State Medical Examiner dumped after pot arrest

[BigPoppa]

wow..........Dr. Bruce Levy arrested on marijuana charges - loses Metro, State of Tennessee and State of Mississippi forensics contracts. I'm curious as to how many old criminal cases in which Dr. Levy performed autopsies will now be brought under scrutiny.......

Dr. Harlan had his problems......now this.......

Pathologists on here ? brush off the 'ol resume

State medical examiner loses job after marijuana arrest | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

Edited March 18, 2010 by BigPoppa

[Jasongar8]

I couldnt believe this when I heard it today. I bet its going to mess up alot of cases that Dr. Levy testified in. He can kiss his career goodbye. I know a guy that works there and he has never said a bad thing about Dr. Levy.

[kb4ns]

Wow. Just wow.

[TripleDigitRide]

Either the job is so easy a caveman could do it, or pot just isn't that bad, afterall.

[Kelemvor]

Do you guys realize how many people with Ph.D's use marijuana? A large percentage of them do and the effects of light recreational use on brain function is infinitesimally small. I'm not into it personally, but what someone does outside of their profession is their own business so long as it doesn't effect other people or their work.

[Guest db99wj]

Either the job is so easy a caveman could do it, or pot just isn't that bad, afterall.

No reason to bring Caveman into this....

Man what a way to screw up a career.

[Garufa]

So the guy likes a little weed. So what? Would you prefer a slobbering alcoholic or brain-dead prescription pill popper on the job?

[MacGyver]

Do you guys realize how many people with Ph.D's use marijuana? A large percentage of them do and the effects of light recreational use on brain function is infinitesimally small. I'm not into it personally, but what someone does outside of their profession is their own business so long as it doesn't effect other people or their work.

I'll speak as the forensics professional here:

1. A lot of people may use "recreationally" if you can classify it like that. Minor use may not affect critical brain function. It doesn't matter. It's illegal.

2. Your disregard for the laws of the land also calls into question what other rules you may have set aside in the performance of your duties.

3. Maybe most importantly, it opens the examiner up to blackmail. Most marajuana use doesn't happen in a vacuum. People know about it. If the wrong people find out about it, they can influence cases.

This guy made a major mistake, and was in the position to know better.

[Guest db99wj]

Do you guys realize how many people with Ph.D's use marijuana? A large percentage of them do and the effects of light recreational use on brain function is infinitesimally small. I'm not into it personally, but what someone does outside of their profession is their own business so long as it doesn't effect other people or their work.

Doesn't matter. It's illegal. And until it is isn't, shouldn't do it unless its for legal medical use.

With that said, I understand what you are saying, but he got caught partaking in an illegal activity.

Edit: Dangit, twice today someone has beat me to the punch! :shakes fist at MacGyver:

Edited March 18, 2010 by db99wj

[Luckyforward]

Poor Brucie . . .

[Jasongar8]

Do you guys realize how many people with Ph.D's use marijuana? A large percentage of them do and the effects of light recreational use on brain function is infinitesimally small. I'm not into it personally, but what someone does outside of their profession is their own business so long as it doesn't effect other people or their work.

Yea if he was a regular Joe not a huge deal (but still illegal). But this guy testifies in criminal cases. This opens up alot of the cases he worked to go back to court because there could be suspicion that he was under the influence of drugs when he did the autopsy or when he was on the stand. It has definitely already affected his job and it has the potential to affect many other peoples lives.

[Kelemvor]

Yea if he was a regular Joe not a huge deal (but still illegal). But this guy testifies in criminal cases. This opens up alot of the cases he worked to go back to court because there could be suspicion that he was under the influence of drugs when he did the autopsy or when he was on the stand. It has definitely already affected his job and it has the potential to affect many other peoples lives.

Well, like I said, if it doesn't affect his job, or other people, then it's fine. If it were legal, it would likely not do either. There's also no reason to be suspicious of him being under the influence of marijuana while working anymore than there would be suspicion of him being under the influence of alcohol or prescription narcotics which are both legal, yet just as dangerous if not more dangerous if misused.

You can say, well he broke the law, so what's to keep him from breaking other laws, but that doesn't really hold any water. By that logic, you could say, "nearly everyone speeds, so what is to keep us from committing other crimes." Disregard of laws that you think are unjust doesn't necessarily make you an unethical person.

Would you guys talk about me like I was some kind of lowlife if I put a pistol upper on my AR-15 rifle lower and got annihilated by the ATF? Probably not. None of you see anything ethically wrong with having an SBR, it's just illegal. Many people feel this way about illegal drugs.

Also, to clarify, I don't have a pistol upper for an AR and I would NEVER put one on my lower. I don't want to lose everything I have worked for my whole life.

[MacGyver]

Here's the thing that makes it a big deal, though. In his selfishness, he put his vice above his job. He may have never been under the influence on the job. I hope he wasn't. But, by partaking he opened himself up to influence. That is, someone could have found out about it, and blackmailed him with it. As a forensics professional, you are held to a high standard for a reason. We get on the stand, give the facts that we found, and are more often than not asked to interpret them. Our interpretations go into the record just like the cold hard facts. If someone used this guy's drug use against him, he could have adjusted both his findings and his interpretation in cases he worked.

That is why this has me so mad. It doesn't matter whether he was ever under the influence or not. Because of his selfishness, people who deserve to be in jail for crimes they committed will have their counsel reopen their cases. People will walk because of this. He knew better.

And think about your last statement. Are the NFA laws stupid? Yes. But we all play by them and understand the ramification for not doing so. Are drug laws stupid? You might be able to argue against them. Maybe. Perhaps you can put marajuana in a different class than heroin or meth? I don't know. But I do know, that anyone who grows, buys or consumes marajuana in the US does so with the full knowledge that it is illegal, and has consequences if you get caught. You might not agree with the law. But you still have to play by it - just like we do with the NFA rules.

I don't think anyone here is slamming Dr. Levy for his choice of vices. I think they are slamming him for his stupid decision to partake in his position.

[Jasongar8]

I don't think anyone here is slamming Dr. Levy for his choice of vices. I think they are slamming him for his stupid decision to partake in his position.

This.

[Guest db99wj]

Here's the thing that makes it a big deal, though. In his selfishness, he put his vice above his job. He may have never been under the influence on the job. I hope he wasn't. But, by partaking he opened himself up to influence. That is, someone could have found out about it, and blackmailed him with it. As a forensics professional, you are held to a high standard for a reason. We get on the stand, give the facts that we found, and are more often than not asked to interpret them. Our interpretations go into the record just like the cold hard facts. If someone used this guy's drug use against him, he could have adjusted both his findings and his interpretation in cases he worked.

That is why this has me so mad. It doesn't matter whether he was ever under the influence or not. Because of his selfishness, people who deserve to be in jail for crimes they committed will have their counsel reopen their cases. People will walk because of this. He knew better.

And think about your last statement. Are the NFA laws stupid? Yes. But we all play by them and understand the ramification for not doing so. Are drug laws stupid? You might be able to argue against them. Maybe. Perhaps you can put marajuana in a different class than heroin or meth? I don't know. But I do know, that anyone who grows, buys or consumes marajuana in the US does so with the full knowledge that it is illegal, and has consequences if you get caught. You might not agree with the law. But you still have to play by it - just like we do with the NFA rules.

I don't think anyone here is slamming Dr. Levy for his choice of vices. I think they are slamming him for his stupid decision to partake in his position.

+1

[Kelemvor]

Here's the thing that makes it a big deal, though. In his selfishness, he put his vice above his job. He may have never been under the influence on the job. I hope he wasn't. But, by partaking he opened himself up to influence. That is, someone could have found out about it, and blackmailed him with it. As a forensics professional, you are held to a high standard for a reason. We get on the stand, give the facts that we found, and are more often than not asked to interpret them. Our interpretations go into the record just like the cold hard facts. If someone used this guy's drug use against him, he could have adjusted both his findings and his interpretation in cases he worked.

That is why this has me so mad. It doesn't matter whether he was ever under the influence or not. Because of his selfishness, people who deserve to be in jail for crimes they committed will have their counsel reopen their cases. People will walk because of this. He knew better.

And think about your last statement. Are the NFA laws stupid? Yes. But we all play by them and understand the ramification for not doing so. Are drug laws stupid? You might be able to argue against them. Maybe. Perhaps you can put marajuana in a different class than heroin or meth? I don't know. But I do know, that anyone who grows, buys or consumes marajuana in the US does so with the full knowledge that it is illegal, and has consequences if you get caught. You might not agree with the law. But you still have to play by it - just like we do with the NFA rules.

I don't think anyone here is slamming Dr. Levy for his choice of vices. I think they are slamming him for his stupid decision to partake in his position.

Yeah, I more or less agree with you. It was stupid for him to break the law when so much was at risk. It seemed early on in the thread that people were condemning him in line with the whole reefer madness garbage that was slung around back in the day.

Once again, my opinion is, if it doesn't negatively affect your work or the people around you, it isn't wrong and shouldn't be illegal. Obviously, putting himself in the position to be blackmailed and discredited affects his work and people around him, so it is wrong.

[MacGyver]

Yeah, I more or less agree with you. It was stupid for him to break the law when so much was at risk. It seemed early on in the thread that people were condemning him in line with the whole reefer madness garbage that was slung around back in the day.

Once again, my opinion is, if it doesn't negatively affect your work or the people around you, it isn't wrong and shouldn't be illegal. Obviously, putting himself in the position to be blackmailed and discredited affects his work and people around him, so it is wrong.

In case I sounded harsher than I intended, please don't take my above comments as a personal attack on you or your position. That was certainly not my intention. A lot of people make the case that you do, and in a lot of those cases, I might be inclined towards the more libertarian view of things. This isn't one of them, though. This guy screwed us all.

[Smith]

"To whom much is given, much is required." Just the way it has always been and will always be.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So the guy likes a little weed. So what? Would you prefer a slobbering alcoholic or brain-dead prescription pill popper on the job?

So what?

It's illegal. What else do you need to know? What makes him better than anyone else? Actually to answer your question, none of the above. Marginalizing one to another

is a poor argument.

[TMMT]

An attorney would have to show proof to an Appeals Court that he was either under the influence during the autopsy investigation or during his sworn testimony.

But a bigger, easier critter to corner would be if he ever falsified an official application, questionnaire or statement that is covered under the pains and penalties of perjury where he was asked if he has ever used any illegal narcotics.

If he answered no and its clear he was lying then they might have a ballgame citing his untruthfulness in a sworn statement or any other official documents.

This is bad, but sadly typical for this State and those in trusted positions here.

[craglawnmanor]

I'm not into it personally, but what someone does outside of their profession is their own business so long as it doesn't effect other people or their work.

Or "affect" other people or their work........

This is sad news. A couple of friends I have that are lawyers have always spoken very highly of Dr. Levy, especially as to his straightforward approach to his job.

[Kelemvor]

Or "affect" other people or their work........

This is sad news. A couple of friends I have that are lawyers have always spoken very highly of Dr. Levy, especially as to his straightforward approach to his job.

Thank you Grammarnazi. I guess everyone lets one slip every now and them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So the guy likes a little weed. So what? Would you prefer a slobbering alcoholic or brain-dead prescription pill popper on the job?

So what?

What part of illegal don't you understand? Marginalizing one drug with another makes for real justification, doesn't it? Answering your question, none of the above.

[Guest Whiskers]

At least this guy didn't work on live patients.... How would you feel about having neurosurgery by a doc who used "recreational drugs"?

[mikegideon]

At least this guy didn't work on live patients.... How would you feel about having neurosurgery by a doc who used "recreational drugs"?

Scary words. I don't smoke pot, but I've been around a lot of it. In my opinion, if that's his drug of choice, he wouldn't be any more impaired the next day than if he would have had a few drinks instead. There are some ugly drugs out there, most available by prescription. Pot is not one of them, and is less toxic than alcohol, unless you ask the liquor lobby.

AR really nailed it. He was charged with a felony, and the state would be crazy to let him continue.