Mississippi Supreme Court Equates Smoking Pot to Opium Addiction
On Thursday the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed a chancellor's grant of a divorce under the grounds of habitual and excessive use of opium, morphine or other like drugs when the actual drug involved was marijuana. Here is the Court's opinion from Thursday in Carambat v. Carambat.
Facts:
The unhappy couple lived on the Coast. Need I say more?
Just kidding. I get to make that joke because I am from the Coast.
Mr. Carambat smoked a lot of weed. He basically smoked weed every day. Mrs. Carambat says that Mr. Carambat's weed usage made him unproductive at work. She met someone else, had an affair and left her husband for the other man on the grounds that he smoked too much pot. 
The Trial Court Ruling:
The Chancellor granted the divorce on the grounds that Mr. Carambat's admission that he regularly smoked pot from age 14 to 55 was habitual and excessive and was "an other like drug" within the divorce grounds of "habitual and excessive use of opium, morphine, or other like drug."
The Majority Opinion:
The Court affirmed in a 6-3 decision. Justice King wrote the Court's opinion. The Court ruled that marijuana was an "other like drug" to opium and morphine because "other like drugs" refer to drugs with similar adverse effects.
The Dissent:
Justice Carlson wrote the dissent joined by Justices Dickinson and Kitchens. The dissent contended that marijuana is not like opium or morphine. The dissent pointed out that "if the Legislature wishes to provide for divorce on the grounds of abusing any illegal drug, or any dangerous drug, it of course may do so. To date, however, it has not."
Therefore, a divorce should not have been granted on this ground.
My Take:
It sounds like the real reason that Mrs. C wanted the divorce was that she met another man. Mr. C was ok smoking weed until she met someone else. But since "I met someone I like more than you" is not a grounds for divorce, she went with the pot argument.
I believe that someone should be able to divorce their spouse on the ground that the spouse habitually smokes pot. A habitual pot smokers' ability to procrastinate and be lackadaisical is matched only by their ability to talk a big game when stoned. I'm sure it's infuriating to be married to someone who habitually smokes pot. Life is short and I'm all for granting people a divorce on that ground.
But that is a decision for the legislature, which defines the permissible grounds for divorce. Equating marijuana to opium or morphine is just plain wrong. They are different drugs that create different issues for users and those affected by the users. About the only similarity in their adverse effects is that they can both be bad.
Marijuana is simply not addictive in the same sense as opium, morphine and their street cousin heroin. It's almost comical to put it in the same category as those drugs.
The dissent is right in this case. I'm all for the Legislature creating a divorce grounds for marijuana usage. But the Supreme Court just did when the Legislature has not.
I'm all for the Legislature creating a divorce grounds for marijuana usage. But the Supreme Court just did when the Legislature has not.
On the nailhead.
Obviously the language of the statute is pretty antiquated. The legislature should update it to include meth and bath salts.
If the definition of "dangerous" includes "talks a big game when impaired," be ready for Miller Lite to be included on that list, buddy.
Like, whoaaaaaaa! dude. That's like a totally gnarly decision, man. Like totally. Like, what's these dude's problem with like a little reefer, man?