Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Tax haven plan may backfire badly
Next Post: Blagojevich: Keep clothes, laziness, job for wife, Tribune deal out of retrial
Posted in:
* David E. Smith, the executive director of the Illinois Family Institute is not happy with House Republican Leader Tom Cross…
House Republican Leader Tom Cross recently announced that he now supports HB 30, the medical marijuana legalization bill. This is very disconcerting. Marijuana activists are working hard to decriminalize marijuana and impede the U.S. anti-drug policy. The first step is for medical use.
Does Cross think the Illinois General Assembly should circumvent the medical and scientific experts at the Federal Drug Administration? Should state lawmakers ignore the many warnings by federal authorities like the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Drug Enforcement Agency? Should lawmakers ignore the law enforcement community objections, including the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and Illinois Sheriffs’ Association, among others? Federal drug laws supersede state laws. HB 30 would create a licensing scheme contrary to federal law, making property owners, landlords and citizens liable to federal action. Lastly, Illinois lawmakers shouldn’t disregard Illinois’s DUI laws. HB 30 allows a medical marijuana patient to operate a motor vehicle after six hours of consuming marijuana, while research shows that a single joint with a moderate level of THC can impair a person’s ability to drive for more than 24 hours!
Leader Cross’ change in position means that the medical marijuana bill could pass the House this time around, according to its Democratic sponsor, Rep. Lou Lang…
“The best prospects for passing this bill now comes because we have cooperation from the other side of the aisle,” said Lang.
* But the former prosecutor isn’t going totally wobbly on the drug issue…
State Rep. Tom Cross, R-Oswego, and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow teamed up to ban drugs known as “bath salts,” “K2” and “spice.” […]
“These substances can be very dangerous and are being marketed in a way that implies they are safe,” Cross said. “These ‘bath salts’ aren’t your grandmother’s bath salts — they are very dangerous synthetic stimulants. ‘Spice’ is not something that you use for cooking — it is essentially a synthetic form of cannabis.”
* And neither is the Illinois Supreme Court…
If you get behind the wheel with traces of illegal drugs in your body, you potentially could face a prison sentence.
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday handed down the opinion in People v. Martin, reinstating Aaron Martin’s original conviction of aggravated driving under the influence and a six-year prison sentence.
Peoria County Circuit Court prosecutors convicted Martin of a charge of aggravated DUI because he was driving with methamphetamine in his body when his car crashed into an oncoming car, killing two people on Christmas night 2004.
The six other state justices unanimously concurred with Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis’ 10-page opinion, which overturned the appellate court decision that ruled there was no “causal connection” to prove the drug had caused the crash, since the effects of the drug had likely worn off.
“In this case, it was shown that defendant driver caused the accident. Thus, there was no need to prove that he suffered from any degree of impairment which caused the accidental fatalities,” according to the high court’s opinion.
Marijuana can stay in your body for a month or more. The effect of this new Supreme Court opinion means that you could take one hit off a joint, get in a car crash a month later and then find yourself facing additional criminal charges because of the remaining residue in your body.
* Speaking of driving…
According to the National Safety Council, a quarter of all car crashes involve cell phone use, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 9 percent of drivers are on their cell phones at any given moment.
Using the logic of People v. Martin, maybe one day when they discover you were on a cell phone a month before a car accident, they’ll up your penalties.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 7:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Tax haven plan may backfire badly
Next Post: Blagojevich: Keep clothes, laziness, job for wife, Tribune deal out of retrial
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’ve always been viciously opposed to those types of laws with drugs and driving. The judicial process should work to the best of its ability to determine the possible effects that drugs have on someones ability to drive.
They should do this by looking at various forms of evidence, not a drug test that simply indicates if the person has used in the past 30 days.
It amazes me that the court can justify increased charges by implying that since someone was high at least once in the past month, they were high during the moments of the accident, “beyond a reasonable doubt” at that.
Ridiculous.
Comment by Matt Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 7:35 am
Perhaps the climate would be less “harsh” if a bong were used.
Comment by anon Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 8:15 am
Matt said,
“The judicial process should work to the best of its ability to determine the possible effects that drugs have on someones ability to drive.”
The judicial system is not qualified to perform scientific analysis, neither should it be doing anything other than interpreting the law. Your point is well taken, however, in that the legislature, with input from scientists and law enforcement personal should create some useful interpretation of DUI that can withstand challenges by defendants, using criteria that does not rely solely on drug tests.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 8:37 am
*presonnel
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 8:38 am
*forget it…
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 8:38 am
I recently had an old high school buddy pass away from a two year fight with a brain tumor. Setting with him one afternoon he confided in me that he was smoking a bit of pot to help with the pain and sickness brought on by his cures. This was not obtained thru legal channels. He did not ask my approval but let me know how much it seemed to help. I can tell you this had he asked me to find more for him I would have done so and to heck with any fallout. I am not saying we should market this to the general publc but to those with terminal illness it should be availible.
Comment by Bemused Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 8:39 am
Cincinnatus, avoid driving, please. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 8:42 am
I give a lot of credit to Cross for changing his opinion on medical marjuana. If we can reduce one patient’s suffering from a hideous disease why not allow it?
Comment by Stones Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 8:57 am
I had a similar experience as Bemused. Except it was a family member suffering from cancer and another member (who had never smoked themselves) obtained more for her. It’s my understanding that this type of situation is not uncommon.
Comment by Bewildered Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 9:04 am
As a person who supports medical marijuana, I would like for this bill voted on and signed into law as soon as possible. Medical marijuana will benefit tons and tons of people, whether for Chronic pain, eating desirability and nausea, PTSD, etc. Unfortunately the legislation failed last time it was voted on. I am an Afghanistan War veteran– Infantry. Our fob was under Rocket attack on a regular basis. One landed so close it rattled my eardrums. And, when we were on missions up in the moutains, we hit IED’s like there was no tommorrow. We hit 22 IED’s over a 6-day period in April 08-0nine. It was horrible. It is kind of embarrassing, but I’m so scared all of the time now. So, who is the uprighted individuals who say that I do not have the right to medicine that works for me. It sure would be nice to go fishing and camping again…
Comment by SilverBackDemocrat Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 9:18 am
Not to discount the serious matter of legalizing med-pot, I would think the White Sox community (including fans) would benefit from some medication given their current maladies.
Comment by Bitterman Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 9:38 am
Good for Cross. Hard to imagine that in 2011 Reefer Madness can be applied to those looking for some relief from chemo.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 10:37 am
on behalf of the many people I know who want relief from disease pain in a more holistic and helpful way, thank you Tom Cross. Let’s do this!
Comment by amalia Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 11:09 am
My mom got some marijuana from a friend’s son when she was dying from cancer. It helped her appetite and eased her pain. Was she a criminal? Was her friend’s son? Of course not.
Thanks Tom Cross and Lou Lang. This is a good bill and should be law in Illinois.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 11:24 am
bemused and bewildered, you might have a QOTD for rich. how many of us know of a friend or relative in dire medical condition, who benefits from a little bit of pot when they can? these are people who have a hard time moving through their own homes. they are not likely to be driving, but if they have to, they likely have much more powerful drugs in their systems.
Comment by langhorne Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 11:26 am
This is the text from the DUI law used to prosecute Mr. Martin.
“625 ILCS 5/11‑501
(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while:
(6) there is any amount of a drug, substance, or compound in the person’s breath, blood, or urine resulting from the unlawful use or consumption of cannabis listed in the Cannabis Control Act, a controlled substance listed in the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, an intoxicating compound listed in the Use of Intoxicating Compounds Act, or methamphetamine as listed in the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act.
(b) The fact that any person charged with violating this Section is or has been legally entitled to use alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof, shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this Section.”
Section (b) is the part of the law that is most troubling to me. Not only are you guilty for driving while having trace amounts of ANY drug listed in the controlled substances act, but having legal authorization to have taken the medicine IS NO DEFENSE. Controlled substances include anti-depressants, pain relievers, allergy medications–medications that remain in one’s system much longer than they actively affect one’s ability to operate a car.
I believe this law goes way too far. There is no rational basis for punishing sober drivers having trace amounts of a drug they were prescribed to take by a doctor.
I realize the defendant in this case admitted to taking crystal meth a few days before the accident, but trace amounts of meth can come from Sudafed. And, apparently, a trace amount is all the lab test would need to show for the prosecutor to prove misdemeanor dui.
The Supreme Court was just interpreting the statute that the GA passed. They even pointed out in a footnote that Section 5/11-501(a)(6) is actually a misnomer because a person need not be “under the influence” of a drug to violate the section. This beast was created by the legislature, and it is up to them to make a change if they see fit.
Comment by fixture Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 11:51 am
The legalization of the numbers game, liquor and gambling have shown that as a society we are better able to control things when we leaglize and regulate them then when we drive them undergournd. Not to mention the huge amount of money which we pull out of criminal enterprise.
making the numbers racket legal with the lottery, and then legalizing gambling has helped reduce criminal enterpirses from the cash, and provided a lot of revenue for the State.
I am gad to see Cross is coming around on this point. As an aside, the experts at the FDA have acknowledge the beneft of medical marijuana, and also acknowledge that te distilled pills do not work as well in many cases of cancer etc.
This could of course redifne marlboro reds…
I will jump on the lsippery slope for all those panicked, and say I think they ought to just out and out leglaize it and end the foolshness. Since we are still not that enlightened they should reduce the penalties to fines fro most possesion and use offenses related to this drug.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 12:19 pm
My brother was a brittle diabetic and went from 215lbs of solid body structure to about 105lbs in about a two to three year period. He got to the point where the thought of food made him nauseous because when he would eat he would become ridiculously nauseated. My brother was medically discharged from the US Army after nine years of active duty because of diabetes. He began using marijuana and gained 40 lbs. Unfortunately, diabetes had taken too great a toll on his body and he died in 0nine, while I was in Afghanistan. Pass this legislation now. As far as law enforcement is concerned, they need to wake up and smell the coffee; just because law enforcement doesn’t support this or support that, so what! How many people have honestly been pulled over for driving under the influence of marijuana? Most people can probably count on one hand how many people have gotten dui for mj.
Comment by SilverBackDemocrat Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 12:29 pm
fixture, your analysis is not entirely correct. Section (a)(6) deals with any trace amount of substance from the “unlawful” use of drugs. It’s a per se violation without any proof of impairment. Section (b) deals with a situation that someone may be taking prescription medication and be “impaired”. This requires proof of impairment which would render someone incapable of operating the motor vehicle safely.
Comment by icephisher Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 2:48 pm
This is truly excellent news. Thank God the adults in the room are finally addressing the fact that this will raise tax revenue and eliminate drug crimes from crowding our prisons. Oh, and people will be happier. Win, Win, Win.
Comment by JBilla Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 4:56 pm
Not so sure.
I don’t know if it was the Nrew Trier case (involving a girl who had smoked the night before and then was involved in a hit and run the following afternoon) or in Lake County (where a teenager smoked at night and then was involved in a car accident the next day involving a death) but the prosecutors tried a DUI felony in one of the cases. The defense brought an expert who testified the effects of pot wear out within hours; that there is no causation between smoking at night and being involved in an accident the following day; the judge obviously understood the science (prosecutors only care about convictions; the law, science, and a good conscious be damned!) and threw out the DUI.
Just my remembering…
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 7:23 pm
I am an otherwise non-smoking, law-abiding individual who has, on two occasions, secured marijuana for dying friends. I was glad to do it and would do it again in an instant. The relief it brought them during their treatment and then in their last days was real—less nausea and the ability to eat and hold a small meal and enough relaxation and to fall into a full night’s sleep. Other palliative options are available but most are more potent, making them more debilitating.
Comment by Indeedy Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 7:33 pm
Jesus said to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. I know I wouldn’t want my parents thrown in jail if they decided to grow a little marijuana to help with the aches and pains of getting older.
Comment by ConservativeChristian Monday, Apr 25, 11 @ 10:52 pm
It is absolutely ridiculous that this hypocritical state and its so-called leaders have continued to penalize marijuana smokers, particularly sick ones. Grow up Illinois and follow the example of more enlightened states. Of course, kids shouldn’t smoke, but consenting adults? Give them a break! Too many lives have been ruined for nothing and sick people are suffering. Give them the compassionate relief that they deserve. LEGALIZE IT NOW!
Comment by Hippie Chick Tuesday, Apr 26, 11 @ 11:40 pm