Jump to content

Now that recreational pot will be legal what is the threshold for carrying while under the influence?


Recommended Posts

Living in the land of selective prosecution where the agenda is drugs are good and guns are bad, watch Illinois revoke CCLs for possession of the combination.

While the federal government has zero tolerance the state of Illinois is surprisingly leniant. But you mentioned the key word, selective prosecution. There have been plenty of times states have figured out ways to make Federal charges stick if the state doesn't have the legal framework to be heavy handed.

 

licensee shall not carry a concealed firearm while under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, intoxicating compound or combination of compounds, or any combination thereof, under the standards set forth in subsection (a) of Section 11-501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.

A licensee in violation of this subsection (d) shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first or second violation and a Class 4 felony for a third violation. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for a third violation.

Here's the Illinois vehicle code 11-501

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-501.htm

 

 

the person has, within 2 hours of driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle, a tetrahydrocannabinol concentration in the person's whole blood or other bodily substance as defined in paragraph 6 of subsection (a) of Section 11-501.2 of this Code

 

Now here's the interesting part, I'm not a lawyer but

 

does not apply to the lawful consumption of cannabis by a qualifying patient licensed under the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act who is in possession of a valid registry card issued under that Act, unless that person is impaired by the use of cannabis.

You can conceal carry and consume medical marijuana as long as you're not impaired? (is there something written elsewhere?) Again, you would probably (not a lawyer) be legal in Illinois, but you would be in violation of the federal law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

does not apply to the lawful consumption of cannabis by a qualifying patient licensed under the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act who is in possession of a valid registry card issued under that Act, unless that person is impaired by the use of cannabis.

You can conceal carry and consume medical marijuana as long as you're not impaired? (is there something written elsewhere?) Again, you would probably (not a lawyer) be legal in Illinois, but you would be in violation of the federal law.

 

I am not an expert but from what I hear there are MM products that help pain without educing any sort of a "high". Maybe that is what they are referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

does not apply to the lawful consumption of cannabis by a qualifying patient licensed under the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act who is in possession of a valid registry card issued under that Act, unless that person is impaired by the use of cannabis.

You can conceal carry and consume medical marijuana as long as you're not impaired? (is there something written elsewhere?) Again, you would probably (not a lawyer) be legal in Illinois, but you would be in violation of the federal law.

 

I am not an expert but from what I hear there are MM products that help pain without educing any sort of a "high". Maybe that is what they are referring to?

Maybe you are deterring to the CBD oil from hemp available OTC that has little to no THC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intoxication or impairment is up to an officer. The law states that the legal definition for DUI of alcohol is .08.That isn't true. If the officer deems you intoxicated and you blow say a .04 you can still be arrested.If you are stupid enough to do field sobriety tests, the officers opinion will be used against you in court.It's called Noticeable Impairment and you can be charged with DUI. don't get caught up with numbersor terms like legally intoxicated. Legally intoxicated or impairment is up to the arresting officer.

 

Intoxication or impairment is up to an officer. The law states that the legal definition for DUI of alcohol is .08.That isn't true. If the officer deems you intoxicated and you blow say a .04 you can still be arrested.If you are stupid enough to do field sobriety tests, the officers opinion will be used against you in court.It's called Noticeable Impairment and you can be charged with DUI. don't get caught up with numbersor terms like legally intoxicated. Legally intoxicated or impairment is up to the arresting officer.
Yep learned that in DUI school. I'll take "stuff they don't teach in drivers ed" for $500. Have seen cases where someone blows 0.02 and gets a DUI. And FSTs...yeah, I agree. That's sad but most sober people fail them. There's a case from back in 2011, Lake County, where someone else caused a car accident by blowing a red light, killing the passenger in the other vehicle and seriously injuring another. The driver who was not at fault tests positive for THC, strict liability back then, so HE gets charged with the homicide of his son because he had THC in his blood. The police even determined he wasn't impaired but it didn't matter. They only found it when they did blood work on both drivers. He didn't even cause the accident. And he wasn't allowed to present evidence that he wasn't impaired at his trial because of the strict liability. The Scott Shirley case is the reason why the limit was changed from strict liability (0 nanograms per whatever-liter) to what it is now (which probably won't help a regular user anyway). Also, now I believe LEOs must have RS to believe a driver in an accident involving injuries is impaired before demanding blood/breath/urine but that isn't hard to overcome if the driver has a head injury. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yep learned that in DUI school. I'll take "stuff they don't teach in drivers ed" for $500. Have seen cases where someone blows 0.02 and gets a DUI.

 

 

We had a guy in my office, worst driver you have ever seen, long of the short he got into a ridiculous crash. Has 2 previous DUI's , both alcohol, he blew a 0.0 and the cop was CONVINCED his machine must be broken and hauled him in for DUI anyways. He had not been drinking and beat the case but yeah its pretty easy to be "charged" with DUI. Convictions are way more sticky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yep learned that in DUI school. I'll take "stuff they don't teach in drivers ed" for $500. Have seen cases where someone blows 0.02 and gets a DUI.

 

 

We had a guy in my office, worst driver you have ever seen, long of the short he got into a ridiculous crash. Has 2 previous DUI's , both alcohol, he blew a 0.0 and the cop was CONVINCED his machine must be broken and hauled him in for DUI anyways. He had not been drinking and beat the case but yeah its pretty easy to be "charged" with DUI. Convictions are way more sticky.

 

 

Yep had a co-worker that didn't like drinking and thus always drank O'Doul's or whatever near beer was available when he went to bars to socialize, I know the near beers have some alchohol but I can't even imagine how many it would take to blow past the legal limit. Anyway he was popped leaving a bar on a Friday after work get together and although he blew a 0 the cop claimed to smell beer and deemed him impaired and the breathalyzer broken. He was arrested for DUI they did a urine test that came up essentially nil then followed up with a blood test at the jail and it was essentially nil as well, regardless they still pushed forward with the DUI charge based on the officers deeming him impaired. He finally prevailed in court but it cost him a boat load of hassle and money.

 

Moral of the story, I have NO doubts some of the rabid anti-gun communities in IL will be charging CCL holders with impairment if they simply smell something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In testimony they were talking about cheek swab tests but I assume that needs to be sent out.

InB4 someone figures out a way to snort it and bypass the oral cavity altogether. Maybe they already have. I'm not in that loop.

 

 

You are obviously not familiar with the arcane activity known as "butt-puffing" which is also known as "chloh-heeping" due to the sound it makes—which I must emphasize that I do not know about from personal practice. The things one learns about when being around medical research are astonishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...