Harshing my mellow: pulled over for DUI with pot

[MillCreek]

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/r14/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/1123/Pot-smokers-arrested-for-DUI-A-record-high-in-Washington

Wait, what?

[RoadKingLarry]

I don't have too much of a problem with it.

[Perd Hapley]

Stop bogartin' the Cheetos.

[BlueStarLizzard]

  "It's like shooting fish in a barrel," he said. "It hits the kids of color the hardest." 

WTF? The whole artical is about stoned drivers and mentions teens towards the end, which is all very reasonable, but then ends with this.

What, do white kids not toke up in Washington or something?
It must be really diffrent on the west coast, because here on the east coast, the obvious stoners are white 9 times out of 10.

Seriously, the need to bring race into everything these days is just downright disturbing.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

WTF? The whole artical is about stoned drivers and mentions teens towards the end, which is all very reasonable, but then ends with this.

What, do white kids not toke up in Washington or something?
It must be really diffrent on the west coast, because here on the east coast, the obvious stoners are white 9 times out of 10.

Seriously, the need to bring race into everything these days is just downright disturbing.

the obvious stoners are white 9 times out of 10.


really? or does this speak to the demographics of you and your area/associates?

[Gowen]

They legalize a new drug and are surprised when they drive under the influence.  Like pot smokers are somehow more noble than common dunks.  We heard all the arguments when they were pushing legalization in Nevada.  Pot smokers aren't dangerous... except to a box of twinkies.

[BlueStarLizzard]

the obvious stoners are white 9 times out of 10.


really? or does this speak to the demographics of you and your area/associates?

Well, yes, it does some.

Mind, when I say obvious, I'm about folks who are making up for the fact their parents actually remember woodstock. Even the ones who never touch pot act stoned.
The black, hispanic and asian kids probably get high just as much, but they just arn't as blatantly obvious about.

If you want to talk about profiling on this topic, I'd think it would go the other direction on a racial basis.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Well, yes, it does some.

Mind, when I say obvious, I'm about folks who are making up for the fact their parents actually remember woodstock. Even the ones who never touch pot act stoned.
The black, hispanic and asian kids probably get high just as much, but they just arn't as blatantly obvious about.

If you want to talk about profiling on this topic, I'd think it would go the other direction on a racial basis.

born and raised in/near cville?  it changes when you leave there

[grampster]

"...new legal limit of 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood."

I don't have any idea what that measurement means, but THC remains in the bloodstream for several days.  Anyone who has ever smoked pot knows that smoking a few bowls or joints in an evening would not leave one impaired in any way the next day for example.  The buzz wears off fairly fast, but the THC can still be measured.  The above measurement might have nothing to do with impairment; only a way to manipulate statistics and arrest people and throw them into the money pit of the justice system.

[freakazoid]

How are they even testing for THC? It's not like you can take a breathalyzer for it and get immediate results.

[bedlamite]

"...new legal limit of 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood."

I don't have any idea what that measurement means, but THC remains in the bloodstream for several days.  Anyone who has ever smoked pot knows that smoking a few bowls or joints in an evening would not leave one impaired in any way the next day for example.  The buzz wears off fairly fast, but the THC can still be measured.  The above measurement might have nothing to do with impairment; only a way to manipulate statistics and arrest people and throw them into the money pit of the justice system.

It's metabolized compound (THC-COOH) stays for several days, but THC level spikes and drops within a few hours.



http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html

Summary: Interpreting Drug Tests in Light of DUID Accident Studies

    THC-COOH metabolite in urine (or blood) NOT correlated to accident risk!
    Presence of THC (only) in blood: LESS OR EQUAL TO RISK of alcohol at .05% (below legal DUI threshold)
    Blood THC ≥ 5 ng: risk COMPARABLE to DUI
    Blood THC ≤ 2 ng = NO increased risk
    THC + alcohol = HIGH DUI risk
    Stimulants (cocaine, amphetamine, etc) = MODERATE risk (~alcohol at .05%)

[Firethorn]

They legalize a new drug and are surprised when they drive under the influence.  Like pot smokers are somehow more noble than common dunks.  We heard all the arguments when they were pushing legalization in Nevada.  Pot smokers aren't dangerous... except to a box of twinkies.

Having watched COPS and such for some time, I feel the need to point out that they've driving under the influence of pot for a long time, legal or not.

It's metabolized compound (THC-COOH) stays for several days, but THC level spikes and drops within a few hours.

Looks like you'd be good in about 3 hours if you smoke it?

[230RN]

How are they even testing for THC? It's not like you can take a breathalyzer for it and get immediate results.

I wondered about that, too.  Seems to me you'd have to bring them to a medical facility for a blood or urine test, no?

[vaskidmark]

I wondered about that, too.  Seems to me you'd have to bring them to a medical facility for a blood or urine test, no?

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Pee test is no good until at least 4 hours after injestion - which means that you might not be impaired by the time the metabolites start showing up.

Remember, the charge is not driving in an impaired manner.  Dash cam video ought to be sufficient to convince a judge you were weaving or whatever it was that got the cop's attention.  But since "impaired" has been argued to be a subjective matter, we are now at the point where the crime is having used the prohibited item, regardless of how badly you drive or not.

And since THC is stored in fat cells and metabolized over an extended period (2-3 days for an occassional user to as much as 45 days for a regular user at "moderate" levels [whatever that is]) you could test positive long after the altered psychoactive episode.

What I'd like to see is a list of the actions that caused the cops to notice these drivers in the first place, and better yet dashcam video of the behavior.  I'm well aware that the courts allow pretextual stops based on "the officer's experience", but the pretext still needs to be valid in the first place.  In other words, that taillight had better be burned out to begin with.  Too many judges do not bother to confirm that the stop itself was nothing but a fishing expedition.

stay safe.

[HForrest]

The effects of alcohol on coordination and motor skills are well pronounced and objectively evident. Even an experienced drunk is going show significant, well defined symptoms of alcohol intoxication past a certain dose or blood concentration, no matter how much tolerance they have built up. Marijuana, on the other hand, primarily affects less significant receptors in the brain and causes effects that are mostly subjective and far less consistent than those of alcohol. It is definitely dangerous to drive while truly "intoxicated" from marijuana, but there is an exceptionally wide range of what could be considered as "intoxication" compared to other drugs, from person to person. There are countless immeasurable variables that markedly influence its effect on driving performance.

The idea of a blood level limit for THC is absurd. The system used by most states works just fine; if there is observable evidence that you are operating your motor vehicle unsafely or you appear intoxicated for definable and valid reasons, you can be arrested for DUI. In the case of accidents where intoxication is suspected and a blood draw is taken, THC levels are still obviously taken into consideration, just without a defined "legal limit". As is the case with most drugs, if I'm not mistaken.

Trying to compare marijuana with alcohol and act like they cause the same kind of impairment is ridiculous. Millions have been driving under the influence of marijuana since the 1960s, and there has never been a documented scourge of stoned drivers causing mass traffic fatalities, at least not anywhere near the level that's witnessed with other drugs.

[CNYCacher]

So, am I to understand that *before* they enacted a law that defined a blood level for THC, they were still blood testing for THC everyone pulled over for suspected DUI?

The author is careful to note that more people tested positive but doesn't mention anything about number of people who were tested. Has that increased or decreased?

In what is no doubt an obvious effort to make the "more people tested positive" statement meaningful, the author makes sure to mention that police are pulling over approximately the same amount of people suspected of DUI as in previous years. Simple statistics, right? Same number of people being pulled over, but higher number testing positive -> conclusion: more people are using and driving, right? That's one way to look at it. You have to assume that in previous years and today, everyone pulled over for suspected DUI was given a blood test for THC. Even if that is true (and I doubt it), then one is left to wonder why the increased number of drivers with THC in their system is not resulting in an increase in the number of people getting pulled over for DUI.

New headline: Increased number of drivers with THC in their system results in no increase in DUI stops.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

can only speak re local sop but here they draw blood if you request/demand it or if they suspect you are high on other than alcohol.often by court order.outa several hundred sticks only one did not result in an arrest.

damn phone

[K Frame]

In some states you can be charged for DUI if you're under the influence of OTC cold or allergy medication.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Pee test is no good until at least 4 hours after injestion - which means that you might not be impaired by the time the metabolites start showing up.

Remember, the charge is not driving in an impaired manner.  Dash cam video ought to be sufficient to convince a judge you were weaving or whatever it was that got the cop's attention.  But since "impaired" has been argued to be a subjective matter, we are now at the point where the crime is having used the prohibited item, regardless of how badly you drive or not.

And since THC is stored in fat cells and metabolized over an extended period (2-3 days for an occassional user to as much as 45 days for a regular user at "moderate" levels [whatever that is]) you could test positive long after the altered psychoactive episode.

What I'd like to see is a list of the actions that caused the cops to notice these drivers in the first place, and better yet dashcam video of the behavior.  I'm well aware that the courts allow pretextual stops based on "the officer's experience", but the pretext still needs to be valid in the first place.  In other words, that taillight had better be burned out to begin with.  Too many judges do not bother to confirm that the stop itself was nothing but a fishing expedition.

stay safe.

skid, while THC is highly lipid soluble, the plasma (blood) concentration of THC drops below the 5ng/mL threshold about three hours after smoking.  The same is true for the first psychoactive metabolite, 11-OH-THC.  It's true that THC-COOH may be detectable for much longer, it's also not psychoactive.  

[vaskidmark]

But nobody (except the user) cares if it is psychoactive or not.   It's proof that the accused violated the prohibitions of The War On Some Drugs.

Just try to argue the "it's not psychoactive" line against a charge of driving under the influence.  No need to bring a toothbrush - they will give you the first one free.

I do not know how it works currently, but back in the 90's we could not impose administrative sanctions on anybody testing positive for THC during the first 90 days of incarceration in the state prison system.  Normally it would metabolize down below the threshold level by the end of 30 days, but strenuous exercise after that could produce a spike over several days.  Does not mean we could not keep them in administrative segregation to reduce the opportunity to access contraband.

stay safe.

[grampster]

But nobody (except the user) cares if it is psychoactive or not.   It's proof that the accused violated the prohibitions of The War On Some Drugs.

Just try to argue the "it's not psychoactive" line against a charge of driving under the influence.  No need to bring a toothbrush - they will give you the first one free.

 

"It's true that THC-COOH may be detectable for much longer, it's also not psychoactive."

Doesn't matter in Michigan.  If they detect anything connected to "pot" no matter how long its been since you toked one up, you go to jail for DUI. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

But nobody (except the user) cares if it is psychoactive or not.   It's proof that the accused violated the prohibitions of The War On Some Drugs.

Just try to argue the "it's not psychoactive" line against a charge of driving under the influence.  No need to bring a toothbrush - they will give you the first one free.

I do not know how it works currently, but back in the 90's we could not impose administrative sanctions on anybody testing positive for THC during the first 90 days of incarceration in the state prison system.  Normally it would metabolize down below the threshold level by the end of 30 days, but strenuous exercise after that could produce a spike over several days.  Does not mean we could not keep them in administrative segregation to reduce the opportunity to access contraband.

stay safe.

in the 80's they could deny work release or revoke it if you popped. you did have a shot at appeal if you could document losing weight and you were a pothead on record.  not on record they presumed you consumed inside

[Sergeant Bob]

"It's true that THC-COOH may be detectable for much longer, it's also not psychoactive."

Doesn't matter in Michigan.  If they detect anything connected to "pot" no matter how long its been since you toked one up, you go to jail for DUI. 

Is that new, as in, since the Medical Marijuana law was passed? Wouldn't surprise me if it was. The powers that be can't stand the fact that some people are afflicted with Reefer Madness©