(Arizona Supreme) Court: THC in driver's blood not enough to prove DUI
Source: Arizona Daily Star {Tucson}
PHOENIX — Arizonans who smoke marijuana can't be charged with driving
while impaired absent actual evidence they are affected by the drug, the
Arizona Supreme Court ruled this morning.
The justices rejected arguments by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office
that a motorist whose blood contains the slight amount of a metabolite of
marijuana, can be presumed to be driving while impaired and therefore driving
illegally. They said the medical evidence shows that's not to be the case.
Today's ruling most immediately affects the more than 40,000 Arizonans who
are legal medical marijuana users. It means they will not be effectively banned
from driving, giving how long the metabolite, Carboxy-THC, remains in the blood.
It also provides protection against impaired driving charges for anyone else who
drives and has used marijuana in the last 30 days, including those who might be
visiting from Washington or Colorado, where recreational use of the drug is legal.
The case before the court involves a driver cited for a traffic violation who,
when given a blood test, was found to have Carboxy-THC in his system and
was charged with driving with an illegal drug or its metabolite in his body.
Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/court-thc-in-driver-s-blood-not-enough-to-prove/article_ab6b13fa-ca3f-11e3-9861-001a4bcf887a.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
- Well I'm convinced. This must be the Apocalypse.
K&R
[center]
[/center]
Or they used to anyway...don't know if the laws have changed. A few years back I got stopped 2 miles from the Nevada line by an Arizona cop for the dark tint on my windows. Long story short, we had 1 joint on us. It ended up costing us over $750.00 by the time the Justice of the Peace in the little bum-fuck town we had to go to court in got done with us. Refused to throw it out, charged us with possession & paraphernalia (a roach clip). This was AFTER the public defender told us he was going to charge us for just the joint. Changed his mind, I guess.
--imm
We got some of that Panama Red, and also good Mexican; Oaxaca, Michoacan, and Acapulco. All made its way to New York.
And then there's Alaska, Hawaii, Jamaica, Thai... and that's just bud. Where's the hash?
I've had good smoke from the contiguous states, but none beat those on the list.
--imm 
Back when I was 16 & immortal, I was the worst driver on the road, no booze, no pot, just plain youthful arrogance. I'm lucky I didn't kill someone.
I'll tell you, growing old(er) is reminding me more and more of like being Dr. Who. Wait around long enough, and you'll travel to a more technologically advanced time beyond the year 2000! (That turn of phrase once caught my rapt attention. Now it means "old and stodgy."
I totally concur about the use and purpose of the saliva test. I feel like it's pretty reasonable for many employers to demand un-high workers.
On the other hand, I think it should be mandatory for people in customer service positions. Imagine if everyone you had to interact with in a given day smiled and asked if you'd like a bite of their hot dog?
You know how cops will claim they "smelled marijuana" after pulling someone over? Well, it's easy to tell which ones are telling the truth -- they'll have THC in their blood, too! Not as much as the occupants of the car, of course, who in turn wouldn't have as much as those in the car who were doing the actual smoking.
And remember that snowboarder who almost lost his Olympic medal because he had THC in his blood? He said it was from a contact high, which was believed because it was a trace amount.
I guess what is needed is a THC number that would allow the cops (and Olympic judges) to say, "It's more likely than not that you have consumed marijuana personally in the past XX hours." And of course, medical marijuana users would have their ID cards.
rocktivity
