New at Reason

David Weigel | June 28, 2006

Jacob Sullum wonders why the Michigan Supreme Court wants to stop you from driving on Monday because of a joint you smoked on Friday.

Comments

KipEsquire|6.28.06 @ 8:23AM|#

State supreme court, not "the Supreme Court."

|6.28.06 @ 8:28AM|#

What Kip said.

|6.28.06 @ 8:28AM|#

Stronger prohibition disguised as public safety? Sounds like the drug warriors' version of medical marijuana. It would be nice if all the participants in this debate would be honest about their motivations.

|6.28.06 @ 8:32AM|#

This is one of thoses "look what using drugs can cause you to lose" cases. You know, where the state penalizes people and then lists the penalty as one of the negative effects of drug use.

Smoking pot can cost you your driver's license.

|6.28.06 @ 9:10AM|#

Because we elect the judges here and no one has ever lost a judicial election by being too "tough on crime."

|6.28.06 @ 9:17AM|#

Judges shouldn't be elected. Judgeships should be hereditary positions.

Timothy|6.28.06 @ 9:33AM|#

For the same reason Wimpy will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

|6.28.06 @ 9:41AM|#

It's just a backdoor way to give the police more power. Nobody disputes that a drug taken a week ago will affect your driving, but it does give the state new police powers in the war on drugs. Can they require a urine test if your eyes are bloodshot? Can they search your car if they see any green vegetation that might resemble the doob? Will the cops set up road-blocks to nab people who smoked a joint last weekend?

How long will it take before a false positive urine test screws somebody's whole life over? With booze arrests, the cop can at least testify that the suspect was drunk. In a case where the offending substance may have been imbibed 3 weeks ago (with or without the persons knowledge), there is no corroborating evidence. If there is a false positive, that's it, you're guilty.

|6.28.06 @ 9:45AM|#

If you don't like it, get out of Michigan. I know that sounds hard core but my theory is that if hard working, tax paying citizens move to another state, Michigan will lose tax revenues. I think that's one of the best ways to punish a state. I know it's not very practical, but if you can move, do it.

|6.28.06 @ 9:52AM|#

Jacob Sullum wonders why the Michigan Supreme Court wants to punish you on Tuesday for smoking a joint on Monday.

Probably for the same reason they would want to punish you on Tuesday for stealing on Monday. They are both illegal, regardless as to their proximity to driving. This is just another excuse to test someone to see if they 'stole' something yesterday.

|6.28.06 @ 9:56AM|#

trickyvic don't you mean, "hard working, tax paying, weed smoking citizens..."?

|6.28.06 @ 10:02AM|#

Nobody disputes that a drug taken a week ago will affect your driving

I do.

I know of no drug that can affect your motor coordination and reaction times a week after it has been taken.

|6.28.06 @ 10:03AM|#

This is the inevitable result of the whole "driving is a privilege, therefore you have no due process rights when it comes to your license" bullshit. When the courts okayed the government being able to force people into incriminating themselves through breathalyzer tests without a warrant under the threat of loosing their licenses and okayed suspicion less blanket checkpoints, this kind of crap was pretty much inevitable.

|6.28.06 @ 10:08AM|#

I agree with what Trickyvic said, and in general, it's why I believe that all government decisions that can be made at the state level should be made at the state level rather than the Federal level (drug legality and gay marriage for example). States making decisions gives people two outlets of democracy: voting at the ballot box and voting with their feet, since interstate moving ain't all that hard.

|6.28.06 @ 10:14AM|#

"trickyvic don't you mean, "hard working, tax paying, weed smoking citizens..."?"

I mean anyone that understands today it's weed, tomorrow it's an over the counter cold pill. But yes, certainly to include weed smoking citizens! I'm willing to bet 35% of the state smokes or has smoked weed. If that many people moved it would put a severe financal burden on the state.

|6.28.06 @ 10:27AM|#

I said this: "Nobody disputes that a drug taken a week ago will affect your driving, but it does give the state new police powers in the war on drugs." I meant nobody disputes that a drug taken a week ago has no effect on driving. Thanks RC Dean for the catch.

|6.28.06 @ 10:35AM|#

"I do. I know of no drug that can affect your motor coordination and reaction times a week after it has been taken."

Me neither, but then there is more to driving than coordination and reaction time, for instance perception. And though it is rare, there are many reports in the literature about perceptual problems, usually of the visual variety, lasting a week or more following an intense trip, so-called Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder in the DSM-IV. Whether this disorder affects driving ability is not known, and would surely depend on the severity of the disorder, but it doesnt seem implausible.

|6.28.06 @ 10:46AM|#

"If you don't like it, get out of Michigan."

Yes- emigrate to Mexico. Low cost of living, plenty of servants, and pretty darn good domestically produced marijuana. Good beer, too.

|6.28.06 @ 10:48AM|#

Were biting it big time over here because of the auto companies going down, their suppliers (gooble gobble one of us) going belly-up and the Medicaid is going broke. Pissed me off when Grandholm (Canadian born) raised cigarette taxes because she said the state needed more money. I guess it's for programs like this one.

Check out these links that I quickly Googled (first here, more to follow):
New Data Shows Michigan Citizens Still Fleeing State

All about voting with your U-Haul rental.

|6.28.06 @ 11:04AM|#

Voting with a U-Haul, I like it! That's what I did. I moved from Arkansas to New York 16 years ago. I didn't like Clinton. Man, the Irony. I leave the state to get away from his politics then he becomes President, now his wife is one of my Senators. STOP FOLLOWING ME BILL!!! lol.

|6.28.06 @ 11:08AM|#

Column: Time for Michigan to get real about economic change

|6.28.06 @ 11:09AM|#

I know of no drug that can affect your motor coordination and reaction times a week after it has been taken
I do. Any drug, such as alcohol, which causes brain or other nervous system damage, can do the trick.

When the courts okayed the government being able to force people into incriminating themselves through breathalyzer tests without a warrant under the threat of loosing their licenses and okayed suspicion less blanket checkpoints, this kind of crap was pretty much inevitable.
I'd go back one step and say it started when the Puritans decided that the chemical content of a person's blood is public business.

|6.28.06 @ 11:14AM|#

Granholm to tax Michigan into prosperity

|6.28.06 @ 2:01PM|#

Let?s say I attend a concert where the reefer clouds are thick and I develop a detectable residual from just breathing the air. Subsequently a cop stops me and requires impairment test for some specious reason like red eye. Unless the state can prove that any THC residual is intoxicating, then I have been charged and prosecuted for committing no crime.

Presuming a deminimis THC level can be proven to be non-intoxicating, then this cannot stand constitutional muster. It?s analogous to charging me with possession of heroin because I walked through a shooting gallery.

|6.28.06 @ 2:06PM|#

Problem with getting out of Michigan is if a significant number of people did it, the drug warrior response would be to cry from the rooftops how well the program works in cutting down druggie numbers. Then they would lament that states without it are the only remaining flaw and provide druggies with a way out. So naturally, between this and the drug warriors in the other states liking the part about getting rid of their own druggies too (plus not becoming a druggy haven for out-of-staters) I think its a virtual certainty every state would implement the same thing.

|6.28.06 @ 6:11PM|#

Tbone said
"Presuming a deminimis THC level can be proven to be non-intoxicating, then this cannot stand constitutional muster."

The Michigan Supreme Court just did that. Even if their reasoning is shit.

Jennifer|6.28.06 @ 6:40PM|#

Perhaps this can be overturned if you find some sacrificial lamb who has a prescription for Marinol (the fake marijuana pill that is legal because it makes the drug companies richer) and then drives through Michigan while sober, but still with the residue in his system.