HQL denied to to Medical Marijuana Card?

[rseymorejr]

I tried smoking weeds. I got nothing out of it.

Try poison ivy, you'll get something out of that!

 

[Inigoes]

rseymorejr beat me to it!

I tried smoking weeds. I got nothing out of it.

Try the poison ivy!

 

[lazarus]

Try poison ivy, you'll get something out of that!

It makes great toilet paper. No need to wipe for days afterward!

 

[aray]

That isn't true on your last. Several states have zero tolerance laws. Any level of THC shows up in your blood work from a DUI blood draw, you are going to jail. Full stop. Sure, the issue there is you could have used a week ago and not remotely intoxicated.

• 10 states have zero tolerance for THC or a metabolite.
• 3 states have zero tolerance for THC but no restriction on metabolites.
• 4 states have specific per se limits for THC
• 1 state (Colorado) has a permissible inference law for THC

The question is not whether states have laws against driving while under the influence of TCH, of course they do. My assertion is that there are no reliable THC roadside tests akin to BAC that have withstood the test of time and legal scrutiny that leads to convictions on par with DUI for alcohol, thus allowing LEO and the legal system to remove impaired drivers from our roads. I do not believe this is the case yet. For now, TCH roadside tests are mostly oral (saliva), and there are big problems with those tests (false positive rates that can exceed 10%).

It's important to note that you said "blood draw". I'll discuss that below, adding in your other post (sorry I'm having trouble with the multi-quotes today for some reason):

"If you fail a field sobriety test, officers have the ability to arrest you and take you in for blood work in most (all?) states. Sure, you might be under the influence but not so impaired by drugs as to fail a field sobriety test and then cops can’t really do anything at that point, where as with alcohol they could run a breathalyzer."

True, but that same study I previously posted wrote the following:

"Blood is considered the “gold standard” for drug analysis in driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases (Moore & Miles, 2015). However, there are some drawbacks to utilizing blood for evidentiary purposes. Obtaining a blood sample from a driver requires transporting a driver to a hospital to have blood drawn by a medical professional, which can take several hours, especially if the impaired driver does not consent to a blood draw and a search warrant must be obtained. Some drugs, such as ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) the most psychoactive of the principal constituents of marijuana, metabolize quickly within the body (Hartman, et al., 2016). The loss of THC in-vitro must be taken into consideration when analysis of cannabinoid positive blood samples is not immediate (Scheidweiler et al., 2013). Further, securing a blood sample requires phlebotomy or puncturing the skin with a needle. This process, also known as venipuncture, is considered invasive (Yamada, Yamada, Katsuda & Hida, 2008). Blood analysis may take several weeks to complete and despite efforts to preserve the blood in the test tube by using preservatives and optimizing storage conditions, some drugs inevitably break down and/or metabolize over time."

So, again unlike roadside BAC breathalyzers that have led to convictions consistently upheld in all 50 states, THC saliva tests are just not up to the standards we need to protect innocent lives from impaired pot heads.

I can imagine the following scenario in court:

PROSECUTOR: "The defendant underwent an oral standardized field sobriety test for DUI by Officer W. That test showed a TCH level of X, which is over the legalized limit. Unfortunately the defendant declined to participate in a roadside blood sample at the time. A compelled test Y hours later showed a TCH level of Z."

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "A recent study, conducted by the Michgan State Police in conjunction with the University of Michigan, showed roadside TCH saliva tests have a false positive rate that can exceed 10%. I'd like to introduce that study into evidence. In addition, Z is below the legal limit."

JUDGE: "You must find the defendant guilty beyond any reasonable doubt."

JURY: "Finding reasonable doubt we voted not guilty."

------

These oral tests may or may not be of value in civil suits where bodily injury and/or death occurred, and where preponderance of evidence comes into play. Dunno. Haven't looked at that as closely.

 

[lazarus]

The question is not whether states have laws against driving while under the influence of TCH, of course they do. My assertion is that there are no reliable THC roadside tests akin to BAC that have withstood the test of time and legal scrutiny that leads to convictions on par with DUI for alcohol, thus allowing LEO and the legal system to remove impaired drivers from our roads. I do not believe this is the case yet. For now, TCH roadside tests are mostly oral (saliva), and there are big problems with those tests (false positive rates that can exceed 10%).

It's important to note that you said "blood draw". I'll discuss that below, adding in your other post (sorry I'm having trouble with the multi-quotes today for some reason):

"If you fail a field sobriety test, officers have the ability to arrest you and take you in for blood work in most (all?) states. Sure, you might be under the influence but not so impaired by drugs as to fail a field sobriety test and then cops can’t really do anything at that point, where as with alcohol they could run a breathalyzer."

True, but that same study I previously posted wrote the following:

"Blood is considered the “gold standard” for drug analysis in driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases (Moore & Miles, 2015). However, there are some drawbacks to utilizing blood for evidentiary purposes. Obtaining a blood sample from a driver requires transporting a driver to a hospital to have blood drawn by a medical professional, which can take several hours, especially if the impaired driver does not consent to a blood draw and a search warrant must be obtained. Some drugs, such as ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) the most psychoactive of the principal constituents of marijuana, metabolize quickly within the body (Hartman, et al., 2016). The loss of THC in-vitro must be taken into consideration when analysis of cannabinoid positive blood samples is not immediate (Scheidweiler et al., 2013). Further, securing a blood sample requires phlebotomy or puncturing the skin with a needle. This process, also known as venipuncture, is considered invasive (Yamada, Yamada, Katsuda & Hida, 2008). Blood analysis may take several weeks to complete and despite efforts to preserve the blood in the test tube by using preservatives and optimizing storage conditions, some drugs inevitably break down and/or metabolize over time."

So, again unlike roadside BAC breathalyzers that have led to convictions consistently upheld in all 50 states, THC saliva tests are just not up to the standards we need to protect innocent lives from impaired pot heads.

I can imagine the following scenario in court:

PROSECUTOR: "The defendant underwent an oral standardized field sobriety test for DUI by Officer W. That test showed a TCH level of X, which is over the legalized limit. Unfortunately the defendant declined to participate in a roadside blood sample at the time. A compelled test Y hours later showed a TCH level of Z."

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "A recent study, conducted by the Michgan State Police in conjunction with the University of Michigan, showed roadside TCH saliva tests have a false positive rate that can exceed 10%. I'd like to introduce that study into evidence. In addition, Z is below the legal limit."

JUDGE: "You must find the defendant guilty beyond any reasonable doubt."

JURY: "Finding reasonable doubt we voted not guilty."

------

These oral tests may or may not be of value in civil suits where bodily injury and/or death occurred, and where preponderance of evidence comes into play. Dunno. Haven't looked at that as closely.

Zero tolerance states it doesn't matter. Any amount is criminalized while driving.

Unless the defense can show or introduce doubt that the test may in fact not actually be detecting THC at all, it is game over.

And yeah, you aren't wrong, it is possible someone could end up ruling out a false positive and then have something below the limit on a blood test. However, rate of reduction of THC and metabolites in blood levels is actually fairly well understood. So you can project back to at least the time of arrest what the THC and metabolite levels were based on a blood test. Just like you can with a blood test on BAC conducted later.

What is harder is that THC impacts people differently, and not just a tolerance issue. For the same level of intoxication, it might take 2-3x the THC for me as for you. However, that is an argument about the law itself, not about testing. BAC also impacts people differently, but not by nearly as wide a margin.

The roadside sobriety test is the principal one used for DUI for drugs, with testing backing up that you were under the influence. A prosecutor could argue if tests showed no alcohol are drugs, but you could not pass a field sobriety test, that you were still driving recklessly (too tired, mental or physical impairment, etc.). That would be a harder bar to get a conviction on.

We do need to improve things, but you keep seeming to argue that there is no way to hold people accountable for cannabis intoxication while driving. That is completely false. Thousands of people get convicted of it every year. There are no statistics that I can find on the rate of conviction of alcohol DUIs charges vs convictions compared to cannabis DUI charges vs convictions. I have yet to hear of any actual PROOF that obtain a cannabis DUI conviction is an impossible or even unlikely bar to cross for police and prosecutors.

As for evidence that legalization will increase cannabis DUIs, accidents and deaths? Jury is out. Colorado had a fairly large increase in the first year of legalization, in the second year the rates dropped. In the third year the rate of cannabis DUIs, accidents, and deaths is slightly below pre-legalization levels. Oregon on the other hand is up slightly still (IIRC about 6%?). Other states have also shown a mixed result with some going up and then back down, others not really changing, others slightly higher.

 

[DC-W]

Hey look. It’s the government justifying bans on medical cannabis users from possessing firearms by pointing out the Feds used to purposefully disarm minorities.



This is in Fried v. Garland.

 

[Occam]

Hey look. It’s the government justifying bans on medical cannabis users from possessing firearms by pointing out the Feds used to purposefully disarm minorities.

We have truly entered the Monty Pythonification of governance.

 

[CMSGT]

I tried smoking weeds. I got nothing out of it.

Well, you at least need to inhale...

 

[Biggfoot44]

Escape from reality via dependency.

ED meds are to facilitate a Return to Reality .

 

[Biggfoot44]

Why did you quote me in that?

I'm not Ti Tic , but I have a likely idea .

If you hit the reply button on a particular post , but then decline to go thru and post , if you later on come back to the thread to make a comment in a different context , the first quote is still there , and you would have to be sure to review everything in your next post , and edit out the unwanted quote(s) .

 

[Chumm]

This may have been answered already but 31 pages is a lot to sift through. I submitted my HQL application yesterday. I had a MMC that expired January 2nd of this year. I answered truthfully that I do not currently have a MMC. Will I be denied since it has not been a year since I had the card, and I did not submit an affidavit stating I no longer use? I tried to log into the MM site using my credentials but it didn't recognize them/me.

 

[TheBert]

Yes, can anyone point me to anything about that? I'd love to read something outside of the forum from a government organization like the FBI. About 365 days and the process of getting back 2A rights.
thank you

https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling.

If you want to get a legal opinion then go to a lawyer and pay for it. Everything here is just WAG.

 

[eruby]

This may have been answered already but 31 pages is a lot to sift through. I submitted my HQL application yesterday. I had a MMC that expired January 2nd of this year. I answered truthfully that I do not currently have a MMC. Will I be denied since it has not been a year since I had the card, and I did not submit an affidavit stating I no longer use? I tried to log into the MM site using my credentials but it didn't recognize them/me.

I would think you will be denied.

Did an affidavit need to be notarized? If no, why did you not submit one?

 

[DC-W]

This may have been answered already but 31 pages is a lot to sift through. I submitted my HQL application yesterday. I had a MMC that expired January 2nd of this year. I answered truthfully that I do not currently have a MMC. Will I be denied since it has not been a year since I had the card, and I did not submit an affidavit stating I no longer use? I tried to log into the MM site using my credentials but it didn't recognize them/me.

I am an instructor who has had students in your very position get approved without doing anything extra. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Chumm]

I would think you will be denied.

Did an affidavit need to be notarized? If no, why did you not submit one?

I just filled out the form. It didn't say anything about needing a year off and an affidavit

 

[BurkeM]

This may have been answered already but 31 pages is a lot to sift through. I submitted my HQL application yesterday. I had a MMC that expired January 2nd of this year. I answered truthfully that I do not currently have a MMC. Will I be denied since it has not been a year since I had the card, and I did not submit an affidavit stating I no longer use? I tried to log into the MM site using my credentials but it didn't recognize them/me.

You may be denied, based on 18 USC 922(g)(3).

18 USC 922(g)  It shall be unlawful for any person--

(1)  who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2)  who is a fugitive from justice;
(3)  who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act ( 21 U.S.C. 802 ));

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition;  or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

 

[teratos]

You may be denied, based on 18 USC 922(g)(3).

18 USC 922(g)  It shall be unlawful for any person--

(1)  who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2)  who is a fugitive from justice;
(3)  who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act ( 21 U.S.C. 802 ));

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition;  or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

That's not his question.

 

[BurkeM]

Definitely not condoning drug use in conjunction with firearms. Just feel that it is an underhanded way of infringing on 2A rights. I know nothing about the application process for a card but why is it not made clear that you are giving up that right when applying?

The people selling marijuana are not interested in your constitutional rights. They want to take your MONEY.

 

[davela]

This may have been answered already but 31 pages is a lot to sift through. I submitted my HQL application yesterday. I had a MMC that expired January 2nd of this year. I answered truthfully that I do not currently have a MMC. Will I be denied since it has not been a year since I had the card, and I did not submit an affidavit stating I no longer use? I tried to log into the MM site using my credentials but it didn't recognize them/me.

YMMV, but I turned in my MMJ card May 2019. I then applied for, and received, my HQL on 8/25/19. Within a month I owned an AR and a P10F.

 

[Docster]

Wow... walked away from this thread for an afternoon an it takes a hard turn into the septic field... I'm guessing a visit from Thor may be on the horizon.

ERuby still has my vote for Pope... I would much rather share his company than the current holder of that position. Plus I think he would rock the pointy hat.

Not unusual for a thread to be definitively answered by the end of the first 10 posts yet go on forever due to multiple hijacks, course diversions, etc. It's all about the post count for many