A new study from Columbia University indicates that there may be another good reason to keep marijuana from general use. Published in the online version of Epidemiologic Reviews, the findings show that there is a significant association between marijuana use and traffic accidents.

Using 2009 data, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that drug use while driving is not uncommon. In excess of 10 million individuals over the age of 12 are believed to have driven under the influence of an illegal drug in the past year. Many of those drivers are using marijuana, which is the most frequently detected drug among drivers besides alcohol.

There has been some question as to whether marijuana has a significant effect on drivers involved in traffic accidents. In order to examine the role of marijuana in driver safety, researchers conducted a meta-analysis involving nine studies. They found that drivers that test conclusive for marijuana or who admit to driving in three hours or under of using the drug are twice as likely as their non-drug using counterparts to be implicated in an accident.

In addition, the researchers detected evidence that the risk of a traffic accident increases depending on the amount of marijuana in urine and with frequency of marijuana use, based on self-report.

The researchers found that in eight of the nine examined studies, drivers who were operating under the influence of marijuana were more likely to be in a traffic accident than those drivers who did not test positive for marijuana. The one case that did not support this trend was conducted in Thailand, where marijuana use is lower than that reported elsewhere.

Using drugs while driving can have serious consequences. The meta-analysis showed that 28 percent of fatally injured drivers and over 11 percent of general drivers tested positive for drugs other than alcohol, with marijuana the most popular choice.

Senior author Guohua Li, MD, DrPh, professor of Epidemiology at Columbia University, points out the urgency of understanding the role of marijuana in causing traffic accidents. The need to understand its various effects is necessary, given the popular support for marijuana as a legal medical treatment.

Smartphones can be smarter than people sometimes, especially when it comes to judging if a person is in the right condition to be operating a vehicle on the road. The new tool is designed to get people to stop and consider what they are doing before deciding to drive after drinking alcohol.

The program invites users to enter information such as gender, weight, beverage(s) consumed and time spent drinking into the smartphone. The app then makes a calculation of the drinker’s level of intoxication. The screen displays an estimated BAC (blood alcohol content) and an appropriate corresponding message such as "You’re buzzed, you could be arrested for drunk driving. Designate a sober driver."

Also helpful, the app provides the phone number for a local taxi cab service. The tool comes with a disclaimer that makes it plain that the BAC is an estimate and does not constitute evidence that could be used in a court of law.

Law enforcement officials, while enthusiastic about the potential for the app, are quick to point out that impairment can be about more than the drinks consumed at the bar. Many things contribute to whether or not a person is impaired after consuming alcohol. When the person last ate and slept can be factors. Whether or not the person is taking medications can influence how rapidly they become impaired after drinking alcohol. And, of course, if the person has taken illegal drugs along with drinking, the calculation the app provides would be far from determining their actual ability to properly manage an automobile.

All users can benefit from an outside reminder that perhaps they have had more to drink than they realize and there is increased potential for danger should they drive. Nonetheless, MoDOT does have a target audience in mind. In the past two years alone, the state has seen 90 crash fatalities resulting from impaired drivers under the age of 21. This app is the department’s way of reaching out to a demographic that is known to be at a significantly higher risk of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Officials with the department wisely note that their target consumer has less experience and probably isn’t yet able to accurately judge their own limitations – even more so when their judgment could already be impaired by a few too many beers.

Alcohol affects everyone differently and officials at MoDOT don’t expect this effort alone to solve a serious problem – but they do hope to give people the opportunity to pause and think again before making a seriously wrong decision. The app is free and can be downloaded at FOX4KC.com

US immigration laws impose different eligibility standards on aliens depending on where they are, what benefit they are seeking, and their personal circumstances. Some bars to entry are waivable while others are not.

A related question, although admittedly rarely encountered in my practice, is how US citizens fare when attempting to visit or move to a foreign country. Do those same crimes, medical conditions, and immigration violations that plague aliens in America similarly affect US citizens abroad?

Any analysis of foreign immigration laws should probably begin with one of our closest neighbors. What would happen if you suddenly found yourself in Buffalo and wanted to do a little sightseeing up north? Advances in technology now make it possible for countries to exchange information about citizens, such as criminal history, with the click of a button. People with criminal history who, in the past, could travel freely to other countries may want to think twice before heading to the border.

Immigration regulations for Canada are found in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and make foreign nationals inadmissible on security grounds, human rights violations, criminal grounds, health-related grounds, financial grounds, misrepresentation, violation of Canadian immigration laws, and inadmissibility of family members.

Let’s face it, there are a few heinous crimes that would probably make someone inadmissible in most developed nations (murder comes immediately to mind). However, it may surprise you that Canada is actually stricter than the United States when it comes to who can pass through its border. Examples of offenses that may make one inadmissible to Canada include shoplifting, theft, assault, dangerous driving, illegal possession of a firearm, posession of illegal substances, assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, and driving under the influence.

Section 36(1) of the IRPA bars admission for serious crimes such as:

-convicted in Canada of an offense punishable by maximum imprisonment of 10 years or more or where an actual sentence of more than six months was imposed;

-convicted of a crime outside Canada that would be punishable by a maximum term of at least 10 years if committed in Canada

-committing an act outside Canada that is an offense where committed and, if it had been committed in Canada, would be punishable by a maximum term of at least 10 years.

Section 36(2) deems foreign nationals to be inadmissible after:

-having been convicted in Canada of an offense punishable by way of indictment or of two offenses not arising from a single occurrence;

-a foreign conviction that would constitute an indictable offense in Canada or two offenses not arising out of single occurrence that would be an offense;

-committing an act outside Canada that would constitute an indictable offense in Canada;

-committing, on entering Canada, an offense under the criminal code, the IRPA, the Firearms Act, the Customs Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Under Section 38(1) of the IRPA, a foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if they are likely to be a danger to public health, public safety or cause excessive demand on health or social services. Medical examinations can be required, even for some temporary residence visas.

Unlike in the United States, Canadian immigration law treats families as one entity, denying admission based on the fact that a family member who has made a permanent resident application is inadmissible under one of the proscribed grounds.

In Canada, driving while under the influence is considered a felony for immigration purposes and makes the alien inadmissible. This is a huge departure from US immigration law where simple DUI convictions, without more, generally do not make a foreign national inadmissible or deportable. In determining inadmissibility for a DUI conviction that occurred in Canada, the punishment outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code is controlling. For foreign DUI convictions, it must equate to one of the categories in section 36(2).

Pursuant to the Canadian Criminal Code (section 253(1)), operating a motor vehicle or having the care or control of a motor vehicle, whether in motion or not, while impaired by alcohol or drugs or after consuming enough alcohol such that the blood alcohol content is .08 or above is classified as an impaired driving offense. Driving while impaired is an indictable offense or one that is punishable conviction and is liable for a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first offense, a minimum of 30 days imprisonment for a second offense and 120 days more for each subsequent offense. If prosecuted as an indictment (felony), the driver can be sentenced to up to five years; if prosecuted as a misdemeanor, the sentence can be up to 18 months.

Canada’s driving under the influence (DUI) law is a divisible offense, meaning it can be prosecuted either as a felony (indictment) or misdemeanor (summary conviction). Strictly speaking, only a felony makes a foreign national inadmissible to Canada. However, when there is a divisible offense, such as the DUI law, it is treated as a felony for immigration purposes. Thus, most US driving under the influence convictions would render the offender inadmissible to Canada without a pardon.

Consider, if you will, the list of US citizens who are likely barred from entering Canada due to driving under the influence convictions. Those unwelcome up north include Paris Hilton, President George W. Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney, Ray Liotta, and Mel Gibson. The little matter of being completely inadmissible to a country that borders ours proved problematic when George Bush needed to enter Canada to carry on the business of our nation.

To get a pardon (the equivalent of the US immigration waiver) for a foreign conviction, the foreign national can apply for a “approval of rehabilitation”, or permanent waiver, at least five years after the end of the imposed sentence. This differs from US law in that some criminal convictions are waivable immediately upon the showing of extreme hardship. The Approval of Rehabilitation can be obtained at the Canadian visa offices in Buffalo, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York or Seattle. To qualify, the alien must show a stable lifestyle and that he is unlikely to be involved in future criminal activity. Factors include remorse for the criminal activity, acceptance of responsibility, change in lifestyle and stability in career and family life. This is much more broad, and arguably easier to prove, than the 601 hardship waiver in the United States. The 601 waiver requires a showing of extreme hardship to a qualifying US citizen or lawful permanent resident family member.

If convicted of a single, minor, offense outside Canada, including a simple DUI, the person is eligible for “deemed rehabilitation” after ten years. If there is a compelling reason to visit, the foreign national can apply for a temporary resident permit which will temporarily waive the ground of inadmissibility.

Just how the immigration laws of the United States and Canada can affect citizens on both sides of the border is illustrated in the story of Janeane Ardiel and David Williams, newlyweds who cannot live together as husband and wife but rather must limit physical interaction to brief meetings at the Peace Arch on the US-Canadian border.

Williams, an American with a DUI conviction, is barred from entering Canada based on his criminal conviction. Ardiel, a Canadian whom US immigration officials feels has immigrant intent, cannot enter the US as a tourist to visit her husband. After being denied entry by US officials, Ardiel started the legal process to obtain her green card, however the wait can take up to a year. In the meantime, the couple’s sole interaction occurs at a metal picnic table in a no man’s land between the two countries, probably under the watchful (invisible) eye of border patrol agents.

Williams and Ardiel are not the first couple to run into immigration issues, however, as evidenced by the fact that the site is a common meeting point for separated couples. Canadians and Americans can visit the park without breaking the law or crossing the border into the neighboring country. Williams and Ardiel’s story illustrates the facility of the long-held belief that spouses of US citizens are automatically entitled to live and work in the Unite States or, at the very least, have free access to visit the US citizen spouse. When a US immigration official believes that a visitor has immigrant intent, he or she will be barred from entering the United States and told to go get the proper visa. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the attempted entry, the personal may also incur a misrepresentation charge which will need to be waived by immigration officials.

While I fully support Canada’s right to exclude whomever they’d like from their great nation, I believe a little bit if quid pro quo is in order here. Therefore, would all Canadians who live here and/or work in American jobs and have a felony conviction or DUI proceed immediately to the nearest exit?

It will be interesting to see how Canada deals with criminal issues for visitors coming to watch the 2010 Olympic Games in Whistler and Vancouver in mid-February. Given that, historically, Americans have sometimes been able to cross the border into Canada with just a waive to the Canadian border patrol agent, a real danger exists that prospective Olympic spectators from the US will not research admissibility to Canada in advance and will be turned away at the border. Neither the Olympic organizers nor the Canadian government seems to going out of their way to warn unwary travelers about Canada’s rather strict anti-crime immigration policy. Cost of hotels, transportation and tickets to Olympic events? Thousands. Value of visiting the Canadian Embassy’s website to review admissibility rules for Americans before you go? Priceless.

Source

http://www.tdn.com/news/article_d89572e4-a18d-54f9-ab97-059a9cacbd04.html

When considering the consequences a DUI will likely have on a client’s case, it is always necessary to explore the need for rehabilitation at a treatment center. Enrolling in an addiction treatment center is often desirable when the immigration officer has discretion to decide your eligibility for an immigration benefit or you are required to file a hardship waiver due to the DUI.

Generally, a single misdemeanor DUI (typically one which doesn’t involve bodily injury or death) is unlikely to have insurmountable negative consequences for an alien already in the US or hoping to come to the US. However, that does not mean that the immigration office will see your DUI as “no big deal.”

A crime involving moral turpitude is a ground of inadmissibility to the US and could result in deportation, denial of a visa or green card, or denial of entry into the US at a port of entry. Although the situation sounds dire, it is possible to waive this ground of inadmissibility with an immigration hardship waiver. In order to be considered a CIMT, a violation of a law must require that the offender had the necessary intent. Most states’ DUI laws have no intent requirement; you are either driving under the influence or not. However, certain aggravating factors, such as driving without a license, can turn a simple DUI into something more serious.

Aggravated felonies are another class of criminal convictions that can make someone deportable or inadmissible to the United States. Whether or not any type of criminal conviction (even a misdemeanor) is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes depends on how USCIS interprets the underlying criminal activity in relation to federal, not state, law. These crimes are usually violent in nature or are of a specific type and the sentence for which is a year or more in jail. Clients who incur multiple DUIs run the risk of becoming aggravated felons in the eyes of US immigration officers, especially when the combined sentences could result in jail time of more than a year.

When it comes to citizenship, everything a green hard holder does during their required period of residence is evaluated when it comes to deciding whether or not the applicant has the good moral character necessary for becoming a US citizen. In fact, officers can consider an applicant’s entire criminal history when conducting the evaluation. While you cannot be approved for citizenship while still on probation, sometimes it is wise to wait for an additional period of time after end ends before applying for citizenship so that the applicant can show good moral character from the time the probation ended. Another strategy is to show a commitment to safe and sober driving by enrolling at an addiction treatment center. A naturalization attorney can help decide the best strategy for your particular case.

Another area of concern for those convicted of DUI arises when the client must file a waiver of an inadmissibility bar. Even if the DUI itself did not trigger the bar, USCIS officers are permitted to investigate and consider an applicant’s entire background when making the waiver decision. For instance, for a 601 waiver, the applicant must show that his inadmissibility to the US would pose an extreme hardship on a US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. However the analysis does not end at the hardship determination. The officer is further obligated to balance the hardship against any aggravating factors (such as criminal history) and with any mitigating factors (such as voluntary enrollment in an alcohol treatment center or other acts showing rehabilitation).

Finally, for those with multiple DUI convictions, care must be taken when attending any sort of immigration medical exam. At the exam, a doctor or psychiatrist is permitted to inquire about drug or alcohol issues, especially if there have been multiple DUIs. If the medical professional feels that the alcohol issue is serious enough, her or she could cause the applicant to be considered a habitual drunkard and, thus, not admissible to the United States.

Millie Anne Cavanaugh, Esq. is a Los Angeles immigration lawyer and former insurance defense attorney. She is licensed to practice law in California and Massachusetts. The information contained herein is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as a solicitation for your business or as legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without seeking independent legal advice.