If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Detroit)   Yeah, I tested positive for THC, but can you prove I was high?   (detroit.cbslocal.com) divider line 48
    More: Spiffy, THC, Lansing, marijuana  
•       •       •

10243 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2013 at 10:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-23 09:26:15 AM
The court ruled that prosecutors must prove that Koon was actually impaired behind the wheel.

This is not the case in Colorado.
 
2013-05-23 09:31:31 AM

Sgygus: This is not the case in Colorado.


I was wondering about this. Since THC is detectable long after partaking how is impairment measured? How does this affect liability issues in the event of accidents etc? FWIW, I am very pro legalization.
 
2013-05-23 10:30:45 AM
Colorado's new cannabis dui law: Instead of those testing more than 5 nanograms of THC being automatically convicted of a DUI, now the test just creates a "permissive inference" in court that the driver was stoned.

I have to retract my previous statement.  "permissive inference" seems to imply that a jury can be completely hard-assed about the 5 nanograms of THC, but they don't have to be.
 
2013-05-23 10:31:10 AM
FTA
"... And it's now up to the police to prove they were not driving safely."

should be the case for all substances that might impair driving.
 
2013-05-23 10:34:20 AM

Sgygus: The court ruled that prosecutors must prove that Koon was actually impaired behind the wheel.

This is not the case in Colorado.


Sounds like the kind of thing that will end up before the Supreme Court - and it's a good thing if they keep with the "prove you were impaired" standard.

We're heading toward BAC levels for "drunk" driving being so low that if you've had a beer in the last 6 months you're assumed to be hammered drunk behind the wheel.  I am NOT suggesting that a default presumption of impaired at a certain level is wrong, just that it should be scientifically supported.
 
2013-05-23 10:34:55 AM
"I mean, these people got it right," said Beck. "I can say this is a court with integrity - these is very, very important. I mean, it's huge, this is probably the most important decision that has come down in the State Supreme Court that they've ruled on it."

Guy sounds baked off his ass.
 
2013-05-23 10:35:21 AM
I was wondering about this. Since THC is detectable long after partaking how is impairment measured? How does this affect liability issues in the event of accidents etc? FWIW, I am very pro legalization.

Impairment can easily be determined by the police, using tests like 'walk a straight line'. Drivers are occasionally found to be impaired from various types of medication (for example, Xanax) using such tests. These tests are very reliable, and fully applicable to marijuana.

The Boobies about Colorado demonstrates what a fascist police state we live in. The presence of THC in the blood doesn't determine impairment because it can show up weeks after the effects wear off. Police can easily determine impairment, yet the Police State presumes impairment from a meaningless blood test. This is like saying someone was drunk driving because they have cirrhosis of the liver. OTOH, The Police State sometimes uses the fact that blood tests don't accurately measure impairment from marijuana use as a reason for keeping it illegal.
 
2013-05-23 10:35:50 AM
IANAL, but it seems to me that a jury would be more likely to let the 5 nanogram limit slide if the accused has a valid medical marijuana card.  An out-of-state cannabis tourist can expect less leniency.
 
zeg
2013-05-23 10:36:43 AM
It'll be a short-lived victory. Expect the next round of laws to specify that the crime is driving with detectable THC in your system.
 
2013-05-23 10:39:40 AM
why can't they just go back to field sobriety tests. patrol cars have cameras on them now... so its kind of not even about your word vs the cop. Video should be able to show if you fell over when they ask you to touch your nose while standing on one foot. The test for THC in your system should merely be supporting documentation in addition to the sobriety test.
 
2013-05-23 10:43:24 AM
As a staunch supporter (but non-smoker) of legalizing marijuana, I've been saying that this needs to be worked out between the legislators, legal system and medical community.  What level of THC actually indicates impairment?  Has this actually been studied scientifically?  It seems to me that it's just a random judgement...and it's a good thing that the court has decided this way.
 
2013-05-23 10:44:38 AM
law2.umkc.edulaw2.umkc.edu
 
2013-05-23 10:45:42 AM
They are going to have to hash this out. 20 states now have medical marijuana provisions.
 
2013-05-23 10:46:06 AM

kbronsito: why can't they just go back to field sobriety tests. patrol cars have cameras on them now... so its kind of not even about your word vs the cop. Video should be able to show if you fell over when they ask you to touch your nose while standing on one foot. The test for THC in your system should merely be supporting documentation in addition to the sobriety test.



Because it requires time, thought, and liability.
 
2013-05-23 10:46:42 AM

slayer199: What level of THC actually indicates impairment?


There is no hard and fast level.  A person habituates to the THC.  A novice might be impaired after a couple of hits.  An experienced driver who is also an experienced smoker might not be impaired with 1000x as much THC.
 
2013-05-23 10:50:07 AM

slayer199: As a staunch supporter (but non-smoker) of legalizing marijuana, I've been saying that this needs to be worked out between the legislators, legal system and medical community.



I count at least 3 obstacles keeping that from happening.
 
2013-05-23 10:51:53 AM

Sgygus: IANAL, but it seems to me that a jury would be more likely to let the 5 nanogram limit slide if the accused has a valid medical marijuana card.  An out-of-state cannabis tourist can expect less leniency.


I just pictured that scene in Braveheart where the magistrate kills Wallace's wife.

"And this day's lawlessness is how you repay my leniency."
 
2013-05-23 10:52:08 AM

Sgygus: slayer199: What level of THC actually indicates impairment?

There is no hard and fast level.  A person habituates to the THC.  A novice might be impaired after a couple of hits.  An experienced driver who is also an experienced smoker might not be impaired with 1000x as much THC.


yeah that's the problem with any predefined thing. Someone who never smoked or hardly does could do a single dab and be sent to the moon so on the other end of it the guy could be a real danger but get out of  charges.
 
2013-05-23 10:56:39 AM
"I mean, these people got it right," said Beck. "I can say this is a court with integrity - these is very, very important...
Just because some has THC in their system, which in theory, they may be high...
But just because someone is speeding, you and I could be stone cold sober, not have any thing and still be speeding "


Dude, you sound like 200% high.
 
2013-05-23 11:00:12 AM

Headso: Sgygus: slayer199: What level of THC actually indicates impairment?

There is no hard and fast level.  A person habituates to the THC.  A novice might be impaired after a couple of hits.  An experienced driver who is also an experienced smoker might not be impaired with 1000x as much THC.

yeah that's the problem with any predefined thing. Someone who never smoked or hardly does could do a single dab and be sent to the moon so on the other end of it the guy could be a real danger but get out of  charges.


a sobriety test for marijuana is easy.  Ask the driver the following question (or similar questions):

"What does purple smell like?"

if the driver is capable of providing an answer, then they are stoned.  If the driver's face performs a "wtf" type of look, the driver is sober.
 
2013-05-23 11:02:24 AM
Spiffy tag? Shouldn't we have a "Spliffy" tag?
 
2013-05-23 11:03:58 AM

Sgygus: slayer199: What level of THC actually indicates impairment?

There is no hard and fast level.  A person habituates to the THC.  A novice might be impaired after a couple of hits.  An experienced driver who is also an experienced smoker might not be impaired with 1000x as much THC.


In complete agreement with this statement. I've been both driving and smoking weed for well over 20 yrs and have driven after toking many times and never had a problem. If the weather is bad, i give myself more time to straighten out though, or don't toke at all. Driving on icy roads while stoned = not cool.
 
2013-05-23 11:06:08 AM

Hyjamon: Headso: Sgygus: slayer199: What level of THC actually indicates impairment?

There is no hard and fast level.  A person habituates to the THC.  A novice might be impaired after a couple of hits.  An experienced driver who is also an experienced smoker might not be impaired with 1000x as much THC.

yeah that's the problem with any predefined thing. Someone who never smoked or hardly does could do a single dab and be sent to the moon so on the other end of it the guy could be a real danger but get out of  charges.

a sobriety test for marijuana is easy.  Ask the driver the following question (or similar questions):

"What does purple smell like?"

if the driver is capable of providing an answer, then they are stoned.  If the driver's face performs a "wtf" type of look, the driver is sober.


Unless they answer grapes or possibly lilacs.
 
2013-05-23 11:06:23 AM
bbsimg.ngfiles.com
BHO Face
 
2013-05-23 11:10:58 AM

dopekitty74: Hyjamon: Headso: Sgygus: slayer199: What level of THC actually indicates impairment?

There is no hard and fast level.  A person habituates to the THC.  A novice might be impaired after a couple of hits.  An experienced driver who is also an experienced smoker might not be impaired with 1000x as much THC.

yeah that's the problem with any predefined thing. Someone who never smoked or hardly does could do a single dab and be sent to the moon so on the other end of it the guy could be a real danger but get out of  charges.

a sobriety test for marijuana is easy.  Ask the driver the following question (or similar questions):

"What does purple smell like?"

if the driver is capable of providing an answer, then they are stoned.  If the driver's face performs a "wtf" type of look, the driver is sober.

Unless they answer grapes or possibly lilacs.


Stoner, grapes can be green and lilacs are something dirty hippies wear in their hair or clothes.  Cuff'em Lou.
 
2013-05-23 11:11:57 AM

dopekitty74: Driving on icy roads while stoned = not cool.


You illustrate another factor in THC impairment.  A cannabis high is not like alcohol.  Except perhaps in cases where the toker is either young or foolish, cannabis does not produce a 'devil-may-care' attitude.  Quite the contrary, it generally produces an "I have to be especially careful" attitude.

I give myself more time to straighten out though

Exactly.  There is a period, for me, about ten minutes to twenty-five minutes after smoking, where I might feel impaired.  I wait it out before doing anything dangerous.  Driving is dangerous.
 
2013-05-23 11:21:10 AM
Prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  But if you cause an accident, in civil court, I bet the plaintiff's attorney eviscerates you.
 
2013-05-23 11:23:55 AM

zeg: It'll be a short-lived victory. Expect the next round of laws to specify that the crime is driving with detectable THC in your system.


They'll use this to try to nullify legalized pot.
 
2013-05-23 11:27:23 AM

Sgygus: You illustrate another factor in THC impairment. A cannabis high is not like alcohol. Except perhaps in cases where the toker is either young or foolish, cannabis does not produce a 'devil-may-care' attitude. Quite the contrary, it generally produces an "I have to be especially careful" attitude.


Sometimes when I vape for an arthritis flare up, I have to be especially careful during events like stepping from the carpet onto the hardwood. Driving would never happen.
 
2013-05-23 11:30:31 AM

Sgygus: There is no hard and fast level. A person habituates to the THC. A novice might be impaired after a couple of hits. An experienced driver who is also an experienced smoker might not be impaired with 1000x as much THC.


You can make the same argument for alcohol.  However, you can show that there's some physical impairment at a certain level with alcohol.  The problem with Marijuana is there's a lack of legitimate scientific studies on this issue.  Additionally, there's more than THC to consider when it comes to pot an impairment as there are up to 85 different cannabinoids in marijuana and all factor into the "high."

Still, at a basic level it will have to come down to a police officer's judgement on a driver's level of impairment.  That is also a bit different than alcohol because tolerance may allow you to drive at a .08, but you're still legally intoxicated.
 
2013-05-23 11:37:10 AM

Uncle Pooky: I count at least 3 obstacles keeping that from happening.


LOL.  That may be true, but I believe the issue of driving under the influence of marijuana and determining a level of impairment will be a barrier to the larger legalization efforts.  It has to happen and I don't see the government stepping up and funding any studies on the issue...which actually makes more sense than a study to
determine if cocaine makes japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior.
 
2013-05-23 11:41:18 AM
TFA says: "But the standard is are they driving safely - period."

great, so you can have a BAC of .19 and stopped at a sobriety check point but since they can't prove you were not driving safely, all is good?
 
2013-05-23 11:46:17 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: TFA says: "But the standard is are they driving safely - period."

great, so you can have a BAC of .19 and stopped at a sobriety check point but since they can't prove you were not driving safely, all is good?


sobriety checkpoints are a problem all by themselves.
 
2013-05-23 12:17:26 PM
I have yet to find (admit only been passively looking) any thing on the criteria on what would trigger a blood test.

Injury accident? Will both drivers be tested or only the at fault driver?

Will a "smell" in the car be enough to have you tested?

"Pulled you over for not using your turn signal back th.....sniff** **sniff** Son, you smell like Otto's jacket. Out the car long hair"

And to anyone that says a simple road side sobriety test is a good measure of impairment they are seriously misinformed. The "tests" they put you thru have no guidelines for pass or fail but, rather are there to give cover to the officer before they require a breathalyzer. (See Steve Martin's Man with Two Brains. "Walk that straight white line. Halt. Walk back..on your hands. On one hand. Now juggle these while...tap dancing.)

Try asking a cop sometime about what constitutes a failure. You usually get an answer like "I'll tell you when you do"

Nothing quite like have zero base line on someone and asking them to perform physical tests and judging their sobriety based on this.

"Your motor functions on you left side are poor and you speech is slurred"

"I had a stroke 6 months ago"

"I don't care what concerts to go to hippie, pee in this cup" (yeah I know it's a blood test)

Once again the Onion had a prophetic headline back in 1999. "Led Zeppelin bumber sticker now probable cause for vehicular search in 13 states"
 
2013-05-23 01:31:53 PM
The method we always used to see if someone was baked was called 'stump the stoner'.

Talk to the person for a couple of minutes on any topic. Then suddenly ask, "What were we just talking about?" If they get a blank look and can't provide an answer, they are probably high.
 
2013-05-23 02:16:40 PM

Fizpez: Sgygus: The court ruled that prosecutors must prove that Koon was actually impaired behind the wheel.

This is not the case in Colorado.

Sounds like the kind of thing that will end up before the Supreme Court - and it's a good thing if they keep with the "prove you were impaired" standard.

We're heading toward BAC levels for "drunk" driving being so low that if you've had a beer in the last 6 months you're assumed to be hammered drunk behind the wheel.  I am NOT suggesting that a default presumption of impaired at a certain level is wrong, just that it should be scientifically supported.


Whatever.

Any doper comes near me, they will farking die.
 
2013-05-23 02:19:51 PM

Hyjamon: Headso: Sgygus: slayer199: What level of THC actually indicates impairment?

There is no hard and fast level.  A person habituates to the THC.  A novice might be impaired after a couple of hits.  An experienced driver who is also an experienced smoker might not be impaired with 1000x as much THC.

yeah that's the problem with any predefined thing. Someone who never smoked or hardly does could do a single dab and be sent to the moon so on the other end of it the guy could be a real danger but get out of  charges.

a sobriety test for marijuana is easy.  Ask the driver the following question (or similar questions):

"What does purple smell like?"

if the driver is capable of providing an answer, then they are stoned.  If the driver's face performs a "wtf" type of look, the driver is sober.


Purple smells like grape drank. Everyone knows this, stoned or not.
 
2013-05-23 02:43:39 PM
In British Columbia they removed the courts from the instant roadside 'convictions' of drinking drivers.
Next up will be 'please submit a dna swab, errr ,drug swab NOW'.

/Still in the courts about violating of the constitution, which it is but the government refuses to stop violating as no politicians/police will go to prison for violating the Charter of Rights.
//As long as you have a badge you can kill at least 2 or three people during your career with the government making sure you never see court for it.
 
2013-05-23 03:13:24 PM

Rueened: Any doper comes near me, they will farking die.


*lightenupfrancis.jpg*
 
2013-05-23 03:21:43 PM

UtopianDevil: The method we always used to see if someone was baked was called 'stump the stoner'.

Talk to the person for a couple of minutes on any topic. Then suddenly ask, "What were we just talking about?" If they get a blank look and can't provide an answer, they are probably high.


Heh...that would work pretty damn well I imagine.

/stream of consciousness -- no problem
//conscious recollection -- not so much
 
2013-05-23 03:23:28 PM

Rueened: Fizpez: Sgygus: The court ruled that prosecutors must prove that Koon was actually impaired behind the wheel.

This is not the case in Colorado.

Sounds like the kind of thing that will end up before the Supreme Court - and it's a good thing if they keep with the "prove you were impaired" standard.

We're heading toward BAC levels for "drunk" driving being so low that if you've had a beer in the last 6 months you're assumed to be hammered drunk behind the wheel.  I am NOT suggesting that a default presumption of impaired at a certain level is wrong, just that it should be scientifically supported.

Whatever.

Any doper comes near me, they will farking die.


You probably won't have to worry about it.  99% of marijuana users die within 10 minutes of the first time they shoot up.
 
2013-05-23 03:32:15 PM
GanjSmokr:

You probably won't have to worry about it.  99% of marijuana users die within 10 minutes of the first time they shoot up.

It's not that they have to worry about. I deliberately drive into anyone I see with a cannabis-related bumper sticker, lie in front of their car, cover myself in ketchup, and wait for the police to arrive.
 
2013-05-23 03:43:55 PM

Rueened: GanjSmokr:

You probably won't have to worry about it.  99% of marijuana users die within 10 minutes of the first time they shoot up.

It's not that they have to worry about. I deliberately drive into anyone I see with a cannabis-related bumper sticker, lie in front of their car, cover myself in ketchup, and wait for the police to arrive.


I drive into any cars with a "Baby on Board" sign.  Then I grab the baby and cover it with ketchup, throw it on a bun, and eat it.  It's tough not to love a California Cheeseburger.
 
2013-05-23 04:37:48 PM

GanjSmokr: Rueened: GanjSmokr:

You probably won't have to worry about it.  99% of marijuana users die within 10 minutes of the first time they shoot up.

It's not that they have to worry about. I deliberately drive into anyone I see with a cannabis-related bumper sticker, lie in front of their car, cover myself in ketchup, and wait for the police to arrive.

I drive into any cars with a "Baby on Board" sign.  Then I grab the baby and cover it with ketchup, throw it on a bun, and eat it.  It's tough not to love a California Cheeseburger.


I drive into every SUV with a stick-figure family on it. Then I 'X' off each stick figure with a red marker as I shoot each occupant of the vehicle. If I run out of occupants before I run out of stick-figures then I go to their home to finish the job. I start with the little ones if they have a 'Children First' license plate.
 
2013-05-23 06:17:53 PM
It's not that they have to worry about. I deliberately drive into anyone I see with a cannabis-related bumper sticker, lie in front of their car, cover myself in ketchup, and wait for the police to arrive.

I drive into any cars with a "Baby on Board" sign.  Then I grab the baby and cover it with ketchup, throw it on a bun, and eat it.  It's tough not to love a California Cheeseburger.

I drive into every SUV with a stick-figure family on it. Then I 'X' off each stick figure with a red marker as I shoot each occupant of the vehicle. If I run out of occupants before I run out of stick-figures then I go to their home to finish the job. I start with the little ones if they have a 'Children First' license plate.


Children first stickers = future narcissist personality dsorder patient.
Baby On Board Sticker  = oh look at me, I can breed like any monkey.
Stick figure SUV stickers = I cute my kids to death so they will want to get the hell away from me when they get their driver's licenses
 
2013-05-23 07:06:52 PM
IamTomJoad:

And to anyone that says a simple road side sobriety test is a good measure of impairment they are seriously misinformed. The "tests" they put you thru have no guidelines for pass or fail but, rather are there to give cover to the officer before they require a breathalyzer.

****Not true. The one that does matter is when the light is shined on your eyes and told to move your pupils to the side without turning your head. The cops are looking to see if your eyes shake. That tells them everything they need to know about being impaired. Any other roadside tests are just evidence to back it up
 
2013-05-23 09:28:55 PM

Rueened: Any doper comes near me, they will farking die.


/this message brought to you by crippling alcoholism.
 
2013-05-23 10:27:06 PM

Dharma Bumstead: ****Not true. The one that does matter is when the light is shined on your eyes and told to move your pupils to the side without turning your head. The cops are looking to see if your eyes shake. That tells them everything they need to know about being impaired. Any other roadside tests are just evidence to back it up


They say that, but I've been told by a number of lawyers the only admissible part is if you turn your head to follow the light after being told not to.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report