COURT STRIKES DUI LAW FOR MARIJUANA USERS

The state Supreme Court Monday set aside a DUI law that punishes
marijuana-using motorists for even trace amounts of pot.

The law violates constitutional equal protection rights by exempting
prescription users of the drug, even though the effect of the drug is the
same on them and on public safety as it is for recreational users, the
unanimous court ruled.

'ZERO TOLERANCE' CHALLENGED In the DUI case, Everette Bryan Love, 21,
challenged one of the state's so-called "zero tolerance" drug laws. This one
punishes motorists who have barely detectable amounts of marijuana in their
systems. The University of Georgia student was charged with DUI after a
Lawrenceville policeman pulled him aside for speeding on Interstate 85. Love
v. State, No. S99A0509 (Sup. Ct. Ga. June 1, 1999).

Testing showed Love had trace amounts of marijuana in his system, so he was
convicted of driving under the influence.

The case prompted lively debate before the court in March, with one justice
postulating whether he could be found guilty of DUI after being trapped in a
closet with a pot smoker. Another justice wondered about the people who
smoke the substance in Amsterdam, where use is tolerated, and come home
sober but with a detectable amount of pot in their systems.

The court found no equal protection problem in the fact that unimpaired
drivers with traces of the substance in their systems can be prosecuted
under the law.

But the justices did find an equal protection problem on another front.
Benham, who wrote for the unanimous court, said the law treats those who use
marijuana for medicinal purposes differently from those who use it for mere
recreation, even though the effects are the same.

Benham pointed out that "the expert testimony given in this case stated that
the pharmacological effects of prescribed marijuana are no different from
the effect of 'recreational' use marijuana," although the statute does not
apply to those who have prescriptions."

"We are unable to hold that the legislative distinction between sanctioned
and unsanctioned users of marijuana is directly related to the public safety
purpose of the legislation ... . Accordingly we conclude that the
distinction is arbitrarily drawn, and the statute is an unconstitutional
denial of equal protection," Benham wrote.

Love was represented by David E. Clark and Jessica R. Towne of
Lawrenceville's Clark & Towne.

The lawyers did not expect the court to rule in their favor, much less to
agree with their argument that the law arbitrarily changes the burden of
guilt for prescription marijuana users.

"We didn't expect to prevail. We were extremely surprised," says Towne,
speaking from Charleston Tuesday.