Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[SaltyDawg]

I've already made the point that the law doesn't differentiate between whether you are high or not, just that you have the chemical in your system. The lortab example is based on opiates and can be tested with a blood draw just as THC could be checked for. Of course it is typically only checked in cases of major accidents.

Exactly, and this is my point. So if marijuana was legalized, should anyone who ever buys it have their drivers license revoked? Or how would you handle it when someone gets pulled over, tests positive for THC, and claims they haven't smoked any weed since the day before?

 

[CONAN]

1: Again, if you read that study, it talks about this (saying you need a high and a low level because of this). THC stays in your system long after the high is gone. If you get high every day, you may have 5 ng/ml in your system at all times even when you are sober.

Don't have the study in front of me but thought it said the level was more like 2 ng/ml (which is significant).

I think the limit where people are a danger driving after smoking weed is not something to worry about because the higher someone is, the less they want to do. If someone is so high they can't drive, then they will probably not even want to get up off the couch. There is no way to put a number on it because how high you get depends on your tolerance, which changes depending on how often you smoke.

So a guy that makes such a big deal about his opinions being backed up by facts actually has none in this context.

 

[NUMBERICA]

 

[SaltyDawg]

Don't have the study in front of me but thought it said the level was more like 2 ng/ml (which is significant).


So a guy that makes such a big deal about his opinions being backed up by facts actually has none in this context.

1: No, the study said there is no way put a number on it (legal THC limit to drive). It said there should be 2 levels, a high level and a low level. It also cited some other countries and the number they chose to put on it, but it went on to say how it was flawed (and vastly different from country to country).

2: There are no facts in this context. Like I said, the only fact is that how high you get from a certain amount of THC changes from person to person. One person's "really high" THC amount could be the next person's "totally sober but still in his system from previous highs" amount.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I seriously don't even know what this crap has devolved into. Well done, The Same Two Of You In Every (what you both turn into) Crap Discussion.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I seriously don't even know what this crap has devolved into. Well done, The Same Two Of You In Every (what you both turn into) Crap Discussion.

Okay man, not sure what your deal is but I'll fill you in, just in case you're being serious and don't know what we're talking about.

A couple of people said they think weed should be legal but driving after smoking weed is a bad idea. We are talking about how you can or can't have weed and driving without driving after weed (legal).

It's not a crap discussion. It's actually very civil and interesting. So if you care to join in, go ahead, others are discussing it with us. But so far your post is the only crap post around here.

 

[CONAN]

1: No, the study said there is no way put a number on it (legal THC limit to drive). It said there should be 2 levels, a high level and a low level. It also cited some other countries and the number they chose to put on it, but it went on to say how it was flawed (and vastly different from country to country).

No, the impairment studies were all under 5 ng/ml. So the universal was 5 ng/ml meaning no matter where you if you are at 5 ng/ml you are messed up. And it does say people can walk around with THC in their system but still be fine but that level is 2 ng/nl. There are some that say the limit should be more like 7-10 just to be safe.

One person's "really high" THC amount could be the next person's "totally sober but still in his system from previous highs" amount.

That's why they test blood. The amount of weed needed to get you to that point will certainly vary.

 

[SaltyDawg]

No, the impairment studies were all under 5 ng/ml. So the universal was 5 ng/ml meaning no matter where you if you are at 5 ng/ml you are messed up. And it does say people can walk around with THC in their system but still be fine but that level is 2 ng/nl. There are some that say the limit should be more like 7-10 just to be safe.


That's why they test blood. The amount of weed needed to get you to that point will certainly vary.

1: You read the study wrong. The study said that people with 5 ng/ml still drove with no more risk than drug free drivers. It also said that drivers who had consumed 7mg were rated as unimpaired (don't know what that translates into the blood though) and a serum of THC concentration of 12-16 ng/ml may correspond to the same accident risk as a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.05% (which is a legal alcohol concentration, roughly halfway to the legal limit of 0.08% in Utah, 0.10% in many other states). It doesn't say a limit of 2 ng/ml is suggested.

2: The amount of weed in your system is not indicative of how much weed you smoked within the hour (or couple hours, whatever). It just shows how much you have in your system (which could be from weeks or even months ago). How much weed is in your system depends on your tolerance. Some people retain it longer than others.

If you read the study, it actually suggest 2 different limits and says you can't really put a number on this.

 

[GVC]

At the end of the day, an increased risk of automobile accidents is not a sufficient reason to lock people up for possessing/smoking pot. We don't lock people up for owning cell phones, we don't lock people up for owning makeup, we don't lock people up for having prescribed medications, we don't lock people up for driving 20 MPH over the limit, etc.

 

[SaltyDawg]

At the end of the day, an increased risk of automobile accidents is not a sufficient reason to lock people up for possessing/smoking pot. We don't lock people up for owning cell phones, we don't lock people up for owning makeup, we don't lock people up for having prescribed medications, we don't lock people up for driving 20 MPH over the limit, etc.

I guess it depends on how big that increased risk is.

For most of those things though, in order to charge someone with it there has to be a witness. You can't really charge someone with putting on makeup while driving unless there is a witness that says they saw someone putting on makeup. That doesn't really apply to someone who smoked some weed and then hopped in the car for a munchie run.

I can see where you are coming from. I just can't imagine how the law would be enforced on a fair and consistent basis. Basically, anyone with any THC in their system would be subject to a DUI at any time, even when sober, if the cop woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

 

[CONAN]

The study said that people with 5 ng/ml still drove with no more risk than drug free drivers.

Exactly my point.

It doesn't say a limit of 2 ng/ml is suggested.

Agreed. It suggests 7-10.

The amount of weed in your system is not indicative of how much weed you smoked within the hour (or couple hours, whatever). It just shows how much you have in your system (which could be from weeks or even months ago). How much weed is in your system depends on your tolerance. Some people retain it longer than others.

I fail to see the relevance here. You're not trying to find out how much someone smokes or what their tolerance is. You're trying to see if they're high (7-10). If you walk around at 10+ ng/nl that means you walk around high.

 

[CONAN]

At the end of the day, an increased risk of automobile accidents is not a sufficient reason to lock people up for possessing/smoking pot.

Who is fighting that fight?

 

[CONAN]

So people can drive high like a boss. But if they are really, really high they suck at driving. And it won't matter though cuz they won't want to drive anyway so no big deal cuz they're so damn high. And even if they did there are pothead ninja driving techniques that mitigate the effects.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Exactly my point.


Agreed. It suggests 7-10.


I fail to see the relevance here. You're not trying to find out how much someone smokes or what their tolerance is. You're trying to see if they're high (7-10). If you walk around at 10+ ng/nl that means you walk around high.

1: The study suggested 2 seperate levels. It said there is no way to put a single number on when someone becomes impaired. If you didn't see that, then you misread it.

2: You still don't seem to understand that while one person may smoke some weed and 10 minutes later show a hypothetical level of 10 ng/ml and be high as heck, the next person may not smoke any weed at all (that day) and show a hypothetical level of 10 ng/ml and be stone cold sober.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So people can drive high like a boss. But if they are really, really high they suck at driving. And it won't matter though cuz they won't want to drive anyway so no big deal cuz they're so damn high. And even if they did there are pothead ninja driving techniques that mitigate the effects.

No, that's what what I said at all. In a nutshell (and I have spelled this out) I was saying that I think smoking weed and driving is no big deal. Yes, you can smoke so much weed you pass out at some point so at some point you will be in no condition to drive. But by the time you reach that point you will probably not be able to bring yourself to drive anyway. If it is such a rare thing to happen, then we don't need any laws regarding it.

 

[Gameface]

Who is fighting that fight?

That's the current reality.

 

[Bronco70]

Exactly, and this is my point. So if marijuana was legalized, should anyone who ever buys it have their drivers license revoked? Or how would you handle it when someone gets pulled over, tests positive for THC, and claims they haven't smoked any weed since the day before?

The flaw in this argument is the notion that the only determination of driving fitness would be the level of THC in the body. I contend that if you are pulled over, and are unable to demonstrate reasonable coordination or alertness, you could/should be taken off the road and investigated further. This is currently the initial process for handling DWI, right? Field sobriety exercises. You show reasonable control, you go on your way. You show impairment, you don't.

Or, you put the suspect in the back of the squad car and turn up Dark Side of the Moon. Watch for reaction...

 

[GVC]

Or, you put the suspect in the back of the squad car and turn up Dark Side of the Moon. Watch for reaction...

Oh ****. I guess I'll have to stop driving stoned.

 

[SaltyDawg]

The flaw in this argument is the notion that the only determination of driving fitness would be the level of THC in the body. I contend that if you are pulled over, and are unable to demonstrate reasonable coordination or alertness, you could/should be taken off the road and investigated further. This is currently the initial process for handling DWI, right? Field sobriety exercises. You show reasonable control, you go on your way. You show impairment, you don't.

Or, you put the suspect in the back of the squad car and turn up Dark Side of the Moon. Watch for reaction...

lol, okay, that was pretty funny.

Seriously though, failing a field sobriety test is usually not enough to convict someone of DUI without a test of the blood alcohol. It is only grounds to test the blood alcohol, which then proves the person was drunk.

There is no way to prove the person was high on weed. The level of alcohol in the blood can prove if someone is drunk. But the level of THC in the blood does not prove if the person is high, only that they have THC in their system (which could be from months ago).

Also, what impairment would you test for in a field sobriety test? It's not like alcohol where you can't walk a straight line and that kind of stuff. I guess they could check for red eyes, but a little Visine would easily and quickly mask that (or a story of allergies).

True story: a friend of a friend was driving high several years ago. He got pulled over for not having a license plate on the front bumper, only the back. It's late at night and there are a bunch of us in the car, so the cop starts asking questions about what we're doing. When he found out we were coming from a party, he asks if we've been drinking. Half of us in the car say we have, the driver of course says he hasn't. He really hadn't either, but he had been smoking like a chimney. Anyway, the cop starts to give him a field sobriety test. He tells him to count backwards and say the alphabet backwards and that kind of stuff. My friend tells the cop, "Can you just give me a breath test or something? I'm dyslexic and don't want to waste your time with these tests that I could never do." The cop had another cop there give him a breath test and he passed. We were then on our way.

I just don't see how you can have the whole system based entirely on human judgement. There are way too many variables there for it to be consistently enforced.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Just saw on the news that public opinion on the legalization on marijuana is at an all time high.




pun intended.