Impaired Reasoning

Jacob Sullum | June 22, 2006

Yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that state law prohibits operation of a motor vehicle by anyone with a detectable amount of the THC metabolite 11-carboxy-THC in his body. Although 11-carboxy-THC is not psychoactive and can remain in the blood and urine, depending on frequency of use, for days or weeks after any driving-relevant impairment has worn off, the court concluded that it counted as a marijuana "derivative," for which the legal rule is zero tolerance. The upshot is that many regular pot smokers in Michigan can never legally drive, whether they're intoxicated or not. Even occasional smokers will routinely break the law unless they refrain from driving for several days after smoking.

The dissenters were troubled by these implications, but the majority was not:

It is irrelevant that an 'ordinary' marijuana smoker allegedly does not know that 11-carboxy-THC could last in his or her body for weeks. It is also irrelevant that a person might not be able to drive long after any possible impairment from ingesting marijuana has worn off. The use of marijuana is classified as a misdemeanor under current law...The Legislature's prohibition of the operation of a motor vehicle with any amount of marijuana, which explicitly includes derivatives of marijuana, in the body provides more than adequate notice regarding the prohibited conduct.

This is the sort of "per se" policy the federal government wants every state to adopt, by the way.

[via Drug Law Blog]

Comments

|6.22.06 @ 1:12PM|#

The upshot is that many regular pot smokers in Michigan can never legally drive, whether they're intoxicated or not.

Sadly, many people will say that this isn't a bug, it's a feature.

|6.22.06 @ 1:14PM|#

This is why everyone who smokes pot should switch to Cocaine, herion, LSD, Meth, X (Or E depending on where you are from) or any of the other wonderful drugs that get out of your system in 1-2 days.

THis way you can get geeked out of your mind on friday and be A-OK to drive to work on monday

|6.22.06 @ 1:16PM|#

It would save a lot of time if courts would stop writing opinions on drug-related cases and just write "drugs are bad mmmkay" instead. They could rule against the defendants and then get to important matters like supporting erosions of liberty that are unrelated to drugs.

Warren|6.22.06 @ 1:19PM|#

Like so much of the drug war, this will only be enforced selectively. It's a shield to allow the establishment to persecute certain minority populations.

|6.22.06 @ 1:21PM|#

I'm curious - do they do roadside urine tests or something in MI? How do they know to test for it or even suspect that one has THC in their system?

|6.22.06 @ 1:22PM|#

Like so much of the drug war, this will only be enforced selectively. It's a shield to allow the establishment to persecute certain minority populations.

Yet another reason why the decision will be popular.

|6.22.06 @ 1:25PM|#

Alas, I will never be able to become a judge because I am not stupid enough and the legal system, if Raich and Kelo are any indication, is such that the incompetent float to the top. All hail the Peter Principal.

|6.22.06 @ 1:28PM|#

On a related topic, I experienced my first random DUI "checkpoint" a couple of weekends ago. Man, you cannot escape the belligerency of asshole policemen, I swear. My friend (who does not drink) was trying his best to cooperate with the sudden, abrupt and unexpected traffic pattern alteration in order to cooperatively make his way through the surprise checkpoint. The first policeman we encountered was screaming "slow down!!" violently at our passing car. The second officer to address him quipped in a snarky tone, "It would be a good idea to turn your wheel, sir, so you don't run me over." as my friend and I confusedly tried to figure out where we supposed to go through this obstacle course. Then when it was our turn, the officer who administered the checkpoint asked my friend, "Had anything to drink tonight?" My friend answered no. "Still early yet, right?" the officer muttered.

Apparently, it's not enough to wrongfully infringe on our Saturday night out, but on top of that there is that smarmy policeman condescension on top of that.

Fucking assholes

|6.22.06 @ 1:36PM|#

Cops being assholes?

I'm shocked.

|6.22.06 @ 1:39PM|#

smacky-

One more reason why I am going to pay the dues to become an "associate member" in my county's Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. I want that damn bumper sticker.

Consider it protection money.

|6.22.06 @ 1:42PM|#

I've got a serious cop phobia. I'm not sure it's a phobia because phobias are irrational. In a police state it's rational to be terrified of cops because they can do anything they want.

Anyway I dread being pulled over in one of those things because, although I live like a monk, my anxiety will cause be to look shifty as hell. Things will then escalate and I'll be peppersprayed, hogtied, etc.

Warren|6.22.06 @ 1:44PM|#

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against � then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with"

|6.22.06 @ 1:44PM|#

I don't think I'm paranoid to think that our govt & law enforcement wants most of us to be a felons. Once we are felons we can't vote,can't run for political office, may be drastically underemployed.
but we'll be safe from terrorists, right?

|6.22.06 @ 1:45PM|#

Brian, monks invented beer. Be careful!

|6.22.06 @ 1:47PM|#

Consider it protection money.

thoreau,

I *do* consider it protection money. That's why I refuse to give to police "charities". I'm not going to be a part of organized violent crime by contributing to it, even if I think it will save my own ass. I think it's just wrong.


Anyway I dread being pulled over in one of those things because, although I live like a monk, my anxiety will cause be to look shifty as hell. Things will then escalate and I'll be peppersprayed, hogtied, etc.


Brian,

It's true. Even if you are truly behaving innocently, the cops will assume it's an act and give you an even harder time. If they realize you are of good intent, they may lay off of you, but only with condescension and pitiful derision.
It must feel awful to have such a dishonest line of work.

|6.22.06 @ 1:48PM|#

How do they know to test for it or even suspect that one has THC in their system?

I would imagine that if they do a blood test instead of a breathalizer, they would screen for THC derivatives as well, no?

|6.22.06 @ 1:49PM|#

What Pi Guy said.
It's one thing to have a trace in your system from the bong party two months ago, it's quite another to give probable cause for a roadside test.

Which brings us to Warren's point: driving while black (or brown or dirty or too stupid or too smart) in Michigan may be hazardous to your liberty.

|6.22.06 @ 1:52PM|#

Which brings us to Warren's point: driving while black (or brown or dirty or too stupid or too smart) in Michigan may be hazardous to your liberty.

ed,

You forgot "or wearing too modest an outfit" if you are a female. smacky sez: Wear low-cut tops to avoid traffic-related tickets.

Warren|6.22.06 @ 1:55PM|#

oooo smacky, where can I get a look at your ticket repelling outfit?

|6.22.06 @ 1:57PM|#

Anytime I talk to a police officer I feel like i'm a suspect. It's like their first assumption is that i'm breaking the law. I just don't feel comfortable around cops.

|6.22.06 @ 2:00PM|#

You forgot "or wearing too modest an outfit" if you are a female. smacky sez: Wear low-cut tops to avoid traffic-related tickets.

Of course wearing low cut outfits could lead to more male cops pulling you over. In Berryville, VA, the town police were pulling over young women to talk to them.

|6.22.06 @ 2:00PM|#

This is why it's very important for drug laws to be enforced without discretion.

Until we start putting the Patrick Kennedys of the world in jail, the elites-the people with power-will never protest.

|6.22.06 @ 2:02PM|#

oooo smacky, where can I get a look at your ticket repelling outfit?


Warren,

Sorry to break it to you, but I don't have a ticket-repelling outfit per se. My experience is that when I am skin-baring, my chances of getting out of a ticket go up dramatically. It's when I am pulled over and not wearing makeup or unshowered or wearing a frumpy or modest outfit that I generally find myself the owner of a new traffic ticket in my name.

smacky sez: Slut it up, ladies.

Jennifer|6.22.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Smacky, my most egregious DUI checkpoint was some motherfucker who didn't only ask me if I had been drinking, but wanted to know where I was coming from, where I was going, and whether or not I planned to drink alcohol later that evening. (As if it were any of his business if an over-21 wanted to drink in her own home.)

I usually have a little digital voice recorder with me these days, small enough to easily hide. Next time I have to go through a DUI point I'm recording the whole thing.

|6.22.06 @ 2:12PM|#

smacky sez: Slut it up, ladies.

Hear Hear!!

Now there's a movement I can get behind.

|6.22.06 @ 2:18PM|#

I guess I've gotten lucky or something, but the only time I've ever been stopped at a checkpoint, the cop took all of five seconds to ask if I'd had anything to drink, I told him "no", and that was that.

Maybe the cops in Los Gatos just expect that a large proportion of the cars they stop will have a lawyer or someone who can afford a lawyer in them.

-jcr

fyodor|6.22.06 @ 2:34PM|#

I don't know on what ground the case was argued (please don't make me read the ruling!!!), but it seems this may very well be an accurate judicial reading of a very bad law. Those against judicial activism would in that case want to applaud the decision on that principle, the immediate practical results notwithstanding. Perhaps the real fault lies with the Michigan legislature and those who elected them.

|6.22.06 @ 2:37PM|#

smacky,

"I'm sorry, but I've caught you Driving while Sexy. You're going to have to take a special oral exam."

Friggin' cops. I had a female cop flirt with me after pulling me over once, but she still wrote out a B.S. ticket. Guess I didn't respond properly. Or maybe female cops have a stronger sense of duty than male cops. Probably.

Timothy|6.22.06 @ 2:37PM|#

It must feel awful to have such a dishonest line of work.

You presume people who want to have power over others at the end of a gun have feelings.

Now there's a movement I can get behind.

Or in front of, or underneath...

|6.22.06 @ 2:42PM|#

smacky, you mean you don't give to the cops when they call your house, pointedly mention your full address, family members, other personal information, and then say they need money to 'help the community'?

Typical call:

Me: "Hello?"
FoP Telemarketer: *3 second pause* "Uh, Mr. Hig-way?"
Me: *now realizing it's the darn FoP or Fire Department, and wondering how to hang up fast* "Speaking"
FoP: "Uh, yeah, this is the FoP and we just wanted to see how things were for you at 9999 Roadway Circle."
Me: "Fine"
FoP: "That's great.. We're collecting for our annual Orphans and Baby Seals fund drive, can we count on your support?"
Me: "Sorry, I'm very busy, have a nice day." *click*

I'm sure I'm up to +30 minutes on response time by now. Perhaps even on the 'get to it next day' list.

|6.22.06 @ 2:46PM|#

Holy shit that passage from The Fountainhead gave me goose bumps. Rand was a fucking genius.

|6.22.06 @ 2:47PM|#

Holy shit that passage from The Fountainhead gave me goose bumps. Rand was a fucking genius.

|6.22.06 @ 2:55PM|#

I have acquired a cop phobia. I've been given a sobriety check twice (the second time as part of a sobriety checkpoint sweep). Both times I was determined not to be legally impaired, but nevertheless I was so nervous that I could not do the stupid "stand on one foot" or "walk with one foot behind the other" tests -- my knees where shaking too much. (I was able to do them after the cop was no longer in my presence, though.)

My experience is that when I am skin-baring, my chances of getting out of a ticket go up dramatically.

This is why I always drive trouserless.

|6.22.06 @ 2:59PM|#

Whoops I meant Atlas Shrugged...

|6.22.06 @ 3:13PM|#

"Now there's a movement I can get behind."

Or on top of it, depending on your preference.

bonk|6.22.06 @ 3:16PM|#

Maybe the cops in Los Gatos just expect that a large proportion of the cars they stop will have a lawyer or someone who can afford a lawyer in them.

mad funny and mad true. all my lawyer friends like nothing better than to get drunk and bitch about work.

Paul|6.22.06 @ 3:19PM|#

Hmm, sorry, but dope, ESPECIALLY if legal is going to still fall under the the umbrella of the nanny state. End of discussion.

The flawed notion that once legalized, pot will be a free-wheeling product, still purchased from your friend in dreads down the street- in quantities and potency determined by the marketplace is not just naive, it's dead, cold wrong.

Your 'dreadlock' sporting friend down the street will STILL risk being arrested for having, using or selling pot. Because legalization will bring in the following:

localized usage bans for health reasons (see smoking bans)
Potency requirements.
Seller licensing.
Age requirements.
Quantity limitations.
Taxation.
Warning labels.
Roadside sobriety tests designed for the chronic.
Liquor control board style regulation.
Master Settlement Agreements.

The list goes on. Have fun.

|6.22.06 @ 3:27PM|#

I could not do the stupid "stand on one foot" or "walk with one foot behind the other" tests...

When I was on a jury in a DUI case years ago all the jurors tried to do the sobriety tests. When six sober citizens failed the tests in a jury room we figured we weren't going to hold it against the defendant that he had also failed them. Especially since he had done better than most of us.

Paul|6.22.06 @ 3:38PM|#

When I was on a jury in a DUI case years ago all the jurors tried to do the sobriety tests. When six sober citizens failed the tests in a jury room we figured we weren't going to hold it against the defendant that he had also failed them. Especially since he had done better than most of us.

Yeah, and what about that 'recite the alphabet backwards' thing? Hell, I'm not sure I can type it fast... lemme try.. z y x AAAAH! Damnit... I'm going to lunch to get a martini, and then I'll try again...

John M. Joy|6.22.06 @ 3:47PM|#

Prediction: someone'll invent a device which can detect trace amounts of THC metabolites in high flow-rate fluids (i.e. the sewer system).

They place it at the system terminus (near treatment plant); it tests positive. This establishes probable cause to test both branches just upstream the first junction. Positive on any branch there establishes probable cause to test further back, ..., until a residence-level positive is found, which, of course, is probable cause for the dog-shooting no-knock raid.

I mean, if data-mining phone records is okay, then...

JMJ

|6.22.06 @ 3:49PM|#

I hate getting pulled over, and I particularly detest motorcycle cops, who serve no apparent public safety purpose, but exist solely to collect revenue from the travelling public.

The exception I'll make to this general statement is drunk drivers -- I'm heartily in favor of taking substance-impaired drivers off the road, and making it painful for them to have been so reckless.

Of course, someone who had a drink or a toke last week ain't impaired -- but the law, as written, gave the court no leeway to say that in this case.

|6.22.06 @ 3:59PM|#

It's like their first assumption is that i'm breaking the law.

You are. No waking hour of any of our lives passes without our breaking dozens of laws we don't know about. The cops' job is only to sort us.

|6.22.06 @ 4:02PM|#

"Prediction: someone'll invent a device which can detect trace amounts of THC metabolites in high flow-rate fluids (i.e. the sewer system)."


Already a step ahead of you:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/03/the_drug_war_go.shtml

John M. Joy|6.22.06 @ 4:11PM|#

Shit. And just when I was comforting myself about my overactive imagination.

JMJ

|6.22.06 @ 4:16PM|#

So if I'm at a party and some smoke rises from the bedroom, I can't drive for a month? Zero tolerance laws are the natural conclusion of the get tough on crime slippery slope. Just idiotic.

fyodor|6.22.06 @ 4:31PM|#

Paul,

BFD.

We deal with all of that with alcohol, and it's still better than Prohibition was.

A lot better.

|6.22.06 @ 4:33PM|#

Smoke pot last weekend? Busted.
Pop a few ambien? got a 5-a-day effexor habit? buying your valium on-line by the gross? like to toss a few back Friday night, so you can neglect the children, knock the wife around a bit, disturb you neighbors with "Sweet Home Alabama" on volume 10.5 all night? Why, enjoy the weekend sir.
Better yet, mainline some heroin and fentanyl, hell if it doesn't kill you by Saturday am, you'll be clean by Monday for the drive to work! Get your kids some ritalin, so they will finally shut-up! Get the old lady some prozac while you are at it, her incessant carping about finding some meaning in her empty life is just too much to take!
While you are at it, stop by mass on Sunday am, so you can save your soul and hone you ability to judge others, shove your morals down other people's throats, and start living a purpose driven life!
Just don't smoke ganja, that shit is going to ruin the country!

|6.22.06 @ 4:35PM|#

What exactly are you all complaining about? Are you disagreeing with the court's straightforward interpretation of the law? Are you claiming the law is unconstitutional, and if so on what basis?

Yes, the law as written is colossally stupid. But throwing out stupid yet constitutional laws is not the role of the courts.

|6.22.06 @ 4:44PM|#

crimethink, You are very correct, I mean without reading the decision or the law at issue yet, I am still inclined to trust that the Court in MI did what it had to do with a stupid, overreaching law.
I'd like to fishbowl the entire MI legislature so that even just a few of them might experience a bit of selflessness and introspection, hopefully leading to some sanity.

Timothy|6.22.06 @ 4:51PM|#

I think members of government should have their lives recorded on tape at all times. Followed around by a film crew, forced to wear recording equipment, cameras in their homes, offices, cars, you name it. Bedrooms, bathrooms, doesn't matter. This should be broadcast on TV at all times, those who disable the recording devices get 5-10 in the federal pen.

Only then will they knock off this crazy bullshit. Because if you think it's okay to write laws that penalize people for behaviors that aren't harmful (and to further restrict them long after any potential harms have vanished), I think it's only fair that you be watched 24 hours a day. Plus, that would make CSPAN more interesting.

|6.22.06 @ 5:04PM|#

I 2nd crimethink's remarks.

It is not unconstitutional for the Michigan legislature to come up with novel ways to punish pot smokers.

It is not the role of the courts to set public policy.

Paul|6.22.06 @ 5:24PM|#

We deal with all of that with alcohol, and it's still better than Prohibition was.

A lot better.

fyodor.

Upon a cursory examination I'd agree. But (although it wasn't explicit) I wasn't really trying to draw a distinction between prohibition and the lack thereof. I was really trying to point out the legalizing a product doesn't usher in a libertarian utopia. Yes, between the calculated damage caused by Prohibition (capital 'P') and post-Prohibition, the better value is post-Prohibition. Just like a state run media system would be worse than a heavily regulated private media.

I'm merely pointing out the ironies. That the 'prohibited' marijuana enjoys a kind of free-wheeling market atmosphere- devoid of operational regulation beyond the blanket fact that it is illegal.

I merely suggest that our news might be full of ATF raids on growing operations by those innocent dupes who thought (or tried) to maintain their pre-prohibition operations. But now it's because they don't have licenses, are producing beyond a quantity or potency that the law allows and violation of the golden rule of modern western civilization: they're not paying The Man his cut. You want something that'll put you in jail as long or longer than a drug charge, try stop paying your taxes sometime. Or worse, aggressively conceal the fact you're not paying your taxes. You'll very quickly know what a ton of bricks feels like.

|6.22.06 @ 5:51PM|#

.. I've said it before .. it is only a matter of time until you'll have to pass a drug test in order to renew your drivers license ..

"Remember: We own you and we can f*ck with you any time we want"

.. Hobbit

|6.22.06 @ 5:52PM|#

When I was on a jury in a DUI case years ago all the jurors tried to do the sobriety tests. When six sober citizens failed the tests in a jury room we figured we weren't going to hold it against the defendant that he had also failed them. Especially since he had done better than most of us.

Egad - a jury using their brains.

You and your fellow-jurors just made my day.

|6.22.06 @ 5:55PM|#

Then when it was our turn, the officer who administered the checkpoint asked my friend, "Had anything to drink tonight?" My friend answered no. "Still early yet, right?" the officer muttered.

The thing that really set me off about the whole ordeal was the last comment made by the inspecting officer. The whole checkpoint process is demeaning enough to begin with, but the fucker has the audacity to insinuate that he can presume to know all citizens' modus operandi and, moreover, presume that my non-drinking friend is going to sneak around drunk driving after the checkpoint. This pissed me off for many reasons, including:

a.) No, fucker, he's not going to drink, so it wasn't fair to insinuate that he's just some proletariat who needs to rely on alcohol at all costs to have a good time.
b.) Even if he were said proletariat, there's nothing wrong with that and it's none of the officer's g-d business.
Corollary to b.): There should be nothing inherently illegal about driving while intoxicated.


This concludes my rant-in-outline-form.

|6.22.06 @ 5:59PM|#

smacky, great post...tip a few tonight yourself?

|6.22.06 @ 6:17PM|#

cecil,

Thanks. Not yet. Yes, believe it or don't, that is actually my sober train of thought you were reading. With any luck, though, policies like this one will drive me to drink much more frequently.

|6.22.06 @ 6:31PM|#

I didn't mean to imply that your thoughts indicated drunkeness at all. I agree wholeheartedly with your "rant".
The cop culture of steroids, hypocrisy, and arrogance gets stronger every day, largely fueled by short-sighted politicians who consistently pass laws that prohibit personal experiences. The process puts the kids who get sucked into the law enforcement life and us citizens in graver danger everyday.

In any event, I will buy you a drink anytime!

|6.22.06 @ 6:32PM|#

"Yes, the law as written is colossally stupid. But throwing out stupid yet constitutional laws is not the role of the courts."

Yet we're expected to believe that a system with stupid laws built in will actually be just.

I will do my read in the next |6.22.06 @ 7:00PM|#

Here is the law the cased hinged on (the primary ground of decision, there was also a secondary ground):

MCL 257.625(8) . . .:
A person . . . shall not operate a vehicle . . . within this state if the person has in his or her body any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1
. . .
The term �marijuana� is defined in MCL 333.7106(3) as follows: �Marihuana� means all parts of the plant Canabis [sic] sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.

Dave W.|6.22.06 @ 7:04PM|#

If you read it literally, you will notice the law I quoted in the previous post requires that every part of the marijuana plant and every one of its derivatives be present for there to be marijuana.

The legislature obviously did not mean that. The legislature obviously meant that any constituent of the plant, salt or derivative would do. They did not mean everything had to be there, even though they wrote the statute that way.

If I were a judge I would have interpreted the statute literally and said that the defendants walk because they had only one derivative, rather than a whole plant, in their systems.

Then I would be excercising interpretive fidelity as Fyodor and some of the others want, while still taking down a stupid law.

Jennifer|6.22.06 @ 8:22PM|#

Dave, I very rarely agree with you, but your post at 7:04 was great.

|6.22.06 @ 9:53PM|#

This is why everyone who smokes pot should switch to Cocaine, herion, LSD, Meth, X (Or E depending on where you are from) or any of the other wonderful drugs that get out of your system in 1-2 days.

I don't know where to get LSD anymore or, more accurately, noone seems to have had it for a long time. I've heard it's because the feds busted the only lab in the country making it in any quantity but they might just be patting themselves on the back and in fact demand may be very low.

I much prefer hallucinogens like that to THC which really does nothing for me at all. In light of that I guess my state's legislature will approve of my operating a motor vehicle. Lucky me.

When do we have the random piss or blood checks just to make sure I'm not breaking the law? Or will they use this just to get an extra charge slapped on to a DUI or other.

If it ever comes up during jury duty the defendant is getting a "not guilty" but that's true of any case involving drugs, tax evasion, money laundering, etc.

Dave W.|6.22.06 @ 10:33PM|#

Dave, I very rarely agree with you, but your post at 7:04 was great.

Thanks. I actually "won" (ie, settled on favorable terms) a patent case based on that argument once. The patent claim said "all" when it clearly should have said "any." Patentee did not want the judge deciding that issue.

|6.23.06 @ 2:01AM|#

This reminds me of the story about a woman who told her gynecologist that her husband had recently developed quite a fondness for anal intercourse with her.

The doctor asked, "Does it hurt?"

The patient replied, "Yes, it does, a little."

The doctor asked, "Well, do you like it?"

The woman said, "Actually, I do."

The doctor said, "Then I don't see a problem. Just be careful to use condoms if you don't want to get pregnant."

The patient said, "I didn't know you could become pregnant that way."

The doc said, "And where did you think cops came from?"

|6.23.06 @ 6:22AM|#

Dave W,

That's a nice piece of parsing, but methinks you'd be overturned on appeal. Also, I'm not sure your parsing is even logically correct...if in one place, the code defines "poisonous snakes" as "all snakes of the families Viperidae, Elapidae, and Colubridae", and a law is passed banning ownership of poisonous snakes, does that mean it's legal to own a cobra (Elapidae) and a viper (Viperidae), so long as you don't own a member of Colubridae?

Dave W.|6.23.06 @ 7:44AM|#

a law is passed banning ownership of poisonous snakes

The law should (and probably would) regulate ownership of "any" poisonous snake. If the legislature was careless and didn't word it this way, I think it would be fair to interpret it as written and send it back as a lesson to the legislature to do their job more carefully.

I was further interested by your hypothetical statute because even if it had said "any" poisonous snake, it would still require that at least two be owned (cf, see No Homers Simpsons sketch).

Furthermore, your statute would not cover people who possessed poisonous snakes, but disclaimed ownership rights (presumably to escape regulation).

I think your point, Crimethink, was that the courts can err on the side of their legislature when the intended meaning is clear. For example, the Michigan court had to add a --[sic]-- when they quoted the text of the statute. I would not overturn laws for inconsequential typos. However, in the Michigan case, it was the definition of "marihuana" that lead to the absurd result of non-intoxicated and even downright innocent people (eg, 2d hand inhalers) being convicted for drugged driving. Since the supposedly intended meaning leads to these absurd results and don't think I would have any duty to play nice in this instance were I the judge.

A lot of my posts here hit on the theme of respecting lawyers and the legal profession. Textual exegis is hard work and, frankly, a soft science of its own. The idea of Kwais and T. starting any kind of law firm is laughable to me and borne of ignorance about how hard other people's work is, at least when approached rigorously.

Final note: who said I wouldn't be the judge on the court of last resort? They get to do statutory interpretation as a matter of first impression. I would probably use less l33tspeak and have my clerks weed the typos if somebody would give me that job.

Dave W.|6.23.06 @ 9:10AM|#

"any" poisonous snake

should be:

--"any" poisonoussnake[b]s[/b]--

that was a nasty typo comprehensibility wise. Ow.

|6.23.06 @ 9:17AM|#

The term "marijuana" is defined in MCL 333.7106(3) as follows: "Marihuana" means all parts of the plant Canabis [sic] sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.

Water is now illegal.

Dave W.|6.23.06 @ 9:37AM|#

"any" poisonous snake

should be:

--"any" poisonous snakes--

that was a nasty typo comprehensibility wise. Ow.

And, of course, Bob is right and makes another good point.

|6.23.06 @ 10:14AM|#

All you can say is everything the government does it bullshit plain and simple.

Correct me if I am wrong but the EPA allows a larger amount of cyanide in your drinking water than you are allowed to have inert metabolites of THC in your body. How does one argue they are for increased drug laws in the name of safety when the same people allow everyone to drink cyanide laced water? Personally I will take the THC and pass on the cyanide. But no matter which I choose the whole point is that I should have the choice.

|6.23.06 @ 10:37AM|#

Dave W,

You'd also have to contend with the fact that the state code typically includes a header which defines away grammatical parsing of the laws, e.g. specifying that "he" need not refer to a male, and in this case, that plural nouns need not imply that there are multiple referents.

|6.23.06 @ 12:30PM|#

This just happened to pop up in todays Pharmaceutical Email Newsletter I get daily at work. Ironic to say the least.

Merck Faces EPA Probe for Cyanide Spill The EPA is investigating a cyanide-related discharge from a Merck research facility in Pennsylvania into a local sewer system that killed at least 1,000 fish in the Wissahickon Creek and forced closure of Philadelphia's water intake valves, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer. According to the EPA, a Merck official reported that a vaccine research pilot plant released 25 gallons of potassium thiocyanate into the sewer system. The mixture, which should not have been discharged, combined with chlorine at the sewage treatment plant where officials believe it became more toxic. Merck did not report the spill until a week after the event, which occurred on June 13. (The Philadelphia Inquirer) Full Text.


Notice they did not report the spill until a week after it happened. Guess Merck like Michigan pot smokers wanted the best chance for testing clean with a wait to dilute the evidence. Maybe the DEA should schedule Cyanide as a drug without any medical benefits, then perhaps they would take as much interest in getting it out of our drinking water as they take in getting THC out of our piss.

Drink Up..

Cyanide, ask your doctor if its right for you!

|6.23.06 @ 1:52PM|#

In 1999, Marinol was rescheduled from Schedule II to III drug. So if I have AIDS or I am undergoing
chemotherapy I can't f'ing Drive in Michigan. That is nuts. That is assuming that synthetic THC will show up as the real thing.

|6.23.06 @ 5:17PM|#

I guess you could say that the court merely interpreted a bad piece of legislation. Just seems that when that legislation says that you can go to jail for something you had nothing to do with, it's a bit constitutionally overbroad. It also seeks to criminalize a condition rather than behavior. There's the problem of mens rea. There are myriad acceptable routes to invalidate this law.