Driving High at Issue with Marijuana Law

[MsRedEye]

Montana - A state lawmaker said Tuesday that medical patients who are registered to use marijuana should be stripped of the privilege if they are caught driving high.

Sen. Verdell Jackson, R-Kalispell, said drivers become impaired after taking marijuana, and he wants to create a harsh penalty to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Opponents of the bill, and supporters of the medical marijuana law, said there is no accurate test for marijuana impairment.

They argued in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the drug THC stays in the system for days after marijuana use — so people not suffering any impairment could be penalized.

“I have not heard of any allegation, even, of a registered Montana patient driving under the influence,” said Tom Daubert of Helena, director of Patients and Families United.

Voters approved the state’s medical marijuana law in 2004. It allows those who receive a prescription from a doctor to possess a limited amount of marijuana for personal use. The state registry has reported more than 1,000 patients are signed up for medical marijuana usage.

The bill would authorized traffic officers to get blood tests for drug usage of medical marijuana card holders and to strip patients of their medical marijuana card if they refuse the test.

Opponents of the initiative also argued Tuesday that it is unfair to strip patients of their medicine if they are caught while using, instead of just stripping driving privileges.


News Hawk: MsRedEye: http://www.420magazine.com/
Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Copyright: 2009 The Associated Press
Contact: Contact Us | The Associated Press
Website: The Associated Press | The essential global news network

[Nigtmove]

This part always drives me crazy.

What is the major malfunction here?

Very first line, "...stripped of the privilege if they are caught driving high?"

To begin with, lets get our verbiage correct. Shouldn't it be "if they are caught driving IMPAIRED"?
If so, I'm right there with you. Shoulder to shoulder.
I don't want to be driving around with my only son or one of my young nieces or nephews and end up in the ER, or worse, the morgue because someone's on the road who shouldn't be.

But what's wrong with the test we have in place now. Walk the line, backwards abc's, touch your nose, you've watched cop's you know what I mean. Doesn't this tell you if they are impaired? I am also open to other field tests that more focus' on the impairment.

But to take someone's DNA for not signaling a left hand turn!?!

Focus on the problem. For what reason did you pull this person over?

[Soniq420]

Originally Posted by Nigtmove

This part always drives me crazy.

What is the major malfunction here?

Very first line, "...stripped of the privilege if they are caught driving high?"

To begin with, lets get our verbiage correct. Shouldn't it be "if they are caught driving IMPAIRED"?
If so, I'm right there with you. Shoulder to shoulder.
I don't want to be driving around with my only son or one of my young nieces or nephews and end up in the ER, or worse, the morgue because someone's on the road who shouldn't be.

I'm 100% with you up to here. If there's an impairment threshold - similar to the .08 for alcohol intoxication, this seems reasonable. However it can't be the COOH THC metabolite test we're persecuted with today.

But what's wrong with the test we have in place now. Walk the line, backwards abc's, touch your nose, you've watched cop's you know what I mean. Doesn't this tell you if they are impaired? I am also open to other field tests that more focus' on the impairment.

Respectfully, I don't agree with this. In my experience, both first hand, and in the jury box, DRE's (drug recognition experts) have incentives to stretch the truth. The case I was on showed that the DRE in training was writing up cases because he needed 20 citations to be qualified to perform without suprvision (this came with a pay bump).

I'm not saying that all cops lie, but they are human, and I see it as a recipe for disaster to allow a subjective standard (regardless of how they pretty up the DRE presentation)

Test only for cause, arrest of if impaired above a reasonable limit (here we agree)

Nice post Nigtmove

[Nigtmove]

Soniq420, I do understand your position. I agree that if it is the wrong test for this situation then it is wrong, lets figure out the right thing to do so we all can live together somehow.
But, I think these are two separate problems to figure out. One problem would be how to keep our streets safe and the other problem would be how to not place incentives for a cop to crap on a citizen for a pay raise.

And since I'm speaking to this subject again I'm going to throw this out there too.

They want to take your med's away if you are driving impaired?

So if that is true would this also be the law?
A person is very sick with cancer, after a morning of chemo they are driving home when the vomiting starts (this, unfortunately, I know about. My wife died five years ago from breast cancer and she went down hard.) which takes their focus off the road and they have an accident. Would they then take that persons right to chemotherapy away?

Seems equally unfair.

[zolar]

so i smoked a joint last weekend and nothing else for the past week and i'm out of my depression meds or miss a dose and i get stopped and fail an impairment test and get agitated as side effect of the head meds if i can't pass the field test sober or high disability vision problems near blind without glasses i get tested and fail for something i consumed a week ago....

are they going to take my depression medicine away too....

wouldn't due process require that they take away any scripts that
have drowsiness as a side effect or take my liscence away for a nausea med or allergy or .....

[Soniq420]

Originally Posted by Nigtmove

And since I'm speaking to this subject again I'm going to throw this out there too.

They want to take your med's away if you are driving impaired?

So if that is true would this also be the law?
A person is very sick with cancer, after a morning of chemo they are driving home when the vomiting starts (this, unfortunately, I know about. My wife died five years ago from breast cancer and she went down hard.) which takes their focus off the road and they have an accident. Would they then take that persons right to chemotherapy away?

Seems equally unfair.

I'm with you on this 100%. It's beyond belief these extra bonus penalties they keep coming up with in desperate effort try to stop the non-harmful use of a simple plant.

Taking someone's medication away, to me, borders on the criminal.

I do have the faith that if we plant lovers continue to stick together and we keep advocating for our position, we'll ultimately prevail.

[hood1]

How many people are high on legal drugs while driving. Have you ever heard of a person on Oxycontin or Zanex being jailed for driving under the influence? Look at the damn studies people stoned actually drive safer. If I were the insurance companies I would insist cannabis use while driving. Maybe some of the idiots on our highways will slow to sub-supersonic!!