 |
| Bail Bonds Guys |
| This scene, unfortunately, is likely to play out many times in Washington state with legal marijuana and a strict new DUI rule. Here's how you can improve your chances |
 |
| THC Finder |
 |
| Anthony Martinelli |
| Anthony Martinelli of marijuana legalization group Sensible Washington wrote this piece for Toke of the Town |
Why not just say something like "don't be a person of color" or "don't listen to reggae"? It's all true, but this law is an evil piece of shit that gives pig cops even more power to be dildos. There are flat out too many laws period, and the government as a whole loses credibility with the people everytime they pass allow this type of garbage to slip through. Our system is broken. Term limits and campaign finance reform is the only way to solve this from the root!!
Ok a few things. First, "Never drive with a cannabis friendly bumper sticker"? Umm. I can see the possible efficacy of this but still, it's a case of relinquishing 1st amendment freedoms. Second, it is not obvious of the above graphic has been photo-shoped or not. This is unprofessional as it misleads readers into thinking the state has created these signs. Have they?
JUSTICE DOUGLAS BREITHAUPT v. ABRAM"As I understand today's decision, there would be a violation of due process if the blood had been withdrawn from the accused after a struggle with the police. But the sanctity of the person is equally violated and his body assaulted where the prisoner is incapable of offering resistance as it would be if force were used to overcome his resistance. In both cases, evidence is used to convict a man which has been obtained from him on an involuntary basis. I would not draw a line between the use of force, on the one hand, and trickery, subterfuge, or any police technique which takes advantage of the inability of the prisoner to resist, on the other. Nor would I draw a line between involuntary extraction of words from his lips, the involuntary extraction of the contents of his stomach, and the involuntary extraction of fluids of his body when the evidence obtained is used to convict him. Under our system of government, police cannot compel people to furnish the evidence necessary to send them to prison...And, if the decencies of a civilized state are the test, it is repulsive to me for the police to insert needles into an unconscious person in order to get the evidence necessary to convict him, whether they find the person unconscious, give him a pill which puts him to sleep, or use force to subdue him. The indignity to the individual is the same in one case as in the other, for in each is his body invaded and assaulted by the police who are supposed to be the citizen's protector."
The SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY RULED ON FORCED BLOOD TESTS. THIS IS A DANGEROUS CLAUSE IN THIS LAW. JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT IS ONLY ILLEGAL FOR COPS TO TAKE YOUR BLOOD IF YOU PHYSICALLY RESIST THE BLOOD DRAW. YOU WILL GET YOUR @$$ KICKED, AND THEY WILL PROBABLY TAKE IT ANYWAYS. BUT THE ONLY WAY FOR IT TO BE ILLEGAL IS IF YOU PHYSICALLY RESIST.
I'm surprised smoke screen isn't listed here as a tip. if the cops pull you over after following you and being exposed to all that secondhand smoke coming from your clam baked car, wouldn't they also be driving while impaired? double standard much piggies?
Really, you lost, I-502 won, stop your lying. Checkpoints in Washington are illegal! Gosh, and an ignorant MD posting too. Active THC only stays in your blood system up to 8 days, and active THC in the blood drops rapidly after smoking. Someone that smokes like the "doctor" talks about would drop below 5ng in 5-6 hours. Of course, his "daily" user seems to change in his sentence from daily to 2 times a day 3 days a week. That particular user would probably be below the limit in 3-4 hours. And, either one would be way below 5ng the next morning. This study I'm quoting was done in 2005, and you can find the link to the study on the NORML site, in case you think I'm making it up. Just like carrying a six pack of beer is not a legal "probable cause" for a breath test, carrying a legal amount of pot will not be probable cause either. I wouldn't leave any roaches in the ashtray however. Erratic driving will be probable cause though, especially if you fail the intoxication tests they would give you.
And, as a side note, the .08 DUI provision for alcohol had no home methods for testing when it came to be, and for heavy drinkers who may not even feel or be impaired at .08 it is not right. Just as with heavy medical users. And, as with the alcohol user, the pot smoker has to err on the side of safety.
Several of the precautions you've stated here are good things and they should be used, because you never know when you'll meet a cop with a hard on, and if he feels like it, he can make up stuff about you driving erratically. So, don't give him a reason by carrying your weed out in the open. But, the decent cop is not going to roust you for anything but real probable cause.
1 Like
Active THC can be detected at substantial levels a month into abstinence, my friend.
There has been a lot of research since your reference that was performed 10 years ago and published 7 years ago. Check out the NIDA study on NAW's website. It is clear.
Karschner 2009
My friend, you are the one that is appearing ignorant.
@drgilmobleyIt is not clear, Karschner's 2009 report appears to be a 7 day study from all the sites I can locate it at. Here's the main statement:
Nine chronic users (36%) had no measurable THC during 7 days of cannabis abstinence; 16 had at least one positive THC > or =0.25 ng/ml, but not necessarily on the first day. On day 7, 6 full days after entering the unit, six participants still displayed detectable THC concentrations [mean +/- standard deviation (SD), 0.3 +/- 0.7 ng/ml] and all 25 had measurable carboxy-metabolite (6.2 +/- 8.8 ng/ml). The highest observed THC concentrations on admission (day 1) and day 7 were 7.0 and 3.0 ng/ml, respectively. Interestingly, five participants, all female, had THC-positive whole blood specimens over all 7 days.
Please note that it appears also to be talking about "chronic" users. Nine of which had NO measurable THC at all during the 7 days. I say it's not clear, because before his final statement, he adds in a completely unrelated statement about carboxy-metabolite levels. At least, the statement had no apparent connection with the whole paragraph.
I read something you said about using the metabolite as a part of a formula for testing. Using some formula for trying to assess real impairment might be something to research and introduce as an update to the new law. If a valid formula could be created. Now, with I-502, we may be able to check it out.
However, Karschner's testing is not in line with what you said. Chronic users would be users that smoke every day. And not in line with the statements you made. Of these 25 chronic users, 9 of which had 0 percent detectable THC during the whole testing period, showed that the highest reading on day one was 7ng, and on the 7th day was 3ng. That may have been just one user.
In the first place, this article you're defending smells of fish. As I previously said, DUI Checkpoints are illegal by state constitution in Washington. Why start the article with a lie?
I have seen absolutely no report that supports your claim that "active THC" may be present in the blood for up to a full month. Karschner's report appears to be a 7 day study, andwithout a better detail of how many had what levels, I'm suspicious that it's one CHRONIC user that may have cheated and snuck some form of cannabis in. Plus, research presented by NIDA is somewhat questionable in the first place, they are unlikely to side by any report that might lose them their jobs. If you doubt that, re-read that first line where it says that "...16 of the patients had positive readings, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ON THE FIRST DAY." How did they read negative on the first day and positive later on? It appears that at least one or more of the group was cheating. Bad science!
One of the things the passage of I-502 hopefully will accomplish is the ability for research labs in Washington to study the whole issue much better. Which they could not do. As well as prove to the rest of the states and maybe the world that legalizing marijuana is the best thing to do.
Also, according to your statement:
For the record, it appears that a daily regular user of cannabis that smokes at least twice daily for 3 consecutive days in one week will never be able to drive legally as their ng/mg of THC in the blood would likely never fall below 5.
(I'm not sure how you can say "daily" and then talk about only 3 days (consecutive) in a week. You "doctors" need to work on your terminology.) Your statement above is an outright lie, confirmed by the Karschner report you stated as your rebuttal to me. In the Karschner report even the worst CHRONIC patient could drive on day 7 and probably day 6 or sooner. The report fails to mention when the highest reading fell below 5ng.
You need to review your "facts" "doctor"...
@gigglyone See comment above: Karschner herself states that the active THC measured is only "the tip of the iceberg," as the level likely fell two orders of magnitude prior to quantification sitting in plastic tubed for 7 years. Quess u missed that point, didn't pull the reference or bother to interview Karschner did you? That's why she uses the adjective "substantial" to describe the levels lasting weeks into sustained abstinence. This is the perfect example of NAW and the NAWbots having no clue what the hell they are talking about! No one with ANY medical expertise participated in drafting this law ..... And idiots like you, Giddyone abound with gross misinformation. Pathetic.
1 Like
It is a very simple statement, my friend.
A daily smoker, smoking at least twice on three consecutive days in one week would likely not have their level fall below 5 ng.
THAT's the frequency that would build up active THC to the level that it would NOT fall below 5 ng ever.
Once daily will not cause a level above 1-2 ng the next morning, or 12 hours later. Rest assured, evening toker's levels will likely be zero by the next morning!
BUT twice daily smoking for three days a week and once a day otherwise seems to push a person over that threshold keeping them around 5 ng continually.
Call if you need further explanation. It's really quite simple. And, can you possibly be a bit respectful?
Thanks,
Gil Mobley, MD
cell 417-848-6100
@gigglyone You are as wrong as wrong can get. I get my healthcare at the VA here in Denver. I just turned 50 and had all the usual tests done...like any other 50 yr. old. This called for me to fast for 24 hours. I also abstained from my Medical Cannabis. Test results on my blood still showed:
Test Name: CANNABINOIDS
Result: >400 Critical High Units: ng/mL Reference Range: 0-50
I copied this directly from https://www.myhealth.va.gov/index.html where registered veterans can track their tests/care.
This comment has been deleted
(it appears to me that this result is carboxy-THC in urine with the 50 ng screening threashold for all cannabinoids, confirmation of THC-cooh at 15 ng, the standard for most work place screening programs and Federally regulated screens.)
Good words, Anthony. Great work too, man.
For the record, it appears that a daily regular user of cannabis that smokes at least twice daily for 3 consecutive days in one week will never be able to drive legally as their ng/mg of THC in the blood would likely never fall below 5.
However, if you are under 21, active THC may be present in the blood for up to a full month after sustained abstinence. In other words, if you are under 21 and a regular smoker, you need to wait a full month before you drive.
Nice work, NAW.
Gil Mobley, MD
Fellow, American College of Emergency Physicians
Diplomate, American Board of Emergency Medicine
Certified, Medical Review Officer, MROCC
Medical Director, Dr. Gil's ImMEDiate Care and Occupational Health Center, Springfield, MO
cell 417-848-6100
For perspective: I would like to remind readers that JFK consumed a cocktail of morphine and amphetamines during the Cuban missile crisis. The opiate for his chronic pain, the speed to keep him up and focused through it all. It is said Kennedy won because Khrushchev blinked first. Hell, Kennedy was too wired to blink. We won the Cuban missile crisis because our president was high on narcotics.
I heard the test is over $700.00. 20 tests would be the cost of a new squad car. I see a lot of challenges against the testing procedure in courts soon. Bottom line, cannabis is no longer a low hanging fruit for law enforcement. It just got a lot more expensive to enforce.
1 Like
Generally, MedTox and other drug screening labs would charge a medical provider around $180 - $350 for the test. They usually charge the patient $350 or more!
I've offered the medical test at cost to validated medical cannabis patients wanting to know their levels. They cost me $136 a piece because of the huge volume of screens I've done for 25 years now.
Hope that helps.
Gil Mobley, MD
drgilmobley@gmail.com
Hi Dr,
One question for you. I keep hearing this argument of Active THC and passive THC. Proponents of 502 are saying the blood test only tests for Active THC? Is there any truth to this statement? Is there actually a difference? Thank you for your assistance. I've been trying to digest all of this for the past month or so and it seems like there is a lot of conflicting information out there.
@justin @mdubya A profound precedent indeed! A citizen's initiated & approved refetendum for cannabis legalization that's tied to a DUIC law favored and promoted by law enforcement IS a bad precedent that other states will surely follow. BTW, why all the mean spirited attacks? I'm just trying to educate; something sorely missing from this whole 502 DUI focus.
Oh, did they legalize as well and grab national headlines like Colorado or Wash? All eyes are on us, as we are setting precedent for the nation. Fact.
Oh, your a board certified MD with decades of experience like the guy you are arguing with?
No precedent either! My bad spelling, point is, stop with the misinformation. "Get a clue!" Drama queen. @drgilmobley @mdubya
Wrong again there doctor...
"Now, we have a real bad law setting precedent for the entire nation."
Mobley
There are already at least 9, as in nine, states that have set precedent for zero tolerance laws. No president here. Get your facts straight.. @drgilmobley @mdubya
Oh man, you've really opened a can of worms!
This issue is HUGE!
Yes, 502 allows for testing of ACTIVE THC only and that is the only molecule that is psychoactive. It rapidly becomes metabolized to carboxy-THC and is inactive. (THC-COOH)
The inactive metabolite lasts for a month or more in regular users because of fat deposits.
The active THC rapidly drops to levels well below 10 ng with in a few hours of smoking but can linger for weeks too, but at levels under the 5 ng cut off.
NAW has excluded the inactive THC from the formula that at first blush seems reasonable because it is NOT psychoactive at all.
However, any drug screening specialist understands that it is absolutely essential to include the inactive form in order to distinguish the regular users with low levels of active THC that would not cause impairment from those infrequent users that would be impaired at low levels.
In other words, had NAW actually allowed the inclusion of THC-COOH into the formula as to if there was likely impairment, I nor anyone would have absolutely no issues with that DUI provision.
Unfortunately, the author of 502 had absolutely no medical scientific input what-so-ever and have avoided specific questions as to how or who wrote the law. They simply did not do their homework or even consult a MRO specialist. (drug screening specialist certified for US gov't interpretations.)
NAW quotes Dr.Grotenherman frequently. It was his testimony to Colorado that totally nixed this same DUI provision!
He says it best in his testimony to the Colorado legislature:
"If you base your test only on THC and take for example a limit of 5 ng/ml you will miss many occasional users with a lower concentration who are actually impaired, and find several heavy users as impaired who are indeed not impaired. This model can be improved by measuring concentrations of THC-COOH, which are high in heavy users and very low in occasional users."
(Odd, NAW would not include such a profound statement from the main scientist they quote on the website and neglect his suggestions to make the testing valid!)
NAW flat out misrepresented the facts and even after they learned of the faulty provisions they continued to deny the importance of THC-COOH inclusion into the formula. They actually touted the exclusion of that as good!!!!!! Such bald faced lies!!!
The person that wrote the DUI provision of 502 simply did not know what the hell they were doing, my friend. There would have been no credible opposition to 502 if they had done their homework.
Now, we have a real bad law setting precedent for the entire nation.
Sad.
Hope that helps.
Call if you need more clarification.
Great question! Thanks.
Gil Mobley, MD
417-848-6100
@killerbud420 Ok so marijuana is legal...why cant we grow 1 plant in our home legally??
Of course, it's typical for bureaucrats, even advocate ones, to not to have wanted this to pass. Their reasoning to keep marijuana illegal was because of the DUI law. So the bureaucrat advocates wanted to deny you the very freedom that they pretend to fight for: to legally posses marijuana. Fortunately, they failed at their attempt to keep marijuana criminalized. You see what they do? They pretend to be on your side while voting against you, "for your own good!". Their reasoning is flawed Why? Because it has ALWAYS been illegal to drive impaired, and judging impairment has always been at the discretion of the police. So the only thing that has changed, is the definition of the amount of THC that defines clinical impairment.. People will still be pulled over for weaving, crossing lanes, speeding, and if the police see or smell alcohol or marijuana, it will most likely result in suspicion and further action. Duh?. Definitely, the level of THC needs to be changed with scientific evidence and common sense. This is the second step.I do agree ... " we will work vigorously on making a change to this policy" and efforts to fight Schedule I classification. This is what is needed now. Making marijuana legal under state law is a huge victory and FIRST essential step, and I regret that some wanted to keep marijuana illegal for you for, most likely, years to come, as they tie up the courts with efforts to repeal the impairment issue.So, get over yourselves, marijuana was voted legal, and you failed to deny all of us that right to posses. so time to get to work on changing the impairment definitions.
@justin "just fix the DUI provision"? 14 years later the medical cannabis law has yet to be fixed in Wa. Get a clue.
Well Mobley, I pray you are not as sloppy a doctor as you are at "quotes." Show where I said "just fix the DUI provision"...you can't. Why? Because you are either lying or quoting someone else.
I said "time to get to work on changing the impairment definitions" in reference to, and in favor of the authors of the article who said, "we will work vigorously on making a change to this policy." Huge difference there. Of course, you are on record as opposing 501 for the DUI myth, and I am in total agreement, but that is where we part ways, as you are, in essence, a prohibitionist by voting against the legalization issue, under the guise of -it's for your own good mentality
Why do I say guise?
Because I believe that you are a hypocrite, as you DID say this...
"As a Medical Review Officer I interpret thousands of drug screens a year for over-the-road (OTR) drivers for such companies as UPS, FedEx and Walmart. There are certain prohibited drugs that drivers can't have in their system and if they show up in the urine then they've got some explanation to do."
Gee doctor, perhaps it's you that has "got some explanation to do." Nobody forced you to do this, did they? Well did they? It is your choice to implicate others and use their drug screens against them, or did someone force you under threat? How many marijuana users lives have you helped ruin as a "Medical Review Officer" (snitch for the feds)? "Due no harm doctor" or did you think well, someones got to do it, if I didn't someone else will?
So, $200? per recommendation must be quite a lucrative business! And how much do you make reporting marijuana in the urine, to the feds? Hmmmm? I'm not sure that "recreational" use would not affect the bottom line. hmmmm.
@justin Well, first of all Washington State's medical marijuana law is so screwed up that "first do no harm" certainly did coming to play! Any practitioner would be crazy to continue authorizations in this climate. After 13 years the wall remains a joke! It continually puts patients and legal jeopardy. For your information I haven't done any authorizations in well over a year not planning to ever resume that service, I'm very sorry to say. Perhaps I should point out at this juncture that I am the only practitioner in the United States offering to post accident or random drug screen donors the option of voluntarily having their's blood tested for active THC to prove there's no chance of impairment when the inactive metabolite shows up on a quick urine dip. It's the only just way to conscientiously test for substance-abuse related impairment in the workplace. I've saved countless individuals their jobs pioneering this judicious way of drug screening. I present this concept this weekend to the Medical Review Officer conference sponsored in Atlanta by the College of occupational and environmental medicine. It is my hope that this trend will catch on throughout the industry. Thanks for the opportunity to address your concerns.
Thanks for playing. Your comments read like they're paid content. Do you work for Kevin Sabet?
How about the glaringly obvious steps:
1. Don't drive like you're impaired i.e. dangerously fast/slow, swerving, crossing the center-line
2. Don't break any traffic laws
And you're golden.
Seriously, if the police can't pull you over and investigate impairment, then the rest of the points don't matter, follow the laws and you can reek of weed, you don't need to peel off your Bob Marley bumper sticker, and everybody is happy.
"Possessing even a gram is enough probable cause for an officer to search you, and test your blood"
WRONG! The probable cause is not possession, the probable cause to search you and test your blood is your erratic/dangerous driving or violation of traffic laws.
Yowch, yall are still spewing your scare tactics even after an 11% spread walloping in favor of 502.
1 Like
@senormisterioso hahahaha ...Dude as of Aug 1 2012... the police can forcefully take your blood if you decline a blood test.
1 Like
@justin no they have not....you could refuse a blood test...they would just punch a hole in the drivers license... voiding it. Now... if the police officer has the proper medical training he can take your blood on site...You have no say so
Ever heard of a taillight out?
Great law, you are so proud of it, you have to hide from it.
Colorado passed with no DUI and a Home Grow, that vindicates every thing the anit-502 crowd said. It would have walked in anyway. We did not need to make concessions.
502 is Bad Law and it Sure Did Pass.
