Should marijuana be legalized?

[StupidBikerBoy]

Field sobriety tests is one thing, detection is another.

There ARE field sobriety test that determine recent use of MJ. As I said I have been subjected to a few. The one I remember is where they shined a light in my and told me to look in the other direction, only turning my eyes. I dont have a clue what they were looking for. Look into it if you don't believe me, but I'm not making this up.

THC remains in your body, depending on the users dosage, for up to a month? So, how are they going to be able to prove that THC detected today is not remnants of toking up yesterday or a week ago?

There are numerous ways to test for it, and a hair folicle test can determine the time frame it was used. A piss test is only used to determine use, there are others that yield more results.

How'd they test him for being under the influence of anything but alcohol?

Your boy probably admitted to doing the drug and thereby given the admission of guilt can and does get charged. As explained above, a pee test will only determine if he smoked MJ, not how much nor when.

I don't know what test they used in court, I wasn't there. But I do know that he didn't admit to it and tried to fight it. And again, a piss test is not the only method used to test for drug use.

[Jaimecbr900]

There ARE field sobriety test that determine recent use of MJ. As I said I have been subjected to a few. The one I remember is where they shined a light in my and told me to look in the other direction, only turning my eyes. I dont have a clue what they were looking for. Look into it if you don't believe me, but I'm not making this up.

That test is administered as an initial sign of sobriety. If your pupils do not respond quickly enough to the light, you are thought to be under the influence of SOMETHING. That in itself is NOT enough evidence to convice anyone of anything. It gives reasonable cause for the officer to be allowed to go further. Just like field sobriety tests. You will not get convicted of DUI on a field sobriety test ALONE. That is why they bring you into the PD to test you AGAIN.

There are numerous ways to test for it, and a hair folicle test can determine the time frame it was used. A piss test is only used to determine use, there are others that yield more results.

You would have lots of innocent people in jail, which would subsequently cause a huge backlog of lawsuits against the PD if you are going to use a folicle test for each and every one of the people suspected of DUI. It takes a long time for a hair folicle test to be done and results returned. What are you going to do with the person in the meantime? You can't put someone in jail w/o proof....proof doesn't come for a few weeks.....what are you going to do? Put that person in jail until then? What if it comes back negative for MJ? Wouldn't you be liable for damages and wrongful incarceration?

No PD will ever be stupid enough to open themselves up for lawsuit action like that. You have to have a method of testing that not only gives you accurate results, but it also gives you those results right then and there.

Again, do the research and find a testing method that fits those two criteria at the same time.

I don't know what test they used in court, I wasn't there. But I do know that he didn't admit to it and tried to fight it. And again, a piss test is not the only method used to test for drug use.

There are tests out there that determine if you've had THC lately, but the problem with DUI cases is that you have to prove that you have THC right now and at which amount. THC is stored in the body, even when you are not high and when you are not smoking right this minute. That's the big problem. The only tests accurate enough to determine how much and when take a lot of time and are expensive. Therefore, they are useless for officers in the field that have to make a determination of someone's sobriety right then and there. Unlike alcohol, THC is absorbed differently in the body. If it got into the blood stream and stayed there for a specific amount of time at a specific metabolic rate, fine. But it doesn't at all.

So the very first case that went to court someone could simply say that they ingested some or even inhaled by accident as second hand smoke a week ago and that's how it showed up in their system. Both ways will show positive test results, but neither shows the person was under the influence when they were tested. So how could it hold up in court?

Again, I'm not supporting the ban of MJ all together because it does have positive effects unlike other drugs. But we also have to realize that its not as easy as just letting people do it whenever because it's not as easy as that either.

[StupidBikerBoy]

That test is administered as an initial sign of sobriety. If your pupils do not respond quickly enough to the light, you are thought to be under the influence of SOMETHING. That in itself is NOT enough evidence to convice anyone of anything. It gives reasonable cause for the officer to be allowed to go further. Just like field sobriety tests. You will not get convicted of DUI on a field sobriety test ALONE. That is why they bring you into the PD to test you AGAIN.

I never said a field sobriety test was enough to convict.

I was not reffering to the pupil test. That is a general test anyways, for many drugs. If you'd look back I my post, I said they made me look in the other direction while they shined the light. They were not shining the light at my pupils. They were looking for something else. I don't know what.

You would have lots of innocent people in jail, which would subsequently cause a huge backlog of lawsuits against the PD if you are going to use a folicle test for each and every one of the people suspected of DUI. It takes a long time for a hair folicle test to be done and results returned.

Not true. My company (BASF) has drug tested with the hair folicle test and gotten results the following day.

You should do a little research on drug testing.

Hell, they can use a blood test to determine recent use also. If a blood test reveals THC, that means recent use. If it reveals Carboxy THC or any other MJ metabolite (which is what remains in your body for up to a month), it is not considered impairment.

No PD will ever be stupid enough to open themselves up for lawsuit action like that. You have to have a method of testing that not only gives you accurate results, but it also gives you those results right then and there.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4940

There are tests out there that determine if you've had THC lately, but the problem with DUI cases is that you have to prove that you have THC right now and at which amount. THC is stored in the body, even when you are not high and when you are not smoking right this minute. That's the big problem. The only tests accurate enough to determine how much and when take a lot of time and are expensive. Therefore, they are useless for officers in the field that have to make a determination of someone's sobriety right then and there. Unlike alcohol, THC is absorbed differently in the body. If it got into the blood stream and stayed there for a specific amount of time at a specific metabolic rate, fine. But it doesn't at all.

This is irrelevant. All they need to determine is suspicion to get them to the police station for further testing, which is done by field testing.

So the very first case that went to court someone could simply say that they ingested some or even inhaled by accident as second hand smoke a week ago and that's how it showed up in their system. Both ways will show positive test results, but neither shows the person was under the influence when they were tested. So how could it hold up in court?

A piss test can only detect MJ for so many days depending on the persons metabolism. If they were telling the truth, it would come up negative after a weeks time.

A blood test would reveal THC metabolites if he's telling the truth, which is not enough to convict in most states (but it is in some). If the test revealed actual THC, the he has not metabolized it yet which is proof of recent use.


As I have said, I have PERSONALLY seen someone convicted of this and I have provided a link of a similar case.

Don't believe me if you wish, I feel I have provided enough proof. Thanks for the discussion.

[Jaimecbr900]

I was not reffering to the pupil test. That is a general test anyways, for many drugs. If you'd look back I my post, I said they made me look in the other direction while they shined the light. They were not shining the light at my pupils. They were looking for something else. I don't know what.

They made you look in a different direction but it was for the SAME reason.

You looked away in order for your pupils to look into the dark, then swing back into the light which causes NORMAL pupils to shrink quickly. If they stay dialated or "blown", it shows signs of impairment. It will NOT show WHAT caused the impairment.

Just like ANY field sobriety test shows you're impaired or not, but how do you think that shows it's MJ, cocaine, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc????? THAT is my point and you don't seem to get it. Field sobriety only gives them a reason to arrest you and take you IN. After that they have to prove RIGHT THEN AND THERE, not a day later, not a week later that you are RIGHT THEN AND THERE IMPAIRED. How do you suggest they do that? As has been explained 10 times already, MJ is absorbed differently than alcohol and therefore the mere presence of THC doesn't mean you JUST smoked it. You could've smoked it a week ago and still test positive.

Not true. My company (BASF) has drug tested with the hair folicle test and gotten results the following day.

That's possibly because they use it sparingly. #1 your company only has to prove that someone "uses", not always do they have to prove WHEN. So 99% of the time a simple positive means there is enough grounds for a company policy violation. #2 I'm willing to bet that they don't do 100 folicle tests a day, right? What do you think is going to happen when police departments all over the state start using the same people for folicle testing? Do you think the turn around time is still going to be a day? BTW, what are you going to do with someone UNTIL the results come back??? You can't hold someone on "suspicion" of DUI. What if the test comes back negative after holding someone even for a day? Lawsuit and rightly so is what happens.

You should do a little research on drug testing.

I've challenged you to find an immidiate THC test available, and you've yet to answer that challenge. Seems like it's YOU that needs to do the research.

I was in Law Enforcement many years ago. I've DONE my research already. Proof is still proof today. You can't just hold someone on suspicion. You have to prove their guilt not only the day of the infraction but also in case it goes to court.

Hell, they can use a blood test to determine recent use also. If a blood test reveals THC, that means recent use. If it reveals Carboxy THC or any other MJ metabolite (which is what remains in your body for up to a month), it is not considered impairment.

So what good does testing that shows use a month ago do for someone TODAY?????

"Recent use" is not good enough to convict anyone for driving TODAY. So what good does that test do towards a DUI????

This is irrelevant. All they need to determine is suspicion to get them to the police station for further testing, which is done by field testing.

What's irrelevant is what are you going to do when you do get someone back to the station if you can't show he is under impairment RIGHT NOW.....so all the field testing is for not.

A piss test can only detect MJ for so many days depending on the persons metabolism. If they were telling the truth, it would come up negative after a weeks time.

What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China....

A blood test would reveal THC metabolites if he's telling the truth, which is not enough to convict in most states (but it is in some). If the test revealed actual THC, the he has not metabolized it yet which is proof of recent use.

You're stuck on that "recent use" thing aren't you. Go search the GA Law books and find where ANY law allows for conviction on the assumption of "recent use" for DUI. It has to be at the time he/she is driving, not a week ago...... So all this "recent use" crap is totally worthless.

Don't believe me if you wish, I feel I have provided enough proof. Thanks for the discussion.

You've provided only proof for "recent use" tests which is like taking a birth control pill AFTER getting pregnant. What good does that do????

[StupidBikerBoy]

They made you look in a different direction but it was for the SAME reason.

You looked away in order for your pupils to look into the dark, then swing back into the light which causes NORMAL pupils to shrink quickly. If they stay dialated or "blown", it shows signs of impairment. It will NOT show WHAT caused the impairment.

Dude, for the last freakin time, THEY WEREN'T LOOKING IN MY PUPILS. I was there remember. IT WAS NOT THE DUMBASS PUPIL TEST.

I've challenged you to find an immidiate THC test available, and you've yet to answer that challenge. Seems like it's YOU that needs to do the research.

HELLO. BLOOD TEST!!Let me explain this to you one more time since you seem to have reading comprehension issues. A blood test can show 3 things. no THC, THC, or THC metabolites. If the test shows THC metabolites then it means that the subject has use MJ but it has been metabolized and no time frame can be determined. If the test shows actual THC, that hasn't been metabolized, it means the subject has used within the last few hours depending on the subjects metabolism.

You're stuck on that "recent use" thing aren't you. Go search the GA Law books and find where ANY law allows for conviction on the assumption of "recent use" for DUI. It has to be at the time he/she is driving, not a week ago...... So all this "recent use" crap is totally worthless.

OK, since you obviously missed the link in my last post WHICH IS TO A CONVICTION FOR MJ DUI, I'll post it again.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4940

So, yet again, I have proven my statements and backed them up with links, which you have yet to prove any of your BS.

Since you can only reply with your opinion and nothing else, I'm not going to continue trying to explain this to you. Like I said before, do some research before you talk out of your ass.

[Jaimecbr900]

Dude, for the last freakin time, THEY WEREN'T LOOKING IN MY PUPILS. I was there remember. IT WAS NOT THE DUMBASS PUPIL TEST.

I didn't even know this thread was still going, but....

Since you're so well versed on Law Enforcement Procedures, tell us exactly what it was they were looking at when they shined a light into your eyes.

HELLO. BLOOD TEST!!Let me explain this to you one more time since you seem to have reading comprehension issues. A blood test can show 3 things. no THC, THC, or THC metabolites. If the test shows THC metabolites then it means that the subject has use MJ but it has been metabolized and no time frame can be determined. If the test shows actual THC, that hasn't been metabolized, it means the subject has used within the last few hours depending on the subjects metabolism.

Really? What Blood test is there that shows you're CURRENTLY under the influence?

You don't seem to get it. Regular Blood tests only show if you have EVER been in contact with THC. NOT when, NOT how much. According to GA DUI laws ANY amount of THC in your system is good enough for a conviction. How's that fair? What if I was standing next to a buddy who was smoking and I got some second hand smoke, 2 wks ago? A blood test would merely red flag the presence of THC. It metabolizes at a completely different rate than does ALCOHOL, which metabolizes at a VERY predictable rate because it does so thru the BLOOD and not FATTY tissues like THC.

You are the one that has a comprehension problem. You don't get that it is not fair, nor should it be legal to convict someone without being able to PROVE that they were impaired WHEN they were behind the wheel. The law doesn't say "impaired sometime", it says you have to be impaired AT THE TIME OF.

Yes, it is possible to determine with much more accuracy through some elaborate testing procedures the actual amount of THC at a certain time. BUT those tests are not only expensive, but TIME CONSUMING. THC levels drop off dramatically after 3 hours. What LAB is going to test at 3 a.m.? What are you going to do with this person UNTIL then? You haven't PROVEN he/she is impaired, therefore you CAN'T detain them. What are you going to do then?

Until they develop a testing procedure which gives accurate and more importantly LEGAL results in the FIELD, you can NOT do this.

OK, since you obviously missed the link in my last post WHICH IS TO A CONVICTION FOR MJ DUI, I'll post it again.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4940

Really? I guess you didn't read that website as closely as you thought you did. If you had, you'd seen this:

"The conviction of Bryan Love was a travesty. A conviction based on “prior crimes” evidence or character evidence would be condemned by this court and swiftly reversed. However, this ridiculous law allowed the jury to convict an unimpaired driver of DUI simply because he had smoked marijuana sometime in the past. The status of being a marijuana smoker instantly made him an impaired driver."

AND this:

"Flimsy science can no longer be used as an excuse for leaving a law on the books that puts unimpaired drivers in jail for DUI. The State and Defense witnesses agreed on the central flaw in §40-6-391(a)(6), its arbitrariness. Because it arbitrarily and unnecessarily discriminates against sober, unimpaired drivers who happen to have certain inert compounds in their bodies, it violates equal protection. Because this arbitrariness can be eliminated without compromising public safety by prosecuting DUI / drug suspects under §40-6-391(a)(2) and the Controlled Substances Act, the statute offends substantive due process as well. "

AND this:

"The “any amount” DUI-drugs law is a very inefficient way to prevent drug impaired driving, and the associated costs are unacceptable. There exists the constant risk of punishing an unimpaired driver for DUI."

AND this:

"The public has absolutely no interest in prosecuting unimpaired drivers for DUI. As shown above, there is no connection between the presence of marijuana metabolites in the blood and impaired driving ability. When applied to persons in Appellant’s position, the statute simply acts to deter marjuana consumption by criminalizing tha act of driving within two or three weeks of drugs use. Although it may be in the public interest to deter such drug use, there are better ways to do so than prosecuting sober drivers for DUI simply because a screening test indicates that they used marijuana at some time in the past. "

AND how about this little tid bit?:

"Since the evidence of smoking marijuana remains in the body for such a long time, a positive drug screen within an hour or so of an arrest does not mean that the driver was “high” or under the influence of the drug while driving.8 He might have been high two weeks ago. "

So, yet again, I have proven my statements and backed them up with links, which you have yet to prove any of your BS.

I have more than proven my "BS" many times over. YOU on the other hand have just been shot with your own ammo. You want more "proof" that current testing methods are not the way to tell if someone is "high" at the time of their arrest??? Go do your own research. I've challenged you ten times to show PROOF of a field testing method that ACCURATELY shows someone is "high" WHEN they get pulled over. You've yet to meet that challenge. Until then, you have no argument. The LAW states that the STATE has to PROVE someone is impaired AT THE TIME THEY ARE IN CONTROL OF A MOTOR VEHICLE. NOT 3 wks ago, not even a day ago. RIGHT NOW. Show me where a simple blood test can show you that at 3 a.m. in anytown U.S.A. and you may have a point. Until then, you don't.

Since you can only reply with your opinion and nothing else, I'm not going to continue trying to explain this to you. Like I said before, do some research before you talk out of your ass.

Look above and see who has done "research" and who hasn't. It's clear to everyone else reading, why are you having such a hard time with it?

Like I said above, maybe it's YOU that's having the reading comprehension problems, huh?