|
|
Post by bostonmama on Jul 24, 2015 18:19:21 GMT
Since there seemed to be an annoyance with the way the Sandra Bland thread turned into a discussion about marijuana, I thought a new thread was in order.
Copied from the original thread:
Honestly wondering: With alcohol, you're able to test the level and know exactly the effect it is having on the blood/body at that moment. Over .08 here means you ARE impaired. With marijuana, though, if it can stay in your system for days to weeks, how is the degree of current impairment to be measured? The report said Sandra had a high level of THC in her system 3 days later. How do 'they' know how affected she would have been at the time of her traffic stop? If my son were to get pulled over and tested positive for THC in his system, wouldn't an easy excuse be that he smoked days ago and the chemical was still present?
I, admittedly, have never smoked pot and don't have a clue about the correlation between how long you're impaired/high and how long the THC is still present.
|
|
|
|
Post by PEArfect on Jul 24, 2015 18:30:01 GMT
Research DRE (drug recognition expert). That might answer some of your questions. My LH was an LEO. He started the DRE training with two other officers, but none of them completed the program. The city decided not to support the program financially. They have around 70 officers and none are certified DREs. Just like with K9 or ERT, it's a specialty. In my opinion (possibly biased) police departments are underfunded.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Jul 24, 2015 20:15:17 GMT
My understanding is that it is much harder to tell the level of impairment based on blood levels of THC than it is for other drugs. THC remains in the system longer and is much slower to metabolize than other drugs and alcohol. This is especially true if someone is a chronic, regular user of marihuana. So the impairment can be gone while the test still shows the presence of THC and sometimes at fairly high levels. This is the explanation I've been given by the lab director of the lab that processes drug screens.
|
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 24, 2015 20:16:34 GMT
I don't know for certain, but I have read that marijuana will show up on a drug screen far longer than pills or something. I do remember some conversation about how to deal with this when Colorado voted to legalize...they didn't know how to craft the DUI laws to include pot and figure out levels and what was current, etc. I don't know what conclusions they ever came to about the issue.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078 
|
Post by happymomma on Jul 24, 2015 20:20:24 GMT
My understanding is that it is much harder to tell the level of impairment based on blood levels of THC than it is for other drugs. THC remains in the system longer and is much slower to metabolize than other drugs and alcohol. This is especially true if someone is a chronic, regular user of marihuana. So the impairment can be gone while the test still shows the presence of THC and sometimes at fairly high levels. This is the explanation I've been given by the lab director of the lab that processes drug screens. This, I know, is accurate. It does depend on level of use. It does show up on dug screens after impairment is gone. It even stays in hair for a long time. That is how a lot of drug screens are done now. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 14:25:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 20:21:18 GMT
That's why I am concerned about the legalization of marijuana.
|
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Jul 24, 2015 20:29:37 GMT
My understanding is that it is much harder to tell the level of impairment based on blood levels of THC than it is for other drugs. THC remains in the system longer and is much slower to metabolize than other drugs and alcohol. This is especially true if someone is a chronic, regular user of marihuana. So the impairment can be gone while the test still shows the presence of THC and sometimes at fairly high levels. This is the explanation I've been given by the lab director of the lab that processes drug screens. Yup. Basically, every time I had a marijuana DUI case I had to contact an expert because it is hard to figure out the impairment level just based on a screen. |
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Jul 24, 2015 20:34:22 GMT
My understanding is that it is much harder to tell the level of impairment based on blood levels of THC than it is for other drugs. THC remains in the system longer and is much slower to metabolize than other drugs and alcohol. This is especially true if someone is a chronic, regular user of marihuana. So the impairment can be gone while the test still shows the presence of THC and sometimes at fairly high levels. This is the explanation I've been given by the lab director of the lab that processes drug screens. Yup. Basically, every time I had a marijuana DUI case I had to contact an expert because it is hard to figure out the impairment level just based on a screen. Yes, I've had this lab director testify several times and marijuana is always a hard one to prove impairment at a specific time bc of the way it metabolizes. "harder drugs" and alcohol Are easier to prove impairment at specific time but harder to get a positive screen for because they metabolize so much quicker. |
|
|
|
Post by its me mg on Jul 25, 2015 6:29:20 GMT
they're going to be able to determine an active THC level and determine a legal limit. I googled it, and turns out I was right ....
"Now the state of Colorado has offered up its answer. Under House Bill 1114, the answer is five nanograms. If a blood screen detects five or more nanograms of THC (that's delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) per milliliter of blood in a person's bloodstream, that individual is considered legally under the influence of drugs. Washington has also set its intoxication limit at five nanograms per milliliter."
So basically if you measure a certain amount, its a DUI. I know with worker's comp if you test positive for THC, even if you have no active levels, you're immediately terminated for zero tolerance drug policy infractions, and then your claim gets denied because they'll say your injury is because you're high and not because of the company's negligence.
|
|
