The limit/level is something like 50ng/ml of blood..........exceed that & you're legally impaired & can be prosecuted just like if you exceed the .08 BAC...........which of course means $$. Some literature I read said that the limit they established was nonsense.......that a person could smoke the night before & still be over the limit the next day.
Marijuana testing through blood-work, which is typically the way they administer testing, basically measures the level of THC stored in fat cells. What you are referring to, smoking up yesterday and still failing a drug test today would occur at a pretty high rate. The THC stored in the fat cells takes a ridiculous amount of time to metabolize and finally pass through the body, even a first time smoker would probably fail the next day.
One of the studies i recall reading about Marijuana metabolization held that lab rats exposed to sudden increases in stress and/or food deprivation actually caused the THC stored in the animals fat cells to be metabolized at an extreme rate; which MAY lead to high "flashbacks".
If i ever go to court on a marijuana DUI first thing im arguing is that i wasnt intoxicated until the dancing cherrys appeared in my mirror. My hunger, coupled with the stress of a traffic stop caused the spike in my bloodwork. Might work. Hell, just taking it to court theres a considerable chance the officer doesnt even show up.
Back to your point on testing, it is pretty bullshit. For alcohol DUIs, there a large number of ways field tests such as breathalyzers results can be argued effectively in court. Depending on what you get for a reading, you could argue that the machine a) failed to properly collect the sample b) assumes the ratio of breath to alcohol is constant (exhaling gas does not guarantee x% of oxygen and x% of alcohol, the % of oxygen can effect the %alcohol reading). Both have been used to dismiss cases. Obviously if you blew a 1.2 you are likely way to drunk to wiggle out on a technicality, but it could be enough if your BAC was close to the legal limit.
if i recall in Canada, ANY accident where a passenger (not necessarily the driver) is found to have alcohol in their system, the crash is recorded as "alcohol related". Whatever your opinion on M.A.D.D., they use faulty statistics like this & pick/choose numbers to make ridiculous claims like issuing DUI tickets for 0.08%BAC drivers instead of at 0.09%BAC reduces the number of drunk driver deaths, when their definition of a "drunk driver" is looser than (insert topical celebrity name here)
The limit/level is something like 50ng/ml of blood..........exceed that & you're legally impaired & can be prosecuted just like if you exceed the .08 BAC...........which of course means $$. Some literature I read said that the limit they established was nonsense.......that a person could smoke the night before & still be over the limit the next day.
Marijuana testing through blood-work, which is typically the way they administer testing, basically measures the level of THC stored in fat cells. What you are referring to, smoking up yesterday and still failing a drug test today would occur at a pretty high rate. The THC stored in the fat cells takes a ridiculous amount of time to metabolize and finally pass through the body, even a first time smoker would probably fail the next day.
One of the studies i recall reading about Marijuana metabolization held that lab rats exposed to sudden increases in stress and/or food deprivation actually caused the THC stored in the animals fat cells to be metabolized at an extreme rate; which MAY lead to high "flashbacks".
If i ever go to court on a marijuana DUI first thing im arguing is that i wasnt intoxicated until the dancing cherrys appeared in my mirror. My hunger, coupled with the stress of a traffic stop caused the spike in my bloodwork. Might work. Hell, just taking it to court theres a considerable chance the officer doesnt even show up.
Back to your point on testing, it is pretty bullshit. For alcohol DUIs, there a large number of ways field tests such as breathalyzers results can be argued effectively in court. Depending on what you get for a reading, you could argue that the machine a) failed to properly collect the sample b) assumes the ratio of breath to alcohol is constant (exhaling gas does not guarantee x% of oxygen and x% of alcohol, the % of oxygen can effect the %alcohol reading). Both have been used to dismiss cases. Obviously if you blew a 1.2 you are likely way to drunk to wiggle out on a technicality, but it could be enough if your BAC was close to the legal limit.
if i recall in Canada, ANY accident where a passenger (not necessarily the driver) is found to have alcohol in their system, the crash is recorded as "alcohol related". Whatever your opinion on M.A.D.D., they use faulty statistics like this & pick/choose numbers to make ridiculous claims like issuing DUI tickets for 0.08%BAC drivers instead of at 0.09%BAC reduces the number of drunk driver deaths, when their definition of a "drunk driver" is looser than (insert topical celebrity name here)
Most stoners from other parts of the country have never made a pilgrimage to Oakland/Bay area where weed is basically legal.
Why would a pothead from the east coast/midwest go to Wash. or Co. just to smoke weed. It's not like either state is offering an experience/service that you can't get anywhere else.
Most stoners from other parts of the country have never made a pilgrimage to Oakland/Bay area where weed is basically legal.
Why would a pothead from the east coast/midwest go to Wash. or Co. just to smoke weed. It's not like either state is offering an experience/service that you can't get anywhere else.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.