Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
GVC
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure. What I'm trying to get at is that a larger quantity of the drug is stored in your blood after it's psychotropic effects have subsided (than with alcohol). As I've stated before, I think driving while high is a bad idea. Also, like Nate, in a decriminalized or legalized regime, I'd be all for punishments for driving under the influence of cannabis, and for strict regulation of sales to minors (with severe penalties for those who break that particular law).
A
Agoxlea
Guest
Refer to my previous quote from the nhsa. I don't know why, but I think gvc is one the right track.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I'm on the right track because I've heard a few pot heads yap about how drug tests are really only effective in detecting THC (not necessarily the best source for authoritative information, I know). The implication being that it's ok to be a binge drinker/Friday night meth junkie, as long as you cool off for a day or two before you return to work. If you smoke weed, however, you're pretty much ****ed.
When I was living in Washington, I worked in a sheet metal shop that had random drug tests. I rarely smoked at the time anyway, so there was no real issue. Anyway, the chick who worked in out office, and organized the testing was the only person to fail our baseline test, reportedly because she drank too much water beforehand...My boss was an extremely intelligent and fair man (as well as continuing to stick with the union, even when he moved on to management), and gave us the option of getting tested a week after our name was drawn (I didn't need to take him up on the offer).
We had a couple drunks in the shop, one of whom escaped a DUI conviction despite being found asleep at the wheel at an intersection. When he came to, he was firm in his stance that there was no way in hell he drove to where he was found by police. He'd have no problem passing a pee test (and, admittedly, he was an extremely productive employee).
When I was living in Washington, I worked in a sheet metal shop that had random drug tests. I rarely smoked at the time anyway, so there was no real issue. Anyway, the chick who worked in out office, and organized the testing was the only person to fail our baseline test, reportedly because she drank too much water beforehand...My boss was an extremely intelligent and fair man (as well as continuing to stick with the union, even when he moved on to management), and gave us the option of getting tested a week after our name was drawn (I didn't need to take him up on the offer).
We had a couple drunks in the shop, one of whom escaped a DUI conviction despite being found asleep at the wheel at an intersection. When he came to, he was firm in his stance that there was no way in hell he drove to where he was found by police. He'd have no problem passing a pee test (and, admittedly, he was an extremely productive employee).
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
No, alcohol and THC do not diminish at anywhere near the same rate. THC stays in your system for months. Alcohol is gone in a matter of hours, a couple of days at the most. So while alcohol does not diminish in an instant, it is the closest thing to doing that. If you test at a high alcohol level, you are drunk. Period. If you test at a high THC level, you have been high at some point, but may or may not be high at the moment.
Nor did any part of my post indicate that they do, nor is that relevant to being able to set a minimal intoxication level for THC.
Even at 20ng/ml? 50? 100? You can have those levels and not be intoxicated? Do you have any evidence for that?
As I said before, tell a joke, how long a person laughs is directly correlated to how high they are.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
You are completely missing that one person may be high out of his mind at one level, while the next person may have that same level in his blood while he is stone cold sober (but was high 3 days ago, and the high level of THC is still in his blood, and will remain in his blood for another month or 2).
It is not like alcohol. You have to understand that first and foremost. When you have alcohol in your system, you are impaired by it. And while there are slight variations from person to person, everyone is pretty close to being at the same level of impairment at any given BAC. Marijuana is not like that. Someone who doesn't smoke often will be high as a kite off a small amount, while the person who smokes often will have more than that in his system even when he's stone cold sober.
THC stays in your body long after the "high" is gone (months after). Alcohol leaves your body as the "high" leaves your body.
The logic behind an alcohol test is "you have it in your body so you must be drunk. We can tell how drunk by how much you have in your body." But with THC staying in your body for months, at varying levels, that simply won't work.
I hardly went postal. I'm just calling it how I see it. But when you say stuff like this "But I consider it more sad that someone has to alter their brain to be happy. Comon that's pretty pathetic. Is life so bad you have to change the way your brain views it" how exactly am I supposed to take it? Like "oh golly gee, he's totally right! My pot use is pathetic! Hallelujah I've see the f'ing light!" It comes off as condescending, especially when you don't know enough about the way we handle our personal responsibilities in our lives to make such a value judgement. Say I do need weed to alter my brain to be happy. So what? I'm not harming anyone else.
Frankly, if there is some guy who doesn't do any substance but lays on the couch all day watching reality tv and doesn't have a job but is dumb and happy that is far more "pathetic" to me than a person who may be smoking pot because they are depressed or whatever but otherwise holds down a job and fulfills the basic responsibilities that society expects people to follow.
When it comes to basic decriminalization (ie possession of roughly an ounce or less is a civil violation punishable at max with a fine), the Feds have no influence. If you can cite one case of the Feds prosecuting someone for possession of an ounce or less of pot, I'd like to see it. I'm not sure they ever have, and if so I'm guessing it took place 50 years ago or so.
Even in states with medical legalization, I don't think the Feds have ever prosecuted a possession case or a growing case that involved 10 or less plants.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
So you are claiming that despite the fact that the federal government still considers it a crime, I am literally the only person in the United States who thinks they may be arrested for possession even in states that have legalized it? In that case, why push for legalization, no arrest and no prosecution = tacit legality. So no problem. We can put this entire debate to rest.
/thread
Carry on.
/thread
Carry on.
Last edited:
First of all, no state has ever made it totally legal. Even in my state, a state that has made it legal for medical use, I have to go through the charade of getting a card (which involves paying a "doctor" $60 for an exam to get a recommendation and paying the state $90 to get the card, both of which have to be done every year). And without a card growing is a class 4 felony punishable by up to 6 years in prison, though in reality it probably nets a person a suspended sentence of a year or two. It's still a felony though, and that risk is more than most people are willing to take. Frankly, I would be fine if this state just made growing a small amount legal. On a rather basic level it seems absurd that growing a plant is a felony.
Second of all, if a state did make it legal for anyone to go into a store and buy the stuff, maybe it's possible you would see a token person arrested for possession. I sort of doubt it since it would be a PR nightmare for the Feds (and therefore for the current President in office, especially during a non lame duck year for them), but I guess it's possible. However, the Feds have explicitly stated they don't deal with piddly crap like this so I would be surprised to see it. But the reason there is a push for legalization on even a statewide level is because no state has ever done it yet. Decriminalized, yes (and those laws have been on the books in most states since the 70s), legalized, no.
A
Agoxlea
Guest
I had about half a gram in little cottonwood canyon 4 years ago and got prosecuted by the feds so yes they still do. 1 year of supervised probation and a $1000 fine plus random drug testing (which costed $250). All because I was roasting s'mores with a small crumb in my pocket.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Wow.
By "missing the point", you must mean "addressed the point", since I pointed out that heavy drinkers can be unimpaired at an alcohol level that would make me flat-out drunk, and that this has not prevented us from establishing blood-alcohol limits, and therefore would not be a barrier to establishing blood-THC limits. You unusual choice of words made it look like you completely ignored what I wrote in order to drag some irrelevant point back into the discussion.
Yet, the level of impairment at .01% is different from that at .08%.
Why? What controls the physiological response besides THC levels? If you don't know, how do you know this is true? Does a person who never smoked get high at 5 ng/ml?
Continuing to repeat this is not proof.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
So going back to my original question so I can make sure I understand you, is it safe to assume you feel individuals decide which laws are just and unjust and so which laws to follow or not? I think that's a fair conclusion given what you've written but want to be sure before moving on.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
From my reading THC spikes within 10ish minutes and blood levels are going to be high for at least an hour but sometimes 2-3. After that it is a severe dropoff for a few hours and then from there a really big drop off usually sub 5 and more likely 2 (ng/ml). But obviously very general there given all the factors going into each hit.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Of course they do. Who else is going to make that decision for them?
I'd be thrilled if you'd answer some of my questions.
https://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf
In 3.2, it mentions sobriety test failures are associated with levels above 25-30 ng/ml. By contrast, even a very heavy user had a concentration of only 20ng/ml.
From section 4, passive smoking can produce levels that high, but not easily.
Section 5 discusses saliva testing.
So, the issue seems to be getting the right level and perhaps the right test, but there is no reason to think testing is impossible.
In 3.2, it mentions sobriety test failures are associated with levels above 25-30 ng/ml. By contrast, even a very heavy user had a concentration of only 20ng/ml.
From section 4, passive smoking can produce levels that high, but not easily.
Section 5 discusses saliva testing.
So, the issue seems to be getting the right level and perhaps the right test, but there is no reason to think testing is impossible.