Marijuana Laws

Question 9 was passed in Nevada on November 7, 2000, with a 65% Yes vote. It amended the states’ constitution, recognizing the medical use of marijuana. The law took effect on October 1, 2001. The law removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who have “written documentation” from their physician that marijuana may alleviate his or her condition. Patients diagnosed with the following illnesses are afforded legal protection under this act: AIDS; cancer; glaucoma; and any medical condition or treatment to a medical condition that produces cachexia, persistent muscle spasms or seizures, severe nausea or pain. Other conditions are subject to approval by the health division of the state Department of Human Resources. Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess no more than one ounce of usable marijuana, and may cultivate no more than seven marijuana plants, of which no more than three may be mature. The law establishes a confidential state-run patient registry that issues identification cards to qualifying patients. Patients who do not join the registry or possess greater amounts of marijuana than allowed by law may argue the “affirmative defense of medical necessity” if they are arrested on marijuana charges.

The medical use provisions in Nevada DO NOT include reciprocity provisions protecting visitors from other medical use states.

Medical Marijuana Statutes: Nev. rev. stat. 453A.010-453A.240(2008).

Former drug officer launches ‘KopBusters’ TV show
Stephen C. Webster

Welcome readers! A follow-up with raw footage from ‘KopBusters’ first sting has been posted here.

Barry Cooper, a former Texas police officer with eight years of specialty in drug interdiction, first made waves when he released the film “Never Get Busted Again,” a how-to guide for evading police drug seizures.

Austin, Texas-based Cooper’s latest project is not nearly so benign, and will likely generate for the former drug warrior an army of enemies in law enforcement.

‘KopBusters’ is a reality TV program that aims to sink crooked officers.

“KopBusters rented a house in Odessa, Texas and began growing two small Christmas trees under a grow light similar to those used for growing marijuana,” claims a release from NeverGetBusted.com “When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house.”

“The trap was set and less than 24 hours later, the Odessa narcotics unit raided the house only to find KopBuster’s attorney waiting under a system of complex gadgetry and spy cameras that streamed online to the KopBuster’s secret mobile office nearby.

“The attorney was handcuffed and later released when eleven KopBuster detectives arrived with the media in tow to question the illegal raid. The police refused to give KopBusters the search warrant affidavit which is suspected to contain the lies regarding the probable cause.

“It is not illegal to grow plants under a light in your home but it is illegal to lie on an affidavit and plant drugs on a citizen. This operation was the first of its kind in the history of America. Police sometimes have other police investigating their crimes but the American court system has never dealt with a group of citizens stinging the police. Will the police file charges on the team who took down the corrupt cops? We will keep you posted.”

Cooper’s “Never Get Busted Again” was a runaway success, the sales of which serve as financial support for this most recent project.

“The drug war is a failed policy and the legal side effects on the families are worse than the drugs,” Cooper said to the Dallas Observer in early 2007. “I was so wrong in the things I did back then. I ruined lives.”

The ‘Kop Busters’ sting was the feature of a CBS 7 report, aired Dec. 4, 2008.

BAY MINETTE — Family members said they warned officers to no avail about the fragile health of a 32-year-old Eight Mile man who died in the Baldwin County Corrections Center early Friday.

Jacob Ashley Jordan was found dead in his cell at about 1 a.m., according to a news release issued Friday by the Baldwin County Sheriff’s Office.

Sheriff’s spokesman Maj. Anthony Lowery said Jordan had a “pre-existing medical condition,” had been moved into the jail’s medical wing and was treated by nurses. Jordan was in his cell at the time of his death, Lowery said.

He declined to give details, citing privacy laws that protect medical information, but did say there was “no evidence of any physical injury.”

The early investigation indicated that Jordan was booked into the county jail on July 2 after being transferred from the Mobile Metro Jail on a second-degree possession of marijuana charge and hunting violations, Lowery said in the release. Late Thursday afternoon Jordan began experiencing health problems and was moved into the medical block for treatment and observation. He was under medical care of the jail’s doctor and nurses at the time of his death, Lowery said.

The case is being investigated by the Baldwin County District Attorney’s Office, the Alabama Bureau of Investigation, the Baldwin County Coroner’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office, as is standard policy. Jordan’s body was transported to the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences in Mobile for autopsy, according to Lowery.

Jordan’s mother, Peggy Jordan of Eight Mile, said in a telephone interview Friday that there is much more to the story, and she wants answers.

“The sheriff told me JJ and three others were sitting in their cell watching television when JJ slumped over and his heart stopped,” Jordan said. “They tried CPR, but couldn’t revive him. I told them over and over he had Addison’s disease and that he needed treatment. This didn’t have to happen.”

According to the National Institute of Health, Addison’s is one form of adrenal insufficiency that strikes about four in every 1,000 people. Adrenal glands don’t produce enough of certain hormones that regulate blood pressure, cardiovascular function, blood sugar levels, immunological response and metabolism. Crisis episodes can be fatal.

This is just another stellar example of police brutality in the US.

Facts and Procedural History

Just before midnight on October 28, 2004, Trooper Larsen noticed that a

vehicle driven by Tibbles had a defective taillight. He stopped the car and, upon

making contact with Tibbles, detected a strong odor of marijuana. At the trooper’s

request, Tibbles provided his license but could not find his registration. Trooper

Larsen asked Tibbles to step out of his vehicle, and Tibbles complied. The trooper

informed Tibbles he could smell marijuana; Tibbles replied that he did not have any

in his possession. Trooper Larsen then searched Tibbles but did not find either

marijuana or drug paraphernalia. In response to the trooper’s questioning, Tibbles

denied smoking marijuana that day.

Trooper Larsen then proceeded to search the interior of Tibbles’s car. Under

the front passenger seat inside a brown paper bag, he found a glass pipe, a glass

container with what he believed was marijuana, a knife, and two lighters. Tibbles

denied the marijuana was his.

Trooper Larsen did not arrest Tibbles but cited and released him after

confiscating the suspected marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Subsequent testing by

the Washington State Patrol verified that the substance in the glass container was

marijuana.

The State charged Tibbles with misdemeanor possession of marijuana and

-2-

State v. Tibbles (Micah Newman), 80308-1

drug paraphernalia. Before his trial in district court, Tibbles moved to suppress the

evidence seized by Trooper Larsen as the poisonous fruits of an illegal search. The

district court denied his motion, concluding exigent circumstances justified the

warrantless automobile search. Tibbles was convicted following a stipulated facts

trial.

Tibbles appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. Recognizing the legal

issue as whether the stipulated facts established exigent circumstances, both the

superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Tibbles, noted at 138

Wn. App. 1046, 2007 WL 1464456. Tibbles petitioned this court for review, which

we granted. State v. Tibbles, 163 Wn.2d 1032, 185 P.3d 1196 (2008).

Analysis

The question before us is whether the warrantless search of Tibbles’s car

violated his right to privacy under article I, section 7 of the Washington State

Constitution. We begin with the presumption that warrantless searches are per se

unreasonable under our state constitution. State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 70,

917 P.2d 563 (1996). And, we have recognized that “the right to be free from

unreasonable governmental intrusion into one’s ‘private affairs’ encompasses

automobiles and their contents.” State v. Parker, 139 Wn.2d 486, 494, 987 P.2d 73

(1999). Even where probable cause to search exists, a warrant must be obtained

unless excused under one of a narrow set of exceptions to the warrant requirement.

State v. Ringer, 100 Wn.2d 686, 701, 674 P.2d 1240 (1983) (citing State v. Smith,

88 Wn.2d 127, 135, 559 P.2d 970 (1977), overruled on other grounds by State v.

-3-

State v. Tibbles (Micah Newman), 80308-1

Stroud, 106 Wn.2d 144, 720 P.2d 436 (1986)); see also Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d at

70 (noting warrant exceptions are “‘jealously and carefully drawn’” (quoting

Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 759, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235, 99 S. Ct. 2586 (1979))).

We have recognized exceptions for: consent, exigent circumstances, searches
incident to a valid arrest, inventory searches, plain view, and Terry1 investigative

stops. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d at 71. The State bears the burden to show an

exception applies. Id.

Preliminarily, there is no issue in this case about probable cause. We recently

recognized that the odor of marijuana emanating from an automobile may provide

probable cause to search. State v. Grande, 164 Wn.2d 135, 146, 187 P.3d 248

(2008) (stating, “In this case, because the officer had training and experience to

identify the odor of marijuana and smelled this odor emanating from the vehicle, he

had probable cause to search the vehicle.”). Tibbles does not appear to challenge

the existence of probable cause to search. Tibbles, 2007 WL 1464456, at *2 n.2.

Nor does he dispute that the odor of marijuana in a vehicle may provide probable

cause to arrest the sole occupant, as we recognized in Grande, 164 Wn.2d at 146.

But, the existence of probable cause, standing alone, does not justify a warrantless

search. Probable cause is not a recognized exception to the warrant requirement,

but rather the necessary basis for obtaining a warrant. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d at

71. Because Trooper Larsen did not arrest Tibbles, and did not have a warrant when

he searched Tibbles’s car, the search must be justified by one of our recognized

1 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968).

-4-

State v. Tibbles (Micah Newman), 80308-1

warrant exceptions. The State relies solely on the exception for “exigent

circumstances.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 44; see Suppl. Br. of Resp’t at 4; Suppl. Br.
of Pet’r at 5.2

The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies

where “‘obtaining a warrant is not practical because the delay inherent in securing a

warrant would compromise officer safety, facilitate escape or permit the destruction

of evidence.’” State v. Smith, 165 Wn.2d 511, 517, 199 P.3d 386 (2009) (quoting

State v. Audley, 77 Wn. App. 897, 907, 894 P.2d 1359 (1995)). This court has

identified five circumstances from federal cases that “could be termed ‘exigent’”

circumstances. State v. Counts, 99 Wn.2d 54, 60, 659 P.2d 1087 (1983) (emphasis

added). They include “(1) hot pursuit; (2) fleeing suspect; (3) danger to arresting

officer or to the public; (4) mobility of the vehicle; and (5) mobility or destruction of

the evidence.” Id. (citations omitted); see also State v. Terrovona, 105 Wn.2d 632,

644, 716 P.2d 295 (1986). However, merely because one of these circumstances

exists does not mean that exigent circumstances justify a warrantless search. E.g.,

State v. Patterson, 112 Wn.2d 731, 735, 774 P.2d 10 (1989). A court must look to

the totality of the circumstances in determining whether exigent circumstances

2 Because the State argues only exigent circumstances, Tibbles misplaces reliance
on State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 62 P.3d 489 (2003). In O’Neill, we rejected the
State’s argument that a warrantless vehicle search was justified under the “incident to
arrest” exception because there was probable cause to arrest the defendant, even though
the officers did not do so. 148 Wn.2d at 587. The State makes no such argument here,
and nothing in our opinion in O’Neill precludes the State from relying on the exigent
circumstances exception in lieu of the search incident to arrest exception.
3Six nonexclusive factors may aid in determining the existence of exigent
circumstances:
“(1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to

-5-

State v. Tibbles (Micah Newman), 80308-1

exist.3 Smith, 165 Wn.2d at 518.

Considering the relevant factors in determining an exigency, the State has not

shown that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of Tibbles’s car.

See Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d at 71. The situation in this case stands in sharp

contrast to other situations in which we have held exigent circumstances to exist. In

Patterson, we concluded that exigent circumstances justified entry into a parked

vehicle where a burglary had very recently been committed, the suspect was likely

in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle because the officers discovered the vehicle a

mere five minutes after the robbery, information in the automobile could help

identify and locate the suspect, and a delay in searching the vehicle could have

allowed the suspect to flee the area. 112 Wn.2d at 735-36. Similarly, we found

exigencies in Smith where there was a tanker truck filled with 1,000 gallons of a

dangerous chemical parked next to a house, a rifle had been seen in the house, the

rifle went missing, and the two known occupants of the house did not possess the

rifle. 165 Wn.2d at 518.

On the stipulated facts in this case, the State has not shown any need for

particular haste. The suspect was not fleeing, nor has there been any showing that

he presented a risk of flight. While there was probable cause that evidence of

be charged; (2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3)
whether there is reasonably trustworthy information that the suspect is
guilty; (4) there is strong reason to believe that the suspect is on the
premises; (5) a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly
apprehended; and (6) the entry [can be] made peaceably.”
Smith, 165 Wn.2d at 518 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Cardenas, 146 Wn.2d
400, 406, 47 P.3d 127, 57 P.3d 1156 (2002)).

-6-

State v. Tibbles (Micah Newman), 80308-1

contraband existed in the vehicle, Tibbles was outside the vehicle when Trooper

Larsen searched it and the State has not established that the destruction of evidence

was imminent. Additionally, the State has not established that obtaining a warrant

was otherwise impracticable. For example, we do not know whether Larsen could

have used a cell phone or radio to procure a telephonic warrant or whether he could

have called backup to secure the scene while Larsen went to procure a warrant. The

record contains no evidence of what Larsen would have had to do to procure a

warrant at the time of the search.

With regard to safety concerns, the stipulated facts do not establish that

Trooper Larsen felt he or anyone else was in danger as a result of Tibbles’s actions.

CP at 44. Tibbles was not stopped on suspicion of impaired driving, but rather for a

defective taillight. Id. Tibbles was alone, was compliant with the trooper’s

requests, and moreover, was released rather than arrested and allowed to drive away

even after Trooper Larsen searched the car and seized the marijuana and drug

paraphernalia. Id.

It is the State’s burden to establish that one of the exceptions to the warrant

requirement applies. State v. Acrey, 148 Wn.2d 738, 746, 64 P.3d 594 (2003). In

the case of hot pursuit or similar situations presenting a risk to officer safety, the

State’s burden can be met by establishing the immediacy of the risk of flight or risk

of harm. The facts, as presented here, do not implicate these concerns, nor has the

State attempted to show why it was impracticable for Trooper Larsen to obtain a

warrant before conducting his search. To find exigent circumstances based on these

-7-

State v. Tibbles (Micah Newman), 80308-1

bare facts would set the stage for the exigent circumstances exception to swallow

the general warrant requirement. It would give the erroneous impression that an

exigency may be based on little more than a late-night stop for defective equipment,

an officer working alone, and circumstances indicating possible drug possession.

This very likely describes any number of encounters between law enforcement and

private citizens that occur everyday.

We conclude that the State has not carried its burden to show that the

stipulated facts in this case present an exigency. At best, the State has shown it was

expedient for Trooper Larsen to conduct the search as he did. But, whatever

relative convenience to law enforcement may obtain from forgoing the burden of

seeking a warrant once probable cause to search arises in circumstances such as

here, we adhere to the view that “mere convenience is simply not enough.”

Patterson, 112 Wn.2d at 734. The underlying theme of the exigent circumstances

exception remains “[n]ecessity, a societal need to search without a warrant.” Id. at

735. The State has not met its burden to establish exigent circumstances.

Accordingly, we hold that the warrantless search of Tibbles’s car violated article I,

section 7 of the Washington Constitution, and the evidence obtained as a result of
the search should be suppressed.4

4 It should be noted that Trooper Larsen likely had probable cause to arrest Tibbles
based on the strong odor of marijuana coming from the car. See Grande, 164 Wn.2d at
146. Because he did not do so, but instead released Tibbles, the State does not assert the
“search incident to a lawful arrest” exception to the warrant requirement. Nor does the
State seek to justify the warrantless search under a “plain smell” variation of the “plain
view” exception. See State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 363-64, 979 P.2d 833 (1999)
(Madsen, J., dissenting). The State proffered only the exigent circumstances exception.
We emphasize these facts to make clear that we are not presented here with a choice

-8-

State v. Tibbles (Micah Newman), 80308-1

Conclusion

Exigent circumstances will be found only where obtaining a warrant is not

practical because the delay inherent in securing a warrant would compromise officer

safety, facilitate escape, or permit the destruction of evidence. Smith, 165 Wn.2d at

517. Because the State failed to establish exigent circumstances justifying the

warrantless search of Tibbles’s car, we reverse the Court of Appeals.

between no search or this search. We decline to apply the exigent circumstances
exception to these facts, but this does not mean that another exception would not be
available in similar circumstances.

-9-

State v. Tibbles (Micah Newman), 80308-1

AUTHOR:
Justice Debra L. Stephens

By Michael McKenna

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) results from an overwhelming assault on the mind and emotions involving a threat of death or serious injury or damage to one’s physical integrity. The cause may be a natural disaster, an accident or a human action. People who suffer from this disorder are often edgy, irritable, easily startled, and constantly on guard. They often involuntarily re-experience the traumatic event in the form of memories, nightmares, and flashbacks. They frequently appear to have a need to avoid feelings and thoughts reminiscent of the trauma. They sufferer from emotional numbing which often causes demoralization and isolation.

My name is Michael McKenna. I’m 46 years old, and I’ve been using marijuana on and off since 1970. I’ve gone without it for long periods, but I use it today and probably will for the rest of my life. I have no choice. I went to Vietnam right after my 18th birthday. When I had been there for two weeks, our company lost the first men that I knew. Back at base camp, I sat in the dark by myself wondering what the hell had happened. I asked myself where these souls went, and was there a heaven for men who died the way they did. As I stared into the darkness I heard a voice behind me say “Man, you shouldn’t be out here by yourself thinking about this shit or you’ll go nuts.” I couldn’t look him in the face and didn’t even look up for fear that he would see the tears in my eyes. He told me I needed to get drunk to forget it and go on, or I would die there. I told him I didn’t drink, and he said he would be right back. When he returned he had a big joint and asked if I had tried pot before. I told him that I had, a couple of times. He said this shit was about 100 times stronger than anything in the States and I should only smoke a little. Then he left.

That night alone in the dark, I smoked the whole thing, and I’ve never regretted it. He had given me my mental survival tool. It did not make me forget, just allowed me to digest the pain and fear peacefully and respectfully with dignity. I’m sure you’ve heard before that over there we had Jesus freaks, straights, potheads, and diesel freaks (drinkers). While the diesel freaks made up the majority, pot smoking became more and more open. The straights became potheads by the drove.

My job over there meant I had to deal not only with our dead but theirs also, along with murders, suicides and heroin overdoses. I did not allow my crew to get high on the job, but when we hit camp we all smoked. There was not one drinker in my crew, because we had to move on a moment’s notice, and you could not trust the drunks to be ready or sometimes even able. The potheads came through like champs, always ready, always able. When I returned home, I was hit by the same crap that most other vets got: unemployable, hate, prejudice, called all of the names I’m sure you’ve heard. All you had was family and close friends, and that didn’t last, because in your head they knew that you were the murdering, rapist scum that they had been reading about and seeing on the news. So I threw away all the people who knew me and loved me and turned to vets and then threw them away too, just as some had thrown me away because they knew the scum that I was. Soon no one I was seeing even knew I had even been in the Army, and I wasn’t talking. My way to cope was heavy drugs and booze.

About this time my father (a combat vet from WWII) told me in a loving way that something was wrong with me, that I wasn’t adjusting. He saw death in my eyes, and knew that I was killing myself. He and my Mom begged me to get help before it was too late, or my rage and anger would kill me or someone else. So with my Dad almost holding my hand, we went to the VA hospital in St. Louis. They told me there that I didn’t really have a nervous problem, and in time I would adjust like everyone else who had served in combat. They gave me Valium and told me to come back in 90 days. When I went back and told them the Valium wasn’t working, they said there was nothing else they could do, and I had to live with it. I began to hit the drugs even harder, running all over the country from my demons. Eventually I got strung out on heroin, a $500 a day habit. When I found myself thinking about robbing places because I could no longer support my habit, I decided to quit so I wouldn’t hurt my family any more. All the people I knew who took methadone in the morning were still doing heroin at night, so I decided to quit cold turkey.

I called my father to come and get me. All I told him was that I need his help. He never asked why, and I never told him until later, but he knew anyway. He put me in a camper on his property not too far from their home, and then the hell began. He watched me from time to time, puking, screaming, not able to sleep or even stay in the trailer. I would build campfires to sleep by, if I slept at all. If the fire went out, he would keep it going when I didn’t even know he was there.

On the third day, while I was rolling on the ground screaming in pain and puke, a yellow convertible pulled in and a barefoot guy with waist-long hair and no shirt got out. He said my father had sent him to help me. Seeing my confusion, he said, “Just call me Dr. Jim, and you’re going to sleep tonight.” He had a bag of pot and a gallon of whiskey. I told him to take his shit and get out. Pot wasn’t going to do shit, and the whiskey would probably kill me. But he said getting drunk would help me sleep, and the pot would make the withdrawal less violent and help with the puking. I stayed drunk and high for a week.

When I finally went to my Dad’s to take a shower, he came over and hugged me, as nasty and disgusting as I was, with tears in his eyes. He told me that I had been through enough, that he would have gone through the withdrawal for me if he could have, but that I still had a long way to go. He said that he was never so proud of me as he was when he realized that I wasn’t going to turn back to heroin instead of continuing the withdrawal. He suggested that I quit the booze, but maybe the pot wasn’t a bad thing. Well, I drifted away from the other drugs, but continued to drink and smoke pot. I was unknowingly starting to refine my own treatment. Pot was no longer just a party high for me but a survival tool. I used it to cope with everyday things that others seemed to do on their own, going out, seeing friends, working.

I was just another bombed-out crazy vet, useless, suicidal, and violent. I’ve had a lot of women in my life who liked me but could not stand the mood swings, the striking out and fighting, and the depression. After a while they all would learn the same thing: that when I had pot, I was nicer and more romantic and didn’t get into fights. So they made sure I had pot even if they had to buy it for me.

I’m in my third marriage, and my wife has mixed feelings about pot because it’s illegal. I’ve bought my first home, and she’s afraid we will lose it if I get busted. So she’s scared, but she sees that pot helps me. Since 1990 I’ve been in therapy for PTSD. I’ve been in the Stress Recovery Unit at Bay Pines VA hospital in Florida four times. My doctors there have tried me on different medications for depression and anxiety such as Valium, Prozac, trazodone, Cetrizine, and Serzone. All of my doctors know I self-medicate with pot, because I never hid this from any of them. Most of them don’t really discuss it with me, but some have, and have even told me that the only problem is that they can’t control the dose. They ask me not to smoke while I’m adjusting to their drugs, but I always go back to the pot because it is what works for me. I still use trazodone to help me get to sleep and short-circuit the nightmares, but pot is my daytime drug. I’ve had a lot of pain in my lower back for many years. During one of my stays at the VA, they told me I had a spondylopathy there that they could not operate on, and that I would probably end up in wheelchair. While pot does not stop the pain, it sure makes it a lot easier to live with at bad moments. My pain pills don’t stop the pain and are addictive.

I think it is important for you to know that I’m not a “Cheech and Chong” type. I’ve been a deputy sheriff as well as a police chief and a private investigator, but the PTSD always made me crash and burn. I’ve lost everything several times, and for the last few years I have been rebuilding again. My doctors have told me to retire and try to maintain as normal a life as possible.

Yes, I’m still in a lot of pain mentally and physically, but I am still alive, and I know that I would not be if it weren’t for the pot and my family. And as I said earlier, without the pot I would not have maintained my family. I’m sorry I’ve been going on longer than I thought I would, but I guess I had to defend my continued use. I hope I can help others who have guilty feelings because the stuff is illegal. We must make choices, and mine is to continue to smoke and tell others about the benefits that I got. Thank you for helping me vent. This personal story, speaks in volumes of why pot should be used for PTSD. There isn’t much more to say than what Micheal has said. Legal Beagle

Michigan drivers can no longer be convicted for the simple presence of THC byproducts in their bodies after smoking marijuana. The Michigan Supreme Court’s liberal majority ruled Tuesday that it is not illegal to drive while having marijuana byproducts internally.

Until Tuesday’s ruling, if you smoked a joint over the weekend and then got drug tested on Monday morning — or even a month later — you could be convicted of “Driving Under the Influence of Drugs” (DUID), even if you are no longer high, just because inactive chemical traces of THC remain in your bloodstream.

According to the court, 11-carboxy-THC, a metabolite of tetrahydrocannabinol, one of the main active ingredients in marijuana, cannot be considered a controlled substance under Michigan law, according to The Associated Press.

Washington, DC: The authorized use of medical marijuana by veterans should not be penalized by federal administrators or defined as ‘illegal drug use,’ according to a July letter issued by the US Department of Veteran Affairs, Under Secretary of Health.

The letter, from Under Secretary Robert Petzel, M.D. to Michael Krawitz, administrator for the group Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access, states that a patient’s use of medical cannabis is not sufficient cause to deny him or her access to prescribed pain medications in a Veterans Affairs facility.

It states: “If a Veteran obtains and uses medical marijuana in a manner consistent with state law, testing positive for marijuana would not preclude the Veteran from receiving opioids for pain management in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility. … Standard pain management agreements should draw a clear distinction between the use of illegal drugs, and legal medical marijuana.”

It continues: “The Veteran would need to inform his provider of the use of medical marijuana, and of any other non-VA prescribed medications he or she is taking to ensure that all medications, including opioids, are prescribed in a safe manner. … The provider will take the use of medical marijuana into account in all prescribing decisions, just as the provider would for any other medication. This is a case-by-case decision, based upon the provider’s judgment, and the needs of the patient.”

Krawitz had contacted the agency after hearing several complaints from veterans who had been denied treatment at VA facilities because of their state-authorized use of medical cannabis. ONLY IN STATES MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS LEGAL