Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[GVC]

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.

I think they have to try something, and since blood/urine tests aren't going to do a great job of measuring impairment, field sobriety tests will have to do. Make sure they're all videotaped.

I'd rather not get run over by some twit who can't handle his ****.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think they have to try something, and since blood/urine tests aren't going to do a great job of measuring impairment, field sobriety tests will have to do. Make sure they're all videotaped.

I'd rather not get run over by some twit who can't handle his ****.

Field test would be super easy to pass while high. Unless the test was tell joke, see how long driver laughs.

 

[CONAN]

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.

According to your study this is not possible. That's why they put the limit so high even though most people are high at 5 ng/nl. 10 ng/nl covers everyone. Your study says it's not possible to be at 10 ng/nl and not be high.

 

[CONAN]

I think you're misreading the study.

 

[TroutBum]

Field test would be super easy to pass while high. Unless the test was tell joke, see how long driver laughs.

I dunno man, I flat out FAILED a FST when 100% sober. I have no reason/excuse, I'm just uncoordinated.

 

[CONAN]

Following several rounds of discussion, panel members agreed that a legal limit for THC in the 7–10
ng/mL range (measured in blood serum or plasma, equivalent to about 3.5–5 ng/mL measured in
whole blood) may achieve a reasonable separation of unimpaired from impaired drivers, who pose a
higher risk of causing accidents.


The crash risk apparently begins to exceed that of sober drivers as THC concentrations in whole blood reach 5–10 ng/mL

 

[GVC]

They suggest a lower limit - that is, equivalent to the non-criminal lower limit for alcohol of .05% BAC - of between 7 and 10 ng/ml THC.

That doesn't mean that once you hit 10, you're as impaired as someone with a BAC of .11% (or even .08%). It means that when your serum concentration of THC is tested at 10 ng/ml, chances are you're as impaired as someone with a BAC of .05% (the range 7-10 accounts for margin of error in the test).

The study says nothing (unless I missed it) about an upper limit, equivalent to a BAC of .08%/.11%.

 

[GVC]

The crash risk apparently begins to exceed that of sober drivers as THC concentrations in whole blood reach 5–10 ng/mL

The two of you are arguing different points. Not uncommon for either of you.

You're talking about any impairment.

Salty is talking about the legal upper limit, equivalent to the risk of drivers deemed a serious threat (BAC of .08/.11%) which isn't reached until...the study doesn't say.

 

[CONAN]

They suggest a lower limit - that is, equivalent to the non-criminal lower limit for alcohol of .05% BAC - of between 7 and 10 ng/ml THC.

I'm not seeing that. The study says at 5 ng/ml (blood) is when you separate the impaired.

 

[CONAN]

The two of you are arguing different points. Not uncommon for either of you.

Disagree. Salty is just slippery when he's wrong and flip-flops. According to him 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.

 

[GVC]

I'm not seeing that.

I don't doubt that.

 

[CONAN]

Well, your frontal lobe is probably mush by now though.

 

[One Brow]

A distinction that seems to be overlooked is between having THC in your blood, and having a sufficient amount of THC in your blood that it affects your abilities to drive. I have no doubt that some detecable level of THC can be present when you are no longer high. It's ludicrous to think that it would be the same level that made you high.

 

[CONAN]

A distinction that seems to be overlooked is between having THC in your blood, and having a sufficient amount of THC in your blood that it affects your abilities to drive. I have no doubt that some detecable level of THC can be present when you are no longer high. It's ludicrous to think that it would be the same level that made you high.

It hasn't been overlooked. I've mentioned it. Potheads are going to be walking around with a low level of THC (2 ng/ml in blood) days and weeks after being high. So no impairment there but DUI laws will nail them because of zero tolerance with weed. Thus the purpose of the study which concluded that 5 ng/ml of weed in the blood is the threshold (i.e. you are high after that and impaired).

 

[GVC]

A distinction that seems to be overlooked is between having THC in your blood, and having a sufficient amount of THC in your blood that it affects your abilities to drive. I have no doubt that some detecable level of THC can be present when you are no longer high. It's ludicrous to think that it would be the same level that made you high.

That might depend on how much and how frequently you smoke though. That is, someone who has never smoked probably won't need a very high does of THC to be "high" and/or impaired. I may have more THC in my blood at any given time than that particular person.

I honestly don't know very much about this particular question, but I am acutely aware of when I am "high". That awareness is a lot different, in my experience, than people's awareness of when they're drunk. I still think roadside sobriety tests- which may have to be tweaked for cannabis- should be a part of any legalized regime. Make sure the tests are caught on video AND, if it's deemed necessary, run some sort of blood/plasma test (if it's legally/economically viable).

 

[GVC]

Their final conclusion on page 6 of the study (under the sub-heading Proposal of a Per Se Limit For DUIC) is:

Combining these two correction factors would render serum THC concentrations in the range of between 7 and 10 ng/ml (3.5 - 5 ng/ml in whole blood) equally impairing as a BAC of .05% and suggest that range for the selection of a lower legal limit based on the meta-analysis of experimental studies.

In essence, you're both right, but continue to argue.

 

[GVC]

And for OneBrow, from page 2:

The slow disappearance of THC from serum is particularly pronounced with heavy users, who consume more than one marijuana cigarette (joint) per day, or even with moderate users of cannabis. Their blood may contain THC concentrations between 1.0 and 6.4 ng/ml serum even 24-48 hours after smoking the last joint.

 

[CONAN]

That might depend on how much and how frequently you smoke though. That is, someone who has never smoked probably won't need a very high does of THC to be "high" and/or impaired. I may have more THC in my blood at any given time than that particular person.

I honestly don't know very much about this particular question, but I am acutely aware of when I am "high". That awareness is a lot different, in my experience, than people's awareness of when they're drunk. I still think roadside sobriety tests- which may have to be tweaked for cannabis- should be a part of any legalized regime. Make sure the tests are caught on video AND, if it's deemed necessary, run some sort of blood/plasma test (if it's legally/economically viable).

Agreed. I am anti-weed but don't think someone should get a DUI for weed if they are below the limit (5 ng/ml in blood). The tests exist but not sure they are cost-effective for roadside use.

 

[CONAN]

Their final conclusion on page 6 of the study (under the sub-heading Proposal of a Per Se Limit For DUIC) is:



In essence, you're both right, but continue to argue.

That conclusion is what I've been saying all along. Definitely smoked a lot of weed sub-25 didn't you?

 

[Scat]

Agreed. I am anti-weed but don't think someone should get a DUI for weed if they are below the limit (5 ng/ml in blood). The tests exist but not sure they are cost-effective for roadside use.

Again, just as with opiates, the test would likely only be administered following severe accidents. Speeders, stop sign violators and Nate's will be safe.