420

Under a decision by a divided Michigan Supreme Court in June, youcan be convicted of drugged driving, even if you are not in the leastimpaired by drugs. In a pair of cases,Â*Derror v. MichiganÂ*and Kurts v. Michigan, the Court upheld the constitutionality of MichiganÂ’s zero tolerance per sepolicy, which allows prosecution for driving under the influence ofdrugs if a person tests positive for any trace amount of a Schedule Idrug or its non-psychoactive metabolite.Â*
The ruling reverses a Michigan Appellate Court ruling which saidthat in order to move forward with a DUID prosecution, the state had todemonstrate that the presence of a controlled substance in a driver'sbody was the proximate cause of an accident.
The Michigan policy has a series of impractical and even harmfulconsequences.Â* It is useful to compare the zero-tolerance law to thestate's alcohol laws, which permit drivers to have a blood alcoholcontent of up to .08.Â* This level is equivalent to about 1-2 drinks perhour for an average size person.Â* Such a person can legally drive, butwho smoked a joint three days earlier cannot. In other words, anycasual drug user who responsibly refrains from operating a motorvehicle while intoxicated (typically a matter of hours) must now waitdays, weeks, or, in the case of marijuana, even months before operatinga motor vehicle in Michigan. If MichiganÂ’s policy were adoptednationwide, the licenses of over 25 million Americans could be revokedor suspended--with absolutely no discernible benefit to public safety.
What is more, Michigan’s zero tolerance law effectively overridesthe laws of at least 11 other states-–representing nearly one-third ofthe U.S. population--which have ratified the medical use of marijuana.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Michael Cavanaugh of the MichiganSupreme Court observed that the decision "now makes criminals out ofnumerous Michigan citizens who, before today, were consideredlaw-abiding, productive members of our community."Â*
In short, Michigan’s law bears no rational relationship to concernsfor public safety – or any other governmental interest. At the sametime, it is likely to wreak havoc on the lives of thousands ofotherwise law-abiding, safety-conscious individuals. As a result, theCourt’s ruling is destined to end up on the trash heap of stupid andharmful legal decisions. The only question is when.
http://www.nooked.com/news/itemtrack...0cd09484441089More...