Forum

The Norwegian expert commission (1) used a meta analysis by Grotenhermen et al (2) to determine the blood level of THC that is equivalent to a BAC of 0,04 %. As promised in The Edible Mistake (1), there is more to say about route of administration and the legal limits for impairment. I will start out by providing a quote from Grotenhermen et al regarding the authors assessment of the findings that were used to determine the equivalent to BAC 0,04 %. "Note that the correlation between THC serum concentrations and impairment did not depend on the route of administration of cannabis (inhalation, oral ingestion)." We can infer from the graphs below that the equivalent is artificially low. This occurs in two dimensions. When cannabis is ingested, low levels of THC provides a significant and sustained impairment. When cannabis is smoked, high levels of THC provides impairment, while low levels of THC occurs when the user is unimpaired. Depending on how the studies are made, many factors come into play when this skews the relation between blood levels and impairment. • The selection where cannabis is ingested inflates impairment at low blood levels relative to smoking. • The selection where cannabis is smoked deflates impairment at low blood levels relative to ingestion. • In culpability studies there might be a time gap between a traffic accident and blood sampling. This leads to attribution of accident risk to artificially low blood levels. Especially when smoking. • Long storage times of blood samples might lead to degradation of THC and attribution of accident risk to artificially low levels. • Culpability studies can be skewed by residual levels of THC that is interpreted as a cause for accident when the true cause is human error unrelated to impairment.

I'll start with a brief differentiation between administering cannabis by smoking and eating. I suggest the reader consults the graphs provided in The Integral Mistake (1) to get a visual impression of impairment by smoking. Long story short is that the peak THC level in whole blood is 3 ng/ml and 60 ng/ml administered by edible and smoking respectively. The Subjective drug effect of edibles is seen below and from smoking in The Integral Mistake. From the graphs we can see that impairment from edible "goes up the stairs, plateaus at peak impairment for 3 hours, goes down the stairs" - a slow rise to a sustained high to a slow decline. Impairment from smoking "immediately goes up the elevator to sustain a 40 min peak impairment before it tapers down the stairs" - a quick rise to peak impairment and a transition to slow decline. In addition: impairment from edibles lasts longer. I must clarify that I overlook the Potential Critical Mistake in my arguments. To compress the text to make things easier for the reader, I use BAC as a shorthand for Blood Alcohol Levels. Also; de lege lata is a legal concept that translates "concerning the law as it exists". This concept limits argumentation to codified law and rules out idealistic statements "concerning the law as it ought to be" or de lege ferenda. To understand this in a relevant context, the reader should view most of my work as idealistic statements de lege ferenda in critique of codified law - lex lata. The second graph (2) tells us that a high dose of 50 ng THC administered in a brownie provides a peak of about 2,5 ng/ml of THC in whole blood. This is below the limit of 3-3,5 ng/ml associated with a BAC of 0,05 % (3). When we compare blood level with the graph (3) describing the rating of the subjective drug effect we can see that 2,5 ng/ml correlates with peak impairment and that this peak lasts for about 1,5 hours. The low dose of 10 ng does not cross the threshold of 1 ng/ml in whole blood. This is below the lowest legal limit in Norway; 1,3 ng/ml associated with a BAC of 0,02 %. The dose of 25 ng/ml is somewhat over the limit associated with BAC of 0,02 % at about 1,8 ng/ml. The Drug effect rating rivals that of the 50 ng dose. It is possible to assess drug effect rating of edibles and smoking by comparing cognitive tests done on relevant groups. Let's compare the following imaginary scenario with lex lata. No one should do this IRL because it is a ruthlessly irresponsible thing to do. Lars Holm ingested a 20 ng dose of THC, drove for 3 hours until caught and the courts are facing a situation where Lars Holm's blood level is just below the lower legal limit but he was certainly HAF. The Supreme Court have made it clear that clinical assessment of impairment is valued as lex ferenda only - lex lata limits the question to Holm's blood levels. I assume that this would be within the narrow wiggle room for the Supreme court to invent criminal law by analogy on the spot. Perhaps in accordance with ECHR art 7 (2). The point of the scenario is to demonstrate that lex lata is unreliable in both legal security and traffic security. What we can think of as the standard deviation is extraordinary. I'll finish by informing the reader that there is more to come in this dimension.... (1) https://www.hallelujah.ninja/forum/science-and-utility/the-integral-mistake (2) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5890870/ (3)https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17916224/