Legally Smoke Kills a Stoner

[tsywake]

Smoke says it'll be a long time before ever driving another Sprint Car, if ever.

http://racing.ap.org/article/stewart-unsure-if-hell-race-sprint-cars-again

 

[Biff Tannen]

Generally speaking, once a person dies their body stops metabolizing drugs. So if a person dies pretty close to the time of the incident (homicide, traffic fatality etc) then toxicology tests should be able to indicate what was going on in the body at the time of death/incident. Autopsy samples taken after the person was in the hospital for three days doesn't give too much information about the time of the actual incident. If tests show that a person had levels of active drugs in them that are consistent with impairment, then it is assumed that the person was impaired at the time of the incident. For instance, if it was reported that a dead person was hit by a car and immediately died and their BLOOD had 5ng/mL THC, that it would be assumed that the person was under the influence of marijuana. However, if the blood only had 5ng/mL THC-COOH (inactive metabolite) then not much can be said about marijuana use at the time of the incident.

Remember, terms and word choice are very important here. Under the influence, impaired, and unable to safely operate a motor vehicle can mean different things. If a person has therapeutic levels of drug in their blood, then the receptors in the brain are being activated and there is a physiological response. The question then becomes if the influence of that drug causes impairment (judgement, reaction time, vision/audio etc) and for DUI purposes does that impairment prevent you from safely operating a vehicle (versus sitting on your couch minding your own business).

I'm guessing you haven't smoked a lot of pot.

He could have hit a joint right before he got in the car and, depending on his tolerance level, not been impaired at all. Possibly even less of an effect than smoking a cigarette.

 

[wakelaw13]

I'm guessing you haven't smoked a lot of pot.

He could have hit a joint right before he got in the car and, depending on his tolerance level, not been impaired at all. Possibly even less of an effect than smoking a cigarette.

He seemed way too angry to have smoked enough pot for that kind of tolerance

 

[Biff Tannen]

Indeed.

 

[devi8]

I'm guessing you haven't smoked a lot of pot.

He could have hit a joint right before he got in the car and, depending on his tolerance level, not been impaired at all. Possibly even less of an effect than smoking a cigarette.

I've smoked a lot of pot & it usually causes me to drive 15mph under the speed limit

 

[warak]

family causing more drama...sympathy starting to wane for the Ward family. IMO, the more they keep talking the less likely for a civil suit win. TS has the lawyers to fight them...shouldn't be inebriated when driving a race car!

their entire "story" rests on what they believe TS was trying to do (get close to Ward to scare him) and less on the facts.

 

[tau06]

I'm guessing you haven't smoked a lot of pot.

He could have hit a joint right before he got in the car and, depending on his tolerance level, not been impaired at all. Possibly even less of an effect than smoking a cigarette.

Just because you have a tolerance for something doesn't mean you aren't impaired.

 

[Biff Tannen]

 

[tau06]

Well your post certainly didn't seem to suggest that soooooo.... good job by you.

 

[forensicdeac]

Just because you have a tolerance for something doesn't mean you aren't impaired.

Just to follow up on this...
There are various types of tolerance. There is metabolic tolerance which typically means that your body increases its ability to metabolize or break down a drug. Usually, it is by the increase of enzymes. Tolerance could also be that your body increases the amount of receptors and more drug is needed to create the same response, as with opiates. Then you have "learned" tolerance as is the case with alcohol. A person isn't less affected by alcohol per say, but they learn to adjust their behaviors for simple tasks like talking slower (no slurred speech) and standing with a wider base (better balance).

As I said before, this is a very complicated topic and one that terminology is very important.

However, I do see where Biff is coming from.

 

[deacvision7]

That kid's aunt had an interesting open letter.

 

[DemonDeacon92]

Just to follow up on this...
There are various types of tolerance. There is metabolic tolerance which typically means that your body increases its ability to metabolize or break down a drug. Usually, it is by the increase of enzymes. Tolerance could also be that your body increases the amount of receptors and more drug is needed to create the same response, as with opiates. Then you have "learned" tolerance as is the case with alcohol. A person isn't less affected by alcohol per say, but they learn to adjust their behaviors for simple tasks like talking slower (no slurred speech) and standing with a wider base (better balance).

As I said before, this is a very complicated topic and one that terminology is very important.

However, I do see where Biff is coming from.

I see where Biff is coming from, too. You obviously haven't smoked a lot of pot. There is no way you would be this smart if you had.

 

[Milhouse]

what?

 

[jhmd2000]

Just to follow up on this...
There are various types of tolerance. There is metabolic tolerance which typically means that your body increases its ability to metabolize or break down a drug. Usually, it is by the increase of enzymes. Tolerance could also be that your body increases the amount of receptors and more drug is needed to create the same response, as with opiates. Then you have "learned" tolerance as is the case with alcohol. A person isn't less affected by alcohol per say, but they learn to adjust their behaviors for simple tasks like talking slower (no slurred speech) and standing with a wider base (better balance).

As I said before, this is a very complicated topic and one that terminology is very important.

However, I do see where Biff is coming from.

My recollection from a past life (not a user; more law enforcement-stuff) is that the GC/MS test applied to most urine samples actually tests for the metabolyte. Is there a way they test for active THC in your system, in a manner analogous to BAC? My untrained impression is that the short answer is no, at least not in a way they can replicate with a field sobriety test. Verdad?

 

[forensicdeac]

My recollection from a past life (not a user; more law enforcement-stuff) is that the GC/MS test applied to most urine samples actually tests for the metabolyte. Is there a way they test for active THC in your system, in a manner analogous to BAC? My untrained impression is that the short answer is no, at least not in a way they can replicate with a field sobriety test. Verdad?

As far as the actual testing goes, it all comes down to a few things: 1) instrumental capabilities of the lab, 2) statutory limitations, 3) intentions of the test.

For example, for DUI in some states a urine (only) drug test is performed after a breath test. That would include a presumptive screen (usually by immunoassay) followed by a confirmation of THC metabolite by GC/MS. A positive test indicates a history of marijuana use. This pretty much follows workplace drug testing set forth by SAMSHA.

Now a death investigation has different has different guidelines. First, multiple biological samples can be obtained (blood, vitrous fluid, urine, tissue samples etc). Second, the scope of testing tends to be more flexible. Assuming a lab has the resources, THC and its two major metabolites can be found and quantitated in blood. These results can give an insight into the actual impairment or lack thereof and an estimation of marijuana ingestion.

Blood is by far the best sample for toxicological analysis when an in depth interpretation is needed. In fact, some states have moved toward blood testing in DUI cases. However, it is up to legislatures to make the appropriate laws.

Some jurisdictions have investigated using oral swabs for quick testing (ie establishing probable cause) but blood testing is still preferred. The standard field sobriety tests that most people are accustomed to are not good indicators for marijuana but are excellent for CNS depressants (alcohol/benzodiazepines etc). There are extended tests that are part of the Drug Recognition Program (DRE) that are much better predictors in the field.

Bottom line, in this particular incident with Tony Stewart, the drug testing on the victim can actually give a lot of insight into what was going on at the time. If he had lived, charging him with DUI would have been a whole other discussion.