Driving under the influence of a drug- bad.

This law- bad as well.

This is saying you can be charged with driving under the influence,
even if you are not under the influence.

You'd have to be a jack-booted nazi thug lunatic dipshit a.shole
fuckwad moron best-part-of-you-ran-down-you-mother's-leg douchebag to
support that provision of this law.

So, your support is a natural.

Dave

Ridiculous law.  The whole point is that the driver is NOT under the
influence if it was "weeks after they smoked it".  The law is driving
under the influence, not "driving weeks after you smoke a joint".

The MSC must have been high when they came down with this ruling.

How about zero tolerance for stupid?

nate

On June 23td, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE took timeout from being
butt-f.cked by a goat to say this in rec.autos.driving:

With certain well connected politicians excepted. Right?

Unless the criminal's name is Kennedy. Right, El Fago?

Go get f.cked by a goat, you hypocrite.

Ur gonna fail this test for weeks after going to a rock concert just because of
the 2nd hand smoke.

Dave Head

What a bunch of fascist crap.

You would give your grandmother the electric chair if she forgot to put
a quarter in the parking meter, wouldn't you?

Here's the rest of the article that Laura snipped - showing a little
more common sense, as both drivers were within several hours of smoking
pot when causing an accident:

"The ruling stemmed from two cases. In the first case, a woman
admitting smoking marijuana four hours before she crossed into oncoming
traffic on a snowy road, striking another vehicle. That car's
front-seat passenger was killed and three children were injured. In the
second case, a man stopped for erratic driving admitted smoking
marijuana 30 minutes before.

In both cases, blood tests found 11 carboxy-THC, a byproduct created
when the human body metabolizes marijuana. The ruling turned on the
court's interpretation of the law that prohibits driving under the
influence of drugs.

The four justices in the majority -- Maura Corrigan, Stephen Markman,
Clifford Taylor and Robert Young -- concluded that 11 carboxy-THC is a
drug under the law even though experts testified that it has "no
pharmacological effect on the body and its level in the blood
correlates poorly, if at all, to an individual's level of THC-related
impairment."

The experts also testified that the chemical can only come from
ingesting THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The majority
based its conclusion on the Legislature's definition of marijuana,
which includes cannabis and "derivatives" of it.

Justice Michael Cavanagh called the ruling unconstitutionally vague. He
cited expert testimony that noted the substance can be detected in a
person's system for up to four weeks after being ingested -- long after
its effects have worn off.

"Plainly, there is no rational reason to charge a person who passively
inhaled marijuana smoke at a rock concert a month ago," Cavanagh wrote
in a dissent joined by Justices Elizabeth Weaver and Marilyn Kelly.
"Now, if a person has ever actively or passively ingested marijuana and
drives, he drives not knowing if he is breaking the law, because if any
amount of 11 carboxy-THC can be detected -- no matter when it was
previously ingested -- he is committing a crime.

State drug prevention experts said the ruling could cause people to
think more seriously about the effects of drug use.

"I think the ruling could be one more arrow in our quiver in the
message we send to young people," said Donald Allen, director of the
state's office of drug control policy. "Most kids don't think about how
long this is in their system."

scooter34