THC test threshold

[musiclawyer]

I've read in more than one place that a positive THC test is considered to be 50 ng/ml ?
Who came up with that?
Is such a positive test considered proof of "impairment"?
Or is it simply proof that the person has consumed THC in the recent past?

If you are in CA, you know why I am asking these questions.

[FirstLight]

1. I don't know, but i'd like to

and i hear there is a new saliva test, i figure that is more for industrial workman's comp accidents and dui type stuff...


from where I am at, because it is a casino town, at least 90% of employers test... more info on these measurements would be nice...

k&R

[EOTE]

2. As far as I know, there is no test that determines impairment.

So no, that 50 ng/ml threshold just would determine if you have smoked in the past few weeks to a month. I'm guessing it will be quite a while before an objective test for impairment comes out.

[Romulox]

3. How about an objective DEFINITION of impairment

Even if we could know with a certainly when and how much marijuana a person has ingested, there's no real evidence to link use with impaired motor skills, so...

We are looking for science to buttress a faith-based position. Ain't that America!

[EOTE]

4. There's that, too.

Which makes me think the standard field sobriety test would be the best determinant if you're looking to determine impairment. However, I'd be a bit scared if the FST were the sole determinant. I once spent a long night out partying and was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint on the way home. I had had a few drinks that night, but I had also had food and several hours to work them off. I was asked to perform a FST. I did pretty damned poorly, partly because I'm just a clumsy oaf, and partly because it was early in the morning and my legs were achy from dancing. They told me I had failed the test and asked me to take the breathalyzer test. I blew a 0.00 and they were so baffled that they had me take the test two more times, each time watching me closer than the last.

[musiclawyer]

5. That's what I suspected

Prop 19 is gonna be legal manna from heaven for the Plaintiff's lawyers because you know that more than a few ignorant employers will terminate some safety sensitive employees for testing above 50 when the evidence will show they were not impaired at work, and may not have had anything but a few puffs the weekend before. Yet the functioning alcoholic who is drinking a 6 pack every night, has nothing to worry about.