Sandra Bland’s THC levels were Normal.

[kpete]

Sandra Bland’s THC levels were normal
July 27, 2015 at 4:06 pm
By Chris Roberts

.....................



According to the initial report, Bland had a THC level in her blood of 18 nanograms per milliliter, with a margin of error of 4 nanograms per milliliter.




To some, this is evidence that she was under the influence of marijuana when she died, allegedly by hanging herself with a plastic garbage bag, as her former jailers have claimed. Washington State, for example, has a legal limit of 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. Bland’s was three times that.

So what does this new data prove? It proves, to almost near-certainty, that Bland did not consume marijuana in her jail cell prior to her death, as authorities suggest. It also suggests, to almost near-certainty, that Bland was not under the influence of cannabis at all at the time of her death, or at any time she was in police custody.

.....Tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, does not come about without human interaction. Rather, raw marijuana in plan form contains mostly THC’s biosynthetic precursor, which is called THC-A, or tetrahydrocannabinolic acid. THC-A does not get you high. THC-A does become THC under the presence of heat, a process called decarboxylation.

Therefore, if Bland had indeed consumed a large amount of raw cannabis orally, the effect would have been nothing. Second, if she had consumed active cannabis in edible or hash oil form, her THC levels would be much, much higher.

As it is, her THC level was that of a sober person, according to one well-known researcher.


More:
http://sfevergreen.com/sandra-blands-thc-levels-were-normal/

[DetlefK]

1. If she had been stoned, it would have been >40 microgramms per liter.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html




EDIT: For those confused by the units of measurement: microgramm per liter is the same as nanogramm per milli-liter

[Igel]

2. The literature is all over the place.

The pro-pot literature isn't, of course, but that's motivated thinking for you.

In some case, 5 ugm/L gets you intoxicated. If you're a chronic user, then often the level can be higher. So that 5 ugm/L is too low. On the other hand, some argued it's too high. The problem is that different people react differently, so that level can produce intoxication in some but not others. (This isn't a secret. It's when you get into the polemic weeds of advocacy, pro and con, that suddenly it's one-size-fits-all.)

One thing most research shows is that 24 hours after what they consider "average" or even above average use very few subjects exceed 5 ugm/L. Whatever the blood concentration immediately after use--20, 40, 50, higher--it drops down quickly as it's metabolised. In most cases, it's below 5 nmg/ml in less than 5-6 hours.

So Hart "proves" that she didn't consume the drug in the hour before her death. However, he then extends that to the previous 60 hours. And declares that to be "normal." Now, normal for the population as a whole is going to be very very, low. "Placebos" in pot tests do not put THC in your blood. "Here's a sugar pill ... Ignore the rush. It's just the placebo effect that causes your body to produce THC spontaneously."

Unconvinced. However, I'm not yearning to be convinced, so some would consider me a hard sell.

Nor am I yearning to think that Bland consumed the pot in jail. So it's not like I'm in impossible sell.

I'm merely skeptical and want evidence, not just the claims that tell me me and "my side" are right.