If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZ Family)   Arizona court rules that you can be busted for DUI if you're caught driving with marijuana in your system even if the last time you smoked was two weeks ago. Yea, freedom   (azfamily.com) divider line 132
    More: Asinine, Arizona's DUI, Arizona Supreme Court, regulations, marijuana  
•       •       •

5550 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Feb 2013 at 8:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-14 12:38:02 AM  
Residents of the state already know that
 
2013-02-14 01:06:50 AM  
Land of the FreeTM
 
2013-02-14 01:55:29 AM  
I have set foot in Arizona twice in my life

/I feel no compelling need to do so again
//all y'all are crazy
 
2013-02-14 05:08:07 AM  
I was born in Arizona, spent most of my first three years in Tucson. I am eternally grateful my parents had the good sense to get out of that crazy-ass state and move to Oregon. We may have the dirty hippies of Eugene, and the weirdos in Portland, not to mention lots of toothless hicks outside of the urban areas, but it is a hundred times better than the Land of Sand and Conservative Nutjobbery that is AZ.
 
DAR [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 07:06:10 AM  
Arizona !!! were the defends brown people???.....
 
2013-02-14 07:24:57 AM  
d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.  TMYK.  ----====*
 
2013-02-14 08:07:41 AM  

xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.


That is going to be a big issue with legalization. I'm admittedly not up to speed on how levels of the substance are measured and how that can affect investigations into workplace accidents or impaired driving incidents.

Anyone?

/in favor of legalization
 
2013-02-14 08:44:33 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I have set foot in Arizona twice in my life

/I feel no compelling need to do so again
//all y'all are crazy


Know how you feel. Bunch of pucker mouthed honkies.
 
2013-02-14 08:45:06 AM  
Yeah let's hear it for conservative small government values in republican controlled areas WOOOOOO
 
2013-02-14 08:46:01 AM  
I wonder what happens if you live in Colorado and then drove to Arizona?
 
2013-02-14 08:46:03 AM  
Isn't this the same as alcohol?  Can't you get a DUI if you have an open bottle even if you didn't take a sip and have not had a drink?
 
2013-02-14 08:46:07 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.

That is going to be a big issue with legalization. I'm admittedly not up to speed on how levels of the substance are measured and how that can affect investigations into workplace accidents or impaired driving incidents.

Anyone?

/in favor of legalization


They will slap some arbitrary number on it like they did with alcohol, even though not everyone is knee walking drunk with .08 BAC
 
2013-02-14 08:46:17 AM  
One must wonder... if the THC was introduced two weeks prior to the incident, was the driving impaired due to the THC or something else?

/Two week high?
//talk about bang for the buck
 
2013-02-14 08:46:39 AM  
Smaller less intrusive government as long as you play by our rules of morality.
 
2013-02-14 08:46:45 AM  
We're going to put you tiny motherfarkers in charge of plant molecules in people's bloodstream.
 
2013-02-14 08:47:10 AM  
If you are sober and your driving is so bad that the police insist on drug testing you, maybe you shouldn't have your license in the first place.
 
2013-02-14 08:50:05 AM  
In a few years cops will have field blood analysis machines. Take a drop of blood from your finger and instant conviction. Imagine future road blocks where everyone on the road is tested.
 
2013-02-14 08:50:39 AM  

DAR: Arizona !!! were the defends brown people???.....


LOL WUT
 
2013-02-14 08:50:57 AM  
Wheres the line?

an hour, a day, or a general question - are you stoned? ah no man.

free to go
 
2013-02-14 08:51:04 AM  

The Angry Hand of God: If you are sober and your driving is so bad that the police insist on drug testing you, maybe you shouldn't have your license in the first place.


Its Maricopa county.  He was probably pulled over for not being white.
 
2013-02-14 08:52:16 AM  
Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?
 
2013-02-14 08:52:23 AM  

cheyanne9: Wheres the line?

an hour, a day, or a general question - are you stoned? ah no man.

free to go


Give them a sobriety test.  You know, walk the line follow the pen with your eyes etc.  If they aren't impaired, they aren't impaired.
 
2013-02-14 08:53:47 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.

That is going to be a big issue with legalization. I'm admittedly not up to speed on how levels of the substance are measured and how that can affect investigations into workplace accidents or impaired driving incidents.

Anyone?

/in favor of legalization


I think states that want to prosecute people for being "impaired" have an obligation under the law to define exactly what "impaired" is. We already have a national standard of 0.08 BAC for alcohol (with some local areas being even more strict than this). Also, given the rather vast number of prescription medications that test false-positive for THC, I think the onus is definitely on the State to prove that cannabis was recently consumed beyond "well, he smoked it at SOME undefined point in the past, so he's guilty."
 
2013-02-14 08:54:17 AM  
So does this mean that they will revoke the licenses of everyone who is prescribed marijuana? Technically, it is now illegal for them to drive if they follow their doctors advice.
 
2013-02-14 08:54:29 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.

That is going to be a big issue with legalization. I'm admittedly not up to speed on how levels of the substance are measured and how that can affect investigations into workplace accidents or impaired driving incidents.

Anyone?

/in favor of legalization


Most drug tests are designed to detect the long lasting metabolites of the illicit substances to indicate violation of policy, not the current level of active compounds which would more closely reveal actual intoxication (to the same extent, I guess, that BAC indicates alcohol intoxication).

It's like using a wrench as a hammer because you're too lazy to go get the right tool you need and what you have sorta kinda works.
 
2013-02-14 08:54:33 AM  

xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.  TMYK.  ----====*


My understanding was that it isn't THC that's in one's system, but the end-product of metabolized THC.  The waste product after the drug has been processed by one's system.  It's not THC and can't get a person high as it's "already used up", but it does stay in the system because it's soluble in fat, as you indicated.

Bullshyte laws drawn up by people who have NO idea of how science or biology work.  Putting people in prison and ruining lives by arresting people who are NOT intoxicated.

/i'm not even a smoker
 
2013-02-14 08:55:20 AM  

Lucidz: Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?


Don't try to defend Arizona man.  They just aren't defensible.  Furthermore THC can be found in your system up to a month after you smoke.  You get high for about an hour or two.
 
2013-02-14 08:56:27 AM  

The Angry Hand of God: If you are sober and your driving is so bad that the police insist on drug testing you, maybe you shouldn't have your license in the first place.


Never been pulled over by the police, huh? Good for you.
I wonder if it might have less to do with your driving ability than with what you look like, which state is on your license plates, what kind of bumper stickers you have on your VW bus, etc.
 
2013-02-14 08:56:39 AM  

rev. dave: In a few years cops will have field blood analysis machines. Take a drop of blood from your finger and instant conviction. Imagine future road blocks where everyone on the road is tested.


4.bp.blogspot.com

"Gattaca! Gattaca! Gattaca!
 
2013-02-14 08:56:44 AM  

Lucidz: Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?


So if you jaywalk and get charged with assault and battery you're cool with that? I mean, you broke the law. What does it matter what the charges are?
 
2013-02-14 08:57:57 AM  

rev. dave: In a few years cops will have field blood analysis machines. Take a drop of blood from your finger and instant conviction. Imagine future road blocks where everyone on the road is tested.




The blood test is administered by your automobile. If anything that the proper authorities deem unmoral, your automobile will lock you in and contact the authorities, for your safety and incarceration.
 
2013-02-14 08:58:40 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: The blood test is administered by your automobile. If anything that the proper authorities deem unmoral, your automobile will lock you in and contact the authorities, for your safety and incarceration.


Hmm. Does the time you spend locked in your car count towards time served?
 
2013-02-14 08:59:03 AM  

DAR: Arizona !!! were the defends brown people???.....


Have you been taking the pot?
 
2013-02-14 09:00:13 AM  

Ecobuckeye: Have you been taking the pot?


I had a friend who died after shooting up three whole marijuanas. Stay away from the devil's lettuce, friends.
 
2013-02-14 09:01:58 AM  
However, the Court of Appeals sided with prosecutors who appealed, saying that allowing the testing for marijuana's active compound would unduly restrict law enforcement.

And how about the guy they busted. He's not being unduly restricted?
 
2013-02-14 09:02:55 AM  

sylwedydd: And how about the guy they busted. He's not being unduly restricted?


He's got a whole 10x12, that's plenty of room.
 
2013-02-14 09:03:22 AM  

abfalter: Isn't this the same as alcohol?  Can't you get a DUI if you have an open bottle even if you didn't take a sip and have not had a drink?


I am not a lawyer, but in that scenario I believe you would be charged with open container. At least in my state they have an open container law.
 
2013-02-14 09:04:06 AM  

Lucidz: mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system. DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?


He wasn't charged with breaking marijuana laws, he was charged with driving under the influence.

The analogy would be if a blood test showed an alcohol derivative in your blood several weeks after drinking and they used that test as evidence that you were driving while impaired today.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 09:05:00 AM  
The law prohibits driving "While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body." Section 13-3401 does not define "drug." It does define "dangerous drug" "narcotic drug" and "prescription drug" which together ought to count as "drug." So if you're on antibiotics you can't drive in Arizona because there is a drug in your system.
 
2013-02-14 09:05:04 AM  

incendi: Lucidz: Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?

So if you jaywalk and get charged with assault and battery you're cool with that? I mean, you broke the law. What does it matter what the charges are?


I don't have an analogy for you as I'm not well versed enough in law to know what a proper equivilent to "having an illicit substance in the blood stream" is... I do know that when I was drinking, I could easily have a .08 BAC and drive not impaired.

Pochas: Lucidz: Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?

Don't try to defend Arizona man.  They just aren't defensible.  Furthermore THC can be found in your system up to a month after you smoke.  You get high for about an hour or two.


I guess my question is, would someone still be prosecuted if they had a card, or would this have been passed off?
 
2013-02-14 09:05:50 AM  
FTA:  and that the state's medical marijuana law gives cardholders immunity from DUI convictions based solely on the presence of metabolites in a person's system that don't appear to be enough to cause impairment.

So it does not apply to legal users.... so time to make it legal for all
 
2013-02-14 09:07:49 AM  

incendi: StoPPeRmobile: The blood test is administered by your automobile. If anything that the proper authorities deem unmoral, your automobile will lock you in and contact the authorities, for your safety and incarceration.

Hmm. Does the time you spend locked in your car count towards time served?




No. We can't be soft on crime.
 
2013-02-14 09:08:57 AM  

Lucidz: Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?


I guessing that the guy DID have a medical marijuana card and that the cops used THAT as "probable cause" to test him. This is about harassment and an easy bust.
 
2013-02-14 09:08:59 AM  
However, the Court of Appeals sided with prosecutors who appealed, saying that allowing the testing for marijuana's active compound would unduly restrict law enforcement

WTF?

If testing for the metabolized, waste product of THC is currently being done and is NOT considered unduly restrictive, then why would switching to a test for active THC (a different but similar substance which would give an ACCURATE indication of impairment) be considered unreasonably difficult for them?
 
2013-02-14 09:09:09 AM  

susler: Lucidz: mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system. DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?

He wasn't charged with breaking marijuana laws, he was charged with driving under the influence.

The analogy would be if a blood test showed an alcohol derivative in your blood several weeks after drinking and they used that test as evidence that you were driving while impaired today.


How about locking up people that test positive for liver damage? I would feel safer then.
 
2013-02-14 09:09:53 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: susler: Lucidz: mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system. DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?

He wasn't charged with breaking marijuana laws, he was charged with driving under the influence.

The analogy would be if a blood test showed an alcohol derivative in your blood several weeks after drinking and they used that test as evidence that you were driving while impaired today.

How about locking up people that test positive for liver damage? I would feel safer then.


As someone who has liver damage, I'm not getting a kick...
 
2013-02-14 09:10:32 AM  

NutWrench: Lucidz: Despite mentioning medical marijuana multiple times in the article, it doesn't say if the defendant actually HAD a card. Hence, he was driving with an illicit substance in his system.  DUI was probably just the fastest, easiest charge.

The guy still broke the law. What's to understand?

I guessing that the guy DID have a medical marijuana card and that the cops used THAT as "probable cause" to test him. This is about harassment and an easy bust.


Then as the guy's lawyer, I'd think I'd go after entrapment, yeah?
 
2013-02-14 09:11:18 AM  
Further proof that Sheriff Joe and his ilk* are in the pockets of the for-profit prison industry. Slavery is illegal, so they* invent new reasons to arrest people and call it being "tough on crime". Well, technically you could say that the plantation owners* were tough on crime too. If everyone is already in prison, the arrest rates drop to zero.

* All Republicans
 
2013-02-14 09:12:14 AM  

xanadian: d9-THC stays in your system a lot longer than alcohol, due to its lipophilic nature.  TMYK.  ----====*


AZ has ingeniously come up with the subtle threat meaning Go Bet Fat Somewhere Else, Hippie.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 09:16:39 AM  

The question in this case was whether marijuana is legally considered to have exactly one metabolite. The answer is no.

Here is the court decision: http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2013/1%20CA-SA%2012-0 2 11.pdf (PDF). What people are getting outraged over is settled law from the 1990s. The section of law charged in this case does not require proof of impairment or potential impairment.

Quoting from the court's discussion of precedent (citations omitted):

¶13 On appeal, we rejected the defendant's equal protection argument. We reiterated the broad statement in Phillips that the "statute created a flat ban on driving with any proscribed substance in the body, whether capable of causing impairment or not." We also found other "cogent reasons" for broadly interpreting the ban on drug use while driving. For example, we noted metabolic rates differ from drug to drug and that the "presence of an illicit drug's metabolite [whether active or inactive] establishes the possibility of the presence of the active, impairing component of the drug." This fact, we concluded, "justifies the legislature banning entirely the right to drive when the metabolite is present."
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report