Homeless in Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court screws medical marijuana users!!!!

The cops tell us if we don't like the law to get them changed.

So we did. We passed Prop 203 which is Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act.

Prop 203 says marijuana is legal for sick people, and that a sick person can't be charged with DUI simply for having marijuana metabolites in their bodies.

First the cops said, f*ck Prop 203, we don't like it and we are going to ignore it and arrest sick people for DUI, simply because they have a medical marijuana card. And the cop did ignore Prop 203.

Now the Arizona Supreme Court has agreed with that police state logic.

I should note, that NOBODY is asking that marijuana smokers be allowed to drive stoned out of their minds on the highways.

All they are saying is that medical marijuana patients only be arrested for DUI, when they are actually driving stoned. Not simply because they have marijuana metabolites in their body.

Marijuana metabolites can stay in a person body for over a month after the person has used marijuana and are NOT an indication that the person is intoxicated.

I am sure if Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were alive today they would both say that is bullsh*t and also say that is one of the reasons they gave us the Second Amendment.

I am sure both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would say that when the government refuses to obey the law the PEOPLE have the right to overthrow it.

Arizona Supreme Court rules on medical marijuana in DUI cases

Michael Kiefer and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, The Republic | azcentral.com 3:50 p.m. MST November 20, 2015

A medical marijuana user's card is not a get-out-of-jail-free card if you are charged with DUI.

But it can be used as a defense at trial, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday.

It comes down to conflicting Arizona statutes. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), which was passed as a citizens' initiative in 2010, says that licensed medical marijuana users cannot be prosecuted for marijuana useif they stay within the parameters of the statute. But state laws on driving under the influence (DUI) forbid driving while impaired by marijuana, which extends even to the presence of metabolites in the bloodstream — that is, the residue of drug that remains in the body even after the person is no longer impaired.

In the case before the Arizona Supreme Court, two persons were convicted of DUI in Arizona municipal courts. (Most DUIs are misdemeanor charges and therefore tried in municipal courts or justice courts.) The defendants were not allowed to use their medical marijuana cards as a defense, so they appealed, first to the Maricopa County Superior Court, and then the Arizona Court of Appeals, both of which affirmed the municipal court verdicts.

In Friday's opinion, authored by Chief Justice Scott Bales, the court ruled that the marijuana card did not grant immunity.

But, Bales wrote, "The patient may establish an affirmative defense to such a charge by showing that his or her use was authorized by the AMMA..."

There's a big catch: The defendant has to prove "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the metabolite was at a level that no longer caused impairment. [And the Arizona law says that if ANY measurable amount of marijuana is found it is considered to mean an automatic conviction for DUI, even it the metabolite wasn't impairing the person's driving] And as the defendants said in their argument, "there is no commonly accepted threshold for identifying such concentrations."

It was not the first time the court ruled on the question, however. In 2014, the justices ruled that to equate the mere presence of metabolites to impairment was "absurd." And that ruling mentioned the possibility of a legal marijuana user under AMMA who would be prosecuted for the presence of metabolites in his or her body, essentially setting the stage for Friday's opinion.

The ruling did not help the defendants in question, however. The court ruled that they did not offer any evidence to show that the concentration of drugs in their systems was "insufficient to cause impairment." Their convictions were upheld.

5 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT ARIZONA'S POT INITIATIVE

Arizonans might be able to legally carry and grow marijuana if a planned 2016 ballot initiative makes it on the ballot and passes the muster of Arizona voters. Supporters will file language of the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act with the secretary of State on Friday. [Sadly this phoney baloney law being pushed by MPP or the Marijuana Policy Project is 99% about making millionaires out of the owners of the existing medical marijuana dispensaries and 1% about ending the evil, draconian marijuana laws.]

Mason Tvert, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national pro-marijuana organization, pointed out that driving while impaired, no matter the substance, has always been illegal.

Driving while under the influence of marijuana is likely to be a point of contention in the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol campaign to legalize cannabis for recreational use in Arizona. That campaign has gathered about half the number of signatures needed to put the initiative on the 2016 ballot, Barrett Marson, a spokesman for that campaign, said.

More than 80,000 Arizonans have medical marijuana cards.

“We should have laws that prohibit driving while impaired with marijuana that are evidence-based and ensure people are actually punished if they’re actually impaired,” Tvert pointed out. “Right now, there’s still a need to determine what the best testing is. It can be based on combined testing – blood testing right now is the most effective testing when it comes to determining how much active THC (the active chemical in marijuana) is in someone’s body,” he said, referring to the active ingredient that causes a high.

Tvert pointed out the mere presence of THC in the body doesn’t mean drivers were necessarily driving while impaired since the chemical stays in the body long after they used the drug.

Melissa DeLaney, a spokeswoman for Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, a campaign opposing legalization in Arizona, said the ruling was a win for public safety.

"This was absolutely the right call," DeLaney said. "Impairment is impairment, regardless of circumstance. Just because it's legal for a person to drink alcohol, doesn't mean he or she has the right to drive drunk. A medical marijuana card is no different and should never be considered a free pass to make irresponsible decisions." [But Melissa DeLaney with the Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy is misleading us on this. Yes, .08 BAC breath test is a reasonable indication that a person is driving drunk. But a person having marijuana metabolites in their body is NOT an indication the person is driving stoned. Marijuana metabolites can stay in a persons body for over a month after the person uses marijuana. Marijuana metabolites are NOT an indication a person is stoned.]

But Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, a fervent crusader against marijuana, took further issue.

"While the result is correct, the court fails to avoid treading where it lacks the competence or authority to legislate," Montgomery said. "There is no per sé THC limit or recognized consistent levels of impairment for various categories of users in statute and the court fails to restrain itself from further mischief following its rewrite of (the statute), now requiring a new type of drug metabolite. Today’s ruling also conflates impairment (...) with presence of drug. This is just the latest example of how poorly drafted the AMMA is." [Prop 203 or the AMMA was also written by MPP or the Marijuana Policy Project. Many people including me think that Prop 203, was not written to end the evil, draconian marijuana laws, but rather to make millionaires out of the 85 or so people who got government monopoly on grown and selling medical marijuana. Prop 203 has the same sh*tty language that gives the marijuana sellers and growers a monopoly on medical marijuana, that the proposed phoney baloney law to legalize recreational marijuana. Both laws are aimed at making a few folks in a special interest group millionaires.]