Nevada Court Rejects Womans Cannabis Use

So can alcohol, and alcohol levels don't show intoxication either. But there is a relationship between the two. As long as most of THC metabolites leave the blood within a few hours, I don't see it as an unreasonable way of testing intoxication as long as proper limits are set. They are looking for a high level of metabolites, not just traces.


and
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/gcpi2/2006/00000007/00000002/art00003

 

You just linked a graph of THC, not THC metabolites. Guess what happens AFTER the THC levels drop? THC metabolites. Again, for months.

This woman had over 5 ng of cannabiniod metabolites per mL of blood. That's not the same thing at all, as either of the sources you listed.... Unless I'm very much mistaken.

And I could be wrong, but I think 3ng/mL of thc/blood is fucking couchlocked stoned, of course they couldn't drive... I don't have any problem driving stoned, and I don't have any problem with others driving stoned, I mind them driving TOO stoned.

 

Alcohol metabolites are filtered through the body much quicker than the metabolites from weed, which is going to cause a serious problem for a frequent user. I mean if you smoke every day, even if it's only in the morning and at night, you're perpetually going to have a large amount detectable in your body, on top of the fact alcohol leaves the body at a constant rate(a pretty quick one at that) while THC has a half life that can get into the 40-50 hour range for frequent users, especially if they consume their weed orally.

Also, we allow people to drive with alcohol in them, you're allowed to have a certain limit before it becomes drunk driving. This specifically allows people to have some drinks and wait for it to wear off. If you smoke weed frequently, even if you didn't smoke that day you're going to fail a test.(Also anyone have information on urine vs blood testing, because she failed at 5 nanograms from a blood test, but for urine tests, even state administered probation drug tests the cut off for failing is 50 nanograms, anyone who smokes pot ever could never pass the 5 nanogram limit)

The only practical and fair way to test someone's intoxication in regards to weed is to give them field sobriety tests and to check their eyes.

However this isn't carte blanche to every stoner with a bottle of visine to drive while high. It's irresponsible and if you are pulled over and it gets to the point of testing, you will fail, you can't try to say you're under the limit because there is no set limit that is alright when it comes to weed.

 

Oops! I should have posted this one:


So it's around 90 hours when they get below the tested concentration, not months. Is it reasonable to test for metabolites which can stay in the blood up to 90 hours? I would still say yes. There needs to be some way to test for THC intoxication, and if the best way we've got has people getting busted for driving 3 days after they've lit up, that's better than people dying from getting run over by a stoner who knew he would never get busted at all.

 

No it's really not unless you condone arresting people for things they're not doing.

*edit*
And that graph only represent a single use of a single joint, which is completely irreverent since most stoners smoke more than once a month, and that graph can only apply to someone with no tolerance/metabolites already in their system.

Also you have to determine what exactly is a fair cut off. They use 15mg, but almost no one could pass for 15ng who smokes. The cutoff level most labs use on the EMIT test for being drug tested when on criminal probation is 50ng

 

I know, and that's the real issue. There are problems with the approach.

I do sympathize with this view. I have epilepsy and legally cannot drive at all. I know the rule is stupid because during the 6 years I have had seizures, I have never had a seizure while I have not been asleep. But there is a small chance I may have one on the road, so the rule is there to protect people. I know that's slightly different from detecting metabolites well after the time of intoxication, but to me it's a safety issue. If you removed the rule you would eventually have someone die which could have been prevented - and if that was my wife or child, I could not accept that.

 

Thank you all for commenting in this thread. Walsh the salvia test would be an excelent way of testing..like you said "if proper limits were set"..but the science is way behind on this. Proper limits were pushed and passed but not all scientists agree they are fair. Until they are fair people shouldn't go to jail just because our goverment is in a hurry to get a handle on this. Private testing has been blocked for years by the goverment thus allowing only thier views. DD

 

It's a complete strawman argument though, the two are not related at all. There's no chance someone is just going to randomly become stoned or drunk when driving if they're not purposely doing so.

 

What does intention have to do with it? That's a strawman if I ever saw one.

 

Intoxication, by the way, isn't a phenomena that you encounter with THC. It's not a toxin, intoxication implies that you are essentially being poisoned, like by alcohol.

Impairment would be easy to test with a field sobriety test, just like for any other substance. Impairment with marijuana use is relative to tolerance, not blood levels. A heavy, several grams a day smoker might not pass for years, but be stone cold sober 30 minutes after smoking. The metabolite approach is not acceptable unless you're willing to take innocent "collateral damage". This is just another case of government heavily over reaching it's bounds in this country because it suits their best interests, not their citizens. (Read: fines, people in jail for the prison-industrial complex problem, more subdued populace with dangerous thinkers questioning the status quo locked up and discredited. All good for the government.)

 

Intention is everything. People can choose what drugs, how much of said drug, and when they want to consume drugs. People with medical conditions have varying levels of control over them or when they'll act up, in the case of epilepsy it's on the low end. This has everything to do with driving a car.

 

Incarcerated persons, or fines mean money to a privatized jail system.

Safety issue? It is false flag terrorism, extortion.