Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[GVC]

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.

And with more and more decriminalized regimes, the tests are going to get better.

I hope you understand I wasn't arguing your main point. I was only taking issue with your statement that you can test for THC the same way you test for alcohol (which, due to the fat solubility of THC, seems to be inaccurate).

 

[SaltyDawg]

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.

1: You did not address the point. You keep trying to turn it into an alcohol test which simply isn't possible. A heavy drinker might be less impaired than a light drinker, but they will both absolutely be impaired. There is a variation on how a certain amount of alcohol impairs each person, no doubt, but it is nothing like the variation of THC in a heavy smoker's body compared to a light smoker's. You keep missing the fact that THC stays in your system for months after the high has worn off. Alcohol only stays in your system while you are drunk. The reason you can test for alcohol impairment levels is because it doesn't stay in your system after the "high" has worn off. This is nto the case with THC.

2: Yes, the level of alcohol impairment from .01% to .08% is different. That is my point. The THC level of impairment for a light smoker will be vastly different from that of a heavy smoker, whereas with alcohol the levels are still pretty close from a light drinker to a heavy drinker.

3: I don't know what controls the physiological response, but I know a tolerance is built up over time. In addition to that, with THC staying in your system for months, a heavy smoker will have more THC in his body at any given time than a light smoker.

4: You think I'm just saying it because I'm talking out of my rear end? how about you do a little research on it before you go talking out of your own rear end? Here's a source for you, from the people who would be doing the testing, the NHTSA:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
"Interpretation of Blood Concentrations:... It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations. It is possible for a person to be affected by marijuana use with concentrations of THC in their blood below the limit of detection of the method.
Interpretation of Urine Test Results: Detection of total THC metabolites in urine, primarily THC-COOH-glucuronide, only indicates prior THC exposure. Detection time is well past the window of intoxication and impairment."

 

[SaltyDawg]

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.

From 4.2:
"It was concluded that presence of cannabinoids in urine or blood is not unequivocal proof of active cannabis smoking."

 

[CONAN]

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.

And that's fine but I wouldn't call your position condescending just because you find something pathetic.

 

[CONAN]

Of course they do. Who else is going to make that decision for them?

The point is you said if a law is unjust then it's ok to break it. So if individuals make that call as you said, can you see the social issues there if we accept that as an excuse for social/criminal irresponsibility?

I'd be thrilled if you'd answer some of my questions.

Can we finish answering mine first? Is that ok question nazi?

 

[Archie Moses]

If you break the law - there's going to be consequences.

 

[Bronco70]

Purposely altering your brain is sad. That's not an outlandish position.

Sorry to be so late with this one, I haven't been to this thread for a while... GVC has touched on this, so I apologize if I am repeating anything.

Everybody does things that alter brain chemistry. That is basically what governs emotion and mood. You watch a scary movie, eat a favorite food, listen to music, cheer for a team, or have sex, you're altering the chemistry of your brain. (You'll have to take my word for it on that last one, Conan.)

What about people on anti-depressants? Are they all sad and pathetic? Or pain killers? Hell, Tylenol alters your brain and it's perception of pain. Is it bad that I use ibuprofen now and then?

Marijuana is not PCP.

 

[CONAN]

Everybody does things that alter brain chemistry. That is basically what governs emotion and mood. You watch a scary movie, eat a favorite food, listen to music, cheer for a team, or have sex, you're altering the chemistry of your brain. (You'll have to take my word for it on that last one, Conan.)

What about people on anti-depressants? Are they all sad and pathetic? Or pain killers? Hell, Tylenol alters your brain and it's perception of pain. Is it bad that I use ibuprofen now and then?

Straw man party up in here. All those things can be abused and thus be sad and pathetic. Nice try though, Sport.

Marijuana is not PCP.

Look at the big brain on this guy!

 

[Bronco70]

Straw man party up in here. All those things can be abused and thus be sad and pathetic. Nice try though, Sport.

No straw man here. You made a blanket statement:

Purposely altering your brain is sad. That's not an outlandish position.

I'm sorry you didn't like my response, but you didn't need to get so upset.

Look at the big brain on this guy!

The way you argue, it's impossible to assume that you can make basic distinctions, so I feel compelled to go ahead and spell it out for you.

 

[One Brow]

1: You did not address the point. You keep trying to turn it into an alcohol test which simply isn't possible.

When you are ready to engage in a discussion with what I am actually saying, let me know.

... but it is nothing like the variation of THC in a heavy smoker's body compared to a light smoker's.

You will, of course, present studies that refute the ones at the link I offered, which say that while the levels differ *when people are not high*, they seem to be *consistent during the high*. Any time. No rush.

You keep missing the fact that THC stays in your system for months after the high has worn off.

I love it when you insist that I am missing what I have acknowledged. It allows everyone to see you for what you really are.

The THC level of impairment for a light smoker will be vastly different from that of a heavy smoker,

If you know the levels are different, you must have some idea of what the levels are. Please share them, and your source for them.

In addition to that, with THC staying in your system for months, a heavy smoker will have more THC in his body at any given time than a light smoker.

Which is different from saying the heavy smoker will have so much that the light smoker would be high.

4: You think I'm just saying it because I'm talking out of my rear end?

Since you asked: Knowing you, you are relying on the selective interpretation of one or two sources, seeing only the information that supports your posiitons and ignoring them, and not bothering to do more research, since you have the support you feel you want.

how about you do a little research on it before you go talking out of your own rear end?

Well, I've primarily been asking why such a test was not feasible, and noting the pitiful inadequacy of your reponses, which really doesn't require much research. After all, you you rarely bother to properly justify your arguments.

Here's a source for you, from the people who would be doing the testing, the NHTSA:

You mean, the one that offers "Concentrations of both analytes decline rapidly and are often < 5 ng/mL at 3 hours. Significant THC concentrations (7 to 18 ng/mL) are noted following even a single puff or hit of a marijuana cigarette. Peak plasma THC concentrations ranged from 46-188 ng/mL in 6 subjects after they smoked 8.8 mg THC over 10 minutes. Chronic users can have mean plasma levels of THC-COOH of 45 ng/mL, 12 hours after use; corresponding THC levels are, however, less than 1 ng/mL. Following oral administration, THC concentrations peak at 1-3 hours and are lower than after smoking." The reads as THC actually following the pattern of being high fairly closely, when you are looking at a high enough value, while the THC metablites (such as THC-COOH) do not.

It is possible for a person to be affected by marijuana use with concentrations of THC in their blood below the limit of detection of the method.

So, a methodolgical problem, not a lack of correspondance to the level of THC proper and the feeling of being high.

From 4.2:
"It was concluded that presence of cannabinoids in urine or blood is not unequivocal proof of active cannabis smoking."

Yes, that was why I mentioned section 4. Glad to see we agree on this point.

 

[SaltyDawg]

And One Brow reminds me why I tend to ignore his posts and not bother replying.

I posted:

From the people who would be doing the testing, the NHTSA:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
"Interpretation of Blood Concentrations:... It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations. It is possible for a person to be affected by marijuana use with concentrations of THC in their blood below the limit of detection of the method.
Interpretation of Urine Test Results: Detection of total THC metabolites in urine, primarily THC-COOH-glucuronide, only indicates prior THC exposure. Detection time is well past the window of intoxication and impairment."

Somehow he argues this? lol. And the link he posted after that:

From 4.2:
"It was concluded that presence of cannabinoids in urine or blood is not unequivocal proof of active cannabis smoking."

Somehow he turns this into a long ***, multi quote, fictional debate (the quotes posted ended the real debate).

 

[Agoxlea]

I posted the same quote and have reminded him I posted it already too. Good luck.

 

[One Brow]

And One Brow reminds me why I tend to ignore his posts and not bother replying.

You do so hate it when people ask you to justify your positions. If I hated it as much as you, I would not bother replaying to me, either.

I posted:

A quote which says intoxication levels for THC is possibly below current detection levels, and that THC metabolites are unreliable, as evidence that THC levels themselves are indeterminate, when the website actually does not claim that, and indicates otherwise in the quote I offered from the same site. As usual, shoddy research of your own sources.

Somehow he argues this?

I don't argue with the quote. I only argue that the quote does not support yor claims, primarily because the quote does not support your claims, in context.

lol. And the link he posted after that:

Your quote refers to THC metabolites picked up from passive smoking, not THC itself.

Somehow he turns this into a long ***, multi quote, fictional debate (the quotes posted ended the real debate).

There never was a debate. A debate requires two people, using facts and research, in context, to prove contrary positions. I'm questioning a position, as opposed to trying to prove one, and you have shown neither capability nor intent to do the research to back up your claims.

I posted the same quote and have reminded him I posted it already too. Good luck.

You've got one snippet from a long discussion on a single website. Please demonstrate from that quote that it is not possible to use blood levels of THC (as opposed to THC metabolites) to determine intoxication in principle. No rush, take your time.

 

[Agoxlea]

You've got one snippet from a long discussion on a single website. Please demonstrate from that quote that it is not possible to use blood levels of THC (as opposed to THC metabolites) to determine intoxication in principle. No rush, take your time.

How about the previous paragraph

It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I posted the same quote and have reminded him I posted it already too. Good luck.

Yeah, it's pretty worthless trying to have a discussion with One Brow. That quote flat out says they don't think it's possible to test for marijuana intoxication levels, and the dude still tries to argue about it. He does this in pretty much every thread where someone proves him wrong. It is what it is.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Favorite music to smoke weed to?

 

[Gameface]

Straw man party up in here. All those things can be abused and thus be sad and pathetic. Nice try though, Sport.

All those things, as well as marijuana, can be used in moderation.

 

[GVC]

The point is you said if a law is unjust then it's ok to break it. So if individuals make that call as you said, can you see the social issues there if we accept that as an excuse for social/criminal irresponsibility?

It's not irresponsible if it's unjust. I consider the institution and prosecution of unjust laws a far more serious social "issue" than breaking an unjust law. I don't think acting against injustice is a social "issue" at all. In fact, I think it's beneficial to society.

You should be willing to answer the questions you pose other people. Unless you begin doing so, this discussion is over.

Who do you think decides what is just or unjust? Is civil disobedience ever appropriate?

 

[CONAN]

No straw man here.

Ya bigtime straw man and you know it. Don't see why you are going postal over it though.

 

[GVC]

Ya bigtime straw man and you know it. Don't see why you are going postal over it though.

God I hope this is intentional irony.