Hibbyhibby Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I have a client that was just hit with a probation violation for using (qualifying patient yes, but still contrary to judge's order). The test results were 160 ng/ml. I've run into a brick wall trying to interpret these results. Can anyone help me out with determining whether this is a significant amount and does the level say anything regarding when the last time he smoked was prior to test? My client claims approximately 20 days prior to this test. Hearing is Tuesday 07/26/11. Thanks for any help you can give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Happy Guy Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+EdwardGlen Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 This is an area a Michigan entrepreneur should be stepping up and make their businesses cannabis friendly. Until that day comes and or our law is respected and followed as written and voted into law these situations will continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I have a client that was just hit with a probation violation for using (qualifying patient yes, but still contrary to judge's order). The test results were 160 ng/ml. I've run into a brick wall trying to interpret these results. Can anyone help me out with determining whether this is a significant amount and does the level say anything regarding when the last time he smoked was prior to test? My client claims approximately 20 days prior to this test. Hearing is Tuesday 07/26/11. Thanks for any help you can give. Therapeutic doses of cannabis can be massive. If that 160 ng was metabolites, then it is indeed possible. A casual user would have levels much lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1TokeOverLine Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I have a client that was just hit with a probation violation for using (qualifying patient yes, but still contrary to judge's order). The test results were 160 ng/ml. I've run into a brick wall trying to interpret these results. Can anyone help me out with determining whether this is a significant amount and does the level say anything regarding when the last time he smoked was prior to test? My client claims approximately 20 days prior to this test. Hearing is Tuesday 07/26/11. Thanks for any help you can give. Take what your client tells you with a grain of salt IMHO. Was the test ran for THC or metabolites? Sensitivities and cutoff levels are different for both. As a chronic smoker since 1958 of elite strains (Trainwreck, ECSD, S.A.G.E., etc) I smoked the night before a surprise blood test for THC-C00H metabolite and drew a 19 ng/mL positive result. Prior testing after abstaining for 2-3 weeks all tested negative (14-21 days). If I had smoked one bowl or joint 20 days ago it would be undetectable, and I am not your "average" smoker, my dosage is ~1 gm every night before bed for pain (My vape whip bowl holds 1 gm.) I only smoke high quality medical grade cannabis. When I was able to smoke rolled joints, I could get 3 average joints from 1 gm of Thai stick. Hope that sheds some light. 1T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawyercaregiver Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 According to my quick google search: Marijuana urine tests are usually in the 50 ng range for minimum sensitivity. This is not cleared for up to 3 weeks in a heavy smoker (I am using the medical shorthand for renal or kidney clearance which measures how quickly a substance is metabolized by the body). Blood tests are cleared in a few days. The test is for non-psychoactive THC metabolites as the psychoactive stuff (THC) is cleared in a few hours. 160 ng can only be interpreted as a very recent, quite heavy smoker. Your best argument is certainly not on quantity or time of ingestion! Best! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Happy Guy Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 According to my quick google search: Marijuana urine tests are usually in the 50 ng range for minimum sensitivity. This is not cleared for up to 3 weeks in a heavy smoker (I am using the medical shorthand for renal or kidney clearance which measures how quickly a substance is metabolized by the body). Blood tests are cleared in a few days. The test is for non-psychoactive THC metabolites as the psychoactive stuff (THC) is cleared in a few hours. 160 ng can only be interpreted as a very recent, quite heavy smoker. Your best argument is certainly not on quantity or time of ingestion! Best! Yeah. That's what I thought when I posted the link to the charts. 160 shows usage in the last 50 hours. Not necessarily impaired for driving or anything like that. But definitely recent use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 The only way to tell for sure is with a blood test and look at the ratio between the THC and metabolites. With that kind of reading on metabolites, he should test positive for THC also. UNLESS the high metabolites is because of elimination from body fats. In which case there would be zero THC directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) What are the highest urine test numbers found in Michigan? There have been many found in excess of 1500 in a urine screen. This is what you would expect to see in someone that is using cannabis for therapeutic purposes. For palliative use the numbers would be much lower. The 160 number you stated could be caused by just a couple of tokes if they were taken within a couple of hours of consumption. There you would have the THC itself in the blood. If someone is consuming over a thousand mg of cannabinoids per day, the buildup in the body fats could be massive. There you would see zero THC and a high metabolite at the same time. Edited July 25, 2011 by peanutbutter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Happy Guy Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Go back and look at the graffs I posted at the CA NORML link . We are talking 160... not 60. That's very high. Most experts say it can stay in the body fat for up to 13 days but not at that level, 160. And he said this was 20 days out from any usage. I think we can safely think that the judge will say the person was not telling the truth with that story. Better to adjust the story for credibility in court. I don't believe that zeplin will fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Odds are low. There is a high probability that the person recently consumed. I still don't think it's impossible. The only way to properly determine this is by blood test. Go back and look at the graffs I posted at the CA NORML link . We are talking 160... not 60. That's very high. Most experts say it can stay in the body fat for up to 13 days but not at that level, 160. And he said this was 20 days out from any usage. I think we can safely think that the judge will say the person was not telling the truth with that story. Better to adjust the story for credibility in court. I don't believe that zeplin will fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Happy Guy Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Odds are low. There is a high probability that the person recently consumed. I still don't think it's impossible. The only way to properly determine this is by blood test. Agreed. But we are not the judge in this case. Urine tests are about useless and should only be used to show that cannabis was used sometime in the past, maybe far distant past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Agreed. But we are not the judge in this case. Urine tests are about useless and should only be used to show that cannabis was used sometime in the past, maybe far distant past. So how does this get determined? If there isn't a blood test with both numbers, then the defendants story can't be ruled out. More information is needed. Like HOW MUCH THC WAS THERE? Without that information, fat elimination can not be ruled out. Next you could look at past consumption methods. Did the defendant pack down massive amounts of eatables in the past? That would have the defendant consuming much more than most. Which leads to very high test numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Happy Guy Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 For probationers, maybe a urine test to see who needs a blood test? Probationers should demand a blood test when they don't pass the urine test. I would. In fact, I might even get my own blood test if I were in that position. How much does a private blood test cost these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hibbyhibby Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Go back and look at the graffs I posted at the CA NORML link . We are talking 160... not 60. That's very high. Most experts say it can stay in the body fat for up to 13 days but not at that level, 160. And he said this was 20 days out from any usage. I think we can safely think that the judge will say the person was not telling the truth with that story. Better to adjust the story for credibility in court. I don't believe that zeplin will fly. Thanks, Happy Guy and the rest. I have basically come to the conclusion that, regardless of the fact that we "might" have some argument, the odds of our success are relatively low. The hearing is tomorrow, so I'll let you all know how it comes out. I haven't spoken with my client, but it is my understanding that he was supposed to be tested again sometime toward the end of last week or over the weekend. Because they don't have a base-line to use from his prior test (the one that resulted in the probation violation hearing), they were going to hit him with a random sometime before tomorrow's hearing. If my client is telling the truth, then it should come back negative as it would've been approximately 6 1/2 weeks since his admitted consumption. If he didn't tell the truth, then I've got some dancing to do on his behalf and will hope the Judge likes my waltz. On another note, big Preliminary Examination in the Soo next week. It's a case that shouldn't have been brought, and probably wouldn't have been in any county where the prosecutor (chief assistant, actually) wasn't trying to make a name for themself. Regardless, it's going to be a knock-down, drag out brawl. I'm putting together some info, including a brief on the statute itself, for the judge to consider at the prelim. I will post it in this forum if there's something worthwhile in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongHairBri Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 What are the highest urine test numbers found in Michigan? There have been many found in excess of 1500 in a urine screen. This is what you would expect to see in someone that is using cannabis for therapeutic purposes. For palliative use the numbers would be much lower. The 160 number you stated could be caused by just a couple of tokes if they were taken within a couple of hours of consumption. There you would have the THC itself in the blood. If someone is consuming over a thousand mg of cannabinoids per day, the buildup in the body fats could be massive. There you would see zero THC and a high metabolite at the same time. well, when I was on probation I was told I tested with the highest level EVER detected in the 9 year history of JAMS. 3298ng Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawyercaregiver Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 well, when I was on probation I was told I tested with the highest level EVER detected in the 9 year history of JAMS. 3298ng That would be urine metabolites methinks but it was still the funniest thing I have heard tonight. We are talking about whether 160 ng is a lot and he throws that factoid out. :lol: :lol: BTW, to put these tests in perspective, try to comprehend the fact that 160 ng is equal to: .00000016 grams. Infinitesimally small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.