Your Brain on Drugs

[jakobeast]

Once the government starts taxing it to death and raising the costs to 30-40 bucks a gram for shitty low THC pot the dealers will get their cash cow back. They will also be able to slightly raise their prices also... but for better weed. Might be good for them in some sense.



I'm interested in what was mentioned about the THC limits in the blood stream as far as the driving under the influence. That's going to be a fun debate.

I have always heard that is one of the sticking points as to why it isn't legal. They haven't had a difinitive way to prove someone is impared. with booze, there is a bal or bac, There is a quantifiable way to prove that someone is drunk. I contend however, that some people are more drunk at .08 then others at .12, but that's for a different time.



So far as I know, the only thing they can do is test your blood, or urine or what have you and see if THC is present in your body.

 

[roshinaya]

Proposition 19 in California a couple of years ago, that would have legalized and regulated weed activities was struck down and among those opposing it was the growers themselves as it would have cut into their profits.

 

[the canadian dream]

I have always heard that is one of the sticking points as to why it isn't legal. They haven't had a difinitive way to prove someone is impared. with booze, there is a bal or bac, There is a quantifiable way to prove that someone is drunk. I contend however, that some people are more drunk at .08 then others at .12, but that's for a different time.



So far as I know, the only thing they can do is test your blood, or urine or what have you and see if THC is present in your body.

yah good post. Exactly what came to my mind. What are they going to do prick you with a pin when they pull you over and send it to the labs for results while you wait along the curb? I mean you could just look at the persons pupils and know they are stoned but no instant proof otherwise until the THC level instant app comes out (it probably already does I just haven't looked).



I can see how that one has stalled the lawmakers.

 

[the canadian dream]

Proposition 19 in California a couple of years ago, that would have legalized and regulated weed activities was struck down and among those opposing it was the growers themselves as it would have cut into their profits.

Not shocked at all. Makes complete sense to me. That's why the term "legal" will probably never be attached to pot. Just lower the punishments and the governments can go about trying to tax things higher that should be taxed higher.... like junk foods. And don't get me wrong I like junk foods as much as the next guy so I don't want them taxed higher either but more people eat junk food than they do smoke pot and hell you nail the pot smokers and their munchies cravings while you are at it anyways.



I should run for global leader. Im loaded with brilliant ideas.

 

[Rex]

I have always heard that is one of the sticking points as to why it isn't legal. They haven't had a difinitive way to prove someone is impared. with booze, there is a bal or bac, There is a quantifiable way to prove that someone is drunk. I contend however, that some people are more drunk at .08 then others at .12, but that's for a different time.



So far as I know, the only thing they can do is test your blood, or urine or what have you and see if THC is present in your body.

apparently (up here at least) cops now have strips that they put on your tongue and it measures THC

 

[jakobeast]

yah good post. Exactly what came to my mind. What are they going to do prick you with a pin when they pull you over and send it to the labs for results while you wait along the curb? I mean you could just look at the persons pupils and know they are stoned but no instant proof otherwise until the THC level instant app comes out (it probably already does I just haven't looked).



I can see how that one has stalled the lawmakers.

apparently (up here at least) cops now have strips that they put on your tongue and it measures THC

Now my question is, does the presence of THC in the blood or saliva or whatever equal stoned? With blood alcohol concentration as the example, does a road side test for THC have a number attached to it that proves a person is high? I know some police departments a few years ago were testing a flashlight that you can shine into a persons eyes and it shows you how drunk someone is. I've always been told that THC stays in your system for up to a month after you take it in. If that's true, a road side test is invalid.

 

[Rex]

Now my question is, does the presence of THC in the blood or saliva or whatever equal stoned? With blood alcohol concentration as the example, does a road side test for THC have a number attached to it that proves a person is high? I know some police departments a few years ago were testing a flashlight that you can shine into a persons eyes and it shows you how drunk someone is. I've always been told that THC stays in your system for up to a month after you take it in. If that's true, a road side test is invalid.

it would stay in your system, but not on your tongue.

 

[The Count Dante]

I may not have my facts all lined up in a row, so if this is not exactly accurate I apologize.



THC is stored in fat cells and is not water soluble. This is why it takes a good 30 days to clean your system. Even urine tests are not detecting THC itself, but testing for other components that are by products of THC being broken down. Blood tests can detect THC for about 12 - 24 hours and cannot detect the same that urine does. Not sure on hair follicle.



For road-side tests, no, there is no equivalent of a Breathalyzer. The horizontal nystagmus (sp?) eye test can be used to detect SOME influence and is a federally approved method of field testing, but is seldom used in and of itself as other conditions and prescribed drugs can also cause this.



Because THC can be detected in the blood for hours, a blood test is a suitable test and one that can be given with alcohol as well. As far as making a detectable level vs impairment (like BAC), I would not even have a guess or a clue as to how that would even work in theory.



I am not a lawyer or well versed in the details of DUI/DWI laws.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

The whole argument of "we can't make it legal because we don't have a test to confirm people driving under the influence" is bullshit. Just the police grasping at straws.



Can they test you to tell if you are driving "while tired or fatigued?" <---------- This has more to do with more traffic accidents and fatalities than any drug.



How about testing you for what sort of legal, prescription drugs you are taking? How many zombies are on the road because of their prescription medication that has a big label on it telling them not to operate heavy machinery? Cops around out rounding up folks and throwing them in jail for that.

 

[The Count Dante]

The whole argument of "we can't make it legal because we don't have a test to confirm people driving under the influence" is bullshit. Just the police grasping at straws.



Can they test you to tell if you are driving "while tired or fatigued?" <---------- This has more to do with more traffic accidents and fatalities than any drug.



How about testing you for what sort of legal, prescription drugs you are taking? How many zombies are on the road because of their prescription medication that has a big label on it telling them not to operate heavy machinery? Cops around out rounding up folks and throwing them in jail for that.

I agree entirely. In relation to my comment, just some useless commentary based on where the thread went...

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Don't get me wrong Dante, wasn't calling you out, or anyone else. Just stating my belief that using the "testing" as an excuse is bs by law enforcement.

 

[KMChechASS69r]

Being diabetic, I test my blood sugar on a glucose meter. It would not be too much of a stretch to think that an instant meter could be calibrated to detect THC.

 

[roshinaya]

After some quick googling shows that roadside testing for THC intoxication is quite tricky. How would they decide how much THC is acceptable, would it even be possible to make such a call? If they are going for a strict zero-tolerance stance then they ought to do the same for alcohol which has far more evidence of impairing driving even in rather small amounts. Weed intoxication and alcohol intoxication are very different too.

 

[the canadian dream]

After some quick googling shows that roadside testing for THC intoxication is quite tricky. How would they decide how much THC is acceptable, would it even be possible to make such a call? If they are going for a strict zero-tolerance stance then they ought to do the same for alcohol which has far more evidence of impairing driving even in rather small amounts. Weed intoxication and alcohol intoxication are very different too.

Indeed!!!



I'm not proud of it and I don't condone it but I have been in enough vehicles with both drunks behind the wheel and stoners behind the wheel. I have to say from personal experience the stoned drivers were always better behind the wheel than those who were drunk. Not that the stoned drivers were great either. Stoners drive too slow..drunks drive too fast. Both are shitty drivers even when they claim they are good. Again...not proud of these past experiences and I don't condone being drunk or stoned while driving. I am a strict anti-driving under the influence person. I know its hypocritical to say that knowing the history but the history is why I am strict about it now.

 

[jakobeast]

I think it was Doug Stanhope that said they should allow drunks to get their drivers license while drunk. If they pass the test, they get to blow into a breathalyzer and whatever they blow, is the number that they get to drive with.