NEWS : 3.8.09 - Australian state to introduce new drug detection vans

[Verybuffed]

Verybuffed I used to be an all day, everyday smoker and I can assure you that you still do get stoned. It is just a different and lighter buzz than if you aren't such a heavy smoker.

Even if someone wass immune to THC it would still be in their system if they were smoking copious amounts of pot so I don't understand how your theory would work exactly?

I also don't understand why you believe that if everyday smokers weren't getting stoned they still shouldn't drive? Cigarette smokers don't get high on their ciggies but since its a drug should they also be banned from driving? I mean its kind of irrelevant because they DO get stoned but I am just curious why you believe they shouldn't be able to drive if they aren't stoned.

Good response. This should create some good debate.

We'll have to agree to disagree on your first point. IMO when Cannabis is used after a significant period of abstinence, say 4+ years, then it is more like a hard core narcotic type high. IMO that narcotic type high fades with daily use to more of a "stoned" feeling after about a week.

With continual use the stoned feeling gets less intense and has a much shorter duration than previous. Once you hit 50+ cones a day you don't really get stoned anymore, IMO, you just get more of a sedated type feeling that lasts about 15 minutes. The first smoke of the morning may last a little longer but the day is all down hill from there. The person is definitely in an altered state as you said but I personally have a problem with calling that state "stoned".

I can't explain my theory on all day smokers testing negative scientifically but I have read a lot of first hand reports here on BL of all day smokers testing negative which has led me to form that opinion. I'd dare say that I am wrong but that is how I made the link between the two theories.

With your last point I strongly feel that people shouldn't drive whatsoever if they have been using illicit drugs regardless of whether they are affected or not. As we both agree the person is definitely in an altered state.

 

[qume]

Huge props to Kingpin for scouring the xinhua news agency website. thought I was the only one that knew about it..

 

[drug_mentor]

I feel you on the abstinence, I went a good few months of forced abstinence after a good period of all day smoking. Everytime I would smoke I was getting more fucked than I have ever been in my life from cannabis, more than when I started smoking it was like my tolerance was minus nothing.

Now I have been smoking semi regularly I still get fucked easy as but not as ridiculously so as before. When I was smoking all the time I got considerably less high but I still would confortably call it being stoned.

I admit in terms of impairment it pales in comparison to being stoned when one doesn't smoke everyday but it certainly has an effect and considering I am more used to that than having no tolerance to weed I almost fee l more comfortable calling that 'stoned' than the strong effects I feel these days.

I really don't feel when one consumes cannabis this regularly it affects their driving ability much, if at all. Obviously they have to be punished because they can't really say you can't do it UNLESS you are hugely tolerant that would be ridiculous.

I do know that taking driving lessons while stoned I was not criticised by my instructor any more than I was sober, I did not make any huge mistakes and I consistently improved. I was probably stoned for 80%+ of my driving lessons early on in my driving career when I was first learning. I never got comments about how I was any better when I occassionally done it sober and was told more than once my skills outweighed my experience while driving stoned.

I have to stress I regret this behaviour and no longer drive under the influence of anything. I do not condone such behaviour and would reccomend against it, if for no other reason you should atleast consider that you can be caught doing it now and it isn't worth it. This is just observations I have made driving high and I have also driven after a few drinks and a few cones and was quite impaired.

 

[grass lemon]

I can see where you're coming from drug mentor. I don't suggest people to drive while toking but I've noticed that driving while under the influence of cannabis leads to a much more relaxed journey.

I'm not saying it 'increases' your driving skills or anything, but instead of driving being an annoying task to get from A to B it becomes quite enjoyable. A lot less road rage too .

 

[rolls]

Your friends not just super lucky, he's a super dick head!!!!!!

Some people drive better when stoned, I am not one of them. Stoners will and a documentary on Youtube I think on 5th gear shows you marijuana actually increased driving skills. That is only one test though I do no advocate iot. Some people sober just drive like dickheads, they are the ones who crash.

 

[mungazz]

Whilst driving when stoned is not a good idea, It is probably a lot safer then driving under the influence of other drugs such as alcohol or ecstasy. Not really a good atittude to have but in a situation were you need a driver, i would choose someone stoned over someone on anything thing

More to the point, He passed the swab test (this was early 2008 ) which shows that either the cop testing him screwed up at some point during the testing process, or the test isn't always %100 accurate

 

[mungazz]

By chance is your mate an all day every day smoker? My theory has always been that all day smokers don't actually get stoned and therefore would not have enough active THC metabolites in their Saliva for detection

It was a while ago, but Im pretty sure he was. Don't really see that theory working, the THC should still be in your system even if your tolerance is very strong

 

[Verybuffed]

It was a while ago, but Im pretty sure he was. Don't really see that theory working, the THC should still be in your system even if your tolerance is very strong

Thanks for the reply. Maybe the tests are measuring a level of impairment after all in that case?

 

[acidprime]

They dont test impairment. They test for Active compounds. While THC can be in your body for along time it is not the detected active component.

As someone pointed out, on the Mardigrass site they played around with the testers and found they were getting unreliable results for cannabis, people that were full blown stoned and tested three times did not test positive everytime for example.

*edit: wait that was you verybuffed lol.

 

[Verybuffed]

They dont test impairment. They test for Active compounds. While THC can be in your body for along time it is not the detected active component.

I realise that but I am trying to work out why all day stoners have repeatedly stated on here that they tested negative. Maybe the tests are flawed? And maybe that is why there was talk of bringing in the new testing equipment?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

As someone who loves a bit, ok a lot, of weed, but really cant afford any sort of drug conviction, Ive done a fair bit of reading (and stressing) about these tests, particularly in relation to weed.

Whilst I can't be arsed finding the links right now, the impression Ive got is that saliva is a pretty poor method for detecting weed, I think because not much of it gets secreted into the saliva and the cut-off levels for the tests (suprisingly given Australia's recent hard-arse drugs approach) is set quite high. This is probably what accounts for the numerous anecdotal 'id had cones half an hour before the test and still passed' stories

I think the stats back this up too, If you have a look at the statistics which most government release re the tests (again cant be bothered finding it right now, but easy enough to be found) they generally get more people for pills/amphetamines than for weed. Despite its apparently declining popularity weed is still by far the most common 'illicit' and the only logical reason I can think of for for less people getting done for it is a shorter detection time.

 

[Verybuffed]

Whilst I can't be arsed finding the links right now, the impression Ive got is that saliva is a pretty poor method for detecting weed, I think because not much of it gets secreted into the saliva and the cut-off levels for the tests (suprisingly given Australia's recent hard-arse drugs approach) is set quite high. This is probably what accounts for the numerous anecdotal 'id had cones half an hour before the test and still passed' stories

So basically measuring a level of impairment then in your opinion?

You and me think alike on this one.