NJ Court Says Drug HANGOVERS Also Impair Drivers

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19513314/

N.J. court says hangovers impair drivers
Ruling sets precedent for cocaine’s after-effects; alcohol not addressed

Updated: 6:30 p.m. MT June 29, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. - Motorists who drive while suffering a hangover from drug
use can be considered impaired even if the drug's immediate effects have
passed, a state appeals court ruled.

The 3-0 ruling by the Appellate Division of state Superior Court
considered a case involving cocaine use, and a prosecutor expressed
doubt it would apply to alcohol hangovers.

"This case presents a novel issue as to whether a 'rebound effect' or a
'hangover effect' from a previous ingestion of cocaine constitutes being
'under the influence' of a narcotic drug," the court wrote. "We hold
that it does."

The decision announced Thursday involved David L. Franchetta Jr., who
was arrested two years ago after police observed him speeding and
driving erratically. A blood test found evidence his body was
metabolizing cocaine, and police said he was lethargic and incoherent
because of the after-effects of cocaine use.

Franchetta was found guilty of driving under the influence of cocaine,
his license was suspended for two years and he was ordered to serve 30
days of community service.

The appeals court affirmed a lower court's ruling that Franchetta was
driving while under the influence due to the continuing effect of the
cocaine use.

"While defendant was not 'high', he was physically impaired as a result
of ingesting cocaine," Appellate Division Judge Thomas Lyons wrote.

The decision specifically addressed cocaine, and Cape May County
Prosecutor Robert L. Taylor said he did not think alcohol hangovers
would necessarily be considered an impairment.

"I believe it's precedent-setting in regard to the use and effects of
cocaine," Taylor said. "I don't read the decision as being that broad in
terms of applying to an alcohol hangover."

On Jul 1, 1:21 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19513314/
>
> N.J. court says hangovers impair drivers
> Ruling sets precedent for cocaine's after-effects; alcohol not addressed
>
> Updated: 6:30 p.m. MT June 29, 2007
>
> NEWARK, N.J. - Motorists who drive while suffering a hangover from drug
> use can be considered impaired even if the drug's immediate effects have
> passed, a state appeals court ruled.
>
> The 3-0 ruling by the Appellate Division of state Superior Court
> considered a case involving cocaine use, and a prosecutor expressed
> doubt it would apply to alcohol hangovers.
>
> "This case presents a novel issue as to whether a 'rebound effect' or a
> 'hangover effect' from a previous ingestion of cocaine constitutes being
> 'under the influence' of a narcotic drug," the court wrote. "We hold
> that it does."
>
> The decision announced Thursday involved David L. Franchetta Jr., who
> was arrested two years ago after police observed him speeding and
> driving erratically. A blood test found evidence his body was
> metabolizing cocaine, and police said he was lethargic and incoherent
> because of the after-effects of cocaine use.
>
> Franchetta was found guilty of driving under the influence of cocaine,
> his license was suspended for two years and he was ordered to serve 30
> days of community service.
>
> The appeals court affirmed a lower court's ruling that Franchetta was
> driving while under the influence due to the continuing effect of the
> cocaine use.
>
> "While defendant was not 'high', he was physically impaired as a result
> of ingesting cocaine," Appellate Division Judge Thomas Lyons wrote.
>
> The decision specifically addressed cocaine, and Cape May County
> Prosecutor Robert L. Taylor said he did not think alcohol hangovers
> would necessarily be considered an impairment.
>
> "I believe it's precedent-setting in regard to the use and effects of
> cocaine," Taylor said. "I don't read the decision as being that broad in
> terms of applying to an alcohol hangover."

Interesting...but I see two problems already.

First: I've heard for years that alcohol is a drug. Since when is it
no longer qualified?

Also: how the **** do you test for a hangover?

On Jul 1, 1:21 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19513314/
>
> N.J. court says hangovers impair drivers
> Ruling sets precedent for cocaine's after-effects; alcohol not addressed
>
> NEWARK, N.J. - Motorists who drive while suffering a hangover from drug
> use can be considered impaired even if the drug's immediate effects have
> passed, a state appeals court ruled.

Many drivers are "impaired" due to stupidity, I'd like to see that
addressed.

> The 3-0 ruling by the Appellate Division of state Superior Court
> considered a case involving cocaine use, and a prosecutor expressed
> doubt it would apply to alcohol hangovers.

'Course not, judges and prosecutors get drunk.

> "This case presents a novel issue as to whether a 'rebound effect' or a
> 'hangover effect' from a previous ingestion of cocaine constitutes being
> 'under the influence' of a narcotic drug," the court wrote. "We hold
> that it does."
>
> The decision announced Thursday involved David L. Franchetta Jr., who
> was arrested two years ago after police observed him speeding and
> driving erratically. A blood test found evidence his body was
> metabolizing cocaine, and police said he was lethargic and incoherent
> because of the after-effects of cocaine use.

Mmm... cops are now doctors too.

But these days chemicals are almost always to blame, somehow. Smoker
gets lung cancer; well that's obviously from smoking. Non-smoker gets
lung cancer; well that's obviously from exposure to secondhand smoke.
The factor never addressed is how the majority of smokers never
develop lung or any other cancer...

> The appeals court affirmed a lower court's ruling that Franchetta was
> driving while under the influence due to the continuing effect of the
> cocaine use.
>
> "While defendant was not 'high', he was physically impaired as a result
> of ingesting cocaine," Appellate Division Judge Thomas Lyons wrote.

'Course! A judge is as competent as a cop or doctor to ascertain
that. Maybe the guy has a blood clot in his brain... perhaps his
"normal" state is "lethargic and incoherent"... maybe the cops bashed
him in the head and "made" him lethargic and incoherent. The article
doesn't mention why the cops were talking to him in the first place.
Apparently he hadn't crashed, an accomplishment often unobtainable by
many "unimpaired" drivers.

> The decision specifically addressed cocaine, and Cape May County
> Prosecutor Robert L. Taylor said he did not think alcohol hangovers
> would necessarily be considered an impairment.
>
> "I believe it's precedent-setting in regard to the use and effects of
> cocaine," Taylor said. "I don't read the decision as being that broad in
> terms of applying to an alcohol hangover."

Yeah, 'course not...
------

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
>On Jul 1, 1:21 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19513314/
>>
>> N.J. court says hangovers impair drivers
>> Ruling sets precedent for cocaine's after-effects; alcohol not addressed
>>
>> NEWARK, N.J. - Motorists who drive while suffering a hangover from drug
>> use can be considered impaired even if the drug's immediate effects have
>> passed, a state appeals court ruled.
>
>Many drivers are "impaired" due to stupidity, I'd like to see that
>addressed.

It's addressed. At the rate of better than 110 cases per day.

>> The 3-0 ruling by the Appellate Division of state Superior Court
>> considered a case involving cocaine use, and a prosecutor expressed
>> doubt it would apply to alcohol hangovers.
>
>'Course not, judges and prosecutors get drunk.
>
>> "This case presents a novel issue as to whether a 'rebound effect' or a
>> 'hangover effect' from a previous ingestion of cocaine constitutes being
>> 'under the influence' of a narcotic drug," the court wrote. "We hold
>> that it does."
>>
>> The decision announced Thursday involved David L. Franchetta Jr., who
>> was arrested two years ago after police observed him speeding and
>> driving erratically. A blood test found evidence his body was
>> metabolizing cocaine, and police said he was lethargic and incoherent
>> because of the after-effects of cocaine use.
>
>Mmm... cops are now doctors too.
>
>But these days chemicals are almost always to blame, somehow. Smoker
>gets lung cancer; well that's obviously from smoking. Non-smoker gets
>lung cancer; well that's obviously from exposure to secondhand smoke.
>The factor never addressed is how the majority of smokers never
>develop lung or any other cancer...
>
>> The appeals court affirmed a lower court's ruling that Franchetta was
>> driving while under the influence due to the continuing effect of the
>> cocaine use.
>>
>> "While defendant was not 'high', he was physically impaired as a result
>> of ingesting cocaine," Appellate Division Judge Thomas Lyons wrote.
>
>'Course! A judge is as competent as a cop or doctor to ascertain
>that. Maybe the guy has a blood clot in his brain... perhaps his
>"normal" state is "lethargic and incoherent"... maybe the cops bashed
>him in the head and "made" him lethargic and incoherent. The article
>doesn't mention why the cops were talking to him in the first place.
>Apparently he hadn't crashed, an accomplishment often unobtainable by
>many "unimpaired" drivers.
>
>> The decision specifically addressed cocaine, and Cape May County
>> Prosecutor Robert L. Taylor said he did not think alcohol hangovers
>> would necessarily be considered an impairment.
>>
>> "I believe it's precedent-setting in regard to the use and effects of
>> cocaine," Taylor said. "I don't read the decision as being that broad in
>> terms of applying to an alcohol hangover."
>
>Yeah, 'course not...
> ------
>
>- gpsman

--

We're all here
because we're not all there.

On Jul 2, 4:30 pm, Murderous Speeding Drunken Driver
> wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> >On Jul 1, 1:21 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> > wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted>
> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19513314/
>
> >> N.J. court says hangovers impair drivers
> >> Ruling sets precedent for cocaine's after-effects; alcohol not addressed
>
> >> NEWARK, N.J. - Motorists who drive while suffering a hangover from drug
> >> use can be considered impaired even if the drug's immediate effects have
> >> passed, a state appeals court ruled.
>
> >Many drivers are "impaired" due to stupidity, I'd like to see that
> >addressed.
>
> It's addressed. At the rate of better than 110 cases per day.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The 3-0 ruling by the Appellate Division of state Superior Court
> >> considered a case involving cocaine use, and a prosecutor expressed
> >> doubt it would apply to alcohol hangovers.
>
> >'Course not, judges and prosecutors get drunk.
>
> >> "This case presents a novel issue as to whether a 'rebound effect' or a
> >> 'hangover effect' from a previous ingestion of cocaine constitutes being
> >> 'under the influence' of a narcotic drug," the court wrote. "We hold
> >> that it does."
>
> >> The decision announced Thursday involved David L. Franchetta Jr., who
> >> was arrested two years ago after police observed him speeding and
> >> driving erratically. A blood test found evidence his body was
> >> metabolizing cocaine, and police said he was lethargic and incoherent
> >> because of the after-effects of cocaine use.
>
> >Mmm... cops are now doctors too.
>
> >But these days chemicals are almost always to blame, somehow. Smoker
> >gets lung cancer; well that's obviously from smoking. Non-smoker gets
> >lung cancer; well that's obviously from exposure to secondhand smoke.
> >The factor never addressed is how the majority of smokers never
> >develop lung or any other cancer...
>
> >> The appeals court affirmed a lower court's ruling that Franchetta was
> >> driving while under the influence due to the continuing effect of the
> >> cocaine use.
>
> >> "While defendant was not 'high', he was physically impaired as a result
> >> of ingesting cocaine," Appellate Division Judge Thomas Lyons wrote.
>
> >'Course! A judge is as competent as a cop or doctor to ascertain
> >that. Maybe the guy has a blood clot in his brain... perhaps his
> >"normal" state is "lethargic and incoherent"... maybe the cops bashed
> >him in the head and "made" him lethargic and incoherent. The article
> >doesn't mention why the cops were talking to him in the first place.
> >Apparently he hadn't crashed, an accomplishment often unobtainable by
> >many "unimpaired" drivers.
>
> >> The decision specifically addressed cocaine, and Cape May County
> >> Prosecutor Robert L. Taylor said he did not think alcohol hangovers
> >> would necessarily be considered an impairment.
>
> >> "I believe it's precedent-setting in regard to the use and effects of
> >> cocaine," Taylor said. "I don't read the decision as being that broad in
> >> terms of applying to an alcohol hangover."
>
> >Yeah, 'course not...
> > ------
>
> >- gpsman
>
> --
>
> We're all here
> because we're not all there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Drug hangovers will lead to accidents a higher precentage of times
than pot use aftermath does.
The worst effect of pot is a high cholsterol level from the munchies.
<g>