Police Death during No-Knock Raid, Suspect Fired as Door was Broken

I'm guessing there is more to the story that we don't know yet? No judge is going to issue a warrant like that for less than a quarter oz of pot. And, yes, pot should be legalized just like alcohol. But like others have already said, they haven't figured out how to measure the level of impairment yet.
 
Yes. Measuring the metabolytes of THC (thc actually does not "show up" in breath at all, just chemical byproducts of it that pass back and forth from the alveoli in lung sacs) is a tricky thing though, for exactly the reason cited above. There are clinical tests which show "evidence" of THC in the breath far more than the 2 hours we need.

NOT slamming this. If I were the guy who patented this, I would be racing to hawk it to police forces.....,and if I were a defense lawyer, I would be cheering him on!!! lol

I could be dead wrong, of course. Human scientific ingeneuity is boundless. I just think this will be a legal dead end.
 
.
I'm guessing there is more to the story that we don't know yet? No judge is going to issue a warrant like that for less than a quarter oz of pot. And, yes, pot should be legalized just like alcohol. But like others have already said, they haven't figured out how to measure the level of impairment yet.
problem is these things hit the news then get hidden behind the judical veil and you never get to weigh the evidence for yourself.
 
Yes. Measuring the metabolytes of THC (thc actually does not "show up" in breath at all, just chemical byproducts of it that pass back and forth from the alveoli in lung sacs) is a tricky thing though, for exactly the reason cited above. There are clinical tests which show "evidence" of THC in the breath far more than the 2 hours we need.

NOT slamming this. If I were the guy who patented this, I would be racing to hawk it to police forces.....,and if I were a defense lawyer, I would be cheering him on!!! lol

I could be dead wrong, of course. Human scientific ingeneuity is boundless. I just think this will be a legal dead end.
Why don't the performance based tests work?
 
THC gets absorbed into your body fat and stays there for up to 45 days. There is no way to distinguish between the joint one smoked 10 minutes ago and the bong fest he indulged 3 weeks ago.

That one is a clear legal charlie foxtrot.
The standard won't be THC in the body there will be a set level required to prove intoxication. A lab can tell exactly what your level is. The problem with the quick tests is that they are a go/no go test, anything above a certain level is positive and below is negative.
 
Why don't the performance based tests work?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "work"

I am telling you, I could at one time function perfectly behind the wheel of a car not only under the influence of MASSIVE amounts of hash, but have driven down the road with trees bending over and tying themselves in knots, and the road separating into 88 different "lanes"... some of which led into the clouds. This was under the influence of LSD as well as marijuana. I have been stopped and questioned and you learn quick to just stay quiet and think seriously about the questions, and only give monosyllabic replies. "What are you doing?" Nothing much "Where are you going?" Just driving. Yessir... nossir. Field sobriety tests are a breeze, although following that little light when you are tripping balls is an amusing exercise.
 
The standard won't be THC in the body there will be a set level required to prove intoxication. A lab can tell exactly what your level is. The problem with the quick tests is that they are a go/no go test, anything above a certain level is positive and below is negative.
This is false. Different persons metabolize the element differently, and there is no quantifiable level of THC intoxication.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing there is more to the story that we don't know yet? No judge is going to issue a warrant like that for less than a quarter oz of pot. And, yes, pot should be legalized just like alcohol. But like others have already said, they haven't figured out how to measure the level of impairment yet.
No knock warrants aren't issued on the basis of the drugs in question. There are a lot of factors (that should, whether they are in every case or not, be) weighed in applying for the warrant. Some may be if there were guns reported by the buyer in the controlled buy, the history and propensity for violence of the suspect and other factors.
 
Armed robbery in Mooresville over the weekend 4 guys shot and robbed their pot dealer while he was selling out of an air bnb.

Just saying pot can lead to violence as well.
I bet just as many people get shot and or robbed while trying to sell their cell phone, laptop, PlayStation.
 
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "work"

I am telling you, I could at one time function perfectly behind the wheel of a car not only under the influence of MASSIVE amounts of hash, but have driven down the road with trees bending over and tying themselves in knots, and the road separating into 88 different "lanes"... some of which led into the clouds. This was under the influence of LSD as well as marijuana. I have been stopped and questioned and you learn quick to just stay quiet and think seriously about the questions, and only give monosyllabic replies. "What are you doing?" Nothing much "Where are you going?" Just driving. Yessir... nossir. Field sobriety tests are a breeze, although following that little light when you are tripping balls is an amusing exercise.


From my experience of many years ago, I would suggest using the Pringles test. Office hands suspect a can of pringles and times how long it takes them to eat it. Should be able to correlate time of consumption to how high driver is. :0
 
I'm guessing there is more to the story that we don't know yet? No judge is going to issue a warrant like that for less than a quarter oz of pot. And, yes, pot should be legalized just like alcohol. But like others have already said, they haven't figured out how to measure the level of impairment yet.


Horse hockey. They haven't figured out what level to tax it at yet. LOL
 
It's very obvious and you would be surprised as to how many people have mentioned the same facts. Risking life over misdemeanor is not the smartest thing in the world.

I was talking to a retired officer of 27 years the other day and he said the biggest out right lie is that pot isn't dangerous. He said in all his years he never saw a home invasion that didn't have something to do with pot or drugs and 5 out of his 10 murders had directly been because of pot.

I agree that there needs to be changes and think once they get the science at 98%+ on roadside testing for marijuana impaired driving you probably will see major overhauls.

Sounds like BS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I was talking to a retired officer of 27 years the other day and he said the biggest out right lie is that pot isn't dangerous. He said in all his years he never saw a home invasion that didn't have something to do with pot or drugs and 5 out of his 10 murders had directly been because of pot.

I agree that there needs to be changes and think once they get the science at 98%+ on roadside testing for marijuana impaired driving you probably will see major overhauls.

In the 1920's and 30's how many cops died from illegal booze? How many cops die today over illegal booze?
 
From my experience of many years ago, I would suggest using the Pringles test. Office hands suspect a can of pringles and times how long it takes them to eat it. Should be able to correlate time of consumption to how high driver is. :0
Or offer them something completely absurd, like maybe a Dorito and ranch sandwich and see if they eat it. Ask me how I know.
 
Last edited:
Man oh man. What fun it must be to be too chicken shit to ship off to a foreign land and clear Afghan huts but then dress in military gear and bust down doors for weed smokers. Sometimes the little man is a danger as well. No knock warrants are asinine. Better not get me on a jury because he is a free man.
 
It's very obvious and you would be surprised as to how many people have mentioned the same facts. Risking life over misdemeanor is not the smartest thing in the world.

I was talking to a retired officer of 27 years the other day and he said the biggest out right lie is that pot isn't dangerous. He said in all his years he never saw a home invasion that didn't have something to do with pot or drugs and 5 out of his 10 murders had directly been because of pot.

I agree that there needs to be changes and think once they get the science at 98%+ on roadside testing for marijuana impaired driving you probably will see major overhauls.
IMHO I think that the plant itself is not that dangerous. Much like guns, it's the people behind it. Your avaerage stoner is just going to sit in the living room, playing video games or playing music at loud volumes, or chiliing to Netflix. It's the folks that have nefarious plans, regardless of the means, to get something they want.
 
IMHO I think that the plant itself is not that dangerous. Much like guns, it's the people behind it. Your avaerage stoner is just going to sit in the living room, playing video games or playing music at loud volumes, or chiliing to Netflix. It's the folks that have nefarious plans, regardless of the means, to get something they want.

Absolutely, it's the fact that it is a target rich environment.
 
I think whoever orders the no knock warrant should be forced (or man enough) to be the first one through the door. It was a tragedy that the officer was killed but when you start destroying a mans property and forcing your way in his home, stuff happens.
$60 worth of weed? Really? This man had not been convicted of anything and had every right to defend his home.
I know the officer was "following orders" but his superiors ordered him to do a stupid thing and should be charged with his death.
 
Absolutely, it's the fact that it is a target rich environment.
And that is where I think legalisation would at least help a little, at least on the weed front. Take the profit out of it so it's one target less for the POS's to go after. I'm not going to touch the opiate thing because this isn't Tortuga.
 
Last edited:
I know the officer was "following orders" but his superiors ordered him to do a stupid thing and should be charged with his death.
So we’re a lot of them at Auschwitz and Dauchau. Following orders wasn’t a valid defense then either.
 
From what little I understand of the science, this is trickier than for alcohol. It’s been quite a while since I last saw any research on it, but from what I recall the tests had (false positive) issues with picking up that someone had used it, but was no longer impaired by its effects.

THC gets absorbed into your body fat and stays there for up to 45 days. There is no way to distinguish between the joint one smoked 10 minutes ago and the bong fest he indulged 3 weeks ago.

That one is a clear legal charlie foxtrot.

I could use an HPLC/MS-MS with a saliva sample and quantify to the ppm THC usage. Saliva tests windows seldom exceed 24 hours and are typically closer to within 7 hours of usage.
 
This is false. Different persons metabolize the element differently, and there is no quantifiable level of THC intoxication.

Everybody metabolizes every-single-chemical differently. If somebody wanted to create a law, they could simply set some arbitrary limit of "intoxication", but having, in fact, quantitating thousands of patient sample for THC per day, it is quite easy to determine the amount of THC in one's urine, saliva, blood, and hair.
 
I could use an HPLC/MS-MS with a saliva sample and quantify to the ppm THC usage. Saliva tests windows seldom exceed 24 hours and are typically closer to within 7 hours of usage.
Hi performance liquid chromatography mass spectronomy (or simply gas chromatography/mass spec) is only good for telling us if it is in that particular bodily medium, right? How much in saliva? I am not sure that there is a quantifiable level by which one can measure "intoxication," is there? I realize you can make an arbitrary limit.... like they have for alcohol........

I was not aware that there was a residual and fading amount in saliva. Frankly I was not even aware there WAS saliva after burning a few down :).
 
Hi performance liquid chromatography mass spectronomy (or simply gas chromatography/mass spec) is only good for telling us if it is in that particular bodily medium, right? How much in saliva? I am not sure that there is a quantifiable level by which one can measure "intoxication," is there? I realize you can make an arbitrary limit.... like they have for alcohol........

I was not aware that there was a residual and fading amount in saliva. Frankly I was not even aware there WAS saliva after burning a few down :).

Yes, you can quantify in any particular medium in which THC would be residual. For saliva, if I recall, our detection level was 15 ng/ml to simply report as a pos/neg result, but we could actually see it down 0.5 ng/ml on an optimal instrument, and report as a quantitated result per client request. GCMS limits could probably get even lower. Hell, I believe you can quantitate down 20 or so ng/ml on simple EIA instruments (the fancy version of the color changing immunoassay cups we've all used for jobs), which is fast as hell and requires zero sample prep, though it's been a while since I manned an Olympus.

As for intoxication determination, it shouldn't be too difficult to find subjects for the "smoke this cannabis and use this driving simulator" test. From there, they can determine at what level the average person is too intoxicated to drive safely.

The saliva test is taken as a cheek swab, so having a particularly dry mouth after burning some trees is what is helping give a more concentrated reading. Like I said, there is a very short detection window for saliva (and slightly longer in blood) for getting more immediate results without the holdover that would be present in urine.

I'm sure there are also screening confirmations that could be developed for any number of the other chemicals present in pot besides big, hairy assed 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-THC that could be more beneficial in pin-pointing usage time.
 
Yes, you can quantify in any particular medium in which THC would be residual. For saliva, if I recall, our detection level was 15 ng/ml to simply report as a pos/neg result, but we could actually see it down 0.5 ng/ml on an optimal instrument, and report as a quantitated result per client request. GCMS limits could probably get even lower. Hell, I believe you can quantitate down 20 or so ng/ml on simple EIA instruments (the fancy version of the color changing immunoassay cups we've all used for jobs), which is fast as hell and requires zero sample prep, though it's been a while since I manned an Olympus.

As for intoxication determination, it shouldn't be too difficult to find subjects for the "smoke this cannabis and use this driving simulator" test. From there, they can determine at what level the average person is too intoxicated to drive safely.

The saliva test is taken as a cheek swab, so having a particularly dry mouth after burning some trees is what is helping give a more concentrated reading. Like I said, there is a very short detection window for saliva (and slightly longer in blood) for getting more immediate results without the holdover that would be present in urine.

I'm sure there are also screening confirmations that could be developed for any number of the other chemicals present in pot besides big, hairy assed 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-THC that could be more beneficial in pin-pointing usage time.
Science! who knew?

DWI on weed will probably have to have an element of bad driving involved before it's worthwhile to administer the test. Along the lines of a wreck and marijuana detected or driving 25 down the freeway.
 
Science! who knew?

DWI on weed will probably have to have an element of bad driving involved before it's worthwhile to administer the test. Along the lines of a wreck and marijuana detected or driving 25 down the freeway.

I will agree that hard core weedheads are in general f**k ups and this general irresponsibility, carelessness, and lack of attention to detail leads to more wrecks. I have a problem asserting that one can draw a correlative line between the amount of THC in the body (any storage medium, be it adipose tissue, saliva, blood or respiration) and "intoxication."

I freely admit I did not know what @premise posted re: the metabolism of THC and how long it stays in saliva. I would be interested sometime in looking up the biochemistry of metabolism of THC in various body repositories.
 
Last edited:
You don't need a specific amount of anything to be charged with DWI. While the hard data from breathalyzers and such can build the case, all the cop needs are the clinical manifestations. Same as people driving who haven't slept in 24 hours. Now with body cams and dash cams video evidence can pretty much seal the deal.
 
The issue here is NOT nor has it ever been: "Is marijuana dangerous?" nor "is it bad for society?" nor "is the environment it creates deleterious and brings out bad elements?"

Arguing that stuff, while popular for blue troll statists, is silly. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT TO MAKE OUR CULTURE "NICE," ANY MORE THAN IT IS TO MAKE IT "CHRISTIAN."

Government exists for one purpose and one purpose only, to safeguard the freedoms of the individual to do whatever he pleases..., so long as he does not DIRECTLY infringe on the rights of others in the process. Anything more than this minimalist approach to government is just tarted up tyranny.

I am against marijuana. I am. I don't think you should use it. I think that all the arguments about it leading to other stuff are accurate. I think the arguments that it creates an undesirable subculture, and encourages a moral laxity that is harmful... 100% accurate. They are also TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Are we a free people, or not?
 
You don't need a specific amount of anything to be charged with DWI. While the hard data from breathalyzers and such can build the case, all the cop needs are the clinical manifestations. Same as people driving who haven't slept in 24 hours. Now with body cams and dash cams video evidence can pretty much seal the deal.
I am not sure that forgetting the question you just asked me in the middle of my response is evidence of being unable to operate a motor vehicle safely :)
 
Last edited:
You don't need a specific amount of anything to be charged with DWI. While the hard data from breathalyzers and such can build the case, all the cop needs are the clinical manifestations. Same as people driving who haven't slept in 24 hours. Now with body cams and dash cams video evidence can pretty much seal the deal.
I did think that BAC levels under .08 would forego a DUI conviction? Am I wrong?
 
Back
Top Bottom