# Judges: There Is No Right To Possess Marijuana In Mich.



## ozzydiodude (Jun 9, 2012)

JUDGES: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO POSSESS MARIJUANA IN MICH. 

from The daily reporter  hxxp://www.thedailyreporter.com/


Lansing, Mich. - There is no "right" to possess marijuana in Michigan - - even for those who have a card issued under the Medical Marihuana Act ( MMMA ) - an appeals court has ruled. 

Further, anyone who smokes marijuana then drives with any trace left is in the bloodstream violates Michigan motor vehicle law, even if they possess a MMMA card. 

A three-judge Michigan Court of Appeals panel overturned a Traverse City case, where the District Court was upheld by the Circuit Court, which dismissed charges against Rodney Lee Koon. 

Koon was pulled over for driving 83 miles an hour in a 55 mph zone. A blood test revealed Koon had THC, the chemical component of the drug, in his system. 

Koon's attorney argued he was not in violation by operating a motor vehicle with a Schedule 1 controlled substance, marijuana, in his body because he held a valid MMMA card. 

The Traverse City District Court ruled the MMMA protected Koon from conviction unless prosecutors could show the driver was impaired by the marijuana while driving. Koon has a doctor's prescription for treatment of various medical conditions. 

The court tried to clarify the murky issue the Michigan Legislature is currently trying to come to grips with. The Appellate Court pointed out the Constitutional amendment and subsequent legislation "sets forth particular circumstances under which they will not be arrested or otherwise prosecuted for their lawbreaking" possession and use of the drug. 

"The MMMA does not codify a right to use marijuana; instead, it merely provides a procedure through which seriously ill individuals using marijuana for its palliative effects can be identified and protected from prosecution under state law," the judges wrote. "These individuals are still violating the law by using marijuana. In other words, the act grants immunity from arrest and prosecution, rather than the granting of a right." 

There is a "zero tolerance" law for driving with marijuana THC in the bloodstream, the court ruled. Most blood and urine tests show THC in test samples even up to 30 days or more after use. There have been no definitive tests to show how long a person would be impaired by marijuana use. 

Petition 

A petition is currently being circulated in efforts to legalize the drug whose medical use was approved by voters by a 63 percent margin in November 2008. 

Lansing, Mich. - There is no "right" to possess marijuana in Michigan - - even for those who have a card issued under the Medical Marihuana Act ( MMMA ) - an appeals court has ruled. 

Further, anyone who smokes marijuana then drives with any trace left is in the bloodstream violates Michigan motor vehicle law, even if they possess a MMMA card. 

A three-judge Michigan Court of Appeals panel overturned a Traverse City case, where the District Court was upheld by the Circuit Court, which dismissed charges against Rodney Lee Koon. 

Koon was pulled over for driving 83 miles an hour in a 55 mph zone. A blood test revealed Koon had THC, the chemical component of the drug, in his system. 

Koon's attorney argued he was not in violation by operating a motor vehicle with a Schedule 1 controlled substance, marijuana, in his body because he held a valid MMMA card. 

The Traverse City District Court ruled the MMMA protected Koon from conviction unless prosecutors could show the driver was impaired by the marijuana while driving. Koon has a doctor's prescription for treatment of various medical conditions. 

The court tried to clarify the murky issue the Michigan Legislature is currently trying to come to grips with. The Appellate Court pointed out the Constitutional amendment and subsequent legislation "sets forth particular circumstances under which they will not be arrested or otherwise prosecuted for their lawbreaking" possession and use of the drug. 

"The MMMA does not codify a right to use marijuana; instead, it merely provides a procedure through which seriously ill individuals using marijuana for its palliative effects can be identified and protected from prosecution under state law," the judges wrote. "These individuals are still violating the law by using marijuana. In other words, the act grants immunity from arrest and prosecution, rather than the granting of a right." 

There is a "zero tolerance" law for driving with marijuana THC in the bloodstream, the court ruled. Most blood and urine tests show THC in test samples even up to 30 days or more after use. There have been no definitive tests to show how long a person would be impaired by marijuana use. 

Petition 

A petition is currently being circulated in efforts to legalize the drug whose medical use was approved by voters by a 63 percent margin in November 2008. 


Lansing, Mich. - There is no "right" to possess marijuana in Michigan - - even for those who have a card issued under the Medical Marihuana Act ( MMMA ) - an appeals court has ruled. 

Further, anyone who smokes marijuana then drives with any trace left is in the bloodstream violates Michigan motor vehicle law, even if they possess a MMMA card. 

A three-judge Michigan Court of Appeals panel overturned a Traverse City case, where the District Court was upheld by the Circuit Court, which dismissed charges against Rodney Lee Koon. 

Koon was pulled over for driving 83 miles an hour in a 55 mph zone. A blood test revealed Koon had THC, the chemical component of the drug, in his system. 

Koon's attorney argued he was not in violation by operating a motor vehicle with a Schedule 1 controlled substance, marijuana, in his body because he held a valid MMMA card. 

The Traverse City District Court ruled the MMMA protected Koon from conviction unless prosecutors could show the driver was impaired by the marijuana while driving. Koon has a doctor's prescription for treatment of various medical conditions. 

The court tried to clarify the murky issue the Michigan Legislature is currently trying to come to grips with. The Appellate Court pointed out the Constitutional amendment and subsequent legislation "sets forth particular circumstances under which they will not be arrested or otherwise prosecuted for their lawbreaking" possession and use of the drug. 

"The MMMA does not codify a right to use marijuana; instead, it merely provides a procedure through which seriously ill individuals using marijuana for its palliative effects can be identified and protected from prosecution under state law," the judges wrote. "These individuals are still violating the law by using marijuana. In other words, the act grants immunity from arrest and prosecution, rather than the granting of a right." 

There is a "zero tolerance" law for driving with marijuana THC in the bloodstream, the court ruled. Most blood and urine tests show THC in test samples even up to 30 days or more after use. There have been no definitive tests to show how long a person would be impaired by marijuana use. 

Petition 

A petition is currently being circulated in efforts to legalize the drug whose medical use was approved by voters by a 63 percent margin in November 2008.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

*"The MMMA does not codify a right to use marijuana; instead, it merely provides a procedure through which seriously ill individuals using marijuana for its palliative effects can be identified and protected from prosecution under state law," the judges wrote. "These individuals are still violating the law by using marijuana. In other words, the act grants immunity from arrest and prosecution, rather than the granting of a right."*

Sounds like they're going in circles....

MI has had a few cases going on lately, some pointing to wider acceptance, some (like this) seeming at odds or bad news. A friend on probation was told by his P.O. that he could smoke K2 (synthetic MJ)...actually, he encouraged it, as I understand. Now, K2 is being linked (or trying to be linked) to several murders and horrifying events (I believe the "zombie" face eater was said to be on it, not sure though), and is being outlawed in MI...go figure.

It's gonna be a bumpy ride, I'm sure of that.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

I don't understand you, I really don't. 

First, I believe I've said many times in many threads I have lawyer friends that grow, no worries about my "complacency"...or lack thereof. Trust that Hal isn't the only one watching his rear.

*but maybe this will help you think a bit more before you decide to speak so quickly and loosely . *

Maybe I didn't read the post, maybe I misunderstand that this really says nothing more than the original law said? We aren't being prosecuted for carrying with a card. In fact, the cases I've seen seem to say completely opposite of I should be worried. Of course, being here in MI, I do try to keep up with the laws and understand what's going on around me.

If you think I debate merely to debate, think again. I've said time and again, I will argue if I believe I am of right opinion, but where have I said I argue solely to argue? Some tend to come in and make it an argument solely for argument, but that's not me. Personally, maybe worrying about your own posts and not so much mine might be a help in the future.

pipe down, back to that complacent play, loosely posting without thought...friendly advice?  :ignore: 

Friendly advice, don't make every thread a problem between yourself and me...you'll note who has the problem posts in these threads.

I sure hope we can be back on topic now, which isn't about me, but the laws of MI


----------



## ozzydiodude (Jun 9, 2012)

turn this thread into another arguement and I'll delete it


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

One thing to worry about, that blood/thc thing. If that stays like it is, this will be a precedence that other states could use in their rulings. I don't understand how they came to this conclusion...

Let's hope this goes to yet a higher court.


----------



## Rosebud (Jun 9, 2012)

*
There is a "zero tolerance" law for driving with marijuana THC in the bloodstream, the court ruled. Most blood and urine tests show THC in test samples even up to 30 days or more after use. There have been no definitive tests to show how long a person would be impaired by marijuana use.
*

Does anyone know if there are "improved" methods of testing? Until they have an ability to tell if you are impaired from pot at that moment, how are they going to get ya? I bet the testing is more sophisticated now.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

They supposedly have and are testing/using a swab test here in MI, but I've not heard much of anything about it since it was introduced some time back. The swab tells how recent you smoked as well as thc lvl, again, supposedly.

My guess is the same old ways of detecting use; smell, red eyes, etc would be the case, but having a jar in possession might make them check you if you're a card carrier....which wouldn't be good in most of our cases.


----------



## ozzydiodude (Jun 9, 2012)

hXXp://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/NORMLtesting.pdf

SALIVA/ORAL FLUID
Saliva testing detects the presence of parent drugs only, and its detection times27 are
similar to blood (1-24 hours on average) for drugs other than cannabis. However,
unlike other drugs, cannabinoids appear to be more difficult to detect in oral fluids, as
only a minute amount of the drug is excreted into the saliva.28 As a result, most
current saliva testing technology appears to only detect the presence of cannabis for a period of approximately one to two hours following drug ingestion.29 (Note that newer,
more sensitive oral screening technology utilizing lower cutoff levels have detected
residual THC levels at 1-2 ng/ml some 4 to 8 hours after ingestion, long after any
psychomotor impairment from the drug has subsided.30 )
Because saliva testing is generally seen as non-invasive, and rapid response point-ofcollection
devices exist, it is viewed by some law enforcement organizations, in
particular the European Police Traffic Network TISPOL31, as ideal for use by police on
the side of the road. Yet, recent studies have shown considerable variation in results
among test subjects. An ongoing pilot program in Victoria, Australia, utilizing road side
oral screening technology has also yielded several false positives when used under
roadside conditions.32 In addition, there is no consensus on appropriate cutoff levels
for the confirmation of drugs in saliva, nor are there any nationally established
standards for oral fluid testing in traffic settings. As a result, many experts resolve that
saliva testing is "unsuitable for reliable, ultimate determination of impairment by THC.
Yet it [may] offer a suitable roadside screening tool for impairment, possibly followed
by a blood test."33
In sum, recreational marijuana consumers face their greatest risks of being falsely defined as "impaired" in
states with "zero tolerance" per se DUID laws reliant on urinalysis because this process currently detects only
drug metabolites, not THC. Sober drivers are less likely to be identified as impaired by cannabis in states that
rely on blood and/or saliva collection because the window of detection for parent drugs in these fluids is, by
comparison, relatively narrow. In cases when parent drugs are detected, there is no general consensus
regarding what concentration levels are indicative of impairment (though general estimates regarding the
recency of drug ingestion may be ascertained). In a limited number of cases regarding the detection of
marijuana in the blood serum, studies have preliminarily associated culpability and/or impairment at levels above 5-10 ng/ml, but not below this threshold. However, the low number of available studies prevent scientists from
deriving a reliable THC-blood threshold for impairment at this time


----------



## ozzydiodude (Jun 9, 2012)

if ppl will let them and most of the ppl today will al;l they have to do is say "it's part of home land security", they will be installing "breath analizers" in all cars that you will have to blow in to get the car to start.


----------



## niteshft (Jun 10, 2012)

There have been no definitive tests to show how long a person would be impaired by marijuana use. 

In that case, how can they say he WAS impared?


----------



## Roddy (Jun 10, 2012)

As I've said above, the testing is supposedly being done here in MI, but I've yet to hear of anyone having one administered to them. Maybe LEO knows as we do that the tests aren't conclusive and can be misleading? Let's hope.


----------



## Irish (Jun 11, 2012)

a specialist already proved thier testing methods to be wrong. i can't find the article, but still looking. i just read it yesterday...

were all federal outlaws...


----------



## Irish (Jun 11, 2012)

try this one...thc-cooh...

hxxp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v12/n277/a03.html?1417


----------



## Roddy (Jun 11, 2012)

Great read, Irish! :ciao:


----------



## Irish (Jun 22, 2012)

(MAP) media awareness project...michigan...mea culpa...

(i have'nt got a clue how to change the header to hxxp or whatever it is you want)


----------

