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.

(UPI)   Man claims THC in his blood is from 'accidentally' eating spiked cake. BRILLIANT   (upi.com) divider line 30
    More: Spiffy, THC, Jordana Brewster, blood  
•       •       •

3313 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Dec 2013 at 8:21 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-07 08:25:02 AM
This happens a lot, actually. Idiots bake brownies, then they serve it to unsuspecting party guests. Assholes, to be sure.
 
2013-12-07 08:27:00 AM
So he was still driving intoxicated whether intrntional or not.

Book'm Danno
 
2013-12-07 08:28:24 AM
It's ok, the US gov patented THC so they know it's medicinal, which means they'll be forced to reschedule 'marihuana' any day now. Yup... any day now...

/tinyurl.com/1mn -->
 
2013-12-07 08:33:31 AM

scotchcrotch: So he was still driving intoxicated whether intrntional or not.

Book'm Danno


THIS
It's the American way.
 
2013-12-07 08:33:51 AM

scotchcrotch: So he was still driving intoxicated whether intrntional or not.

Book'm Danno


That is not how THC works.

I have no idea if he was intoxicated or not. Neither did the court, apparently.
 
2013-12-07 08:34:48 AM
As more and more states decrim/medicinal/legalize/etc there are going to be necessary changes to "drugged" driving laws.  Go to NORML.org and know the rules where you are.
 
2013-12-07 08:35:36 AM
I bet it was a GAY cake!!!
 
2013-12-07 08:43:33 AM
The cake is a lie.
 
2013-12-07 09:02:33 AM

Mirandized: THIS
It's the American way.


While I don't disagree that our drug policy in the US is pretty farked...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-07 09:04:16 AM

opiumpoopy: scotchcrotch: So he was still driving intoxicated whether intrntional or not.

Book'm Danno

That is not how THC works.

I have no idea if he was intoxicated or not. Neither did the court, apparently.


Are you suggesting the someone cannot be too high to drive while ingesting THC/Cannabinoids?  How exactly does it work?
 
2013-12-07 09:06:56 AM
I bet he used the Chewborka defence
 
2013-12-07 09:07:48 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: This happens a lot, actually. Idiots bake brownies, then they serve it to unsuspecting party guests. Assholes, to be sure.


I think I'd be a little suspicious if I went to a party and the host made brownies. Unless it was at Rachel Ray's house or something.
 
2013-12-07 09:16:55 AM
My parents were hippies back in the 60's. Actually, their term for their little tribe was "freaks", as they didn't see much value in the folks that had stopped bathing and wore colorful clothing and smoked so much shiatty Mexican weed that they were constantly walking around with a migraine. The "freaks" were folks who mostly had or were working on Ph.D's in shiat like physics, mathematics, anthropology and suchlike. Intelligent, hippie-like folks and not the dumbasses who were into crystal power and bizarre spirituality.

After my grandma died in the late 1970s and everyone was gathered in the old family house for a party and reunion bash, mom and my uncles made a huge batch of chocolate chip cookies. Half was the so-called Alice B. Tokeless (I heard later, that they were made with some really good hash) and the rest were for the kids. Guess which one my Uncle's rather dippy wife started munching on. She had been warned, and she had little experience with such things. One or two of these cookies were enough to frazzle you pretty good. I was 15, and ate one and was in a haze for most of the evening. Auntie had one, and got the munchies. So she ate several more, then started in on the homebrew beer that one of my stepdad's old buddies had brought. By midnight, she was having a rather bad reaction, and ended up going to the hospital to have her stomach pumped. I heard later that she had eaten over a dozen of the cookies and was convinced she was going to die from an overdose.

Good times, good times.
 
2013-12-07 09:24:03 AM

ozebb: Mirandized: THIS
It's the American way.

While I don't disagree that our drug policy in the US is pretty farked...

[i.imgur.com image 850x533]


I understood that the case was not in the US; I was snarking based on SCOTCHCROTCH's post and the fact that the American justice system seems to want to prosecute any and all.
 
2013-12-07 09:44:40 AM
Let them eat cake. YUMMY, YUMMY cake.
 
2013-12-07 09:46:11 AM
I was told there would be pie
 
2013-12-07 10:40:07 AM
Here in Okla, if you test positive at all for THC in your blood, you are impaired.  All it has to be is a trace.

/be careful out there kiddos.
 
2013-12-07 11:22:35 AM
White people problems
 
2013-12-07 11:25:10 AM

basemetal: Here in Okla, if you test positive at all for THC in your blood, you are impaired.  All it has to be is a trace.


THC is only detectable by a standard blood test for a few hours after consumption. So you probably would be, to some degree, impaired.

from NORML:

Blood Tests
Unlike urine tests, blood tests detect the active presence of THC in the bloodstream. In the case of smoked marijuana, THC peaks rapidly in the first few minutes after inhaling, often to levels above 100 ng/ml in blood plasma. It then declines quickly to single-digit levels within an hour. High THC levels are therefore a good indication that the subject has smoked marijuana recently.
 
2013-12-07 12:13:08 PM
 Like any medication if it impairs you, then you shouldn't be driving. Law enforcement's should be removing "IMPAIRED" drivers from the road, But, in my opinion, they should have to prove you are impaired with tests. And a number on a computer screen can't 100% confirm the driver is impaired.

Other tests must induce the suspect to manifest impairment signs. As equipment in the field we all know is bunky.

or something.
 
2013-12-07 12:27:24 PM

basemetal: Here in Okla, if you test positive at all for THC in your blood, you are impaired.  All it has to be is a trace.

/be careful out there kiddos.


In Georgia, suprisingly, that's not enough.   Marijuana falls under the "less safe" standard (as does prescription drugs), since, theoretically, it could have been legal for you to have inbibed it.  They must prove you were a "less safe" driver than one that has not consumed the intoxicant.
 
2013-12-07 12:42:08 PM
Swede here.... It's illegal in Sweden to just have traces of THC or any other drug in your blood at any time - not just behind the wheel. So it's Swedens version of "stop and frisk" I guess.

They can stop and search you for anything.

1. Hey, you look very calm, you must be on drugs!
2. You look very nervous, you must be on drugs!
3. You don't look nervous enough, you must be on drugs!
4. You sure talk a lot, you must be on drugs!
5. You are pretty quiet, you must be on drugs!
Etc. etc....
 
2013-12-07 12:45:44 PM
ApeShaft:

They can stop and search you for anything.


I'm calling borkshiat on that.
 
2013-12-07 12:47:19 PM
Indeed. I saw a gentleman hit a pole in Vancouver tonight. However I was traveling northbound and could not stop more than 25 seconds to ensure driver was safe and no one remained inside. Airbags had deployed and the van was on its side in the right lane. The "driver", after having crawled out, was standing in front of his vehicle peering at it sadly. I drove slowly onward now able to see the power pole half broken in the middle with wires hanging above the road ready to fall. Later on the radio I heard that the lines had fallen into the road. Only money seemed to have been harmed so I was not terribly concerned and avoided the road for the way back. Impaired driving is serious business. I'm not saying this guy was impaired but perhaps if we had more road checks here it would slow people down and catch more impaired. Maybe this incident would have been avoided.

/ctsb
 
2013-12-07 12:57:49 PM

Thudfark: ApeShaft:

They can stop and search you for anything.


I'm calling borkshiat on that.


It's true. It's called "ringa narkotikabrott". The only info I could find in English was Wikipedia:

"Since 1993, the police have had the legal right to take action against people they suspect of being under the influence of drugs even if they are not disturbing anyone. Many Swedish police officers have, since 1993, received training in how to recognize the signs and symptoms of being under the influence of drugs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden#Subsequent_policy _c hanges
 
2013-12-07 01:05:10 PM

ApeShaft: Thudfark: ApeShaft:

They can stop and search you for anything.


I'm calling borkshiat on that.

It's true. It's called "ringa narkotikabrott". The only info I could find in English was Wikipedia:

"Since 1993, the police have had the legal right to take action against people they suspect of being under the influence of drugs even if they are not disturbing anyone. Many Swedish police officers have, since 1993, received training in how to recognize the signs and symptoms of being under the influence of drugs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden#Subsequent_policy _c hanges


Well that makes more sense, still a bit over the top, but hey, socialisms. I though you meant anything when you said anything.
 
2013-12-07 01:10:58 PM

Thudfark: ApeShaft: Thudfark: ApeShaft:

They can stop and search you for anything.


I'm calling borkshiat on that.

It's true. It's called "ringa narkotikabrott". The only info I could find in English was Wikipedia:

"Since 1993, the police have had the legal right to take action against people they suspect of being under the influence of drugs even if they are not disturbing anyone. Many Swedish police officers have, since 1993, received training in how to recognize the signs and symptoms of being under the influence of drugs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden#Subsequent_policy _c hanges

Well that makes more sense, still a bit over the top, but hey, socialisms. I though you meant anything when you said anything.


But the cops use this law to make themselves seem more efficent when it comes to "solving crimes". They just stop the same people over and over again and by people I mean known pot smokers. They know that these people will have THC in their urine at any given time, so voila! Another succesful drug bust! It's pretty stupid.
 
2013-12-07 01:19:10 PM

ApeShaft: Thudfark: ApeShaft: Thudfark: ApeShaft:

They can stop and search you for anything.


I'm calling borkshiat on that.

It's true. It's called "ringa narkotikabrott". The only info I could find in English was Wikipedia:

"Since 1993, the police have had the legal right to take action against people they suspect of being under the influence of drugs even if they are not disturbing anyone. Many Swedish police officers have, since 1993, received training in how to recognize the signs and symptoms of being under the influence of drugs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden#Subsequent_policy _c hanges

Well that makes more sense, still a bit over the top, but hey, socialisms. I though you meant anything when you said anything.

But the cops use this law to make themselves seem more efficent when it comes to "solving crimes". They just stop the same people over and over again and by people I mean known pot smokers. They know that these people will have THC in their urine at any given time, so voila! Another succesful drug bust! It's pretty stupid.


Work smarter, not harder!
 
2013-12-07 04:36:15 PM

phillydrifter: It's ok, the US gov patented THC so they know it's medicinal, which means they'll be forced to reschedule 'marihuana' any day now. Yup... any day now...

/tinyurl.com/1mn -->


What are you yapping about?

I clicked your link and read every instance of the word patent.  Nowhere does it say the government ever patented THC.  I don't even believe you could patent something that forms naturally.  You could probably patent a way to extract or synthesize it.

I think you're probably just too high and heard some urban legend and believe it because you want to.
 
2013-12-08 04:20:57 PM
If I am not paying attention and I slam into the back of your car, that's bad and it's my fault.  If I smoke a joint then drive and I'm not paying attention and I slam into the back of your car, that's bad and it's my fault.  What's the difference? There isn't one it's just a spiteful escalation of the severity of the punishment as a tool to enforce fear and support prohibition.  Have you seen all those studies that show how much worse people are at driving after using marijuana? Me either, know why? Because when they do those studies it isn't what they find.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report