cannabisnews.com: Our View: Judicial Reefer Madness Our View: Judicial Reefer Madness Posted by FoM on January 16, 2002 at 09:24:40 PT Editorial Source: Idaho Statesman Say this for the often-overruled 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: It knows how to pad its stats. Consider the court´s bizarre ruling Monday on Idaho´s impaired-driving law. Then keep in mind some numbers cited in this section recently by columnist George Will: From 1996 to 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed 90 9th Circuit rulings, reversing 77. Coincidence? Here´s the latest from the court. New Plymouth police in September 1998 charged Matthew Patzer with driving while impaired, after the 21-year-old admitted smoking marijuana. But in a contrived plot twist befitting a Cheech and Chong movie, the court Monday threw out the charge and subsequent conviction, in part because Idaho law does not define marijuana as a narcotic. Joke all you want about judges -- based in San Francisco, no less -- putting the high back in highway. This mind-bender of a ruling won´t be a laughing matter for Idaho politicians already uneasy with the state´s inconvenient marriage with the 9th Circuit. They´ve already been pushing to split the overburdened and far-flung court, which stretches from the Rockies to the Pacific Islands. Don´t hold your breath, though. This is an old proposal that has been on the table for years. A quicker solution should come from Idaho legislators, who should clarify matters for their friends on the 9th Circuit. Since they´re in town for a while, they need to pass a law that clearly covers driving under the influence of marijuana. As for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, federal attorneys are considering their options. We´ll leave that question to them. But checking the stats, we like their odds.Related Article:Al Lance: It's Still Illegal To Drive HighBy The Associated PressAttorney General Al Lance said on Tuesday that it remains illegal to drive high in Idaho, even if you can drive straight. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited a section of Idaho Code as the basis for deciding on Monday that a Fruitland man should not have been arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana in September 1998. The appellate court said the law allows marijuana users to drive legally as long as their driving is not erratic and they can pass a field sobriety test. But Lance said the three-judge panel did not address another section of Idaho Code that clearly makes it "unlawful for any person who is under the influence of alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicating substances ... to drive or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state. "Accordingly, the court´s decision has no impact on this statute," Lance said. "There should be no misunderstanding: It is a crime to drive while under the influence of marijuana in the state of Idaho." Lance said the law cited by the 9th Circuit "is intended to make it clear that driving while impaired is prohibited, even if the driver is impaired by legal use of a prescription drug." That section makes it illegal to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug "to a degree which impairs the driver´s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle." The appellate court overturned the conviction of Matthew Patzer, 21, of Fruitland, who was stopped for a broken tail light in 1998 and admitted to police he had smoked marijuana at a party. Source: Idaho Statesman, The (ID) Published: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 Copyright: 2002 The Idaho StatesmanContact: editorial boise.gannett.comWebsite: http://www.idahostatesman.com/Related Articles: Idaho Law Hits Legal Pothole in S.F. http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11769.shtmlIdaho OKs Marijuana With Driving http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11763.shtmlCannabis May Make You a Safer Driverhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6717.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #7 posted by The GCW on January 17, 2002 at 05:20:00 PT Websters... has a vague definition of "narcotic", that could include cannabis.1. any drug that induces profound sleep, lethargy, and relief of pain: it is usually an opiate. 3. anything that causes drowsiness, lethargy, etc.Labeling cannabis as a narcotic, is not the issue... As Ethan stated: The Issue is Impairment, Stupid.Notice all the things that induce lethargy, yet are not thought of a narcotic. My whole lunch at work, makes me lethargic and by relieving the pain of hunger (on my cushy American level), could be a narcotic. Now with this news, it would be wise to help states keep cannabis off the narcotics list, or remove it, if it is on. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by CorvallisEric on January 16, 2002 at 18:44:27 PT Idaho for the dogs I don't really want to dump on my neighbor state, but it seems that Idaho is the only Western state where nothing constructive has happened yet (Utah voted forfeiture reform with a even larger majority than Oregon did). Some of you may remember the outrageous stories about drug (really MJ)-sniffing dogs in shopping-center parking lots in Nampa (about 20 miles from Boise): Police Will Search Parked Cars For Drugs http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n1026/a08.html Prosecuter Says Drug Dogs Search Legal http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n1026/a09.html Canyon Drug Dogs Destined For TV http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n459/a05.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on January 16, 2002 at 18:13:54 PT I'm glad I don't live in Idaho...... Maybe they'll secede soon, and the Mormons in Utah with 'em.Gotta run - gotta pop 2 or 3 Benadryl before my 8 hour drive tonight.......hope nobody's walking in the breakdown lane tonight.... [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by DdC on January 16, 2002 at 12:39:43 PT Halucinagens aren't Narcotics, but thats WoD 4ya I believe they did classify it as a narcotic and call it addictive and only because they through the research in the trash can and are still sitting on the IOM report. I've also heard that a substance can not be a narcotic and an halucinagen and that cannabis was classed as an halucinagen, making it non addictive and non schedule#1. But then so is LSD classed as a schedule#1 so its obvious they make the laws but don't read them or care how much they adhere to the standards of reality. They say it isn't medicinal though I posted a 1952 Websters dictionary stating hashish was an anti-spasmadic. I guess Clarance didn't see it either! In conclusion, nothing about cananbis prohibition makes sense out side of simple business. It is competition eliminated from the market while profiting on the prohibition itself. Some call it fascism but then the "F" word scares the begeeezus out of others. Peace, Love and Liberty DdC [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by DdC on January 16, 2002 at 12:29:38 PT Urine tests are political not practical In cannabis cases urine testing serves absolutely no bearing on job performance. Profiting the labs testing and prison industry or eliminating outspoken employees. Ignorance is getting harder and harder to believe as an excuse. Greed is why cannabis is prohibited and its time to remove that incentive. I think more accountability is in order on these quacks spouting reefer madness lies. Or politicans. Enough independant test have concluded more than enough reason to remove this fascist prohibition. Cage a few liars and show the money flow from prohibition to their pockets full of Pharmaceutical or Fossil Fuel stock options. Traitors maintaining dysfunction profiting on misery. Remove those with vested ignorance! thanks Doc. Peace, Love and Liberty DdCNon-invasive Impairment tests http://www.pmifit.com/pmifit2.htmlFIT 2000 non-invasive 30-second impairment test. "FIT 2000 is directly relevant to employers interested in high quality, exacting, detail work, as well as general safety and quality, without violating the privacy of the employee' [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by boppy on January 16, 2002 at 12:24:27 PT definitions Cannabis is not a narcotic. That's why it's not defined as a narcotic. I learned this in high school. A narcotic is an addictive substance such as opium. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 16, 2002 at 10:24:17 PT: The Issue is Impairment, Stupid Marinol carries a caution about driving and operating machinery, as it should. Cannabis, which is actually less psychoactive, mg per mg, might one day carry a similar warning. However, most patients, once used to the effects, can safely drive under the influence of their necessary dose.The issue is not these drugs, it is the degree of impairment. Despite the ridicule of this article, the 9th Circuit decision was absolutely on target. Imprecise laws should be quashed, and impairment should be the issue. Urine or blood levels of cannabinoid metabolites say nothing of impairment, but a field test for cannabis is reasonable if anything of the sort is warranted. This is not similar to the situation with alcohol, where serum levels do parallel the degree of impairment. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment