CurseReversed Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 BS. ALL drivers know that in order to be permitted to drive, they must remain drug free. If Ward had levels high enough to be used to charge with DWI, that speaks volumes about the guys judgement getting behind the wheel of a racecar. People claimed all they wanted was the case to be submitted to the grand jury for charges. It was done. Now that the grand jury declined to indict, the poking begins to try to show it was in the bag for Stewart. I really do not have an agenda here regarding Stewart. I have placed no blame in this one, its tough to call. I Just do not like when people are so easily smeared or their actions misrepresented by vague statements just like the DA made. What you said also seems equally vague. Are you saying that anyone who has drugs in their system should not be permitted to drive? How can you really tell the difference between what you took last night or what you took a couple hours ago. If you smoked pot or took a painkiller or zanax or a ritalin the night before, then the next day got into an accident, you would come up positive for all those things in any drug test, and the levels could be high. In many cases for many days beyond that even. But are you really impaired from them? If so half this country should probably not be allowed to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Just as an aside, I've been a Smoke fan since his F1 days, him racing for Coach Gibbs were some of my happiest. That was when I had (and wrecked) my '84 Grand Prix. Ahh., the memory. LOL But the DA is admitting alot if he's going to say that technology exists. So is the DEA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 How can you really tell the difference between what you took last night or what you took a couple hours ago. Blood tests will show how much THC is currently in your system, and there's a big difference between a high concentration that means you just lit up this afternoon, and residual levels that mean you hit the bong last night, according to NORML: Blood tests, unlike urinalysis, detect the presence illicit drugs, not inactive drug metabolites. In general, THC only remains detectable in the blood of cannabis consumers for a few hours (though low, residual levels may be detected in chronic smokers for up to 12-24+ hours if more sensitive technology is used). Because of this narrow detection window, blood tests are typically only administered in the workplace post-accident in order to estimate recent cannabis consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Blood testingCannabis is detectable in the blood for approximately 2–3 days after use, with heavy/frequent use detectable in the blood for approximately two weeks.[14] Because they are invasive and difficult to administer, blood tests are used less frequently. They are typically used in investigations of accidents, injuries and DUIs. Urine contains predominantly THC-COOH, while hair, oral fluid and sweat contain primarily THC. Blood may contain both substances, with the relative amounts dependent on the recency and extent of usage.[15][16][17 That is from wikipedia Even taking into account your quote from NORML, it does not back up your assertion that you can tell the difference, not only with marijuana, but with any drug, except for maybe alcohol, between what was taken 12-24 hours ago, and what was taken a few hours ago. Especially with chronic use. Regardless of whether it is blood or urine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkeyBoy Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I wouldn't exactly call it victim-blaming, but it's some sort of blaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Ummmm So it's victim blaming to release that the driver, that needs to be clean, had high levels of THC or whatever ... when he's the one getting out of the car and running onto a race track? It's funny, the sentiment on here and in the media (at least initially with the media) was a LOT different than the reaction from the immediate community up here. Kid had a bad rep, from what I've been told from people near that circuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 That is from wikipedia Even taking into account your quote from NORML, it does not back up your assertion that you can tell the difference, not only with marijuana, but with any drug, except for maybe alcohol, between what was taken 12-24 hours ago, and what was taken a few hours ago. Especially with chronic use. Regardless of whether it is blood or urine. Actually, I should point out that nothing in your Wikipedia quote contradicts my quote from NORML. Not that I care enough either way to argue any further. It's a tragic outcome for everybody involved, and I'm sure we're both sorry the kid got killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I wouldn't exactly call it victim-blaming, but it's some sort of blaming They probably could have came to the same decision regarding his guilt without using the marijuana information. But when they put it out in an disengenuous manner it smears the charachter of the loved one who died and also misrepresents that it could be the proximal cause for the accident. When this is such obvious BS based up what we know about how these tests work. It ruffles my feathers as its one thing to smear the living, its another to smear the dead. God forbid this guy might have smoked weed regularly in his prviate time, but when it came time to race he didnt smoke a joint before he got in but just went about his business. Now all of a sudden after the fact, him being a casual pot smoker , has somehow transformed into him having to been driving intoxicated because they tested his system for high levels of thc.... Ummmm So it's victim blaming to release that the driver, that needs to be clean, had high levels of THC or whatever ... when he's the one getting out of the car and running onto a race track? It's funny, the sentiment on here and in the media (at least initially with the media) was a LOT different than the reaction from the immediate community up here. Kid had a bad rep, from what I've been told from people near that circuit. Its more about the concept that the drivers with high levels of thc which really could come from a variety of different sources many of which do not involve him being high before he raced. Should not be deemed some how negligent or impaired. This is impossible as i have stated in previous posts. it applies to so many drugs. How big of a difference there is between drugs being in your system and you actually being impaired by those drugs, is vast. IN the cast of marijuana its super vast, regardless of any test. Just like when they said that when hastings died in his car crash he was found under the influence of meth amphetamines and marijuana when really it was jut ritallin and some weed he had smoked days up to weeks earlier who reall could know? but meth-amphetamine sounds so much better then just amphetamine. Even though its a complete mistatement of the facts Just like this guy must have sounded better being under the infulence of marijuana, even though its ten times more likely he had just smoked some in the past few days or even weeks depending on the amounts. Then him actually being intoxicated at the time.... lol.. again complete BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Actually, I should point out that nothing in your Wikipedia quote contradicts my quote from NORML. Not that I care enough either way to argue any further. It's a tragic outcome for everybody involved, and I'm sure we're both sorry the kid got killed. No your right it doesn't which i why I said that either way the results are the same. It just cites some slightly different numbers regarding blood tests Ones that were even a little longer then the NORML quote. But bottom line, NORML or WIKI there is nothing there that states that any test can actually show usage recent enough to proove impairment. especially with all the other variables involved. Just like it cannot for any number of other drugs. Even at the most baseline number cited 12-24 hours, is still insufficient proof of impairment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiverboatGambler Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Stewart wasn't being indicted no how no way. I am not big into NASCAR but a few of my friends are and I have been to a few races at Fontana, and Phoenix. Tony is a known hot-head and maverick. I definitely would not put it past him to try and spray the kid was he drove by. There are plenty of Driver walking up to another car and sharing a piece of his mind type confrontations in the sport but now that is all over. They will wait until a red flag or just do it in the garage. RIP to the kid and if Tony is carrying any guilt he will never be right in the head again. The attempts to make the deceased look bad with the "pot test" is below dignity. I doubt he was driving that sprint car high. He likely just used it recently as in the night prior but auto racing is more of a beer and meth sport than a pot smoker's sport anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 They probably could have came to the same decision regarding his guilt without using the marijuana information. But when they put it out in an disengenuous manner it smears the charachter of the loved one who died and also misrepresents that it could be the proximal cause for the accident. When this is such obvious BS based up what we know about how these tests work. It ruffles my feathers as its one thing to smear the living, its another to smear the dead. God forbid this guy might have smoked weed regularly in his prviate time, but when it came time to race he didnt smoke a joint before he got in but just went about his business. Now all of a sudden after the fact, him being a casual pot smoker , has somehow transformed into him having to been driving intoxicated because they tested his system for high levels of thc.... Where does it say when he smoked? Also, it is relevant considering the case was sent before a grand jury. That's like a drunk person running into the middle of the street. You include the person having alcohol in their system because it can help clear up what may have occurred. That's why you see in reports 'alcohol/drugs may have played a factor, awaiting toxicology reports' where there are fatal accidents. It's also important from the standpoint that maybe more tests will be done to ensure drivers are actually not under the influence of drugs or alcohol before the race. When there are 30-40 others out there racing with you then it's not 'just to smear the victim' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Where does it say when he smoked? In numerous articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 In numerous articles. I know it said he had but the poster stated 'when' so I was referring to this point: "but when it came time to race he didnt smoke a joint before he got in but just went about his business." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I was so happy to hear the news that Smoke was not going to be charged! I know those who judged him guilty from the start in the court of youtube will simply claim that he is the beneficiary of celebrity justice, but they only prove their own ignorance which is fine. Now folks are saying that to say the kid was high is smearing him...sorry to the 420 crowd but they have determined that it was at the very least a contributing factor of impairing Ward's judgment. Stating facts is not smearing him, any more than stating the blood alcohol content of a driver is smearing the driver. Those are facts that are totally relevant to the accident. This is all you need to know: Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo said the victim, Kevin Ward Jr., was under the influence of marijuana the night of the accident "enough to impair judgment." And he said two videos examined by investigators showed "no aberrational driving by Tony Stewart." http://www.komonews.com/sports/Tony-Stewart-will-not-face-charges-in-deadly-crash-276971531.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Clearly the GJ was familiar with Smoke's contribution to dirt track racing It's a balancing test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.