drug testing for cocaine, marijuana, heroin and other drugs.

Bill sponsor Sen. Tom Casperson, whose district covers much of the Upper Peninsula, said the legislation's intent is to allow the state to come up with "a reasonable standard" for drug testing, like it has in place for alcohol testing.

"There's no way to judge the amount that's in their system and what's enough to be impaired," Casperson said.

Drug testing procedures are in place, but currently not carried out during traffic stops. Police can seek a warrant to force someone to submit to testing, which can take place at a hospital.

Casperson noted that police already arrest people for driving impaired now, without roadside testing.

"It could take a while to get there," he said, to create a good way to test "on scene" for drugs.

The Michigan State Police would be tasked with creating a written policy for the program and instructed to submit a report upon the completion of the pilot program to the legislature.

"We've got to start somewhere," Casperson said, adding, "We've got to come up with a good way to do it right."

If the bill becomes law, it will be named "Barbara J. and Thomas J. Swift Law," after the couple killed in a March 20, 2013, crash in Escanaba, when a tractor-trailer ran a red light and careened into their Chevrolet Malibu.

Tractor-trailer driver Harley Davidson Durocher was convicted of charges including operating while intoxicated causing death, and sentenced to a minimum of five years and five months in prison for the crash.

Current Delta County Prosecuting Attorney Philip L. Strom said his predecessor prosecuted the Swift case, and declined to comment on how the proposed legislation would have applied to the case.

"We've got to start somewhere." — state Sen. Tom Casperson on the proposed drug-testing pilot project.

 

He said Durocher's blood was draw at a hospital following the crash showed THC, an ingredient of marijuana, leading to the charges.

The legislation would provide a way to get the sample faster.

"Any sort of additional tools from the legislative or scientific community to help us determine what drugs are present more immediately, it's going to be helpful prevention, criminal prosecution and for conviction by a jury," he said. 

Additional tools would hopefully help "catch and prosecute successfully" more people who drive under the influence, he said, and the proposed bill could act as a deterrent to stop people before they make the "very scary and terrible decision to use drugs and drive an automobile." 

'A dangerous precedent'

Attorney Neil Rockind, founder of Southfield-based criminal defense law firm Rockind Law, said he opposes the bill and calls the proposed testing "bad science."

"The criminal justice system wants to take science and turn it into a fast, easy utility," he said. "Science is neither fast nor easy." 

Rockind said the legislation would set a "dangerous precedent" for Michigan. 

"A pilot program is a test program and, in this case, treats people as guinea pigs to be studied," he said.

"People are not guinea pigs. No citizen should be the subject of a test program when their liberty and way of life are on the line."

Casperson's bill, S.B. 434, is accompanied by another bill, Senate Bill 207.

The Senate Fiscal Agency report on S.B. 207 states it would authorize officers who are certified as drug recognition experts to require a person to submit to "a preliminary oral fluid analysis," if the officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had any amount of a "Schedule 1" controlled substances including ecstasy, heroin, marijuana, and LSD in his or her body. 

There are currently 84 drug recognition experts working in police agencies across the state, the report says. 

Under the proposed pilot program, a drug recognition expert armed with a swab-based drug detection kit could be called to a traffic stop to administer the roadside test.

"The officer could arrest the person based in whole or in part upon the results of a preliminary oral fluid analysis. Results of the analysis would be admissible in a criminal prosecution or administrative hearing," the fiscal agency reports. 

Refusing to submit oral fluid would result in a civil infraction.

Rockind questioned who would own the saliva samples obtained through the pilot program.

"This issue absolutely must be addressed before any pilot program or formal program is introduced," he said. 

The program would cost local and state law enforcement agencies a combined total between $20,000 and $30,000, the fiscal report states, and a major cost would be the purchase of the swab tests, "which can range in price from $250 to $700."

The bill is currently in the Michigan House Judiciary Committee. 

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/roadside_drug_test_pilot_would.html

Edited February 27, 2016 by bobandtorey

[Wild Bill]

The program would cost local and state law enforcement agencies a combined total between $20,000 and $30,000, the fiscal report states, and a major cost would be the purchase of the swab tests, "which can range in price from $250 to $700."

 

That sounds like the perfect thing to write your Reps about.  Wasting our tax money on unproven science.

 

(For those with Republikan reps you can always complain that science in general is not mentioned in the Bible and as such cannot be accepted in any form.)

[outsideinthecold]

At the mid-range price the program funds about forty swabs. Hmmmm.

[Restorium2]

A bill designed to help catch more people driving under the influence of drugs would treat people like "guinea pigs," an attorney opposed to the legislation says. 

The bill, which passed the Michigan Senate last month, would allow the Michigan State Police to run a pilot program in five counties to conduct roadside saliva drug testing for cocaine, marijuana, heroin and other drugs.

Bill sponsor Sen. Tom Casperson, whose district covers much of the Upper Peninsula, said the legislation's intent is to allow the state to come up with "a reasonable standard" for drug testing, like it has in place for alcohol testing.

"There's no way to judge the amount that's in their system and what's enough to be impaired," Casperson said.

Drug testing procedures are in place, but currently not carried out during traffic stops. Police can seek a warrant to force someone to submit to testing, which can take place at a hospital.

Casperson noted that police already arrest people for driving impaired now, without roadside testing.

"It could take a while to get there," he said, to create a good way to test "on scene" for drugs.

The Michigan State Police would be tasked with creating a written policy for the program and instructed to submit a report upon the completion of the pilot program to the legislature.

"We've got to start somewhere," Casperson said, adding, "We've got to come up with a good way to do it right."

If the bill becomes law, it will be named "Barbara J. and Thomas J. Swift Law," after the couple killed in a March 20, 2013, crash in Escanaba, when a tractor-trailer ran a red light and careened into their Chevrolet Malibu.

Tractor-trailer driver Harley Davidson Durocher was convicted of charges including operating while intoxicated causing death, and sentenced to a minimum of five years and five months in prison for the crash.

Current Delta County Prosecuting Attorney Philip L. Strom said his predecessor prosecuted the Swift case, and declined to comment on how the proposed legislation would have applied to the case.

"We've got to start somewhere." — state Sen. Tom Casperson on the proposed drug-testing pilot project.

 

He said Durocher's blood was draw at a hospital following the crash showed THC, an ingredient of marijuana, leading to the charges.

The legislation would provide a way to get the sample faster.

"Any sort of additional tools from the legislative or scientific community to help us determine what drugs are present more immediately, it's going to be helpful prevention, criminal prosecution and for conviction by a jury," he said. 

Additional tools would hopefully help "catch and prosecute successfully" more people who drive under the influence, he said, and the proposed bill could act as a deterrent to stop people before they make the "very scary and terrible decision to use drugs and drive an automobile." 

'A dangerous precedent'

Attorney Neil Rockind, founder of Southfield-based criminal defense law firm Rockind Law, said he opposes the bill and calls the proposed testing "bad science."

"The criminal justice system wants to take science and turn it into a fast, easy utility," he said. "Science is neither fast nor easy." 

Rockind said the legislation would set a "dangerous precedent" for Michigan. 

"A pilot program is a test program and, in this case, treats people as guinea pigs to be studied," he said.

"People are not guinea pigs. No citizen should be the subject of a test program when their liberty and way of life are on the line."

Casperson's bill, S.B. 434, is accompanied by another bill, Senate Bill 207.

The Senate Fiscal Agency report on S.B. 207 states it would authorize officers who are certified as drug recognition experts to require a person to submit to "a preliminary oral fluid analysis," if the officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had any amount of a "Schedule 1" controlled substances including ecstasy, heroin, marijuana, and LSD in his or her body. 

There are currently 84 drug recognition experts working in police agencies across the state, the report says. 

Under the proposed pilot program, a drug recognition expert armed with a swab-based drug detection kit could be called to a traffic stop to administer the roadside test.

"The officer could arrest the person based in whole or in part upon the results of a preliminary oral fluid analysis. Results of the analysis would be admissible in a criminal prosecution or administrative hearing," the fiscal agency reports. 

Refusing to submit oral fluid would result in a civil infraction.

Rockind questioned who would own the saliva samples obtained through the pilot program.

"This issue absolutely must be addressed before any pilot program or formal program is introduced," he said. 

The program would cost local and state law enforcement agencies a combined total between $20,000 and $30,000, the fiscal report states, and a major cost would be the purchase of the swab tests, "which can range in price from $250 to $700."

The bill is currently in the Michigan House Judiciary Committee. 

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/roadside_drug_test_pilot_would.html

Cut to the chase;

 

Get a bunch of patients that can pass a field sobriety test. Have us meet the cops in a parking lot. Have them swab us after we used cannabis. Then pass the field sobriety test for impairment on camera, documented proof we can drive. 

[Alphabob]

Also do you think someone would need a Lawyer to fight the illegal transport charge or could someone do it on their own ?

 

If you have the $2500 - $5000 then getting a lawyer is always the best option. However most medical marijuana patients do not have the cash and are either left with a court appointed or themselves. To be honest though, the court appointed ones are not much better than doing it yourself in MMJ cases; they just nudge you through the process as quickly as possible. The problem is that the process is somewhat complex if you haven't been through it before. If you are like me, with no prior charges and 0 points, getting hit with 3 misdemeanors is about as steep of a learning curve as calculus for your average high school student. Not only the learning curve, but deadlines on the order of weeks.

 

On the other hand, individuals who have been through the process before may have a chance if they know what they are doing (it will cause a negative perception of you in court). There's enough public motions to where you could copy and paste most of it; I would still plan on doing your research for when the prosecutor provides objections to your motion. Cops/prosecutors also like to stack unrelated charges, making this more difficult. For example, you may be told your being arrested for illegal transport, but they write it up as possession of marijuana (illegal transport) and possession of paraphernalia to give the city any profits. Now your faced with arguing against three charges.

 

To be honest though, if I got charged again I would feel somewhat comfortable going in alone; at least with illegal transport or possession charges. Then again my lawyer offered me a job by the end of the case (I couldn't tell if he was serious or not, but I pretty much told him my entire defense and he made it happen). I do believe there are online services with lawyers who will help write/review motions and provide advice for a fee; this might also be an option.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Alphabob

[Alphabob]

Cut to the chase;

 

Get a bunch of patients that can pass a field sobriety test. Have us meet the cops in a parking lot. Have them swab us after we used cannabis. Then pass the field sobriety test for impairment on camera, documented proof we can drive. 

 

The problem is that medical marijuana is not like alcohol (a recreational drug with per se limits), so it can’t be treated as such. There are huge differences between each patients dose, daily consumption and tolerance to where a per se limit cannot be established. It’s the same reason why we don’t have per se limits on dextroamphetamine or oxycodone; people have varying requirements for their condition(s) with medications becoming ineffective/less impairing over time. The only way to tell if someone is impaired from their medication(s) is to perform standard sobriety tests and observe their behavior. For example, I smoked 4 Js (low quality) 1-2 hours before several sobriety tests and I passed every single one; I was even allowed to drive home with 3 bogus misdemeanors when the officers were initially convinced I was "high" from the odor. The actual quote was "Your eyes look good, your eyes look really good actually. Sorry, I don't think your intoxicated". If this law had been in effect at the time and I had given a swab, I would have likely been charged with a DUI even though I wasn't intoxicated and shouldn't have been pulled over. At the very least I would have received an additional civil infraction.

 

The police are just pissed that all their profits will start to disappear with the legalization of MMJ/MJ; it’s like 50%+ of their profits from arrest and forfeitures. So they are fighting for their jobs, pride and mislead beliefs; all on the backs of people who have lost someone through an accident involving alcohol. You can add countless appeals, law suits and other wastes of tax payers money from this law if it passes. It is without a doubt made to target medical marijuana patients in a unconstitutional/illegal manner. I don't even get how their swab kits cost so much. The ones available from various manufactures online range from <$1 to $3 each... follow the money.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Alphabob

[trichcycler]

stupid lab testers/manufacturers driving the illegality of cannabis

Edited February 27, 2016 by grassmatch

[Restorium2]

In the old days no cops thought you couldn't drive after smoking pot. They would catch you give you a ticket and send you on your way driving. They still know you can drive while smoking pot. Most everyone can pass the field sobriety test after smoking pot. The sooner we get this out in the open the better.

 

Line us up, gives us a swab, then let us do the field sobriety test proving we can drive. Or prove me wrong ......... 

[imiubu]

They are not getting my DNA.

 

At least I'll not allow them to swab me willingly.

 

Oh boy.. as I was typing that ^^ out I envisioned myself thrown

down on the roadside cuffed and bleeding hoping I don't get shot.

[outsideinthecold]

So what happens in real life if a driver is stopped and the cop suspects alcohol?

 

Is there an initial field sobriety test performed prior to the breath test?

 

And what happens if a driver passes the field test?

[outsideinthecold]

Worth remembering, the only certain way to pass a road sobriety test is to NOT take one in the first place.

 

Saving two-bucks instead of replacing a burned out light bulb is not a wise strategy if one practices illegal transport.

 

And in my experience the safest drivers I know are those who intelligently practice illegally transporting by ensuring there is nothing physically wrong with their vehicle, chooses routes less likely to encounter traffic and strictly conforms to the traffic laws.

 

Speeding, failure to signal, following too close, and aggressive driving in general are not practices that are recommended when illegally transporting.

 

T-pain's IT log is a much appreciated reminder of the risks inherent in illegally transporting.

 

Be safe, it is a jungle out there.

[Alphabob]

I've never been pulled over for alcohol, but I believe it is field sobriety first then breathalyzer. If you refuse a breathalyzer it’s a civil infraction with 6 points and 1 year license suspension; is this the same penalty for refusing a drug swab? Another thing I’m noticing is claims of standard field sobriety tests not working for marijuana, although I cannot find any scientific studies on this. I think it is a misconception because they are assuming that anyone who uses marijuana must be impaired, which is false. So of course standard tests are not going to work for many patients because they are not actually impaired. This is the primary reason behind going to non-scientific methods, because there’s too many of us getting away.

 

But may I remind the Michigan legislature and state police about People v Koon. We are right back to where we were 3+ years ago, they just don’t quit. What they want is to detect any amount of marijuana, not to determine if someone is intoxicated. Yet the tests will be used in court to prove the individual was intoxicated.

 

People v Koon MSC Opinion:
“The MMMA [Michigan Medical Marihuana Act] 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. The immunity from prosecution provided under the 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 inescapably conflicts with MCL 257.625(8) [the state’s zero tolerance per se DUI law], which prohibits a person from driving with any amount of marijuana in her or system.”

 

Except from SB 207 (as passed by senate):

"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."

Edited February 28, 2016 by Alphabob

[Alphabob]

Thinking we should mass mail/email legislators on this one. Here's a quick draft I've been working on, any suggestions? There's a few other areas of the law I could expand upon, but I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible (e.g. section 7e of MMMA and Michigan's constitution).

 

 

Dear RepresentativeNameHere,

 

I am writing to bring attention to the conflicting language found in SB 207 (2015) with respect to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) and Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) decisions. Operating a motor vehicle with any amount of marijuana in one’s system is a protected activity under the MMMA. If SB 207 were to pass congress with similar language, thousands of medical marijuana patients will have their constitutional rights violated by what boils down to an unconstitutional law.

 

People v Koon MSC Except: “The MMMA [Michigan Medical Marihuana Act] 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."

 

The MSC decision and MMMA require an officer to demonstrate physical impairment for medical patients in order to subject them to any penalty including arrest, prosecution or even drug testing. The language of SB 207 however states,

 

“…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…”

 

Such law would ultimately have the effect of not allowing medical marijuana patients to operate a vehicle, which would prohibit them from using medical marijuana. Furthermore, saliva testing lacks scientific merit, can often result in false positives and will detect marijuana up to 6 – 48 hours after last use depending on the test kits purchased. SB 207 must therefore specifically exclude medical marijuana patients from the “any amount” standard. The medical marijuana community can no longer support any legislator who continues to pass unconstitutional laws; laws that waste tax revenues, court resources and targets those who are medically ill.

 

Sincerely,
   YourNameHere

Edited February 28, 2016 by Alphabob

[t-pain]

you understand that this bill is an oral fluid test for regular people right ? nothing to do with mmma , right ?

 

bad idea to send them letters giving them ideas about the mmma.

[bobandtorey]

In the old days no cops thought you couldn't drive after smoking pot. They would catch you give you a ticket and send you on your way driving. They still know you can drive while smoking pot. Most everyone can pass the field sobriety test after smoking pot. The sooner we get this out in the open the better.

 

Line us up, gives us a swab, then let us do the field sobriety test proving we can drive. Or prove me wrong ......... 

 

The sad thing is if someone is stopped at a light and someone else runs into them and someone gets hurt thats where things can and do go wrong for both drivers 

 

so checking your lights and obeying all the Laws on a highway will work most times Imo 50/50 

[Alphabob]

you understand that this bill is an oral fluid test for regular people right ? nothing to do with mmma , right ?

 

bad idea to send them letters giving them ideas about the mmma.

 

At face value the law is claiming to target everyone using schedule I or cocaine including medical marijuana patients. However, marijuana accounted for 56% of possession arrests in 2007 and we know that things have only gotten worse since the MMMA was passed. Depending on which county you live in, this can range from 30%-100% of possession charges for 2014 (>67% average). Some of the bigger counties that may be selected include Ottawa: 86%, Berrien: 80%, Kent: 79%, Allegan: 77%, Washtenaw: 72%, Oakland: 65%, Wayne: 63%, Genesee: 56%, Macomb: 50% (Sanilac: 96%). What do you notice about some of the top players here? They are the same counties that have had an explosion of MMJ cases including illegal transport (I'm using this as an example, because it's very similar to how SB 208 will play out and I'm guessing they will select larger counties with drug professionals already in them). Also remember that the reporting of transport cases varies from county to county and city to city, so in general it is the counties with above average percentages that are aggressively targeting MMJ patients.

 

Therefore, those who will be impacted the most are MJ users, regardless if they are medical (~178,629 people) or recreational (~1,805,072 people). MJ is the easiest to detect due to odor and will arise in many situations that have nothing to do with driving performance or intoxication. In fact MMJ patients are usually less careful about confrontations with LEO and therefore more likely to have something bad happen. Good luck trying to explain to the officer section 7e of the MMMA, the Michigan constitution and prior MSC rulings.

 

Think about it, if the illegal transport bill had included a line saying it did not affect medical marijuana patients, would we be in our current situation? No, it probably would have never passed in the first place because there was already push back from the MMJ community that forced the legislature not to modify the MMMA (two other bills at that time did modify the MMMA). LEO however still got the illegal transport passed in the penal code with the word "medical" removed from it, but you would have to be naive to assume they did not plan to target MMJ patients with that one. If you don’t add such line to the saliva testing bill (SB 207) then they surely would be targeting MMJ patients. LEO and the courts have clearly shown that they need things spelled out for them... word for word. How much worse could it get if we started communicating with legislators? This proposed law (that has already passed the senate) is about as bad as it gets… its either goodbye MMJ, goodbye driving or goodbye freedom. I'm still digging up what will happen if you refuse the test; it may be the same as refusing a breathalyzer.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Alphabob

[t-pain]

the similarities amongst the counties are just the largest population counties in michigan.

 

the danger is them trying to open the act, much like theyve done before and are currently trying to do now .

[BirdHunter]

The latest bill language increased refusal to take a swab from a civil fine to a criminal misdemeanor.

[Restorium2]

The swab has to be tied to the field test. A field test should always be on camera.

 

Refusing a swab is really pointless. Just like refusing a breath analyzer or a blood test. When you go there you have plead guilty and placed yourself at the mercy of the court. Might as well get your plan together and make sure you know how to pass a sobriety field test. 

 

The silver lining for medical patients is that we are completely used to cannabis and it does not effect our driving at all(if it ever did).

 

I think the only folks that these swabs should be nabbing are those on heroin or over medicated on heroin like pain killers. They are out there driving impaired. 

[Norby]

Compliance?  Do they check your house to make sure your hallways are wide enough to be in code?  Do they check people with a xanax script and count how many pills are in the bbottle?  what else do they check "compliance" for.  I got a fuking card.  It means I can have MJ.  UNless I have a pound or more sitting on the seat(and they can eye out the weight accurately) it's none of their fuking business.  If they are going to be compliance police they better get a fuking biology degree and learn about MJ.  CAuse any cop who can't answer what they would do if a relative was dying of cancer CORRECTLY(meaning leave anyone alone who says they are caring for a relative cause if not you don't have the compassion necessary for the job) will not get any cooperation from me.  I don't respect their authority.

 

And if we don't start telling politicians exactly how we feel then it's our fault for letting them railroad us.  If we don't educate ourselves and stand together we get divided and conquered everytime.

 

I take that back, it's not our fault cause we don't have the money to buy the politicians but complicit, I think fits.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Norby

[Restorium2]

Compliance?  Do they check your house to make sure your hallways are wide enough to be in code?  Do they check people with a xanax script and count how many pills are in the bbottle?  what else do they check "compliance" for.  I got a fuking card.  It means I can have MJ.  UNless I have a pound or more sitting on the seat(and they can eye out the weight accurately) it's none of their fuking business.  If they are going to be compliance police they better get a fuking biology degree and learn about MJ.  CAuse any cop who can't answer what they would do if a relative was dying of cancer CORRECTLY(meaning leave anyone alone who says they are caring for a relative cause if not you don't have the compassion necessary for the job) will not get any cooperation from me.  I don't respect their authority.

 

And if we don't start telling politicians exactly how we feel then it's our fault for letting them railroad us.  If we don't educate ourselves and stand together we get divided and conquered everytime.

We find it necessary to test people for alcohol impairment so you have to expect them to check for heroin impairment. We can't have folks driving like that. We all have heard about and felt terrible losses from impaired drivers. 

[Alphabob]

The latest bill language increased refusal to take a swab from a civil fine to a criminal misdemeanor.

 

Do you have a link?

 

According to the version passed in senate, its a civil infraction for non-commercial vehicles and misdemeanor for commercial. They also do not need to offer it after field sobriety tests. Its "or reasonable cause to believe that a person has in his or her body any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule I". Examples include the odor of marijuana, the officer noticing your Michigan medical marijuana card, you telling the officer that you have a Michigan medical marijuana card, previous arrests and convictions related to marijuana, ect.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Alphabob