Hope you get some answers about your mum soon, VG. Waiting is always the hardest part.
And, my condolences to you on the passing of a friend.
And, my condolences to you on the passing of a friend.
Virgin Ground And The Little Star Asterion
- Thread starter Virgin Ground
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #9,042
Ediblocked: Some people can’t get high from eating marijuana, and scientists aren’t sure why
Could an uncommon variant of a key liver enzyme be to blame?
By Dan Adams Globe Staff,Updated May 12, 2021, 9:04 a.m.
Leading experts acknowledge the phenomenon of some users not reacting to edible cannabis is real, but they can’t definitively explain it. They called for further research.
Leading experts acknowledge the phenomenon of some users not reacting to edible cannabis is real, but they can’t definitively explain it. They called for further research.
Al McDonald started to suspect there was something different about the way his body processed marijuana edibles one night in his early 20s, when he split a strong batch of pot-infused cookies with friends.
“They couldn’t stop laughing — they were all having a great time,” recalled McDonald, a 55-year-old cannabis cultivator from Ontario, Canada. “And I got absolutely nothing from them. I was sitting there with my arms crossed, like, ‘aw man … everybody’s Hoverboard works except for mine.’ ”
To a small number of people, McDonald’s experience will sound familiar. That’s because he’s part of an unknown portion of the population that appears to be functionally “immune” to edibles, or at least has exceptionally high tolerances.
While they experience smoked marijuana normally, McDonald and a half-dozen other such “ediblocked” consumers who spoke to the Globe all insisted they experienced no effects even after eating quantities of marijuana concentrates that would launch the vast majority of people on a long, panicky, and profoundly unpleasant (though not physically toxic) trip.
McDonald, for instance, discovered through a reckless experiment with hash tea that he “starts to feel something” at around 700 milligrams of THC, the compound that causes the drug’s characteristic high. That dose is a staggering 140 times the standard serving in Massachusetts of 5 milligrams.
Leading cannabis doctors and researchers acknowledge the phenomenon is real, but can’t definitively explain it. They called for further research, saying that far beyond the disappointment of recreational marijuana consumers who can’t get high, it has serious implications for dosing in medical marijuana treatment and raises questions about the validity of blood tests that purport to detect pot impairment.
Unraveling the mechanisms at play could also point the way to a better understanding of the human body’s complex system of naturally occurring cannabinoid compounds and receptors, which are thought to play a role in everything from fertility to immunity to mood and cognition.
“We’re only just now starting to understand the cannabinoid system,” said Dr. Staci Gruber, the director of the Marijuana Investigations for Neuroscientific Discovery programs at McLean Hospital. “And it’s already clear that it’s not just about what and how much you’re using; it’s about how you’re wired.”
While no studies have directly examined those with ultra-high tolerances to marijuana edibles, Gruber and other researchers have a compelling hypothesis: People with an unusual variation of a key liver enzyme could essentially be too efficient at processing ingested THC, turning the compound into its “active” high-causing metabolite and then its inactive waste product before the active form can enter the bloodstream or brain. It’s also possible other people’s enzymes make them unusually inefficient at performing this process, with little THC getting metabolized in the first place.
“It’s almost as if they’re skipping the intermediate step,” Gruber said of people with uncommon subtypes of the CPY2C9 gene, which encodes the enzyme that shepherds THC through its three-step metabolic transformation. “You’re breaking it down so fast it doesn’t have an opportunity to create the psychoactive effect.”
Gruber added that other variables such as how easily people absorb and metabolize fat probably play a role, too.
If the hypothesis holds, it would mean “immunity” to edibles can be inherited — and indeed, nearly all of the consumers who spoke to the Globe said they had at least one close family member with a similar condition.
The explanation stems from new studies finding that levels of THC metabolites in people’s blood varied drastically depending on which variant of the enzyme they had.
The research casts doubt on biological marijuana tests widely used by researchers, doctors, police, and employers, which look for those same metabolites but don’t account for the apparently vast and hard-wired variations in metabolic rate between individuals. (In Massachusetts, most suspected stoned drivers are evaluated by officers with so-called “drug recognition expert” certifications, a process that typically includes a saliva or blood test for THC.)
“It underscores the need to understand people’s genetic profiles, and that there are a lot of variables people haven’t considered” when it comes to interpreting such tests, Gruber said.
Besides the social FOMO, being “ediblocked” makes it difficult to benefit from marijuana’s pain-relieving and other medicinal qualities. It’s possible significant numbers of medical marijuana patients who tried but never benefited from edibles could still find relief if they take a high enough dose, or if a supplement could be developed that slows their enzyme action. (There is also the intriguing possibility of a Narcan-like drug for ending unpleasant cannabis highs that exploits the same principle.)
Renata Caines, a 31-year-old cannabis entrepreneur from Roxbury who has the condition, said she’s dreading an upcoming major surgery, knowing she will be largely unable to smoke marijuana and cannot afford the large quantities of potent cannabis tincture it would take for her to feel an effect.
She has also yet to find her breakthrough dose, nervous about overshooting the mark — even as she astounded her family by downing an entire marijuana-infused “space cake” in Amsterdam to no apparent effect.
“I know they’ll prescribe me opioids, but that’s really not something I want to take,” Caines said. “So do I try to see if I can manage with edibles, even knowing I have a high tolerance? My insurance won’t cover that.”
People who cannot easily get high from edibles are accustomed to skepticism, with most saying they first discovered their condition in a social setting, then gradually tried higher and higher doses to prove it wasn’t a fluke.
“At first, my friends assumed I was high and just sort of didn’t realize it, but I’m an experienced smoker — I know whether I’m high or not,” said one Massachusetts resident in her late 20s who asked to be referred to only by her common last name, Patel, to candidly discuss her cannabis consumption. “Now they’re just utterly perplexed. They think I’m some sort of freak of nature.”
While being “ediblocked” is usually just a minor nuisance, Patel said, it’s frustrating to not have the option of consuming edibles instead of smoking when she’s sick, traveling, or staying with her family.
Dr. Peter Grinspoon, a Harvard Medical School instructor and cannabis expert, said that Patel and others who think they may be unusually tolerant of edibles should proceed cautiously.
“There’s still a risk of taking too high a dose, and then you’re stuck with it for eight hours,” he said.
Grinspoon said the phenomenon illustrates how little we understand the body’s cannabinoid system, thanks in part to longstanding federal restrictions on studying marijuana. “This is something that, with appropriate research and smart people working on it, we could understand and maybe even fix,” he said.
In the meantime, McDonald will stick to consuming weed the old-fashioned way.
“Just give me a joint and I’ll try to keep up,” he said with a laugh.
Could an uncommon variant of a key liver enzyme be to blame?
By Dan Adams Globe Staff,Updated May 12, 2021, 9:04 a.m.
Leading experts acknowledge the phenomenon of some users not reacting to edible cannabis is real, but they can’t definitively explain it. They called for further research.
Leading experts acknowledge the phenomenon of some users not reacting to edible cannabis is real, but they can’t definitively explain it. They called for further research.
Al McDonald started to suspect there was something different about the way his body processed marijuana edibles one night in his early 20s, when he split a strong batch of pot-infused cookies with friends.
“They couldn’t stop laughing — they were all having a great time,” recalled McDonald, a 55-year-old cannabis cultivator from Ontario, Canada. “And I got absolutely nothing from them. I was sitting there with my arms crossed, like, ‘aw man … everybody’s Hoverboard works except for mine.’ ”
To a small number of people, McDonald’s experience will sound familiar. That’s because he’s part of an unknown portion of the population that appears to be functionally “immune” to edibles, or at least has exceptionally high tolerances.
While they experience smoked marijuana normally, McDonald and a half-dozen other such “ediblocked” consumers who spoke to the Globe all insisted they experienced no effects even after eating quantities of marijuana concentrates that would launch the vast majority of people on a long, panicky, and profoundly unpleasant (though not physically toxic) trip.
McDonald, for instance, discovered through a reckless experiment with hash tea that he “starts to feel something” at around 700 milligrams of THC, the compound that causes the drug’s characteristic high. That dose is a staggering 140 times the standard serving in Massachusetts of 5 milligrams.
Leading cannabis doctors and researchers acknowledge the phenomenon is real, but can’t definitively explain it. They called for further research, saying that far beyond the disappointment of recreational marijuana consumers who can’t get high, it has serious implications for dosing in medical marijuana treatment and raises questions about the validity of blood tests that purport to detect pot impairment.
Unraveling the mechanisms at play could also point the way to a better understanding of the human body’s complex system of naturally occurring cannabinoid compounds and receptors, which are thought to play a role in everything from fertility to immunity to mood and cognition.
“We’re only just now starting to understand the cannabinoid system,” said Dr. Staci Gruber, the director of the Marijuana Investigations for Neuroscientific Discovery programs at McLean Hospital. “And it’s already clear that it’s not just about what and how much you’re using; it’s about how you’re wired.”
While no studies have directly examined those with ultra-high tolerances to marijuana edibles, Gruber and other researchers have a compelling hypothesis: People with an unusual variation of a key liver enzyme could essentially be too efficient at processing ingested THC, turning the compound into its “active” high-causing metabolite and then its inactive waste product before the active form can enter the bloodstream or brain. It’s also possible other people’s enzymes make them unusually inefficient at performing this process, with little THC getting metabolized in the first place.
“It’s almost as if they’re skipping the intermediate step,” Gruber said of people with uncommon subtypes of the CPY2C9 gene, which encodes the enzyme that shepherds THC through its three-step metabolic transformation. “You’re breaking it down so fast it doesn’t have an opportunity to create the psychoactive effect.”
Gruber added that other variables such as how easily people absorb and metabolize fat probably play a role, too.
If the hypothesis holds, it would mean “immunity” to edibles can be inherited — and indeed, nearly all of the consumers who spoke to the Globe said they had at least one close family member with a similar condition.
The explanation stems from new studies finding that levels of THC metabolites in people’s blood varied drastically depending on which variant of the enzyme they had.
The research casts doubt on biological marijuana tests widely used by researchers, doctors, police, and employers, which look for those same metabolites but don’t account for the apparently vast and hard-wired variations in metabolic rate between individuals. (In Massachusetts, most suspected stoned drivers are evaluated by officers with so-called “drug recognition expert” certifications, a process that typically includes a saliva or blood test for THC.)
“It underscores the need to understand people’s genetic profiles, and that there are a lot of variables people haven’t considered” when it comes to interpreting such tests, Gruber said.
Besides the social FOMO, being “ediblocked” makes it difficult to benefit from marijuana’s pain-relieving and other medicinal qualities. It’s possible significant numbers of medical marijuana patients who tried but never benefited from edibles could still find relief if they take a high enough dose, or if a supplement could be developed that slows their enzyme action. (There is also the intriguing possibility of a Narcan-like drug for ending unpleasant cannabis highs that exploits the same principle.)
Renata Caines, a 31-year-old cannabis entrepreneur from Roxbury who has the condition, said she’s dreading an upcoming major surgery, knowing she will be largely unable to smoke marijuana and cannot afford the large quantities of potent cannabis tincture it would take for her to feel an effect.
She has also yet to find her breakthrough dose, nervous about overshooting the mark — even as she astounded her family by downing an entire marijuana-infused “space cake” in Amsterdam to no apparent effect.
“I know they’ll prescribe me opioids, but that’s really not something I want to take,” Caines said. “So do I try to see if I can manage with edibles, even knowing I have a high tolerance? My insurance won’t cover that.”
People who cannot easily get high from edibles are accustomed to skepticism, with most saying they first discovered their condition in a social setting, then gradually tried higher and higher doses to prove it wasn’t a fluke.
“At first, my friends assumed I was high and just sort of didn’t realize it, but I’m an experienced smoker — I know whether I’m high or not,” said one Massachusetts resident in her late 20s who asked to be referred to only by her common last name, Patel, to candidly discuss her cannabis consumption. “Now they’re just utterly perplexed. They think I’m some sort of freak of nature.”
While being “ediblocked” is usually just a minor nuisance, Patel said, it’s frustrating to not have the option of consuming edibles instead of smoking when she’s sick, traveling, or staying with her family.
Dr. Peter Grinspoon, a Harvard Medical School instructor and cannabis expert, said that Patel and others who think they may be unusually tolerant of edibles should proceed cautiously.
“There’s still a risk of taking too high a dose, and then you’re stuck with it for eight hours,” he said.
Grinspoon said the phenomenon illustrates how little we understand the body’s cannabinoid system, thanks in part to longstanding federal restrictions on studying marijuana. “This is something that, with appropriate research and smart people working on it, we could understand and maybe even fix,” he said.
In the meantime, McDonald will stick to consuming weed the old-fashioned way.
“Just give me a joint and I’ll try to keep up,” he said with a laugh.
I have ediblock. What i give a friend he takes one of, I take 6. I do get elevated but it takes getting over a threshold most folks don't have.
I'm actually the same way. It rarely gets me "high." Often within half and hour or 45 minutes it will make me excessively tired and I have to go to sleep. But rarely high. Interestingly, when I eat gummies that's not true, they work fine. But edibles made with butter...nope.
Great post, very interesting.
My sister is the same. She can take extremely potent edibles and feel almost nothing.
On the other hand. When I have a load of edies in me all I need is a puff and it's elevation time in a big way!
- Thread starter
- #9,048
Mom is coming home today
The Dr. here gave her the wrong meds and she had excess potassium in her blood making it difficult for her kidneys to function. It also made it harder for her to breathe.
She also had gallons of fluid removed from around her lungs and heart.
They think they have it under control for now....
Thanks for the well wishes and prayers.
The Dr. here gave her the wrong meds and she had excess potassium in her blood making it difficult for her kidneys to function. It also made it harder for her to breathe.
She also had gallons of fluid removed from around her lungs and heart.
They think they have it under control for now....
Thanks for the well wishes and prayers.
I’m glad that they figured it out and your Mom is back home now. Wishing her a speedy recovery.
- Thread starter
- #9,050
Boston Globe
Legal and scientific experts sharply question proposed crackdown on drugged driving
Critics say bill would roll back marijuana legalization, undermine judicial independence
By Dan Adams Globe Staff,Updated January 2, 2022, 4:27 p.m.
Governor Charlie Baker is putting new pressure on the Massachusetts Legislature to finally pass his proposed crackdown on drugged driving, instead of letting the measure — initially filed in 2019 — again die in committee.
During a recent legislative hearing, a number of his administration’s highest-ranking public safety officials urged lawmakers to advance the bill, arguing it would save lives by making it easier for police and prosecutors to detect, arrest, and convict drivers high on marijuana and other substances.
But as state legislators chew on their testimony, prominent experts are stepping forward to warn the plan is fundamentally flawed.
They say it risks sweeping up law-abiding drivers by forcing courts to consider the results of a questionable roadside impairment evaluation — and automatically suspending the licenses of those who refuse to participate in follow-up blood tests. Critics also question whether the Legislature has the power to require that judges accept the testimony of police officers trained in the technique, which in the absence of reliable “pot breathalyzer” technology leans heavily on their subjective observations.
“It’s junk science to the nth degree,” Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge and senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, said in an interview. “The Legislature has no business mandating who or what can be admitted into court — especially testimony that doesn’t meet evidentiary standards. It’s preposterous, and challengeable on any number of grounds.”
Baker has named his refiled legislation after Thomas Clardy, a state trooper struck and killed by a vehicle during a traffic stop in 2016. The vehicle’s driver, a medical marijuana patient, was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter and other serious charges, but acquitted of driving under the influence of cannabis.
State Police took photographs of a heavily damaged unmarked cruiser during their investigation of an accident on the Massachusetts Turnpike east of exit 9 on March 16, 2016. State Police trooper Thomas Clardy, who was injured in the crash, later died.
Proponents say the bill would close gaps that can allow people who drive while impaired by cannabis or other drugs — including prescription medication — to escape accountability. Its centerpiece is an expansion of the “drug recognition expert,” or DRE, protocol, which aims to train police officers so they can identify whether someone is impaired and by what substances.
In addition to several familiar balance and attention tests adapted from roadside evaluations of drunkenness, the 12-step DRE process includes measurements of heart rate, temperature, and blood pressure, plus observations of the suspect’s pupils, muscle tone, “attitude, coordination, speech, breath and face.” Baker’s bill would further subject suspected stoned drivers to a blood test for metabolites of THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana, and require state courts to recognize DRE-trained officers as experts.
“It’s simple: You can’t drive safely when you’re impaired,” Terrence Reidy, a former prosecutor and the secretary of the state’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, told lawmakers at the mid-December hearing. “This legislation will improve community safety and advance good criminal justice policy.”
Reidy, who noted that AAA and Mothers Against Drunk Driving support the bill, insisted the DRE and blood test system is “rigorous.” But in interviews, scientists, defense attorneys, and other experts assailed the procedure as little more than pseudoscience.
One of their central objections is that tests for THC metabolites only indicate marijuana use in recent days or weeks, not active impairment at the time of the test. Recent studies have found that, unlike with alcohol, there is no reliable connection between impairment and the amount of THC in someone’s blood; heavy and novice marijuana consumers can have substantially different responses to identical doses of the drug, and some medical cannabis patients even show cognitive improvements.
Policymakers “are so desperate to have an impairment metric for cannabis that’s equivalent to alcohol, but unfortunately, it’s much more complex,” said Dr. Staci Gruber, a longtime cannabis researcher at McLean Hospital. “People are convinced somehow that higher frequency and magnitude of use automatically equals higher levels of impairment, which is just not true.”
Meanwhile, many of the symptoms evaluated under the DRE protocol, such as a racing heartbeat or high blood pressure, just as easily could be explained by anxiety or numerous other physiological causes unrelated to drug impairment, critics said. That shortcoming is even more pronounced in the absence of individual-level baseline testing that would offer a point of comparison to the results of a roadside test.
“Even given hours and hours with subjects in the lab, it’s incredibly challenging to detect and quantify impairment specific to a certain substance, much less multiple substances,” Gruber said. “If we’re going to mandate this and make claims that DREs can reliably and in a valid way identify those who are impaired while driving, we should have clear, empirically sound evidence showing that — and I don’t think we do.”
Skeptics also argued that DRE observations are likely subject to the same biases that permeate much of the criminal justice system.
Given longstanding racial discrepancies in traffic stops, prosecutions, and sentences, “the notion that police officers after a few weeks of [DRE] training could disentangle bias from their observations is absurd,” Gertner said. “It opens the door to selective enforcement.”
She predicted the bill could lead to prosecutions of sober drivers who are simply availing themselves of the state’s legal medical and recreational cannabis markets — but flunk a THC blood test after being deemed stoned by DRE-trained officers who smell their breath.
“You’re effectively criminalizing the same conduct” explicitly legalized by voters in 2016, Gertner said.
Public defenders and criminal defense attorneys also are objecting strenuously to the bill.
Nathan Tamulis, a forensics attorney at the state’s Committee for Public Counsel Services, testified at the hearing that the measure was too expansive and exposed drivers taking practically any kind of medication to legal risk.
John Amabile, the president of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, noted there was no evidence of an uptick in stoned driving since marijuana was legalized, and argued that prosecutors already have the ability to call officers as witnesses and hold drugged drivers accountable.
A Globe review of State Police data in November found no significant increase in drugged driving charges since marijuana legalization; 83 percent of recent citations for operating under the influence concerned alcohol, and police officials said most of the remaining drugged-driving charges were related to opioids, not pot.
Along with Gertner, Amabile compared DRE tests to other types of evidence that were once common in courts but have more recently been discredited, such as blood splatter analyses and the testimony of supposed bite mark experts.
“That junk science led to the unjust convictions of people on very serious offenses, and before we start admitting any kind of scientific evidence, we need to ensure it’s reliable,” he said. “This is a fake emergency pushed by the same people who are upset that cannabis was legalized.”
Legal and scientific experts sharply question proposed crackdown on drugged driving
Critics say bill would roll back marijuana legalization, undermine judicial independence
By Dan Adams Globe Staff,Updated January 2, 2022, 4:27 p.m.
Governor Charlie Baker is putting new pressure on the Massachusetts Legislature to finally pass his proposed crackdown on drugged driving, instead of letting the measure — initially filed in 2019 — again die in committee.
During a recent legislative hearing, a number of his administration’s highest-ranking public safety officials urged lawmakers to advance the bill, arguing it would save lives by making it easier for police and prosecutors to detect, arrest, and convict drivers high on marijuana and other substances.
But as state legislators chew on their testimony, prominent experts are stepping forward to warn the plan is fundamentally flawed.
They say it risks sweeping up law-abiding drivers by forcing courts to consider the results of a questionable roadside impairment evaluation — and automatically suspending the licenses of those who refuse to participate in follow-up blood tests. Critics also question whether the Legislature has the power to require that judges accept the testimony of police officers trained in the technique, which in the absence of reliable “pot breathalyzer” technology leans heavily on their subjective observations.
“It’s junk science to the nth degree,” Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge and senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, said in an interview. “The Legislature has no business mandating who or what can be admitted into court — especially testimony that doesn’t meet evidentiary standards. It’s preposterous, and challengeable on any number of grounds.”
Baker has named his refiled legislation after Thomas Clardy, a state trooper struck and killed by a vehicle during a traffic stop in 2016. The vehicle’s driver, a medical marijuana patient, was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter and other serious charges, but acquitted of driving under the influence of cannabis.
State Police took photographs of a heavily damaged unmarked cruiser during their investigation of an accident on the Massachusetts Turnpike east of exit 9 on March 16, 2016. State Police trooper Thomas Clardy, who was injured in the crash, later died.
Proponents say the bill would close gaps that can allow people who drive while impaired by cannabis or other drugs — including prescription medication — to escape accountability. Its centerpiece is an expansion of the “drug recognition expert,” or DRE, protocol, which aims to train police officers so they can identify whether someone is impaired and by what substances.
In addition to several familiar balance and attention tests adapted from roadside evaluations of drunkenness, the 12-step DRE process includes measurements of heart rate, temperature, and blood pressure, plus observations of the suspect’s pupils, muscle tone, “attitude, coordination, speech, breath and face.” Baker’s bill would further subject suspected stoned drivers to a blood test for metabolites of THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana, and require state courts to recognize DRE-trained officers as experts.
“It’s simple: You can’t drive safely when you’re impaired,” Terrence Reidy, a former prosecutor and the secretary of the state’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, told lawmakers at the mid-December hearing. “This legislation will improve community safety and advance good criminal justice policy.”
Reidy, who noted that AAA and Mothers Against Drunk Driving support the bill, insisted the DRE and blood test system is “rigorous.” But in interviews, scientists, defense attorneys, and other experts assailed the procedure as little more than pseudoscience.
One of their central objections is that tests for THC metabolites only indicate marijuana use in recent days or weeks, not active impairment at the time of the test. Recent studies have found that, unlike with alcohol, there is no reliable connection between impairment and the amount of THC in someone’s blood; heavy and novice marijuana consumers can have substantially different responses to identical doses of the drug, and some medical cannabis patients even show cognitive improvements.
Policymakers “are so desperate to have an impairment metric for cannabis that’s equivalent to alcohol, but unfortunately, it’s much more complex,” said Dr. Staci Gruber, a longtime cannabis researcher at McLean Hospital. “People are convinced somehow that higher frequency and magnitude of use automatically equals higher levels of impairment, which is just not true.”
Meanwhile, many of the symptoms evaluated under the DRE protocol, such as a racing heartbeat or high blood pressure, just as easily could be explained by anxiety or numerous other physiological causes unrelated to drug impairment, critics said. That shortcoming is even more pronounced in the absence of individual-level baseline testing that would offer a point of comparison to the results of a roadside test.
“Even given hours and hours with subjects in the lab, it’s incredibly challenging to detect and quantify impairment specific to a certain substance, much less multiple substances,” Gruber said. “If we’re going to mandate this and make claims that DREs can reliably and in a valid way identify those who are impaired while driving, we should have clear, empirically sound evidence showing that — and I don’t think we do.”
Skeptics also argued that DRE observations are likely subject to the same biases that permeate much of the criminal justice system.
Given longstanding racial discrepancies in traffic stops, prosecutions, and sentences, “the notion that police officers after a few weeks of [DRE] training could disentangle bias from their observations is absurd,” Gertner said. “It opens the door to selective enforcement.”
She predicted the bill could lead to prosecutions of sober drivers who are simply availing themselves of the state’s legal medical and recreational cannabis markets — but flunk a THC blood test after being deemed stoned by DRE-trained officers who smell their breath.
“You’re effectively criminalizing the same conduct” explicitly legalized by voters in 2016, Gertner said.
Public defenders and criminal defense attorneys also are objecting strenuously to the bill.
Nathan Tamulis, a forensics attorney at the state’s Committee for Public Counsel Services, testified at the hearing that the measure was too expansive and exposed drivers taking practically any kind of medication to legal risk.
John Amabile, the president of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, noted there was no evidence of an uptick in stoned driving since marijuana was legalized, and argued that prosecutors already have the ability to call officers as witnesses and hold drugged drivers accountable.
A Globe review of State Police data in November found no significant increase in drugged driving charges since marijuana legalization; 83 percent of recent citations for operating under the influence concerned alcohol, and police officials said most of the remaining drugged-driving charges were related to opioids, not pot.
Along with Gertner, Amabile compared DRE tests to other types of evidence that were once common in courts but have more recently been discredited, such as blood splatter analyses and the testimony of supposed bite mark experts.
“That junk science led to the unjust convictions of people on very serious offenses, and before we start admitting any kind of scientific evidence, we need to ensure it’s reliable,” he said. “This is a fake emergency pushed by the same people who are upset that cannabis was legalized.”
Highya VG,
Very interesting and entertaining story. I haven't thought of that kind of tolerance! But we only know things from our own perspective. So it's the liver causing the tolerence level.
i remember from Sue's posts that she would have something "fatty" to keep the liver busy, so a half hour later one can have the edible and may go through better. Maybe it was just infused oil. Oh, well, maybe it'll help. Anyways, thanks for the story! Happy Smokin'
Very interesting and entertaining story. I haven't thought of that kind of tolerance! But we only know things from our own perspective. So it's the liver causing the tolerence level.
i remember from Sue's posts that she would have something "fatty" to keep the liver busy, so a half hour later one can have the edible and may go through better. Maybe it was just infused oil. Oh, well, maybe it'll help. Anyways, thanks for the story! Happy Smokin'
Awesome. Good for mom and the fam! Yay!Mom is coming home today
The Dr. here gave her the wrong meds and she had excess potassium in her blood making it difficult for her kidneys to function. It also made it harder for her to breathe.
She also had gallons of fluid removed from around her lungs and heart.
They think they have it under control for now....
Thanks for the well wishes and prayers.
I'm so glad they figured it wow.Mom is coming home today
The Dr. here gave her the wrong meds and she had excess potassium in her blood making it difficult for her kidneys to function. It also made it harder for her to breathe.
She also had gallons of fluid removed from around her lungs and heart.
They think they have it under control for now....
Thanks for the well wishes and prayers.
Bloody doctors make things worse sometimes.
Woohoo Welcome home Mom.
Stay safe
Bill
- Thread starter
- #9,054
Thanks HG.Hope you get some answers about your mum soon, VG. Waiting is always the hardest part.
And, my condolences to you on the passing of a friend.
Waiting really does suck sometimes.
Glad we found out what's been going on with her.
The guy that passed was more of an acquaintance at this point. It's been over twenty years since we partied together. Still sad.
He did have a real nice family though.
Feeling pretty bad for them.
I've seen a few posts on this forum about folks not getting high with their edibles. Some didn't decarb but for those that did and still didn't feel anything,we now know what it is and why it's happening.
I get giggly af and the pass out. Not just fall asleep. It's more akin to narcolepsy.
Does smoking still work for her?
Like a kick-start?
I tend to puff when I have my edies too.
I enjoy the combination of both methods.
I’m glad that they figured it out and your Mom is back home now. Wishing her a speedy recovery.
Thank you, dear.I once at two of my 70mg cookies and didn't feel anything.
Ended up going to bf's parents house that day.
Wasn't high until a few hours later when I ate a bunch of guacamole.
Holy hell!!! Had to make up an excuse to leave early. High af and couldn't keep it together around his parents.
Bf said he's never seen me that high before and I kinda have to agree. I was fucking cosmic!
The whole family can take a deep breath. We've been waiting for days to hear back.
Thanks Bill.I'm so glad they figured it wow.
Bloody doctors make things worse sometimes.
Woohoo Welcome home Mom.
Stay safe
Bill
This isn't the first time she was given something that compromised her health.
May be time for a new local doctor for her.
Dry herb vaping does, she's never smoked it as far as I know. I can vape a lot more than she can, and she can take doses of edibles that would put me in an hallucinatory state, and likely trigger an anxiety attack.
I'll be giving her some of the sublingual doses I'm making to test out. It doesn't go through the liver to get to the bloodstream, so it might work better for her.
I'm so glad to hear your mom is okay, but someone needs to report that doctor to the medical board for a bit of extra training. 
the natural fat in the guac kicked it off. the thc bound to the fat and entered your bloodstream faster as a result. avocado and a few other foods will do that.
I'm this way, too. In order to kick off my high, I smoke some flower about half hour after the edible is eaten and that seems to kick off the high for me from the edible.
This article was about not getting high from edibles but I'd be interested to find out whether patients who take cannabis orally (aka edible) for pain get any relief for that pain?
Happy Smokin'Highya Hashgirl,
I take an infused oil often (not daily) for increased energy and I can work longer without hurting so much. Love it. Works for me. Happy Smokin'
I take an infused oil often (not daily) for increased energy and I can work longer without hurting so much. Love it. Works for me. Happy Smokin'
