Baron23
Well-Known Member
Yeah man....put a cow catcher on the front of that thing and get out there!!
Last edited:
Driving whilst high
- Thread starter bluenavey00
- Start date
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I've had the joy of going to traffic court for running a red light and arguing my case in front of the judge AND policeman who ticketed me. A lawyer friend explained to me that if I argued I didn't break the law it would come down to my word against the policeman and I'd lose. The trick was to prove the policeman couldn't tell if I had broken the law. The lawyer told me:
- Never ask a question you don't know the answer to already.
- Ask your questions in a sequence so that each question locks in the answer to the question before it.
- If you can sequence the questions so that the policeman and the prosecuting attorney can't figure out where you're going till you get there that's the holy grail but you'll probably still lose.
I asked the policeman:
- If he was parked adjacent to the diner and on the right? He answered 'Yes'.
- Were you facing forward? He answered 'Yes'.
- Was the start of the intersection slightly behind you? He answered 'Yes but I could plainly see the light'.
- Could you tell what color the light was when I entered the intersection? He truthfully answered 'No' because by already answering where he was parked he locked himself into all he could tell was the color of the light as I exited the intersection and not when I entered it.
- Last question was...based on your positioning could the light have been green when I entered the intersection? This was a notoriously fast changing light. The prosecuting attorney leaned over to the policeman and I knew I had them. The policeman answered 'No' and the prosecuting attorney immediately said they were not interested in pursuing this further.
The judge told me and the courtroom that if it had come down to my word against the policeman's he would have taken the policeman's word, not mine. He then asked me if I had anything else I wanted to say. I said "Yes, I'd like to thank the officer for his honesty". And I meant it.
As I was leaving two families asked me to help them argue the same intersection for the same red light and officer. I handed them the questions I had written out in advance and suggested they ask them in the same order.
For what it's worth....I did enter the intersection just as the light turned from green to yellow and it was red when I exited the intersection.
- Never ask a question you don't know the answer to already.
- Ask your questions in a sequence so that each question locks in the answer to the question before it.
- If you can sequence the questions so that the policeman and the prosecuting attorney can't figure out where you're going till you get there that's the holy grail but you'll probably still lose.
I asked the policeman:
- If he was parked adjacent to the diner and on the right? He answered 'Yes'.
- Were you facing forward? He answered 'Yes'.
- Was the start of the intersection slightly behind you? He answered 'Yes but I could plainly see the light'.
- Could you tell what color the light was when I entered the intersection? He truthfully answered 'No' because by already answering where he was parked he locked himself into all he could tell was the color of the light as I exited the intersection and not when I entered it.
- Last question was...based on your positioning could the light have been green when I entered the intersection? This was a notoriously fast changing light. The prosecuting attorney leaned over to the policeman and I knew I had them. The policeman answered 'No' and the prosecuting attorney immediately said they were not interested in pursuing this further.
The judge told me and the courtroom that if it had come down to my word against the policeman's he would have taken the policeman's word, not mine. He then asked me if I had anything else I wanted to say. I said "Yes, I'd like to thank the officer for his honesty". And I meant it.
As I was leaving two families asked me to help them argue the same intersection for the same red light and officer. I handed them the questions I had written out in advance and suggested they ask them in the same order.
For what it's worth....I did enter the intersection just as the light turned from green to yellow and it was red when I exited the intersection.
Aimless Ryan
Came to read about grinders; fucked combustion
OK, keep believing that'll help you when a cop has already decided you are unworthy of any human respect, simply because you are walking down a road with a large backpack, which you have spent the last 5 1/2 months carrying from Santa Monica, California to Indiana; wearing a bright, reflective safety vest. Minding your own business the whole time.
In the police report, the asshole who abducted me and put me in jail for 72 hours didn't even bother to mention what law I may have broken; perhaps because I didn't break any laws.
http://aimlessryan.blogspot.com/2011/01/land-of-free-part-i.html?m=1
Last edited:
Never said that I did believe that. I'v lived as a vagabond myself, although not on the scale that you do. Crap like you have experienced combined with advancing age and declining health are why I have not done so in a long time, lol.
Aimless Ryan
Came to read about grinders; fucked combustion
Don't worry about it. I am incredibly stressed out by other things right now. I actually read that entire story for the first time in several years. I enjoyed it.
kellya86
Herb gardener...
Iv just began researching the UK drug drive laws in detail... and I'm shocked...
It's basically impossible to have less than 2mcg/l in your system...
Yet there is a much higher limit for heroin or ketamine for example...maybe I'm not understanding it properly yet...
There is even a limit for lsd....
Now iv had my fair share of trips in my life, so im not anti lsd, but surely that should have a zero limit.. ???
Anyway I'm trying to figure out what's in my blood at any one time, and I'm struggling...
So if I vape 0.5g a night at about 20%thc.
So that's 100mg of thc in me, right?
So that's 10000mcg of thc, correct?
And the limit is 2mcg/l of blood...
Surely this is completely unachievable????
Edit:- here are the UK limits in mcg...
It's basically impossible to have less than 2mcg/l in your system...
Yet there is a much higher limit for heroin or ketamine for example...maybe I'm not understanding it properly yet...
There is even a limit for lsd....
Now iv had my fair share of trips in my life, so im not anti lsd, but surely that should have a zero limit.. ???
Anyway I'm trying to figure out what's in my blood at any one time, and I'm struggling...
So if I vape 0.5g a night at about 20%thc.
So that's 100mg of thc in me, right?
So that's 10000mcg of thc, correct?
And the limit is 2mcg/l of blood...
Surely this is completely unachievable????
Edit:- here are the UK limits in mcg...
- Benzoylecgonine (a cocaine metabolite) 50
- Clonazepam 50
- Cocaine 10
- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis) 2
- Diazepam 550
- Flunitrazepam 300
- Ketamine 20
- Lorazepam 100
- Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) 1
- Methadone 500
- Methylamphetamine 10
- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)10
- 6-Monoacetylmorphine (Heroin) 5
- Morphine 80
- Oxazepam 300
- Temazepam 1000
Last edited:
King_Bob
Well-Known Member
Very interesting interview with Marijuana lawyer Kirk Tousaw.
https://nowtoronto.com/lifestyle/ca...rned-about-trudeau-s-le/#.WQwG2lp5utg.twitter
Some other stuff that seemed troubling to me was related to driving limits – nanogram limits and the idea of saliva testing.
It's another one where you have to just sit back and say this stuff is not really enforceable. Certainly not enforceable in any kind of fair manner. Number one, the idea that the Charter is going to allow police to engage in random, suspicion-less drug testing I think is unlikely. I just think that it's not going to survive constitutional challenge. Even if you did, the next question is what evidence is yielded. At the end of the day, in my opinion, the evidence of how many nanograms per millilitre of THC metabolite you have in your blood is not particularly relevant to the issue of whether or not your ability to drive was impaired. So what you have is a test that’s producing evidence that is irrelevant to the real issue and the real crime of driving while impaired.
When you have something that encroaches on people's freedom and privacy in a significant way, that yields no relevant evidence to the underlying question, “was that person impaired while driving?”, it just looks like a real mess that can't survive the first set of challenges.
And oh by the way, the nanogram per millilitre limit is so shockingly low that you could have consumed cannabis a week ago – or two weeks ago – and still test over the 2 nanogram per millilitre limit. That again speaks to the irrelevance of the evidence that's been gathered by these highly intrusive methods.
https://nowtoronto.com/lifestyle/ca...rned-about-trudeau-s-le/#.WQwG2lp5utg.twitter
Some other stuff that seemed troubling to me was related to driving limits – nanogram limits and the idea of saliva testing.
It's another one where you have to just sit back and say this stuff is not really enforceable. Certainly not enforceable in any kind of fair manner. Number one, the idea that the Charter is going to allow police to engage in random, suspicion-less drug testing I think is unlikely. I just think that it's not going to survive constitutional challenge. Even if you did, the next question is what evidence is yielded. At the end of the day, in my opinion, the evidence of how many nanograms per millilitre of THC metabolite you have in your blood is not particularly relevant to the issue of whether or not your ability to drive was impaired. So what you have is a test that’s producing evidence that is irrelevant to the real issue and the real crime of driving while impaired.
When you have something that encroaches on people's freedom and privacy in a significant way, that yields no relevant evidence to the underlying question, “was that person impaired while driving?”, it just looks like a real mess that can't survive the first set of challenges.
And oh by the way, the nanogram per millilitre limit is so shockingly low that you could have consumed cannabis a week ago – or two weeks ago – and still test over the 2 nanogram per millilitre limit. That again speaks to the irrelevance of the evidence that's been gathered by these highly intrusive methods.
Why not approach it from a more practical level? Let medical users take a blind (by which I mean the tester is unaware) driving test while medicated. If they can pass the same driving test while medicated that everyone has to pass to get their license then they should be allowed to drive while medicated, with a rebuttable presumption that they are not impaired, in the legal sense. So if the authorities want to claim impairment they would need other evidence beyond some chem test to back it up. Like the field tests. Or some other evidence of ACTUAL impairment.
Lots of logisics to work out but it makes more sense than a one size fits all solution when the fact is that there isn't a shred of actual science. Seems like a reasonable middle ground to measure impairment by measuring impairment rather than making up arbitrary standards that have nothing to do with impairment.
Lots of logisics to work out but it makes more sense than a one size fits all solution when the fact is that there isn't a shred of actual science. Seems like a reasonable middle ground to measure impairment by measuring impairment rather than making up arbitrary standards that have nothing to do with impairment.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Driving tests are a joke in the USA, as evidenced by the many people you see every day with a driver's license and not a fucking clue what they are doing behind the wheel.....all IMO, of course! LOL
Aimless Ryan
Came to read about grinders; fucked combustion
When you use a chair to get around, it's very frustrating how many people don't understand that motor vehicles are supposed to stop at the very obvious solid white line; not completely beyond that line, straddling the crosswalk.
nomadicsoul34
Well-Known Member
I feel your pain buddy ...ive done extensive research into this area myself.
Youve prob seen my posts in here if you havent take a look.
Its 2ng per LITRE of blood. Not your entire body.
Plus factor in a half life for thc in blood of roughly 1.5 to 2 hours.
so 50ng becomes 25ng in 2 hours
25ng becomes 12.5ng after another 2 hours.
on and on.
Essentially bloods should be clear after 12 hours.
The problems for very heavy long time smokers will be THC in the blood that is being released from fat stores which in studies has shown to take you over the limit without even smoking.
Try micro dosing the less you put in the less there is to ever show up in bloods and less time it takes to clear.
kellya86
Herb gardener...
Has it been proven that thc is released from fat stores????
I thought this was still unproven, yet I do believe it to be true...
I have my consuption at about 0.3 to 0.4 a day...
Not exactly mega dosing as it is...
Would be interested in getting myself tested to see what sort of levels exist in my body...
Iv not had a break in over 10 years...
I manage my tolerance to avoid breaks...
biohacker
H.R.E.A.M
Not sure if it's exactly THC, but rather metabolites. I'm 5 weeks cannabis free and still failing self administered piss tests, and sweating like a bitch during the first half of my sleep nightly still.
Surely i'd fail a saliva test with flying colours!
C No Ego
Well-Known Member
THC has a half life of 5 seconds once it's been heated/decarboxylated and then fired through cannabinoid receptors... latent amounts of thc that did not make it into receptor signalling will store in fat... that's the difference in our bodies own endocannabinoids and exogenous cannabinoids... we synthesize from liquids endocannabinoids on demand when receptor signalling is needed and we do not store endocannabinoids... when exo cannabinoids are introduced they will go into fat storage as our bodies do not have any storage abilities for those on demand molecules... the only storage we need for making them endogenously is to have plenty of arachodonic acid in you at all times from your chosen diet... arachadonic acid comes from omega fats that we must consume as we do not make them in us but synthesize those fats naturally after consumption to form arachodonic acid
Not sure if it's exactly THC, but rather metabolites. I'm 5 weeks cannabis free and still failing self administered piss tests, and sweating like a bitch during the first half of my sleep nightly still.
Surely i'd fail a saliva test with flying colours!
I know an older guy who smoked a quarter a day for 20 years... he had to go clean for meds and after 90 days still pissed dirty... he went to a sauna and sweat out a lot... afterwards he finally pissed clean
nomadicsoul34
Well-Known Member
Hmm ..dont quote me on this but i remember reading that chronic smokers whatever that means could have as much as 5ng in their blood for several days after. This was one of the critisms of volume testing vs sobriety testing. i dont see 0.3 as chronic but thats purely subjective.
Blood tests for prosecution in the UK look for active THC only. They dont care about metabolites as that would clearly not stand up in court.
Last edited by a moderator:
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
STRONG CORRELATION TO IMPAIRMENT
Compounds that are present in a person’s blood are always present in their saliva. Saliva tests measure the compound of a drug known as the parent compound: the psychoactive element of the drug. Detection of the parent compound in saliva indicates that the drug has entered the blood stream. Higher levels of the parent compound indicate higher levels of the drug contained within the body. This means that saliva levels can be used to measure impairment.
In contrast, urine tests do not measure the parent compound, they measure the by-product compounds known as "metabolites", which do not correspond with impairment levels.
ELIMINATE ADULTERATION
Urine testing is incredibly easy to cheat, beat, or otherwise falsify. Such techniques involve adulterants that interfere with the test results or take advantage of the opportunity to cheat due to the privacy required when collecting a urine sample which is not the case with oral fluid.
All oral fluid drug tests are administered under supervised observation, making concealed tampering with the test sample virtually impossible. We have tested a wide range of adulterants that are available on the market and have not found any that can interfere with an oral fluid test when properly conducted.
Edit
Here is my source for the above info. @nomadicsoul34
Oral Fluid vs Urine — Forensic Fluids Laboratories
Forensic Fluids Laboratories › oral-v-urine
Why Choose Oral Fluid versus Urine Drug Testing? Oral fluid testing can detect drugs immediately after the most recent use and up to 4 days later. ... When comparing saliva drug tests vs urine drug tests, consider the following advantages and how they will benefit your hospital, clinic ...
Edit again
The info above was just for explanation purposes between the urine vs oral fluids testing. Also I think most of the testing is going to be for folks that are smoking cannabis as well because that still is the main way folks still use cannabis. This is a vaporizing forum but it's a big world out there and most folks still combust their cannabis. They will have to eventually be a test that Is universal no natter how cannabis is used.
Compounds that are present in a person’s blood are always present in their saliva. Saliva tests measure the compound of a drug known as the parent compound: the psychoactive element of the drug. Detection of the parent compound in saliva indicates that the drug has entered the blood stream. Higher levels of the parent compound indicate higher levels of the drug contained within the body. This means that saliva levels can be used to measure impairment.
In contrast, urine tests do not measure the parent compound, they measure the by-product compounds known as "metabolites", which do not correspond with impairment levels.
ELIMINATE ADULTERATION
Urine testing is incredibly easy to cheat, beat, or otherwise falsify. Such techniques involve adulterants that interfere with the test results or take advantage of the opportunity to cheat due to the privacy required when collecting a urine sample which is not the case with oral fluid.
All oral fluid drug tests are administered under supervised observation, making concealed tampering with the test sample virtually impossible. We have tested a wide range of adulterants that are available on the market and have not found any that can interfere with an oral fluid test when properly conducted.
Edit
Here is my source for the above info. @nomadicsoul34
Oral Fluid vs Urine — Forensic Fluids Laboratories
Forensic Fluids Laboratories › oral-v-urine
Why Choose Oral Fluid versus Urine Drug Testing? Oral fluid testing can detect drugs immediately after the most recent use and up to 4 days later. ... When comparing saliva drug tests vs urine drug tests, consider the following advantages and how they will benefit your hospital, clinic ...
Edit again
The info above was just for explanation purposes between the urine vs oral fluids testing. Also I think most of the testing is going to be for folks that are smoking cannabis as well because that still is the main way folks still use cannabis. This is a vaporizing forum but it's a big world out there and most folks still combust their cannabis. They will have to eventually be a test that Is universal no natter how cannabis is used.
Last edited:
nomadicsoul34
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the new angle but i dont know how accurate this is.
Source please. There are other sources that indicate blood levels do not correlate to impairment.
So much conflicting information ... as a medical user, and a driver, if the government is going to apply a limit, should we not be allowed to know what that means? As a 1.5-2.5g per day user, how long do I have to go before I'm legal to drive? 2 hours? 6? 12?
I know after having 1 drink my BAC will be zero after 2 hours.
Why should alcohol users be granted greater privileges than cannabis users when both are legal? I guess we know this won't be the case though ... for example your kid at 18 or 19 could give a joint to their 17 year old friend and under the current regulations being proposed in Canada they can be put in jail for 14 years for this horrendous crime (it's not like murder or armed robbery or sexual assault or something like that that is more harmless and thus get lesser penalties!).
I know after having 1 drink my BAC will be zero after 2 hours.
Why should alcohol users be granted greater privileges than cannabis users when both are legal? I guess we know this won't be the case though ... for example your kid at 18 or 19 could give a joint to their 17 year old friend and under the current regulations being proposed in Canada they can be put in jail for 14 years for this horrendous crime (it's not like murder or armed robbery or sexual assault or something like that that is more harmless and thus get lesser penalties!).
biohacker
H.R.E.A.M
That above article refers to smoking and not edibles or even vaporizing 
Not to mention it just seems like a massive sales pitch against any sort of other tests (urine, blood).
Get on the money train! So many winners with legalization, the last of which is the medicinal patient ofcourse
If all those BS saliva tests do actually work, at least there are panels for an entire range of pharmaceuticals, but will the police be using those panels too?? Doubtful, especially with the costs involved.
Not to mention it just seems like a massive sales pitch against any sort of other tests (urine, blood).
Get on the money train! So many winners with legalization, the last of which is the medicinal patient ofcourse
If all those BS saliva tests do actually work, at least there are panels for an entire range of pharmaceuticals, but will the police be using those panels too?? Doubtful, especially with the costs involved.
In the states with current testing? My understanding is that, at your level of use, it would be weeks.
Elbuort19
Well-Known Member
My apologies if this was already posted...
Science Shows Cannabis Users Are Safe Drivers
http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2017/04/25/science-shows-cannabis-users-safe-drivers
Science Shows Cannabis Users Are Safe Drivers
http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2017/04/25/science-shows-cannabis-users-safe-drivers
nomadicsoul34
Well-Known Member
I am definatly not safer. People should be careful when dismissing articles they disagree with and happily accepting those they want to believe in. There is a lot of garbage published.