Jump to content
The Corroboree
Pat Uri

Positive Drug Drive test may not show impairment

Recommended Posts

Ha! I get it now. Sorry, my sarcasm/subtlety detection was obviously impaired today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like being at work all day to ruin my sense of humour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.

You guys....

:wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reneging my offer.

Drive responsibly.

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone got any new info for this thread? I just got my license back, got swabbed, then done driving whilst suspended. So its been about 2.5 years riding a pushy around the mountains to keep the family fed etc... Now that i have it back, i'm interested to hear of any updates on testing and good outcomes... Hit me up a pm if you've got something to share that you would rather not here... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at a MediCann workshop in Nimbin recently and there was a talk about how an ingredient in Fisherman's Friend Original (Aniseed) works as a masking agent and was able to return false-negatives on roadside swaps.

 

Also a lawyer got up and spoke and mentioned a defense being used that has been moderately successful was to point to a NSW government road transport website that states that impairment from MJ only lasts 12 hours, and that you as a good citizen making sure you don't drive impaired, waited over 12 hours before getting behind the wheel and that you were surprised that your test came back as positive after relying on that source of government information as the authoritarian voice on the matter. Basically I did the wrong thing but I was given the wrong information by you guys that led me to do the wrong thing. It reminded me a lot of that campaign that said 3 drinks in the first hour and then 1 ever hour after that. I heard that caused a shit storm.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When questioned in general terms about the effectiveness of the police’s oral testing method in detecting different types of cannabis consumption, Dr Perl said: ‘if it is ingested it will disappear out of the oral fluid very rapidly, or if it is ingested in a capsule form it will not even be detected [at all]’. 

 

There is growing disquiet about the NSW drug driving testing regime. (file pic)

The magistrate, David Heilpern said this evidence had ‘obvious implications for the efficacy of the state’s drug driving regime’.

‘The uncontradicted evidence of Dr Perl is unequivocally that if you take THC orally by capsule or by suppository then it is not possible to have a level of THC’

https://www.echo.net.au/2019/04/roadside-drug-testing-flaws-exposed-local-court-case/

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Yeti101 said:

When questioned in general terms about the effectiveness of the police’s oral testing method in detecting different types of cannabis consumption, Dr Perl said: ‘if it is ingested it will disappear out of the oral fluid very rapidly, or if it is ingested in a capsule form it will not even be detected [at all]’. 

 

There is growing disquiet about the NSW drug driving testing regime. (file pic)

The magistrate, David Heilpern said this evidence had ‘obvious implications for the efficacy of the state’s drug driving regime’.

‘The uncontradicted evidence of Dr Perl is unequivocally that if you take THC orally by capsule or by suppository then it is not possible to have a level of THC’

https://www.echo.net.au/2019/04/roadside-drug-testing-flaws-exposed-local-court-case/

 

Wow. I had never thought I'd read the words "cannabis" and "shelving" in the same breath...

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Glaukus said:

Wow. I had never thought I'd read the words "cannabis" and "shelving" in the same breath...

 

 

AFAIK cannabis suppositories are best for some medical rather than recreational purposes (maybe) as the reports seem to be that they don’t produce much of a high. I haven’t read up on the actual real research on this, so I can’t say for sure. If there is an absorption/availability issue, I’m willing to bet that ppl here could solve the problem though. 

 

Bypassing the test by packing your THC gummies in a gel-cap though? This seems pretty straightforward, albeit a little less fun than taking the back road.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yeti101 said:

Bypassing the test by packing your THC gummies in a gel-cap though? This seems pretty straightforward, albeit a little less fun than taking the back road.

Lol I see what you did there!

Gummies up the bummies

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Glaukus said:

Wow. I had never thought I'd read the words "cannabis" and "shelving" in the same breath...

 

 

6 hours ago, Yeti101 said:

AFAIK cannabis suppositories are best for some medical rather than recreational purposes (maybe) as the reports seem to be that they don’t produce much of a high. I haven’t read up on the actual real research on this, so I can’t say for sure. If there is an absorption/availability issue, I’m willing to bet that ppl here could solve the problem though. 

 

Most are not aware cannabis suppositories have been around for quite some time, though if you want to get a high from it, can take a bit of trial and error. As a rule, placing the suppository just inside the rectum will be more beneficial medically, with little or no psychoactive response (regardless of THC concentration) and placing it further in will add to the stoned experience. This is because the lower part of the rectum's venous system drains to the liver via the portal vein, essentially bypassing the veins which allows the liver to metabolize the THC into 11-Hydroxy-THC (waaaay more psychoactive and more effective at crossing the blood-brain barrier than inhaled THC). Higher in the rectum, the venous system drains to the liver via other routes allowing what's called 1st pass metabolism to occur, producing the hydroxy.

 

It'll be interesting to see what effects Dr Perl's statement has on policing and the legal process. Perhaps it would be an opportune time for those already affected by the drug driving law to consider banding together and seeing if they can have their convictions reversed. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit (no pun intended)! I never knew there was so much science involved when inserting things in your arse!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up @Insequent. Yeah, I’d love for this to lead to some convictions being overturned. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I could be satisfied with "very rapidly" if I knew just how rapid that was...

 

Is this essentially saying  that smoking (or vaping) leaves a 'residue' in the mouth that is detectable for far longer?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SayN said:

Is this essentially saying  that smoking (or vaping) leaves a 'residue' in the mouth that is detectable for far longer?

 

 

Yeah, pretty much correct. Put simply, when smoked or vaped, the THC is introduced into the mouth in very fine particles which are readily absorbed through the oral mucosa. They call this oral contamination. There are fat cells within the mouth which love storing good ole delta 9, and can do so for quite some time. Fat cells, or lipids, break down via a process called lipolysis into glycerol and fatty acids, subsequently releasing any THC into the blood stream and saliva (called re-intoxification). 

 

Edibles tend to be "washed out" of the mouth quick enough so that oral absorption of THC is much less. Some studies show edibles give a much more inconsistent mouth swab result with more false negatives. One possible reason for this is when eating, the body's metabolism is more active, increasing the chances lipolysis reduces the incidence of oral fat absorption of THC.

 

Though I don't know of any study which demonstrates efficacy, it is thought by some that several things might increase the chances of beating the mouth swab test... 

 

In the days following smoking, using mouthwash and thoroughly brushing teeth, tongue, gums, cheeks and roof of mouth 3 times a day may repeatedly stimulate lipolysis as well as remove any mucosal residue. (this one, for my mind, is your best bet)

 

On days following smoking, some suggest a keto diet which increases body metabolism, reducing stored THC levels.

 

Some suggest a meal high in fats immediately after smoking  possibly reducing the amount of oral THC which can be absorbed because it gets taken up by the fat in the foods.

 

If you have a 20-30 min window prior to a mouth swab, rinsing your mouth with acidic solutions like lemon juice, vinegar or a very weak hydrogen peroxide solution could remove mucosal residue and stimulate lipolysis resulting in a temporary drop in oral fluid concentration of THC.

 

There are many other factors which affect the way the body stores, releases and metabolizes THC, for example BMI, foods consumed, hydration, amount of exercise and amount and quality of sleep etc. 

 

On a side-note, the science of sleep has shown our poor sleep hygiene may be either more likely responsible for some of the negative neural effects (apparently) attributed to cannabis use (decreased cognitive function, impaired motor skills, short term memory loss etc.), or have a profound effect in exacerbating those negatives. Given no study of the effects of cannabis to date have incorporated the negative psychoneurological effects of poor sleep (which are prolific), or the amount and quality of sleep when interpreting data, I believe study results should be called into question and more studies including this parameter really must be done.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting I'm wondering if you know why someone who smokes all the time can pass a mouth swab, I assumed what was tested didn't reach a detectable level but if it's in the fat cells of the mouth too I'd think it would be stronger. A friend has had two mouths swabs on separate occasions not long after smoking and has come up clean so I've assumed if you smoke all the time you should be ok, which makes sense seeing your never really stoned lol. 

Don't wanna have to test the theory though and maybe just got lucky those times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, levicacti said:

Interesting I'm wondering if you know why someone who smokes all the time can pass a mouth swab, I assumed what was tested didn't reach a detectable level but if it's in the fat cells of the mouth too I'd think it would be stronger

 

I'm not sure there is an answer to that one, but I've some friends who've had the same experience. A friend's son had finished eating a cookie only moments before being tested, still had bits of the cookie in his mouth, and his came back negative. If your friend is a long term smoker, the THC will be there, in the fat cells, the mucosa and the saliva. The test can't tell if you're stoned, it just detects the presence of THC. Ask him if he's particular with his oral hygiene, scrubs the whole mouth, teeth, tongue, cheeks, gums and roof of mouth at least twice a day, use mouthwash like Listerine. Maybe something he eats or drinks, how active he is. Or he may have simply been lucky twice and reported a false negative both times. Hard to say. The question then would be how many times in a row would it take to return positive. Like you, I have no desire to find out, but I don't think it would be many.

 

I know there are different brands and types of test kits, though I'm not familiar with any of them. We know that all have pretty much the same accuracy, giving both false positives and negatives. 

 

I read a review of several studies which mentioned the incidences of false results, both negative and positive in their data, but without reading the actual studies, I don't know if they were able to explain why they occurred. And I remember some discussion along these lines a bit back in this thread, but haven't gone searching yet. If I do find something, I'll bring it forward. I wonder if Pat Uri's dog may be able to shed some light...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah might've just got lucky twice then, was hoping that might be the case but I thought they were testing a byproduct not actually thc so sounds unlikely, damn just a role of the dice then.

Definitely bad oral hygiene at the time, unless that can somehow mask it lol.

Anyway thanks for the response

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×