Nevada High Court Rejects CA Woman’s Appeal

Nevada High Court Rejects CA Woman’s Appeal On Cannabis Use
This article from the 420Times magazine website found here:
http://the420times.com/2010/12/nevada-high-court-rejects-ca-womans-appeal-on-cannabis-use/

"The420TimesStaff | Dec 21, 2010

The Nevada Supreme Court has rejected a California woman’s appeal on a case in which she said Nevada’s marijuana law interferes with her right to travel. Shira Monet Garfinkel is a legal medical marijuana user in California, but the Nevada High Court said CA law doesn’t allow her to drive with marijuana in her system; they also told her driving is a privilege, not a right.
The woman was “convicted of driving with a marijuana metabolite content greater than five nanograms per milliliter in her blood,” when she was pulled over by Nevada police. I have to admit, I have no idea what that means, and I doubt it gives any kind of representation of how “stoned” someone is.
Law are always going to vary from state to state, but if a state is going to set limits on using cannabis and driving, there has to be a reliable way to measure someone’s “impairment.” But there is no way a blood test can tell how high someone is. There are so many variables when it comes to quality and quantity of marijuana consumed. Different strains have different levels of THC and therefore different effects. These effects can last varying lengths of time. I could go on and on.
Marijuana is not alcohol, and there is no reason to treat them the same when it comes to driving."

I am not sure if this case was one of the recent where the new Draegor 5000 saliva test was used or not. IMO There are serious issues with that testing unit and its companies performance as well as ethics. I am investigating and will be providing more info for you soon. DD

That sucks.
Not that it isn't a predictable response. IIRC, that 5 ng/ml is also the new Federal DUID / cannabis threshold that the Obama regime has decided to enforce -- a draconian ratcheting up of the War of Drugs|War on People, IMHO. If the Feds are going to share block grants (highway funds, Medicaid, etcetera) based upon compliance with their DUID standards, they had better settle upon a scientifically stable, accurate, and precise method of testing, as well as the funds necessary for the States to train personnel and purchase (presuming that the Feds will rely upon corporate "solutions") these tests.

But as you note, a specific metabolite level in the bloodstream does not ascertain that the individual was actually impaired or not. It's not too difficult to imagine that the Feds will set up roving roadblocks to screen cannabis users in the near future, just as they do today with Border Patrol / ICE / Customs hundreds of miles from the USA national borders. Is DUID / cannabis about to be rolled into the ever-increasing list of crimes that fall under the USA Patriot Act's definition of "terrorism"? It's not that much of a stretch of the imagination, considering how the Obama regime has embraced so many other policies of the GW Bush regime, as well as promoting Bush's "drug warriors".

I, among many, will be very interested in any further info you can dig up on this new Draegor 5000 saliva test, as well as which States adopt its use.

DUID is bullshit. We dont lock up people because they had a beer days, weeks or months ago. No impairement = no crime. No Victim = no crime. Why are we making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. I love my people and my country, but im fucking sick of the scumbags that run it and are pushing it further and further into a police state. When the fuck are people going to wake up? The citizens of this country have over 80 million registered guns. The politicians should be afraid of us!!!

Agreed. DUID is totally bullshit.

Agreed. DUID is totally bullshit.

BiG H3rB Tr3E said:

DUID is bullshit. We dont lock up people because they had a beer days, weeks or months ago. No impairement = no crime. No Victim = no crime. Why are we making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. I love my people and my country, but im fucking sick of the scumbags that run it and are pushing it further and further into a police state. When the fuck are people going to wake up? The citizens of this country have over 80 million registered guns. The politicians should be afraid of us!!!

Click to expand...

Why has there never been any move to actually protect drivers from those who drive impaired, by actually testing for OTC (sleeping aids, cough medicines, etcetera) or the witches brew of prescription drugs readily available that definitely impair drivers?

Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske made a big point of stating that 20% of all drivers involved in accidents were on drugs, without defining exactly which drugs were involved (alcohol, illicit drugs, OTC drugs, prescription drugs, or some combination thereof). What this is is a ramping up of the War of Drugs | War on People rhetoric & propaganda, directed against cannabis users. And, as usual, without any basis in scientific fact.

At some point, the draconian police state will overstep the bounds of rationality, scientific logic, or legality in their persecution to finally spark an outright revolt against the Federal gestapo. Or, like the "boiling frog syndrome", we will one day (soon) wake up in that place George Orwell chronicled in "Nineteen Eighty-Four".

Prosecution: Your Honor, I present that the defendant was high on marijuana while driving, and was thus under the influence. The defendant even admits he was high on marijuana.

Defense: Yes, but my argument for the defendant is simple. The defendant has driven stoned every moment of every day of his entire life. The defendant has not had an accident in over 15 years. Thus I propose that the defendant was not in fact "under the influence" of cannabis. If the defendant has driven stoned his entire life and never had an accident, then there is no way you can say that today is any different. The defendant is always under the influence of cannabis, so it must have been something else that caused my client to have this accident.

Or, in the alternate, :"If my client has driven under the influence of cannabis every day of his entire life, and was not involved in any accident, then you have no evidence that today would have been any different or that my client was endangering anyone at all."

Nevada is a drug war parasite state. They do set up speed traps in small towns, profile anyone who they think looks remotely like they could be hispanic, pull them over, run the drug dog next to the car and they end up making a lot of money that way.

Illegal drugs keep local law enforcement economies thriving in Nevada. the governor even said that illegal drug busts have brought much needed revenue to the state.

Well, I won't be moving to Nevada, that's for sure!

Barn Owl said:

Nevada is a drug war parasite state. They do set up speed traps in small towns, profile anyone who they think looks remotely like they could be hispanic, pull them over, run the drug dog next to the car and they end up making a lot of money that way.

Illegal drugs keep local law enforcement economies thriving in Nevada. the governor even said that illegal drug busts have brought much needed revenue to the state.

Click to expand...

Especially in the small towns. I was charged with felony drug possession for 0.6 grams of cannabis. Including the bag.

HUGE - Including the 0.5g bag?! Wow, welcome to the police state!

nevada is for whores and gamblin

Nevada sucks. They had a billboard on the way into Vegas awhile ago saying 7yrs for possession and life for sale. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, unless you've got some weed.

RomulusUSA said:

HUGE - Including the 0.5g bag?! Wow, welcome to the police state!

Click to expand...

Yes including the bag. I had just rolled a joint on my lap then brushes what was left on my pants back into the bag and threw it in my pocket cuz I didn't want to litter. Cops showed up to the party and search everyone. Me and the guy who bought the keg went to jail.

Doobsters Research

Doobsters Research

DoobieDuck said:

I did some research into this company that astounded me. Here is some of what I found..The company has certainly done its work with keywords in their websites as almost everything I searched for sent me directly to their site or sites that were generated by them, then directed me to the Draeger websites offering company press releases and company generated information only. The majority of all the other sites I found quoted that information from the companies website and or press releases only. I could find very little indipendant info or research.

For example when Googling for Drug Test 5000 is approved by NHTSA I found that 7 out of the top 10 sites that came up were company generated or owned.

The best description of the device, its use, and the results of the test were found at this link:

Click to expand...

http://www.icadts2007.org/print/164analyticalevaluation.pdf



The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the United States Department of Transportation published model specifications for Screening Devices to Measure Alcohol in Bodily Fluids at 59 FR 39382 (August 2, 1994). These specifications established performance criteria and methods for testing alcohol screening devices using either breath or bodily fluids, such as saliva to measure blood alcohol content. NHTSA established these specifications to support state laws and the Federal Department of Transportation's workplace alcohol testing program. The Department has elected to use the NHTSA criteria for approving devices for the prearrest testing of a person's breath to determine the alcohol content of the person's blood.

DoobieDuck said:

How did we get to where we are? This is from the NHTSA site:

Click to expand...

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic Injury Control/Articles/Associated Files/PilotTest_NRSM.pdf

Executive Summary
The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) worked with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop and conduct a “Pilot Test of New Roadside
Survey Methodology for Impaired Driving.” This final report presents the results of the two
phases of the project:
(1) The feasibility study, in which the procedure to collect survey data and biological samples at
the roadside was developed and refined; and
(2) The pilot test, in which the developed procedure was tested in six States.
This study lays the groundwork for the next decennial national roadside survey of impaired
driving, which will estimate the incidence of alcohol- and drug-positive drivers on U.S. roads.

DoobieDuck said:

Information contained with-in this I found most interesting was:

Click to expand...

“Yacoubian et al. (2001), tested 114 adult arrestees using saliva and urine and concluded that
saliva testing may have certain advantages over urine testing for drugs, including (1) ease of
sample collection, (2) subject preference for giving saliva over urine, (3) less vulnerability of
adulteration in saliva, (4) little concern for subjects producing an adequate sample with saliva,
and (5) saliva storage is easier than urine. The authors found a sensitivity of 100 percent and a
specificity1 of 99 percent for cocaine in saliva and a sensitivity of 88 percent and specificity of
100 percent for heroin. However, saliva results only had a sensitivity of 5 percent for marijuana likely reflecting only detection of very recent smoking, in that marijuana does not migrate from
the blood supply to the oral fluid. Thus, positives in oral fluid are an indication of residual
marijuana remaining in the mouth after ingestion. This may well be a positive factor for the
current study in that when marijuana is detected in saliva, it is more likely to be in its active
phase in the body rather than simply evidence the marijuana has been consumed during a lookback
period which may be as long as two weeks and may no longer have a potential impairing
effect.
Hold et al. (1999) conducted a review of the literature of using saliva for drug testing; the
review included 135 references and provided guidelines for techniques for collecting and
measuring drugs in saliva. In an earlier review of drugs of abuse found in saliva, Schramm et al.
(1992) concluded that initial studies with cocaine and phencyclidine suggested a correlation
between saliva and blood concentration, but that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) does not appear
to be transferred from blood to saliva. Recent marijuana smoking, however, can be detected in
saliva from the buccal cavity.2”

DoobieDuck said:

I’d like to offer my highlights of this, a 2009 report to congress. A very interesting read, I recommend.

Click to expand...

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811268.pdf

“16. Abstract
This report was prepared in accordance with Section 2013 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The report summarizes a series of studies undertaken by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to acquire the information needed to address the general problem of drug-impaired driving.
MEASURING DRIVER IMPAIRMENT
Congress requested that an assessment of methodologies and technologies for measuring driver impairment resulting from use of the most common illicit drugs (including the use of such drugs in combination with alcohol) be conducted. The measurement of driver impairment is challenging since driver performance is a product of manual, cognitive, and perceptive skills and the range of performance reflected in the normal driver population is large. Current knowledge about the effects of drugs other than alcohol is insufficient to allow the identification of dosage limits that are related to elevated crash risk. However, it is likely that better methods and technology to detect drug use by drivers would greatly facilitate the 6 enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication of existing drug-impaired-driving laws. With this in mind, the NHTSA conducted a study to look at current methods and technologies to detect drug use by drivers (Walden & the Texas Transportation Institute, 2008).
• Oral Fluid Testing — The collection of oral fluid is minimally invasive and effective in
detecting many types of drugs. The technology to rapidly, accurately, and reliably collect
oral fluid at the point of arrest is quickly evolving. Devices that collect oral fluid for
laboratory testing appear to be a reliable means of testing for recent drug use. Some
companies market self-contained test kits that can be used by law enforcement; however,
these point-of-arrest screening devices have not been proven to be accurate and reliable.

CURRENT STATE LAWS RELATING TO DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING
The NHTSA commissioned a review of each State statute regarding drug-impaired driving as of December 2008 (Walsh, 2009). The DUID statutes are generally found in the State Transportation Code or Title, or Motor Vehicle Code or Title. In only two States (Idaho and Texas) can the State’s DUID statutes be found in the penal or criminal codes.
There is a high degree of variability across the States in the way they approach drug-impaired driving. Current laws in many States contain provisions making it difficult to identify, prosecute, or convict drug-impaired drivers……
….Under implied consent provisions, most State laws stipulate the type of specimen that police officers are authorized to collect. Thirty-four States permit blood and/or urine; eight States allow for blood collection only; six States permit saliva…..”

DoobieDuck said:

My conclusions after reading this report are:
They admit over and over that they don’t have the statistics or records to evaluate this issue. They say “The report describes the research conducted on .. detection “ yet they only reveal this study related to detection “.. research into the accuracy of drug testing technology for law enforcement use
(Crouch, Walsh, Cangianelli, & Quintela, 2008; Hersch, Crouch, & Cook, 2000; Walsh & Cangianelli, 2009).

what testing instruments were used to do the saliva testing. A reliable saliva testing device, such as the Draeger, if that can be considered reliable, as far as I know, was not available at the time of the report as it was not certified by the NHSTA until 1900
They also claim “The report describes the research conducted on prevention, detection” yet I find no discussion of the detection research.


They did not report on what new testing devices and methods are available and how reliable those are.

Click to expand...

NHTSA list that test saliva

www.nhtsa.gov.

About the Company

DoobieDuck said:

I found this information about the company at this site:

Click to expand...

http://www.innovations-report.com/h...ting_drugs_abuse_draeger_drugtest_122749.html

Dräger is an international leader in the fields of medical and safety technology. Dräger products protect, support and save lives. Founded in 1889, in 2007 Dräger generated revenues of around EUR 1.8 billion. The Dräger Group employs around 10,000 people in more than 40 countries worldwide.

DoobieDuck said:

From:

Click to expand...

http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac./SAC/NJ/2007/20070213_0000096.NJ.htm/qx

“National Draeger, Inc., the American subsidiary of Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft (Draeger AG), acquired Smith and Wesson, the breathalyzer's manufacturer, partially to gain access to the United State's market. Draeger AG was founded in 1887 in Luebeck, Germany.”

DoobieDuck said:

That site has a very long court case in which it appears to me their alcohol test unit was approved: “In 1993

Click to expand...

NHTSA published the amended Model Specifications for Devices to Measure Breath Alcohol and an updated CPL to accommodate transportation workplace alcohol testing programs, to meet new zero tolerance laws for underage offenders, and to add testing for acetone interference. 58 Fed. Reg. 48705 (Sept. 17, 1993). The updated CPL listed the "Alcotest 7110." Ibid.”….. yet its dependability still was being disputed in this case involving its accuracy and reliability as late as 2007.

DoobieDuck said:

I came across another interesting twist in my research where the description for the link to the government website reveals

Click to expand...

“Funded by NHTSA, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp., Smart Start, Inc., and Draeger”
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811297.pdf

DoobieDuck said:

This appears to be a conference in which the NHTSA met with judges and discussed new techniques and devices such as Draegers 5000. That meerting, judges party, may have been in part funded by them. Just follow the money!

Here are some excerpts from that.

Click to expand...

“NHTSA Judicial National Outreach Meeting held in 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 19, 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) hosted a Judicial Outreach meeting in Washington, DC, and included NHTSA’s Judicial Fellows, State and Regional Judicial Outreach Liaisons, and NHTSA headquarters and regional staff. The meeting provided an opportunity for participants to share ideas, success stories, and challenges with one another.

Jeff Michael of NHTSA discussed with meeting attendees the possibility of replicating a particular impaired-driving reduction strategy in use in New Mexico. Comprised of 30 to 40 senior-level State leaders, a standing committee on impaired driving meets monthly in New Mexico to identify gaps in the DWI system, pool resources, share experiences and strategies, and work together to solve issues identified by the group. The participants include members of both the Executive Branch of government and the Judiciary. Dr. Michael asked judges if they thought the judiciary in other States could be involved in leadership coordination activities of similar State impaired-driving committees.
The Judicial Fellows and Judicial Outreach Liaisons believe judges could play an important role in a committee like the one described by Dr. Michael. Judges could add value by sharing their insights about a State’s criminal justice system. In some States, judges could even lend credibility to these groups by assuming a leadership role (provided this is allowed ethically). It was noted that these committees could be even more powerful with the addition of legislative or high-level executive (i.e., Governor) support.

MEETING SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
Dr. Michael thanked all meeting participants for their dedication and interest in traffic safety. He expressed his appreciation for their contributions to this gathering and for sharing their honest opinions. Judicial Fellows and Judicial Outreach Liaisons were reminded that they are the “eyes and ears” of the judiciary and that NHTSA relies on their input to direct agency efforts in support of the criminal justice system. “

DoobieDuck said:

I find it interesting that Dr. Michael admits the NHTSA relies on the input of Judicial Fellows and Judicial Outreach Liaisons. I think it is most admirable they work together as a group but with no inclusion of an independent source for the information they are considering they may be influenced by companies such as Draeger.

Click to expand...

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-5242.pdf

DoobieDuck said:

From this site:

Click to expand...

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/55/11/1910
Drugs that are smoked, inhaled, insufflated, or taken orally also may contaminate the oral mucosa and OF, increasing detection, but reducing correlation with blood concentrations for 30–60 min. We observed that OF concentrations of 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) greatly exceeded plasma concentrations for approximately 30 min after cannabis smoking
Which is from Huestis MA, Cone EJ. Relationship of Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations in oral fluid and plasma after controlled administration of smoked cannabis. J Anal Toxicol 2004;28:394-399
Related http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15516285?dopt=Abstract

DoobieDuck said:

The above link has the most interesting studies on this topic.

Click to expand...

Relationship of Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations in oral fluid and plasma after controlled administration of smoked cannabis. 2004
The current study demonstrates that THC is deposited in the oral cavity and remains for up to 24 h following cannabis smoking. The decline in THC oral fluid concentration over this time suggests that there may be bsorption of THC into blood as previously shown with pure THC. Passive cannabis exposure studies appear to indicate that positive oral fluid tests for THC can occur shortly after cannabis smoke exposure, but results were negative within 1 h. Consequently, when very recent passive exposure to cannabis smoke can be ruled out, it is concluded that a positive oral fluid test provides credible evidence of active cannabis use.

Evaluation of ten oral fluid point-of-collection drug-testing devices. 2007
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17389083?dopt=Abstract
“The devices still were not capable of detecting Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol at 4 ng/mL (SAMHSA). However, sensitivities improved since the initial studies, and approximately half of the devices met the THC-COOH cutoff proposed by SAMHSA. Results from the current and previous evaluations are presented in the paper and indicate that the sensitivity and performance of commercial OF drug testing devices is improving, but remains problematic for the reliable detection of cannabinoid use.”

Damn, that is really harsh.

Damn, that is really harsh.

HUGE said:

Yes including the bag. I had just rolled a joint on my lap then brushes what was left on my pants back into the bag and threw it in my pocket cuz I didn't want to litter. Cops showed up to the party and search everyone. Me and the guy who bought the keg went to jail.

Click to expand...

Damn, that is really harsh -- .1 g of weed + .5 g baggie = felony possession.

Nevada is going on my "fly-over State" list. Except, since I don't fly, I will not be driving I-80 E or I-15 E through that bass-ackwards State. Looks like the Mormons have brought the modern Meadow Massacre to Nevada -- how nice for them.

Yes mormons abound in these parts. I must mention that this was before the law changes in 2001. It was December 2000 laws changed in 2001.

I'm glad Vegas was too much for my folks (More so too few jobs in their fields) and I only had to live there for a year. I wouldn't want to deal with that crap! Huge, your arrest and conviction flat out offends me.

HUGE said:

Yes mormons abound in these parts. I must mention that this was before the law changes in 2001. It was December 2000 laws changed in 2001.

Click to expand...

He Huge thanks for joining in..can you clarify this ^ ^ for us..what laws changed and how is it different now with saliva tests. Thanks DD

pharma also?

pharma also?

Does this apply to the thousands on benzodiazipans and ssri,s ect ect ?