THC in Trayvon's system

[tlcya]

* backs out of the thread til some dust settles

 

[flourish]

I had thought about possible cannabis withdrawal as well.

(I apologize in advance for any weird spacing issues in this post and I hope I don't blow the margins. Also, to clarify, only the words in the quote box above are from magnolia's post, the ones below are not.)

I went to the link provided, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_withdrawal"]Cannabis withdrawal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Since it's a Wikipedia page, I checked out the resources. The Wikipedia article cites 6 references. Two of the resources are actually identical, though.

The identical resources is an article from a webpage called "TruthOnPot.com. The article is entitled, "What to Expect When Quitting," found here http://www.truthonpot.com/article/marijuana-withdrawal-what-to-expect-when-quitting with the author listed as "TruthOnPot.com." That article cites the proposed revision for "Cannabis Withdrawal" in the DSM-V.

The proposed revision, found here http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=430# describes four criterion that need to be met in order for someone to be properly diagnosed with Cannabis Withdrawal. The first criterion states:

"Cessation of cannabis use that has been heavy and prolonged (i.e., usually daily or almost daily use over a period of at least a few months; however withdrawal symptoms have been observed among those with less frequent, but chronic use patterns).

The rest of the criterion are based on an initial meeting of the first criterion.

(Also interesting to compare the TruthOnPot.com article with the actual DSM-V proposal and note the differences)

We don't have any evidence to suggest that TM fit the initial criteria per the proposed DSM-V definition of Cannabis Withdrawal.

Another of the sources of the Wikipedia article is the DSM-V proposed revision mentioned above, so no need to revisit that.

The last three resources are from journal articles from the early 2000's. So I went to go find those. Here's what I learned:

1. I could only find the abstract for this article, entitled "Marijuana abstinence effects in marijuana smokers maintained in their home environment." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11576029. The abstract describes the methods used for the study, though, and is as follows:

   Twelve daily marijuana smokers were assessed on 16 consecutive days during which they smoked marijuana as usual (days 1-5), abstained from smoking marijuana (days 6-8), returned to smoking marijuana (days 9-13), and again abstained from smoking marijuana (days 14-16).

2. I found the entire journal article on this one, "The Time Course and Significance of Cannabis Withdrawal," here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:dGG9MysWjxgJ:uams.edu/psych/car/pdf%2520files/budney_pubs/Timecourse-JAP03.pdf+The+time+course+and+significance+of+cannabis+withdrawal%22.+Journal+of+Abnormal+Psychology+112+%283%29:&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESii60B_CTsME8O1WGNkPKn6inLu9er1VmnM1T1SCA4na72I7AwN64DJSNgtFIcc2wAWpCMctQHB6DKb0BXC1qFXKs_NFWCZ9wC4tS-iVC1K75pyfo-_ZmJ5gq9xlEKYT8xrt1tW&sig=AHIEtbR82Kg9WxcyofDmcFVnvpEbt8DOIA Here's some information on the participants in that study:

   Current and ex-marijuana users were recruited through newspaper advertisements
   for a 50-day study on the effects of marijuana use. Criteria for
   current users included: heavy use of marijuana ( 25 days/month) during
   the previous 6 months; no plans to change their current pattern of marijuana
   use; report of two or more negative symptoms when stopping
   marijuana use in the past (15% were excluded for this reason); not currently
   dependent on other substances except nicotine; not using illicit
   substances other than marijuana during the previous 30 days; not taking
   psychotropic medication; not meeting a current DSM–IV criteria for an
   Axis I psychiatric disorder other than nicotine dependence; not pregnant;
   and not seeking treatment for marijuana-related problems. Inclusion criteria
   for ex-users were the same as for current users except they must not
   have used marijuana or other forms of cannabis for at least 1 year.

3. I found the abstract for the final journal article, "Abstinence Symptoms During Withdrawal From Chronic Marijuana Use," here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11127420
   

and then part of the actual article here: http://www.mendeley.com/research/abstinence-symptoms-during-withdrawal-chronic-marijuana-1/#


Here's more information on the participants in that study:

Men and women between the ages of 30 and 55 years were
recruited from the Boston area through newspaper advertisements.
Three groups of participants were included in the study:
1. Current marijuana users were denned as individuals who
reported a history of at least 5,000 separate episodes of marijuana
use in their lifetime (the equivalent to smoking marijuana once per
day for 13.7 years) and who were smoking marijuana at least once
daily at the time of recruitment. An episode was defined as an
occasion of smoking marijuana separated by at least 1 hr from
another episode.
2. Former marijuana users were defined as individuals reporting
a past history of at least 5,000 episodes of marijuana use but who
had not used marijuana for at least 6 months prior to the study.
3. Nonusers were defined as individuals who reported that they
had not smoked marijuana more than 50 times in their lifetime and
who had not smoked marijuana in the 6 months prior to the study.
The number of episodes of marijuana smoking was determined
in an interview during which the participant was asked to report
the number of times per week he or she smoked for every year
since he or she started smoking marijuana regularly. The age of 30
years was set as the minimum age for participatation in the study
to increase the probability that only participants with lengthy
histories of marijuana use would be included.
In addition, to be accepted in this study, participants could not
report a history of head injury with loss of consciousness, current
significant medical or neurological illness, current use of medica-
tions with psychotropic properties, or symptoms meeting DSM-IV
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for a current
Axis 1 disorder. Participants were also excluded if they reported
that they had used substances from any other class of drugs,
including cocaine, stimulants, opioids, sedative-hypnotics, hallu-
cinogens, or inhalants, more than 100 times in their lifetime or had
consumed more than five alcoholic drinks per day continuously
for 1 month or more in their lifetime.

Great, so now we know who they studied. A further step would be to see which participants suffered from which side effects, and how prevalent these side effects were.

The first study, "Marijuana abstinence effects in marijuana smokers maintained in their home environment," states in their findings,

"This study validated several specific effects of marijuana abstinence in heavy marijuana users, and showed they were reliable and clinically significant. These withdrawal effects appear similar in type and magnitude to those observed in studies of nicotine withdrawal."

The second study, "The Time Course and Significance of Cannabis Withdrawal," has some great tables and very detailed discussion of their findings. Some statements of note,

"Daily marijuana users experienced significant discomfort lasting
2–3 weeks following cessation from marijuana use."

Also,

"Cannabis withdrawal does not appear to include the significant
physical, medical, or psychiatric problems sometimes observed
with opioid, sedative, or alcohol withdrawal. Nonetheless, the
mood and behavioral symptoms that appear to be the hallmark of
cannabis withdrawal along with impaired sleep and decreased
appetite may be as, if not more important than, physical symptoms
in contributing to the development of dependence and the undermining
of abstinence attempts,"

and also cites a 2001 journal article (Koob & LeMoal).

For the final article, "Abstinence Symptoms During Withdrawal From Chronic Marijuana Use," I had to rely on their abstract for their findings.

"Current users experienced significant increases in anxiety, irritability, physical tension, and physical symptoms and decreases in mood and appetite during marijuana withdrawal. These symptoms were most pronounced during the initial 10 days of abstinence, but some were present for the entire 28-day withdrawal period."

So now that's over with, what does it have to do with TM? Well, there has only been evidence that TM ingested marijuana at least one time in his short life. As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest he fits the criteria for a chronic user, and doesn't even fit the initial criterion for the proposed DSM-V diagnosis for Cannabis Withdrawal. That tells me that the chances that TM attacked GZ in an aggressive manner due to cannabis withdrawal are nil.

 

[gxm]

(I apologize in advance for any weird spacing issues in this post and I hope I don't blow the margins. Also, to clarify, only the words in the quote box above are from magnolia's post, the ones below are not.)

I went to the link provided, Cannabis withdrawal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since it's a Wikipedia page, I checked out the resources. The Wikipedia article cites 6 references. Two of the resources are actually identical, though.

The identical resources is an article from a webpage called "TruthOnPot.com. The article is entitled, "What to Expect When Quitting," found here http://www.truthonpot.com/article/marijuana-withdrawal-what-to-expect-when-quitting with the author listed as "TruthOnPot.com." That article cites the proposed revision for "Cannabis Withdrawal" in the DSM-V.

The proposed revision, found here http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=430# describes four criterion that need to be met in order for someone to be properly diagnosed with Cannabis Withdrawal. The first criterion states:

The rest of the criterion are based on an initial meeting of the first criterion.

(Also interesting to compare the TruthOnPot.com article with the actual DSM-V proposal and note the differences)

We don't have any evidence to suggest that TM fit the initial criteria per the proposed DSM-V definition of Cannabis Withdrawal.

Another of the sources of the Wikipedia article is the DSM-V proposed revision mentioned above, so no need to revisit that.

The last three resources are from journal articles from the early 2000's. So I went to go find those. Here's what I learned:

1. I could only find the abstract for this article, entitled "Marijuana abstinence effects in marijuana smokers maintained in their home environment." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11576029. The abstract describes the methods used for the study, though, and is as follows:
2. I found the entire journal article on this one, "The Time Course and Significance of Cannabis Withdrawal," here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:dGG9MysWjxgJ:uams.edu/psych/car/pdf%2520files/budney_pubs/Timecourse-JAP03.pdf+The+time+course+and+significance+of+cannabis+withdrawal%22.+Journal+of+Abnormal+Psychology+112+%283%29:&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESii60B_CTsME8O1WGNkPKn6inLu9er1VmnM1T1SCA4na72I7AwN64DJSNgtFIcc2wAWpCMctQHB6DKb0BXC1qFXKs_NFWCZ9wC4tS-iVC1K75pyfo-_ZmJ5gq9xlEKYT8xrt1tW&sig=AHIEtbR82Kg9WxcyofDmcFVnvpEbt8DOIA Here's some information on the participants in that study:
3. I found the abstract for the final journal article, "Abstinence Symptoms During Withdrawal From Chronic Marijuana Use," here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11127420
   

and then part of the actual article here: http://www.mendeley.com/research/abstinence-symptoms-during-withdrawal-chronic-marijuana-1/#


Here's more information on the participants in that study:

Great, so now we know who they studied. A further step would be to see which participants suffered from which side effects, and how prevalent these side effects were.

The first study, "Marijuana abstinence effects in marijuana smokers maintained in their home environment," states in their findings, The second study, "The Time Course and Significance of Cannabis Withdrawal," has some great tables and very detailed discussion of their findings. Some statements of note, Also, and also cites a 2001 journal article (Koob & LeMoal).

For the final article, "Abstinence Symptoms During Withdrawal From Chronic Marijuana Use," I had to rely on their abstract for their findings. So now that's over with, what does it have to do with TM? Well, there has only been evidence that TM ingested marijuana at least one time in his short life. As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest he fits the criteria for a chronic user, and doesn't even fit the initial criterion for the proposed DSM-V diagnosis for Cannabis Withdrawal. That tells me that the chances that TM attacked GZ in an aggressive manner due to cannabis withdrawal are nil.

I strongly disagree. One-time or occasional users do not own paraphernalia, much less carry it to school with them. Why have a pipe and empty baggie in your backpack at school if you're not getting high at some point during the school day? There is plenty of evidence that TM was a regular user.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

 

[HiHater]

I strongly disagree. One-time or occasional users do not own paraphernalia, much less carry it to school with them. Why have a pipe and empty baggie in your backpack at school if you're not getting high at some point during the school day? There is plenty of evidence that TM was a regular user.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

Can you elaborate on the "plenty of evidence" that Trayvon was a regular user? Not that I think it matters, but you said there's plenty of evidence, and you only list one incident to back up your assertion...Just wondering. TIA

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

There is no proof that TM is chronic user, and no proof that he had even used cannabis that night. It stays in the system for WEEKS afterwards. And like I said, I have yet to hear of someone withdrawing from cannabis or hurting someone if withdrawal is possible. I have never seen a news story about someone killing someone else because of cannabis withdrawal. This is getting ridiculous. TM was NOT the dangerous one that night. He was unarmed, had TRACES of cannabis in his system, and GZ was the one on prescription drugs that can have dangerous side effects and was also carrying a gun. GZ was the threat that night, not TM.

There is no physical or mental withdrawal from weed...it is NOT a controlled substance....weed is a mellow head, you don't not become violent ( unless it has angel dust) and it has medicinal purposes. Gives you an appetite so that cancer/AIDS/HIV patients are given this to help in that area. Also helps with glaucoma/HBP/MS, it should be legalized for it's medicinal purposes, there are no side effects like with pharmacological pills...where the side effects out weigh the benefits...

Trace amounts would mean to me, he hadn't smoked in a few days, possibly since he came to live at TWR...people will find TM the aggressor instead of GZ and I question those reasons why?

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

<modsnip>

If someone is bi polar, schizophrenic, this is not the drug to use. It would increase the paranoia...

There is no physical withdrawal from weed, none...I've been smoking since I was a teen, it helps today with my chronic pain, it increases the pain meds for me..it's all in your state of mind with weed..if your happy, you get giddy, if your sad, youll get depressed...weed isn't the problem, GZ is...and I believe GZ should have been tested that night for drugs/alcohol...he's the problem, not TM!

 

[whateva]

<modsnip>

The issue in this thread is supposed to be: what impact does THC in TM have on the case,

certainly:
- it proves he was OK with breaking Florida law
- it proves he was using MJ
- it helps build the case for the prosecution that he was a bad kid / gang wanna be / drug user / burglar

not so certainly:
- trace amounts negate the legal impact
- trace amounts suggest he was a higher level user and was in some sort of 'withdrawal' at the time of the incident
- it could have lowered his inhibition to getting in a fight

certainly not:
- caused him to be outright aggressive

 

[gxm]

Can you elaborate on the "plenty of evidence" that Trayvon was a regular user? Not that I think it matters, but you said there's plenty of evidence, and you only list one incident to back up your assertion...Just wondering. TIA

1) THC found in his system.
2) Paraphernalia found in his backpack (at school)
3) Empty baggie found with the paraphernalia in the backpack.
4) Is it common for people who don't smoke cigarettes to carry a lighter?
5) Is it common for people who don't smoke pot to carry a pipe?
6) Is it common for people who don't smoke pot to carry an empty baggy with traces of pot in it?

IMO, that's plenty of evidence. The people who carry their paraphernalia around with them are the regular users. Not the one-time or occasional users. The speculation that TM was a one-time pot smoker is simply not supported by the evidence.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

 

[cityslick]

Some of the excuses being made for TM as to why he had MJ in his system are IMO, borderline ridiculous.

For the record, I don't think the stuff in his system matters since it was only trace amounts. The only relevant issue is whether it influenced his behavior and I don't think it did. But that being said.

I've known many people that smoke and they are not doing it for medicinal purposes. It's recreational. Because they like the high. Why don't we just call it like we see it, TM smoked weed. And he probably did it on a more frequent basis since there is other evidence that he smoked beyond the levels in his system that night.

 

[Aedrys]

Some of the excuses being made for TM as to why he had MJ in his system are IMO, borderline ridiculous.

For the record, I don't think the stuff in his system matters since it was only trace amounts. The only relevant issue is whether it influenced his behavior and I don't think it did. But that being said.

I've known many people that smoke and they are not doing it for medicinal purposes. It's recreational. Because they like the high. Why don't we just call it like we see it, TM smoked weed. And he probably did it on a more frequent basis since there is other evidence that he smoked beyond the levels in his system that night.

That's fine. Maybe he did. All that was found in school is an empty baggie. That doesn't tell us he was a chronic weed smoker. But fine, maybe he smoked it more than once a week or on a more frequent basis.

The point is that some are trying to say that someone high on weed is more dangerous than someone who is not the police patrolling the neighborhood with a loaded gun, and that is just absurd. If anything, Trayvon was the more reasonable and mellow one of the two if he smoked marijuana that night. GZ was the angry one with the gun that wasn't going to let TM get away.

So what impact did THC in TM's system have that night? None. It did not make him get angry and attack GZ. It did not make him more dangerous than GZ that night. And it doesn't prove that TM is a druggie or a thief. Many people smoke marijuana to get high and don't hurt or steal from others to get more. There is no correlation of violence or stealing to how much someone smokes weed.

<modsnip>

 

[annalia]

1) THC found in his system.
2) Paraphernalia found in his backpack (at school)
3) Empty baggie found with the paraphernalia in the backpack.
4) Is it common for people who don't smoke cigarettes to carry a lighter?
5) Is it common for people who don't smoke pot to carry a pipe?
6) Is it common for people who don't smoke pot to carry an empty baggy with traces of pot in it?

IMO, that's plenty of evidence. The people who carry their paraphernalia around with them are the regular users. Not the one-time or occasional users. The speculation that TM was a one-time pot smoker is simply not supported by the evidence.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

Does anyone honestly believe that a lighter will be brought up at trial as evidence of chronic pot smoking, or that a judge would allow that?

Seriously, that's all evidence of the same thing, he was caught with traces of pot at school, it doesn't tell how long or how much he smoked, or where else he smoked. We can surely think what we like but that doesn't mean it's evidence for a trial. And even if he was a chronic pot smoker, so what, that isn't evidence of what happened that night anymore than if GZ was found to be an alcoholic and dabbled in pot, but wasn't drunk or high that night. Although we'll never know whether or not GZ was drunk or on drugs that night.

That's probably why most agree that at trial it will be irrelevant, the only thing that matters, if even that matters, is what the autopsy showed. The THC found isn't indicative of him getting high or being when GZ followed or first saw him.

JMHO

 

[beach]

Closed for clean up. Will re-open.

 

[beach]

Okay to discuss:

The THC in Trayvon's system, per the autopsy results and your opinons on the relevance of those results as pertaining to this case.


Not okay to discuss in this thread:

The laws in the US and/or Florida regarding marijuana. You are free to take that discussion to the Political Pavilion downstairs. [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=27"]Link to Political Pavilion[/ame]



George Zimmerman's medications. Wrong thread. [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172622"]Link to that discussion here.[/ame]



Anything not directly related to the topic of this thread.


Off topic posts will be removed without warning. TOs forthcoming for those who habitually derail threads by posting off topic.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood -- 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) -- according to the medical examiner's report. There also was a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine, according to the medical examiner's report. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were.

No precise levels on the urine were released.

Dr. Michael Policastro, a toxicologist, cautioned against reading too much into the blood THC levels, adding that one cannot make a direct correlation between those findings and a level of intoxication.

He also noted levels of THC, which can linger in a person's system for days, can spike after death in certain areas of the body because of redistribution.
And Dr. Drew Pinsky, an addiction specialist who hosts a show on CNN's sister network HLN, added that marijuana typically does not make users more aggressive.

Concentrations of THC routinely rise to 100 to 200 ng/ml after marijuana use, though it typically falls to below 5 ng/ml within three hours of it being smoked, according to information on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's website.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html


Those levels are such trace amounts that they appear to be irrevelant but the defense will probably make a big deal out of it to bolster GZ's claim...but I don't believe by today's standards it matters much that TM might have dabbled with weed....just more controversy...

 

[RANCH]

Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood -- 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) -- according to the medical examiner's report. There also was a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine, according to the medical examiner's report. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were.

No precise levels on the urine were released.

Dr. Michael Policastro, a toxicologist, cautioned against reading too much into the blood THC levels, adding that one cannot make a direct correlation between those findings and a level of intoxication.

He also noted levels of THC, which can linger in a person's system for days, can spike after death in certain areas of the body because of redistribution.
And Dr. Drew Pinsky, an addiction specialist who hosts a show on CNN's sister network HLN, added that marijuana typically does not make users more aggressive.

Concentrations of THC routinely rise to 100 to 200 ng/ml after marijuana use, though it typically falls to below 5 ng/ml within three hours of it being smoked, according to information on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's website.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html


Those levels are such trace amounts that they appear to be irrevelant but the defense will probably make a big deal out of it to bolster GZ's claim...but I don't believe by today's standards it matters much that TM might have dabbled with weed....just more controversy...

BBM in blue.
What could the defense possibly say that would make this obvious trace amount "a big deal"?

 

[gxm]

Does anyone honestly believe that a lighter will be brought up at trial as evidence of chronic pot smoking, or that a judge would allow that?

Seriously, that's all evidence of the same thing, he was caught with traces of pot at school, it doesn't tell how long or how much he smoked, or where else he smoked. We can surely think what we like but that doesn't mean it's evidence for a trial. And even if he was a chronic pot smoker, so what, that isn't evidence of what happened that night anymore than if GZ was found to be an alcoholic and dabbled in pot, but wasn't drunk or high that night. Although we'll never know whether or not GZ was drunk or on drugs that night.

That's probably why most agree that at trial it will be irrelevant, the only thing that matters, if even that matters, is what the autopsy showed. The THC found isn't indicative of him getting high or being when GZ followed or first saw him.

JMHO

BBM.

I don't think it's that farfetched. When viewed in conjunction with the other evidence, it shows a pattern of behavior. After all, people are making a big deal that GZ carried two flashlights as if that is indicative of, well, I really don't know what it could be indicative of.

JMO, OMO, and MOO.

 

[beach]

Stop referencing sites that cannot be linked here. No matter what "evidence" you have seen from another site (Facebook, blogs, etc..). If that same evidence comes forth later via sources that are okay to link here, it will be permitted at that time.

I'm getting really, really tired and impatient with repeating this same thing. Cut it out or risk a TO.

 

[zenreaper]

Stop referencing sites that cannot be linked here. No matter what "evidence" you have seen from another site (Facebook, blogs, etc..). If that same evidence comes forth later via sources that are okay to link here, it will be permitted at that time.

I'm getting really, really tired and impatient with repeating this same thing. Cut it out or risk a TO.

Well, if the test for THC in TM's system cannot be discussed in relation to the claims that he was using drugs, could you explain what we CAN discuss about it? Not being smart, I just do not see the point in HAVING such a thread if it doesn't prove/disprove something.

 

[FasHawks8]

Here a couple items that may give people a frame of reference:

THC levels above 3.5-5 ng/ml indicate impairment in drivers. However, no impairment was found at the 1-2 ng/ml level, which is what Trayvon registered on his blood screen.

The presence of THC indicates recent (less than 24 hours), but chronic users can show 1-2 ng/ml for up to a week after use. The 183pg report claimed Trayvon had been in Sanford for 7 days fwiw.

BTW, I know Trayvon didn't drive I'm just trying to provide a context. This information I found (which I'm scared to link based on above msg) did not indicate what constitutes a chronic user.
The positive screen is being spun hard by both sides, including a lot of folks who don't understand/acknowledge the difference between a blood and a urine screen. But it appears either
A) TM smoked often enough to have THC in his blood a week later OR
B) TM had smoked at some point after arriving in Sanford, where he was staying due to a 10 day school suspension for pot.
Hard to see how either of those two options benefits the prosecution. It my be bad, or neutral, but its not helpful at all.

 

[Allusonz]

Here a couple items that may give people a frame of reference:

THC levels above 3.5-5 ng/ml indicate impairment in drivers. However, no impairment was found at the 1-2 ng/ml level, which is what Trayvon registered on his blood screen.

The presence of THC indicates recent (less than 24 hours), but chronic users can show 1-2 ng/ml for up to a week after use. The 183pg report claimed Trayvon had been in Sanford for 7 days fwiw.

BTW, I know Trayvon didn't drive I'm just trying to provide a context. This information I found (which I'm scared to link based on above msg) did not indicate what constitutes a chronic user.
The positive screen is being spun hard by both sides, including a lot of folks who don't understand/acknowledge the difference between a blood and a urine screen. But it appears either
A) TM smoked often enough to have THC in his blood a week later OR
B) TM had smoked at some point after arriving in Sanford, where he was staying due to a 10 day school suspension for pot.
Hard to see how either of those two options benefits the prosecution. It my be bad, or neutral, but its not helpful at all.

The problem I am seeing is that the sample used came from blood in the chest cavity from what I can see in the documentation. That be a no no.

I will hope that there was blood sample taken from an appropriate place and that is the levels that they are using.