bob_G

Hypothetical cannabis question

Rate this topic

1,126 posts in this topic

11 mins ago, JTR said:

So you’re saying that levels of THC in the blood have no correlation to impairment?

Levels of THC in the blood are only high in the first hour or so of smoking.  After that, it subsides considerably.   For a chronic user, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference in blood if that person smoked two hours or days prior.

 

Blood levels are an extremely poor way to measure impairment as already discussed and shown through previous links.  It’s NOTHING like alcohol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 mins ago, MakoMike said:

Exactly!!

You should alert Colorado of this. They consider 5 or more nanograms of THC found in the blood to cause impairment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 mins ago, JTR said:

You should alert Colorado of this. They consider 5 or more nanograms of THC found in the blood to cause impairment.

Cite please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

26 mins ago, MakoMike said:

Cite please?

Jonesy beat me to it. You must have missed the memo on that one.

Edited by JTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, WA has the same law as CO. There is a listing of state laws pertaining to driving under the influence here: GHSA list

 

A lot of these laws are going to have to be revised, sine they are based on assumptions which science has proven to be incorrect. Like the CO and WA laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

A lot of the 5 nanogram cases have been dropped because well science doesn’t back up these numbers that CO and WA pulled out of thin air. The case against someone has to be more about that the person was visibly impaired like field test done for DUI alcohol.  Sure the nanogram test might get someone to admit to smoking weed in the last few hours. Then they have you. But for those who didn’t take in THC that day who stick to their guns the nanogram part of the case just doesn’t hold up. Again it’s not based on science. Mass has no such non scientific law. 

Edited by Tailslap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

If all they have is the nanogram blood test without dash or body cam video of you all over the road and stumbling around outside the car the nanogram test will be worthless in court IMO. And since THC doesn’t make you legless I can’t see many of people actually being convicted under this law.

Edited by Tailslap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, Tailslap said:

A lot of the 5 nanogram cases have been dropped because well science doesn’t back up these numbers that CO and WA pulled out of thin air. The case against someone has to be more about that the person was visibly impaired like field test done for DUI alcohol.  Sure the nanogram test might get someone to admit to smoking weed in the last few hours. Then they have you. But for those who didn’t take in THC that day who stick to their guns the nanogram part of the case just doesn’t hold up. Again it’s not based on science. Mass has no such non scientific law. 

In MA, and I’m sure in CO as well, the breathalyzer or blood tests happen after the individual is arrested for OUI. Impairment is determined by observations and field sobriety tests, person arrested, breathalyzer taken at the station or blood taken at hospital.

 

If I were a betting man, I’d wager that a large number of those cases that are thrown out are because the defense figured out a way to get the car stop thrown out. That’s the easiest way to beat an OUI in MA - bad stop means everything else is fruit of the poisonous tree. I could be wrong, and I have nothing to cite to back that up, but like I said, I’d put $$ on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

26 mins ago, JTR said:

In MA, and I’m sure in CO as well, the breathalyzer or blood tests happen after the individual is arrested for OUI. Impairment is determined by observations and field sobriety tests, person arrested, breathalyzer taken at the station or blood taken at hospital.

 

If I were a betting man, I’d wager that a large number of those cases that are thrown out are because the defense figured out a way to get the car stop thrown out. That’s the easiest way to beat an OUI in MA - bad stop means everything else is fruit of the poisonous tree. I could be wrong, and I have nothing to cite to back that up, but like I said, I’d put $$ on it.

Problem is I can’t imagine failing a field sobriety test on MJ. It doesn’t  impair your motor skills like alcohol. It is a very light buzz compared to alcohol.  Now if someone drops their phone while driving and reaches for it making them swerve on dash cam and then they get the nanogram blood test that might hold up. Because I am guessing you have never tried MJ you really are only guessing on the true effects. It’s better to believe those who have tried both MJ and alcohol on the effects each gives you. You seem to default to the effects of alcohol because that is what you know. Trust me when I tell you there are quite different in effect and amount of effect each substance has on you. I could pass a field sobriety test on MJ blindfolded and walking on my hands because my motor skills for the most part are intact on MJ. The field sobriety test is based on the effects of alcohol so it doesn’t really work for MJ. This is the point you might be missing.

Edited by Tailslap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JTR said:

In MA, and I’m sure in CO as well, the breathalyzer or blood tests happen after the individual is arrested for OUI. Impairment is determined by observations and field sobriety tests, person arrested, breathalyzer taken at the station or blood taken at hospital.

 

If I were a betting man, I’d wager that a large number of those cases that are thrown out are because the defense figured out a way to get the car stop thrown out. That’s the easiest way to beat an OUI in MA - bad stop means everything else is fruit of the poisonous tree. I could be wrong, and I have nothing to cite to back that up, but like I said, I’d put $$ on it.

I would wager that you are correct in that the defense managed together the original stop thrown out. But that doesn't have didilli squat do with the fact that the THC standard can be proven to be scientifically wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tailslap said:

Problem is I can’t imagine failing a field sobriety test on MJ. It doesn’t  impair your motor skills like alcohol. It is a very light buzz compared to alcohol.  Now if someone drops their phone while driving and reaches for it making them swerve on dash cam and then they get the nanogram blood test that might hold up. Because I am guessing you have never tried MJ you really are only guessing on the true effects. It’s better to believe those who have tried both MJ and alcohol on the effects each gives you. You seem to default to the effects of alcohol because that is what you know. Trust me when I tell you there are quite different in effect and amount of effect each substance has on you. I could pass a field sobriety test on MJ blindfolded and walking on my hands because my motor skills for the most part are intact on MJ. The field sobriety test is based on the effects of alcohol so it doesn’t really work for MJ. This is the point you might be missing.

You know what they say about assuming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.