cannabisnews.com: Fatal Wreck Trace of Pot May Mean Long Prison Stay





Fatal Wreck Trace of Pot May Mean Long Prison Stay
Posted by FoM on March 16, 2001 at 11:15:03 PT
By Tim Evans, Indianapolis Star
Source: Indianapolis Star
No one believes Harlan Turner was under the influence of marijuana or impaired when he was involved in a collision that killed three people on Ind. 67 in Morgan County.Not the investigating officer from the Indiana State Police.Not witnesses who interacted with Turner as he assisted victims at the scene.
Not the medical expert who examined his blood sample.But Turner, 34, of Carlisle faces up to 24 years in prison because a small trace of marijuana he smoked the night before the Dec. 2, 1999, crash was still in his bloodstream.Indiana law does not set a threshold for marijuana intoxication as it does for alcohol. The law requires that only a trace of marijuana or its metabolites -- the residue left as the drug breaks down -- be present in the blood of a person convicted of causing a wreck.A Morgan County jury on March 2 found Turner guilty of causing the wreck on Ind. 67, where the road narrows from four lanes to two lanes. His truck ran into the rear of a slow-moving car driven by an elderly woman, and that collision pushed her car into the path of an oncoming car, killing three people in the two cars.Turner, who will be sentenced on March 30, is believed to be the first person in Indiana convicted of the charge -- operating a vehicle with a controlled substance (marijuana) in blood resulting in death -- said his attorney, Patrick V. Baker of the Indianapolis law firm Baker, Pittman & Page.While such charges are not formally tracked, there is no published appeal, and Baker said he has found no other record of convictions in fatalities.The Class C felony charges fall under the state's driving-while-intoxicated statute."There was not one piece of evidence that he was intoxicated," said Baker, who said Turner may appeal.If marijuana had not been found in Turner's blood, Morgan County Prosecutor Steve Sonnega said, Turner probably would have been charged with reckless driving -- resulting in a fine but no jail time -- because Indiana has no vehicular manslaughter or similar charges.Advocates for the reform of marijuana laws claim Indiana law does not take into account that traces of marijuana remain in a person's blood long after the intoxicating high dissipates.One of those advocates, Allen St. Pierre, calls the Indiana law "psycho-pharmacological McCarthyism" with no basis in science."This type of poorly worded legislation is the result of the war on drugs zeal," said St. Pierre, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based NORML Foundation (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). "The intent of the law is clear, and even advocates like us do not want anybody to drive while impaired. That's why we believe there should be a requirement to determine impairment."Similar laws are in effect in most other states despite "tons of evidence that prove the existence of an inert metabolite in the body is in no way, shape or form a measure of impairment," said St. Pierre.Indiana University law professor Henry C. Karlson disagrees."I see no reason to feel sorry for someone who commits one crime and then causes another, particularly if that conduct poses a risk to society," he said. "What the law is doing is erring on the side of safety."Karlson believes the law is constitutional and will withstand appeal, but Baker isn't so sure.Baker said the law fails to take into account positive tests from marijuana consumed legally in other countries or encountered through secondhand smoke or hemp-based products."The fact is that a person can legally smoke marijuana in many other places, then come back to Indiana, and, if that person is involved in an accident, he can be held liable and sent to prison for a long time even though he was not impaired or under the influence at the time of the accident," Baker said.But, Karlson said it is not a crime for a person to have the drug in his system when he returns to the country."The crime is driving with it in your system," he said. Karlson agrees the situation with marijuana may be more contentious because it is fat-soluble, and traces remain in the body longer than alcohol and other drugs.Edward J. Barbieri, a toxicologist with the independent National Medical Services in Willow Grove, Pa., said marijuana or its metabolites can be found in blood up to 48 hours after use. While the high typically lasts about three hours, Barbieri, who testified for the prosecution in the Turner case, said marijuana's effects can persist eight to 12 hours."The big question is: Does marijuana influence driving ability?" he said. "And the answer is no one really knows."Barbieri said the interpretation of the existing data depends on who is analyzing the information.He said it is possible for traces to show up in the blood of a person who inhaled marijuana through secondhand smoke or used some legal hemp products. But those levels would be very low and dissipate quickly.Barbieri said he does not expect a reliable, affordable test for marijuana intoxication to be available soon."It's not like alcohol, where there are proven tools like a Breathalyzer and standards for intoxication," he said. "It is very hard to correlate between levels (in the blood) and intoxication. There are so many variables. You need to look at all the data -- you can't do everything by numbers."Baker agrees with St. Pierre that proof of illegal consumption and impairment should be the standard in all cases."We don't want to minimize the losses suffered by the families involved in this case," he said. "It's absolutely tragic. Three people lost their lives and nothing will bring them back."But the intent of the law is to keep intoxicated or impaired drivers off the road, and Mr. Turner was not intoxicated," he said. "This is really scary."Jerry McCory, director of the Governor's Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving, agrees that people should be scared, but for a different reason."I don't want anyone driving who has consumed illegal drugs, and I don't believe that is the wish of the citizens of Indiana. If drugs are found in the bloodstream of someone involved in an accident, then there is a reasonable assumption the two are connected," he said."The bottom line is that it is illegal to use marijuana."Note: Authorities and experts say convicted man wasn't impaired, but Indiana law could bring up to 24 years.Contact Tim Evans at: tim.evans starnews.comSource: Indianapolis Star (IN)Author: Tim Evans, Indianapolis StarPublished: March 16, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Indianapolis Newspapers Inc.Contact: stareditor starnews.comWebsite: http://www.starnews.com/NORML: http://www.norml.org/CannabisNews Articles - Jessica Williamshttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=jessica+williams
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by observer on March 21, 2001 at 14:30:59 PT
Driving
"The big question is: Does marijuana influence driving ability?" he said. . . .UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.html University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\1999\03\990325110700.htm Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06.html Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html If drugs are found in the bloodstream of someone involved in an accident, then there is a reasonable assumption the two are connected," he said.The ignorance, idiocy, and bigotry of such vested interests never ceases to amaze me. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by aocp on March 17, 2001 at 17:32:06 PT:
Look, moron...
Similar laws are in effect in most other states despite "tons of evidence that prove the existence of an inert metabolite in the body is in no way, shape or form a measure of impairment," said St. Pierre.Exactomundo. Just how hard is this?Indiana University law professor Henry C. Karlson disagrees.This guy is a law professor! What clout does he have regarding how inert metabolites react or not with the CNS?"I see no reason to feel sorry for someone who commits one crime and then causes another, particularly if that conduct poses a risk to society," he said. "What the law is doing is erring on the side of safety."Excuse me all-to-hell, but no one is asking you to feel sorry for anybody. The fact remains that in the case of impairment (and esp. regarding MJ), trace metabolites DO NOT indicate impairment, no matter what your personal prejudices are against MJ or its users. As far as you know, this guy could've been around secondhand smoke or consumed hemp health products! Trust me, your ridiculous excuse for a state won't be seeing any of my tourist dollars any time soon. Good riddance.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by MegaStoner on March 17, 2001 at 05:48:51 PT
Fossils behind the wheel
I like meagains observation concerning elderly drivers.Now I dont,and cant ,have anything against old people.Everyone will beone sooner than they think.Old people are like stoned people in the way that someof them can drive just fine while stoned or old,but other get too stoned,or too old,andthey are not so good on the highway.I'd rather be stoned than old,,but behind the wheel,stoned is better thanold,,,but if your going to drive when you're really old,I think you would drivebetter if you were stoned.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Mr. 2toes on March 16, 2001 at 22:39:17 PT
Huh?
While the high typically lasts about three hours, Barbieri, who testified for the prosecution in the Turner case, said marijuana's effects can persist eight to 12 hours.Musta been some killer skunk!So, everyone be responsible, and do not drive for at least 1 year after you toke.Whats sad is that this is all so the prosecutor's can get raise's, and buy a 3rd summer home.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by meagain on March 16, 2001 at 22:15:41 PT
Old drivers are a threat
Jerry McCory, director of the Governor's Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving, agrees that people should   be scared, but for a different reason.   "I don't want anyone driving who has consumed illegal drugs, and I don't believe that is the wish of the citizens of   Indiana. If drugs are found in the bloodstream of someone involved in an accident, then there is a reasonable   assumption the two are connected," he said.   "The bottom line is that it is illegal to use marijuana."But i can go to Michigan and Ohio where it is "decriminalized" and smoke it. There is no reasonable assumption the two are connected that is b.s. traces of marijuana in the body DOES NOT PROVE impairement. I am from Indiana Their law is so backasswards then they wonder why they have problems with drunks and meth and crack . People who use marijuana are more likely NOT to cause an accident. This case here is something that could happen to anyone in INDIANA so many OLD people are driving who are not capable they drive way unreasonably under the speed limit they are more of a danger on the highway than potheads.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Darb on March 16, 2001 at 21:29:45 PT
48 hours??
"Edward J. Barbieri, a toxicologist with the independent National Medical Services in Willow Grove, Pa., said marijuana or its metabolites can be found in blood up to 48 hours after use. "I was under the impression that pot metabolites stay in your system for up to 3-4 weeks if you were a regular user. I'm 99% sure this is factual, i thought it was cocaine, heroin, alcohol, opiates and such that flush out in 48 hours? I don't know of any drug test sites off the top of my head, but I'm sure someone can verify this
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by NiftySplifty on March 16, 2001 at 20:52:41 PT
There are many things I love about Indiana...
and this isn't one of them.For the guy to say, "The crime is driving with it in your system," is ridiculous! If one goes on a drinking bender on Saturday night, (but is certainly not drunk two weeks later (for example) when he goes to work Monday morning) should he go to jail for 24 years, just because alcohol is fat soluble? (I know it's not, this is hypothetical)This is how frickin' ridiculous the law is: if you said to Joe Public, "Joe, if you got drunk on a Saturday night, and two weeks later got in a wreck on the way to work, would you support a 24 year sentence if we found evidence you had been drinking two weeks ago?" Joe might slap you in the face and say, "Are you insane?"*sigh*N...
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: