PDA

View Full Version : THC in Trayvon's system



JBean
05-17-2012, 08:51 PM
is this significant?

Please be civil and remember Trayvon is dead. This thread is to discuss the potential ramifications of testing positive for pot in a victim of homicide.

This doesn't have to be a fight. It can be a conversation- it is all about presentation of your ideas.

As for my opinion, I have no idea because I don't know when he used, how often he used or how pot manifests itself with Trayvon when is is using.

So for me it is not significant at this point but certainly could be in the future.

We had a case here not too long ago where a drunk driver killed 3 people, one of whom was a an Angel pitcher.(Adenhart). Driver was convicted of 2nd degree murder. It did come out that the driver of the other vehicle also had a BAC well over the limit. Did it matter? Not at all. So in some cases this might be significant and in other it might not.


What do you think and show respect for Trayvon please.

Just K
05-17-2012, 09:11 PM
Marijuana Drug Test Detection Times | California NORML
www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html
Chronic users have been found to show residual blood THC levels of 1.5 (+/- 0.5) ng/ml for a full week after ceasing use [Karschner]. Note: THC blood levels ...

Autopsy: Drug THC found in Trayvon Martin's system - CNN.com

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

ThoughtFox
05-17-2012, 09:20 PM
Personally this new information changes nothing, in my opinion.

Everything points to the fact that Trayvon was just going about his business and was in his right mind that night. Although I'm sure the Defense will try to use this as some kind of justification for what happened, knowledge that George could only have gotten from a blood test of the boy, which we only now have after the fact - from an autopsy!

Problem: George Zimmerman was not a human drug-detector, and Trayvon was not displaying any type of behavior other than walking from point A to point B.

(And others have said this better than I can on other threads, but if every teenager with marijuana in their system was expelled or put in juvenile hall, the schools would be half-empty every day. And the teachers know that, the parents know it, and the principals and coaches know it. And while it is illegal, they have no grounds for saying a child is "on drugs" just because they might have something in their systems, and neither did George.)

All JMOO.

Karmady
05-17-2012, 09:31 PM
My private thought that I haven't shared here previously is that he didn't go right home and, thus, avoid George completely because he may have been waiting for someone to hook him up. That would also explain why he was so concerned about someone watching him that he confronted George and why he got a call overlapping the girl friend's call that's not been explained. It also would explain why he picked up a lighter at the convenience store. I skimmed this stuff quickly while I was in the airport waiting for a flight, so I could be wrong about this, but I think I remember specifically reading that it was a red 7-11 lighter found on his person. jmo

I also noticed that he had quite a bit more money on him than originally stated. Maybe he also went to the 7-11 to get change of a $50. also jmo

flourish
05-17-2012, 09:32 PM
I personally don't see this as a big deal. I live in a state that recognizes the numerous medicinal uses for marijuana and recognizes that marijuana isn't the "gateway drug" it's oft-been touted as.

TM could have smoked a joint one time three weeks or so before the shooting, and it would show up in his system at death, because marijuana is a fat-soluble drug that stays in the body much longer than water-soluble drugs like meth or coke. In fact, TM could have simply been in an enclosed car with friends who were smoking and even if he didn't actively smoke it, he could get enough passive smoke to come up as a trace. I don't know how it got in him--I'm just pointing out some ways in which it could have gotten in there.

As far as GZ's identifying TM as "on drugs"..."on drugs" indicates, IMO, "presently under the influence drugs." I suppose it's possible that TM could have been high at the time of his killing, but then I would imagine the levels would have been high (pun intended)? Also, he'd have to have managed to access marijuana and at the very very least a packet of matches and a pop can to smoke it, and considering he was staying w/ dad b/c of being suspended, I kinda doubt he would have risked that and/or been caught if he had. And since he didn't live at the dad's fiance's house, then I highly doubt he'd know where to get any weed there. I mean, not only is my state progressive in it's views of weed, my particular city is especially "herb-friendly" (that's actually the term), even here if you want to find some marijuana and don't know anybody that sells it, you'd have to go to a few-block section of one part of town, which, if you didn't know anyone who smoked it, it's doubtful you'd even know where to go.

So I imagine any smoking of the marijuana done by TM was done before he was even at Miami Gardens. So GZ's "he's on drugs" still doesn't hold any more water with me now that it did prior to today's information. Plus, I fail to recall ever hearing of any incidents of someone being aggressive while only under the influence of marijuana. I suppose a mentally ill person whose illness manifests through aggression could smoke marijuana and then become aggressive, but that would have been a pre-existing condition.

So in short, ...where's the smiley for yawning? hm...here's a photo instead. Add a shrug to that.
http://www.aquidneckmomstown.com/custom/bored%20kid.jpg
http://www.aquidneckmomstown.com/custom/bored%20kid.jpg

Kimberlyd125
05-17-2012, 09:33 PM
The fact pot was found in TM's system makes me sad.

Although it may mean nothing to the outcome of this case, it does show TM partook in illegal activity.
Marijuana is illegal. He was with his dad due to a suspension for possession.

That makes me sad for his parents.
Nobody wants the "bad stuff" about the actions of their children made public. Especially a deceased child.

IMO

Kimberlyd125
05-17-2012, 09:36 PM
The interview on JVM last night comes to mind.

I really didn't watch it closely but I did see her tell FT that the autopsy showed no drugs in TM's system.

Did anybody hear her say where she got that information. Because it was obviously wrong.

Just wondering.

Lovejac
05-17-2012, 10:27 PM
To me, it doesn't change how I feel about this case.

That being said, I am sad that he had pot in his system. It will make a difference whether I think it should or not.

Also, I'm sure Trayvon's parents were upset to hear this info, too.

Karmady
05-17-2012, 10:30 PM
To me, it doesn't change how I feel about this case.

That being said, I am sad that he had pot in his system. It will make a difference whether I think it should or not.

Also, I'm sure Trayvon's parents were upset to hear this info, too.

Very honestly, I don't think they are surprised at all. And that's not intended as a slam to the parents or to Trayvon. I think his parents knew perfectly well that he smoked pot, whether they liked it or not. jmo

Just K
05-17-2012, 10:31 PM
My private thought that I haven't shared here previously is that he didn't go right home and, thus, avoid George completely because he may have been waiting for someone to hook him up. That would also explain why he was so concerned about someone watching him that he confronted George and why he got a call overlapping the girl friend's call that's not been explained. It also would explain why he picked up a lighter at the convenience store. I skimmed this stuff quickly while I was in the airport waiting for a flight, so I could be wrong about this, but I think I remember specifically reading that it was a red 7-11 lighter found on his person. jmo

I also noticed that he had quite a bit more money on him than originally stated. Maybe he also went to the 7-11 to get change of a $50. also jmo

I don't want to start any big discussion but, I'd really like to see if he got or bought a lighter at 7-11. GZ was touching his body so, he could have planted that lighter...anything is possible and I just really want to see the 7-11 surveillance tape.

No matter what, this is trace THC and GZ still had the choice to fight back physically and or to maim TM as opposed to shooting him directly in the heart.

Negligent homicide is what GZ committed against TM. If he hadn't chased the unarmed teen he would not have had a reason to shoot him, no less kill him.

Reader
05-17-2012, 10:33 PM
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9UQMO900%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018&page=1


Martin's autopsy indicated that medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine. The amount described in the autopsy report is such a low level that it would have played no role in Martin's behavior, said Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

"This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes," Kobilinsky said. "If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out."

JBean
05-17-2012, 10:34 PM
post is placed randomly.
please avoid discussing what others may or may not say. reference specifically what has been said and make your own point as to whether you agree or disagree.
No point in discussing -especially in a disparaging way- what other members may potentially say in the future. Pre-emptive attacks are not necessary LOL.

thanks.

Chris_Texas
05-17-2012, 10:35 PM
I find it incredible that we know more about the VICTIM, the dead kid, than we do about the guy who killed him. And this after the police finish dumping the results of their 'investigation.'

Kimberlyd125
05-17-2012, 10:37 PM
I don't want to start any big discussion but, I'd really like to see if he got or bought a lighter at 7-11. GZ was touching his body so, he could have planted that lighter...anything is possible and I just really want to see the 7-11 surveillance tape.

No matter what, this is trace THC and GZ still had the choice to fight back physically and or to maim TM as opposed to shooting him directly in the heart.

Negligent homicide is what GZ committed against TM. If he hadn't chased the unarmed teen he would not have had a reason to shoot him, no less kill him.

Why on earth would someone plant a lighter on a shooting victim?

Having a lighter is not a crime. Why would that benefit the shooter?

I'm sure he had to have something to light the pot whenever he smoked it.
So I think it's safe to say TM has had lighters in the past.

Having one in his pocket that night is not surprising to me.

JeannaT
05-17-2012, 10:39 PM
Not a big deal AT ALL. We all new he used marijuana recently, that's why he was kicked out of school - for an empty bag of pot in his backpack.

If his tests showed clear for marijuana I'd know they were false readings. He clearly "used" in the week before he died.

Next topic.

Just K
05-17-2012, 10:43 PM
Why on earth would someone plant a lighter on a shooting victim?

Having a lighter is not a crime. Why would that benefit the shooter?

I'm sure he had to have something to light the pot whenever he smoked it.
So I think it's safe to say TM has had lighters in the past.

Having one in his pocket that night is not surprising to me.

Just saying, when you only find a can of Tea and some skittles...you might want to make the kid look like a druggie...just another thought.

That's why I want to see the 7-11 video footage.

Kimberlyd125
05-17-2012, 10:51 PM
Just saying, when you only find a can of Tea and some skittles...you might want to make the kid look like a druggie...just another thought.

That's why I want to see the 7-11 video footage.

I have 4 lighters in my purse.
I hope that does not make me look like a druggie.

A lighter in a person's pocket would not make them look like a druggie.
A joint or some pills would.

A lighter, not so much.

And even if he's not seen purchasing a lighter on that 7-11 video, it does not mean it was not his.
He could have bought it earlier.
He could have found it in his home and took it.

That brings me to a thought.

Can 17 year olds buy lighters?

Horace Finklestein
05-17-2012, 10:55 PM
It certainly shows TM was a criminal.

meganx3xo
05-17-2012, 10:59 PM
I have 4 lighters in my purse.
I hope that does not make me look like a druggie.

A lighter in a person's pocket would not make them look like a druggie.
A joint or some pills would.

A lighter, not so much.

And even if he's not seen purchasing a lighter on that 7-11 video, it does not mean it was not his.
He could have bought it earlier.
He could have found it in his home and took it.

That brings me to a thought.

Can 17 year olds buy lighters?


When my brother turned 18, I bought him a bunch of stuff you could only buy when you were 18- a lighter, cold medicie, rubber cement, etc. When I bought the lighter, I wasn't asked for an ID even though I'm sure I don't look 18.

I am assuming you have to be 18, but I don't think it's strictly enforced.

jaded cat
05-17-2012, 11:02 PM
From the doc dump thread. Belongs here.


Nothing is being spun. GZ said TM looked like he was on drugs. THC was found in TM's tox test. That's corroboration. TM was a pot smoker and GZ pegged him correctly. We have no idea when he last lit up, and IMO it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that it is not inconsistent with GZ's story.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

"Looks like he might be ON drugs" is not the same as he smoked pot on his way back from the store and gave GZ any reason to say he MIGHT be on drugs. GZ had no way of knowing that.

Before I fessed up to my mother I was a MMP, I was around her all the time and she never had a clue. Her nose might have picked up on it but my actions never did.

Hell, they never knew I smoked pot when I lived at home. I smoked it my senior year and my folks never knew. Newer generations of parents may be a lot more in tune.

jaded cat
05-17-2012, 11:02 PM
It certainly shows TM was a criminal.

Any idea why this "criminal" wasn't in jail instead of in Sanford?

Kimberlyd125
05-17-2012, 11:04 PM
There are a lot of criminals walking amongst us.

Since pot is illegal, smoking pot is a crime.

Karmady
05-17-2012, 11:08 PM
There are a lot of criminals walking amongst us.

Since pot is illegal, smoking pot is a crime.

Indeed. While I don't think it's a huge deal in the sense that I don't expect that my children will never try it or something, it IS a crime. I would never consider smoking pot, even if I wanted to (which I don't) simply because it is illegal. And if my kids did it and got caught, they know that if they are arrested for it, they'd better use their phone call on someone other than me.

deelytful1
05-17-2012, 11:09 PM
It means nothing....

Karmady
05-17-2012, 11:12 PM
It means nothing....

I think his now verified use of marijuana provides a very plausible explanation for why he went to the 7-11 in the first place and didn't go right home afterward. Aside from whether smoking pot in and of itself is a crime or a big deal. jmo

Horace Finklestein
05-17-2012, 11:26 PM
Any idea why this "criminal" wasn't in jail instead of in Sanford?

Because when he was caught with weed/residue it was decided he should be given a slap on the wrist instead of prosecuting him.

suzihawk
05-17-2012, 11:28 PM
My private thought that I haven't shared here previously is that he didn't go right home and, thus, avoid George completely because he may have been waiting for someone to hook him up. That would also explain why he was so concerned about someone watching him that he confronted George and why he got a call overlapping the girl friend's call that's not been explained. It also would explain why he picked up a lighter at the convenience store. I skimmed this stuff quickly while I was in the airport waiting for a flight, so I could be wrong about this, but I think I remember specifically reading that it was a red 7-11 lighter found on his person. jmo

I also noticed that he had quite a bit more money on him than originally stated. Maybe he also went to the 7-11 to get change of a $50. also jmo

I mentioned this on the other thread, but wasn't there a surveillance tape and records produced from the 7-11 that indicated the time and date that Trayvon was there along with an electronic tape indicating his purchases consisting of just the Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea? I don't recall the purchase of a lighter. I'll look for the link.

At any rate, I disagree with your theory. Sometimes things are just as they appear. I think he simply went to the store and was walking home enjoying a chat with his girlfriend on the phone. I don't believe he was on a drug run or looking to score. That's just my personal opinion.

elementary
05-17-2012, 11:36 PM
It certainly shows TM was a criminal.

I'm actually responding also to your post in the poll where no discussion is allowed.

First, as to what you asserted above, man that is harsh for a boy of just 17.

Now for the rest. Horace, I totally applauded your terrier disposition in the Anthony case, so I have a lot of good will towards you and mucho respect. But here, you lost me. I am reading just as emotional arguments from the other side, including you.

Trayvon, in fact, was not 'marijuana saturated'. Check the report and the interpretation of it. Trayvon did not have 'bruised knuckles' if you read the report; he had a 1/4 inch boo boo below a knuckle which, besides, has no date on it. And if GZ was defending himself, why are there no offensive injuries on Trayvon's hands, etc? And no defensive injuries either? You look at the injuries on GZ but don't question what is missing on Trayvon given GZ's story? And distort the facts in the report? http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

I ask myself, why does this boy matter less than GZ? Why does a boy who has no record of anger issues but smoked some weed, got some supensions, deserve vilification? Why does a 28 year old get a pass for his anger issues, his felonies lessened to misdemeanors, his paranoia, his work record, his lies, his perjury? What makes that difference if it isn't colour? I just don't get it.

suzihawk
05-17-2012, 11:43 PM
Mark Geragos on Anderson said the pot issues probably won't enter into the trial. He said, "I don't think it's going to be of any great moment. Most judges wouldn't let that in because it's not like it's meth or PCP or that type of drug. They have so much trouble detemining at what levels you're under the influence to begin with that I don't think it's of any great moment."


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

JeannaT
05-17-2012, 11:49 PM
I have 4 lighters in my purse.
I hope that does not make me look like a druggie.

A lighter in a person's pocket would not make them look like a druggie.
A joint or some pills would.

A lighter, not so much.

And even if he's not seen purchasing a lighter on that 7-11 video, it does not mean it was not his.
He could have bought it earlier.
He could have found it in his home and took it.

That brings me to a thought.

Can 17 year olds buy lighters?

I'm very curious, and obviously you don't have to answer this.

Why do you carry lighters? I certainly don't. I don't smoke cigarettes or marijuana, and so I don't ever ever carry a lighter.

My three boys all carry lighters, and all smoke, much to my chagrin.

Why do you carry lighters, and FOUR at that? I'm really burning with curiosity. ;D So to speak. ;D Really, you carry 4 lighters, and yet you don't smoke.

i.b.nora
05-17-2012, 11:52 PM
Because when he was caught with weed/residue it was decided he should be given a slap on the wrist instead of prosecuting him.
People don't get prosecuted for residue of anything.

Kimberlyd125
05-18-2012, 12:00 AM
I'm very curious, and obviously you don't have to answer this.

Why do you carry lighters? I certainly don't. I don't smoke cigarettes or marijuana, and so I don't ever ever carry a lighter.

My three boys all carry lighters, and all smoke, much to my chagrin.

Why do you carry lighters, and FOUR at that? I'm really burning with curiosity. ;D So to speak. ;D Really, you carry 4 lighters, and yet you don't smoke.

Who said I don't smoke?
Lol

I am a smoker.
I carry lighters.

I don't smoke pot because it's illegal and I have no desire to.

Cigarettes (while stupid) are perfectly legal.

Besides that, lighters have many uses.
Candles, loose threads on clothing, BBQ pits....

Horace Finklestein
05-18-2012, 12:00 AM
I'm actually responding also to your post in the poll where no discussion is allowed.

First, as to what you asserted above, man that is harsh for a boy of just 17.

Now for the rest. Horace, I totally applauded your terrier disposition in the Anthony case, so I have a lot of good will towards you and mucho respect. But here, you lost me. I am reading just as emotional arguments from the other side, including you.

Trayvon, in fact, was not 'marijuana saturated'. Check the report and the interpretation of it. Trayvon did not have 'bruised knuckles' if you read the report; he had a 1/4 inch boo boo below a knuckle which, besides, has no date on it. And if GZ was defending himself, why are there no offensive injuries on Trayvon's hands, etc? And no defensive injuries either? You look at the injuries on GZ but don't question what is missing on Trayvon given GZ's story? And distort the facts in the report? http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

I ask myself, why does this boy matter less than GZ? Why does a boy who has no record of anger issues but smoked some weed, got some supensions, deserve vilification? Why does a 28 year old get a pass for his anger issues, his felonies lessened to misdemeanors, his paranoia, his work record, his lies, his perjury? What makes that difference if it isn't colour? I just don't get it.

There is absolutely no distortion on my part. I am stating facts, not arguing from emotion. Do a search for Trayvon and bruised knuckles and you'll see that yes, he did in fact have bruised knuckles. How does one person get 2 black eyes and the other person had broken skin on his knuckles...well we all know the answer to that.I don't really know what else to say about that except that the emotion is coming from people who cannot face the fact that TM attacked GZ. GZ's wounds are completely defensive - he had 2 black eyes for heaven's sake...

Whether or not TM "matters" more than GZ is not at issue and the very idea of that coming into this mess is indicative of the kind of subjective emotionalism you seem to think comes from my side (the side citing evidence from medical and police reports and photographic evidence). I suppose GZ gets a pass because he was on the defensive from the beginning and continues to be because people jumped to conclusions and followed their hearts instead of waiting for the facts to come out.

I suspect as more evidence comes out which supports GZ's account of this incident, the media coverage will decrease. It's simply lost its appeal now imo. The media portrayal of a racist GZ was convincing for some but it just can't hold up imo.

Kimberlyd125
05-18-2012, 12:01 AM
People don't get prosecuted for residue of anything.

Wasn't there a pipe too?
IIRC

People do get arrested for paraphernalia.

I'm not sure why TM was only suspended and not arrested. IMO he could have been arrested.

Horace Finklestein
05-18-2012, 12:02 AM
People don't get prosecuted for residue of anything.

Oh yes they certainly do. Even seeds and stems of marijuana plants.

jaded cat
05-18-2012, 12:04 AM
There is absolutely no distortion on my part. I am stating facts, not arguing from emotion. Do a search for Trayvon and bruised knuckles and you'll see that yes, he did in fact have bruised knuckles. How does one person get 2 black eyes and the other person had broken skin on his knuckles...well we all know the answer to that.I don't really know what else to say about that except that the emotion is coming from people who cannot face the fact that TM attacked GZ. GZ's wounds are completely defensive - he had 2 black eyes for heaven's sake...

Whether or not TM "matters" more than GZ is not at issue and the very idea of that coming into this mess is indicative of the kind of subjective emotionalism you seem to think comes from my side (the side citing evidence from medical and police reports and photographic evidence). I suppose GZ gets a pass because he was on the defensive from the beginning and continues to be because people jumped to conclusions and followed their hearts instead of waiting for the facts to come out.

I suspect as more evidence comes out which supports GZ's account of this incident, the media coverage will decrease. It's simply lost its appeal now imo. The media portrayal of a racist GZ was convincing for some but it just can't hold up imo.

He didn't have bruised knuckles, he had a small scrape on the ring finger of his left hand. I haven't seen any pictures of GZs black eyes and the superficial wounds on his face and the back of his head don't look like a beating to me.

jaded cat
05-18-2012, 12:05 AM
Oh yes they certainly do. Even seeds and stems of marijuana plants.

That happens nationwide?

Kimster
05-18-2012, 12:16 AM
THC lasts in the system for a long time - up to a month. I recently went to a required class regarding drug testing because I work with truck drivers.

For the purposes of this case, I don't think it means a darn thing. And this opinion is coming from someone who is sitting on the fence in this case AND is against the legalization of pot.

But I still think this has no bearing on anything in this case. MOO

HMSHood
05-18-2012, 12:27 AM
Because when he was caught with weed/residue it was decided he should be given a slap on the wrist instead of prosecuting him.

Likely due to amount of marijuana he had.

JBean
05-18-2012, 12:37 AM
There are a lot of criminals walking amongst us.

Since pot is illegal, smoking pot is a crime.
Here in my state it is just a traffic ticket as it has been decriminalized. So if you're walking amongst us out here in Cali- it's all good.

Possession for Personal Use

Possession of up to and including 28.5 grams of marijuana is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100.

http://norml.org/laws/item/california-penalties?category_id=847

JBean
05-18-2012, 01:57 AM
He had a trace amount of THC and a lethal dose of lead. Two guesses which one of these things had anything to do with him being dead.

In my opinion this entire topic is sad. It exists for no other purpose than to offer those inclined to do so another reason to blame the victim. Trayvon smoked a little weed, Zimmerman assaults cops and girlfriends and kills kids.
HI Chris. Trust me with 5 boys I have no interest in blaming the victim. I am very sympathetic to Trayvon, he is dead, he was young and he was not comitting a crime. Did not have to happen.
But with that said- discussing the factual autopsy results helps to get to the truth and that is paramount. I have no issues with anyone smoking pot and around here it is more the norm and accepted generally. So,please don't mistake my intentions for starting this topic as an attack on Trayvon at all. Rather, I think openly discussing things like this as opposed to shoving facts under the carpet are important and so far it seems that even if he was a pot smoker,it doesn't seem to have played a role in this tragedy to me at this point. JMHO of course.
hth.

jaded cat
05-18-2012, 02:02 AM
HI Chris. Trust me with 5 boys I have no interest in blaming the victim. I am very sympathetic to Trayvon, he is dead, he was young and he was not comitting a crime. Did not have to happen.
But with that said- discussing the factual autopsy results helps to get to the truth and that is paramount. I have no issues with anyone smoking pot and around here it is more the norm and accepted generally. So,please don't mistake my intentions for starting this topic as an attack on Trayvon at all. Rather, I think openly discussing things like this as opposed to shoving facts under the carpet are important and so far it seems that even if he was a pot smoker,it doesn't seem to have played a role in this tragedy to me at this point. JMHO of course.
hth.

Aside from other posters trying to correct false assumptions, why are obviously false posts allowed to stay up? I've seen some posts out here that were so far from the truth, they weren't even on the same planet and they're still here.

JBean
05-18-2012, 02:16 AM
Aside from other posters trying to correct false assumptions, why are obviously false posts allowed to stay up? I've seen some posts out here that were so far from the truth, they weren't even on the same planet and they're still here.
HI Jaded-just alert on posts you think are in violation and a moderator will review as soon as one has a chance. No one is here all the time 24/7 and we don't read every post.There are currently 7,673,926 posts on Websleuths so we miss a lot of them. :)

Cher352
05-18-2012, 02:34 AM
Anyone know if these two remarks mean the same thing medically or something different? They are mentioned together in the same sentence.

traces of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in his blood
and
“cannabinoids” in his urine

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/us/new-details-are-released-in-shooting-of-teenager.html?_r=4

jaded cat
05-18-2012, 02:34 AM
HI Jaded-just alert on posts you think are in violation and a moderator will review as soon as one has a chance. No one is here all the time 24/7 and we don't read every post.There are currently 7,673,926 posts on Websleuths so we miss a lot of them. :)

Over 7.6 million posts and y'all can't read them all? I'm shocked, shocked I say to hear that such a thing happens!

Y'all do a great job and I hope you know how much I appreicate what you have to do and what you choose to do here at WS.

redkatrampant
05-18-2012, 02:43 AM
OOOOOOOOOkie Dokie. I am bi-polar. alcohol can make me a no so nice person.
Pot? Like there is NO one here that uses it. Let me stop for a minute to laugh.

OOOk. The times I HAVE toked, I could not stop laughing or smiling long enough to get mad at someone. Really? IMO THC in his system SCREAMS he was not in fighting mode.

claudicici
05-18-2012, 02:57 AM
There is absolutely no distortion on my part. I am stating facts, not arguing from emotion. Do a search for Trayvon and bruised knuckles and you'll see that yes, he did in fact have bruised knuckles. How does one person get 2 black eyes and the other person had broken skin on his knuckles...well we all know the answer to that.I don't really know what else to say about that except that the emotion is coming from people who cannot face the fact that TM attacked GZ. GZ's wounds are completely defensive - he had 2 black eyes for heaven's sake...

Whether or not TM "matters" more than GZ is not at issue and the very idea of that coming into this mess is indicative of the kind of subjective emotionalism you seem to think comes from my side (the side citing evidence from medical and police reports and photographic evidence). I suppose GZ gets a pass because he was on the defensive from the beginning and continues to be because people jumped to conclusions and followed their hearts instead of waiting for the facts to come out.

I suspect as more evidence comes out which supports GZ's account of this incident, the media coverage will decrease. It's simply lost its appeal now imo. The media portrayal of a racist GZ was convincing for some but it just can't hold up imo.

read the autopsy report.it's released.You're wrong.Trayvon's knuckles were not bruised.
Have you seen the thread about GZ bullying his middle eastern co-worker?He's racsist,no doubt.

Chris_Texas
05-18-2012, 03:07 AM
HI Chris. Trust me with 5 boys I have no interest in blaming the victim. I am very sympathetic to Trayvon, he is dead, he was young and he was not comitting a crime. Did not have to happen.
But with that said- discussing the factual autopsy results helps to get to the truth and that is paramount. I have no issues with anyone smoking pot and around here it is more the norm and accepted generally. So,please don't mistake my intentions for starting this topic as an attack on Trayvon at all. Rather, I think openly discussing things like this as opposed to shoving facts under the carpet are important and so far it seems that even if he was a pot smoker,it doesn't seem to have played a role in this tragedy to me at this point. JMHO of course.
hth.

I meant no criticism of you or websleuths. If it came across that way, I apologize, and want to assure you that it was unintentional.

The fact that Trayvon smoked some weed has now become a part of this case. As has everything else people have managed to dig up on this kid. It would be foolish for us here to ignore this information, this reality, which is of course why threads like this one are important and necessary.

Even so, I suspect you understand my frustration.

deelytful1
05-18-2012, 03:11 AM
I think his now verified use of marijuana provides a very plausible explanation for why he went to the 7-11 in the first place and didn't go right home afterward. Aside from whether smoking pot in and of itself is a crime or a big deal. jmo
Yes, he was just walking around the streets smoking pot all by himself because this is what 17 year olds do.... No, That's what 50 year old "drug addicts" do..
At 17, you smoked pot with your friends to laugh your a$$ off and be totally silly. You'd take 2 tokes, choke to death if you weren't a smoker, laugh about stupid stuff til your sides hurt and generally go on to live life like an average, normal kid.
This is ONLY significant because people want to make it significant. I smoked pot with people when I was 17 that wore their hair in spikes, wore combat boots, torn jeans and T-shirts and wore dog collars around their necks and looked WAY more intimidating than Trayvon! and now they make more money than.... well, MOST people.
Trayvon never got the opportunity to be successful and make great money and laugh with his friends about the days of smoking a little weed, hanging out and wearing the trend of HIS time...hoodies.
Sad, sad, sad.....

suspicious1
05-18-2012, 03:16 AM
OOOOOOOOOkie Dokie. I am bi-polar. alcohol can make me a no so nice person.
Pot? Like there is NO one here that uses it. Let me stop for a minute to laugh.

OOOk. The times I HAVE toked, I could not stop laughing or smiling long enough to get mad at someone. Really? IMO THC in his system SCREAMS he was not in fighting mode.

You and me both. LOL

Not only was I laughing and smiling I was laid back. More passive than usual.

BiancaS
05-18-2012, 03:21 AM
HI Chris. Trust me with 5 boys I have no interest in blaming the victim. I am very sympathetic to Trayvon, he is dead, he was young and he was not comitting a crime. Did not have to happen.
But with that said- discussing the factual autopsy results helps to get to the truth and that is paramount. I have no issues with anyone smoking pot and around here it is more the norm and accepted generally. So,please don't mistake my intentions for starting this topic as an attack on Trayvon at all. Rather, I think openly discussing things like this as opposed to shoving facts under the carpet are important and so far it seems that even if he was a pot smoker,it doesn't seem to have played a role in this tragedy to me at this point. JMHO of course.
hth.

5 Boys???? Gulp. I have two. It isn't easy. And mine tell me way more than I want to know. And they sometimes do really, really, really stupid things, even though they are good kids. Which is why my heart goes out to Trayvon's Mom, she did a great job raising a good kid and now he is being dragged through the mud. MOO.

Karmady
05-18-2012, 03:23 AM
Yes, he was just walking around the streets smoking pot all by himself because this is what 17 year olds do.... No, That's what 50 year old "drug addicts" do..
At 17, you smoked pot with your friends to laugh your a$$ off and be totally silly. You'd take 2 tokes, choke to death if you weren't a smoker, laugh about stupid stuff til your sides hurt and generally go on to live life like an average, normal kid.
This is ONLY significant because people want to make it significant. I smoked pot with people when I was 17 that wore their hair in spikes, wore combat boots, torn jeans and T-shirts and wore dog collars around their necks and looked WAY more intimidating than Trayvon! and now they make more money than.... well, MOST people.
Trayvon never got the opportunity to be successful and make great money and laugh with his friends about the days of smoking a little weed, hanging out and wearing the trend of HIS time...hoodies.
Sad, sad, sad.....

So the take away is....???? Smoking pot and wearing a dog collar is good clean fun? I guess I'll just wake up my dd right now and tell her it's fine with me if she gets those gauges, that belly piercing and those tattoos she wants. Because my goal is for her to make more money than most, and that'll surely work since it's the trend of her times. Maybe I should give her the green light on cutting, too.

claudicici
05-18-2012, 03:29 AM
Yes,honestly ,like so many others this whole thread makes me lol,I mean seriously? If you haven't smoked at one point in your life I'm sorry to say,doesn't mean your kids aren't smoking right now....it's just sooo not a big deal to me at all and I hope trayvon's parents are not mad or sad about this and I'm sure they're not.
Only parent that should be mad is Gz's,IMO ,for their son is a MURDERER

claudicici
05-18-2012, 03:32 AM
So the take away is....???? Smoking pot and wearing a dog collar is good clean fun? I guess I'll just wake up my dd right now and tell her it's fine with me if she gets those gauges, that belly piercing and those tattoos she wants. Because my goal is for her to make more money than most, and that'll surely work since it's the trend of her times. Maybe I should give her the green light on cutting, too.

My daughter has gauges,belly piercing ( she has 7 piercings) and a tattoo.my goal for her is to express herself and be as happy as she possibly can be in her lifetime.

oh and as a former cutter after being raped at age 13 i assure you you don't need to give her a "green light",if things get too bad she will find it herself.Just make sure to be there for her if she has a problem so it would not come to that.
Piercings,weed,tattoos....self expression and good fun.....cutting and serious drugs,not cool and not comparable IMO

HiHater
05-18-2012, 04:09 AM
My daughter has gauges,belly piercing ( she has 7 piercings) and a tattoo.my goal for her is to express herself and be as happy as she possibly can be in her lifetime.

oh and as a former cutter after being raped at age 13 i assure you you don't need to give her a "green light",if things get too bad she will find it herself.Just make sure to be there for her if she has a problem so it would not come to that.
Piercings,weed,tattoos....self expression and good fun.....cutting and serious drugs,not cool and not comparable IMO

Sorry about what happened with you...one of my best friends was a cutter. :(

I'm LOLing at this thread. I've smoked weed a time or two. I've been way past drunk a time or two. I've got tattoos and a nose piercing...I also have no criminal history, an education, and live a productive lifestyle. I grew out of those things (not the tattoos, that's art). Trayvon didn't have a chance to grow up. GZ took that away from him, and I really hope he'll either be punished for it or suffer til the end of his days.

rpgman
05-18-2012, 04:18 AM
OOOOOOOOOkie Dokie. I am bi-polar. alcohol can make me a no so nice person.
Pot? Like there is NO one here that uses it. Let me stop for a minute to laugh.

OOOk. The times I HAVE toked, I could not stop laughing or smiling long enough to get mad at someone. Really? IMO THC in his system SCREAMS he was not in fighting mode.

It could have been in his system for awhile. Doesn't mean he was high THAT night and it doesn't mean he WASNT in a fighting mood.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

rossva
05-18-2012, 05:21 AM
I beg to differ. Google "prosecution drug residue", or "prosecution pot residue" and you will find lot's of instances of such.



People don't get prosecuted for residue of anything.

rossva
05-18-2012, 05:23 AM
IMO, having to pay a fine for doing something doesn't qualify as "all good".



Here in my state it is just a traffic ticket as it has been decriminalized. So if you're walking amongst us out here in Cali- it's all good.
Possession for Personal Use

Possession of up to and including 28.5 grams of marijuana is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100.

http://norml.org/laws/item/california-penalties?category_id=847

rossva
05-18-2012, 05:30 AM
BBM By your own admission, you do have a criminal history, just no criminal record. Only because you haven't been caught, or, if you have been caught were let off.



Sorry about what happened with you...one of my best friends was a cutter. :(

I'm LOLing at this thread. I've smoked weed a time or two. I've been way past drunk a time or two. I've got tattoos and a nose piercing...I also have no criminal history, an education, and live a productive lifestyle. I grew out of those things (not the tattoos, that's art). Trayvon didn't have a chance to grow up. GZ took that away from him, and I really hope he'll either be punished for it or suffer til the end of his days.

HiHater
05-18-2012, 05:42 AM
BBM By your own admission, you do have a criminal history, just no criminal record. Only because you haven't been caught, or, if you have been caught were let off.

I'm sure you also have a criminal history, then. LOL

And when people ask about either, they're not usually asking about crimes you were never even caught for. I mean geez, the Zimmerman defenders said his actual ARRESTS didn't count. pffft

JBean
05-18-2012, 10:02 AM
There are a lot of criminals walking amongst us.

Since pot is illegal, smoking pot is a crime.


Here in my state it is just a traffic ticket as it has been decriminalized. So if you're walking amongst us out here in Cali- it's all good.





IMO, having to pay a fine for doing something doesn't qualify as "all good".
HI Rossva, if you take my comment out of context you could be correct. "All good" is in reference to being a criminal. Point was it has been decriminalized in CA so one would not be a "criminal walking amongst us." Here it is like getting a speeding ticket which is also decriminalized.
But it really has no bearing on the case, since this did not happen in CA. so I probably should have left it offboard.

tlcya
05-18-2012, 10:55 AM
The effects of smoking marijuana fade quickly, but the drug, known affectionately as "weed," can be detected in the body for weeks and sometimes longer. How long it remains in the system depends on how often or how much marijuana the user has been smoking.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/marijuana_test.htm

Most users I know, when faced with an upcoming test, will abstain for at least a month prior, to be on the safe side.

As to it being relevant, IMO it is not. Plain old marijuana is not the same thing as PCP or other drugs which can cause agitation, delusions, aggression, etc. IMO he smoked weed at some point in the weeks prior to the attack. That much is clear from the autopsy report. Whether he did so that day or a week prior, makes no difference to me.

He had no drugs or paraphenalia on him and it was not IMO a factor in the tragic events of that evening.

Kimberlyd125
05-18-2012, 11:15 AM
Yes,honestly ,like so many others this whole thread makes me lol,I mean seriously? If you haven't smoked at one point in your life I'm sorry to say,doesn't mean your kids aren't smoking right now....it's just sooo not a big deal to me at all and I hope trayvon's parents are not mad or sad about this and I'm sure they're not.
Only parent that should be mad is Gz's,IMO ,for their son is a MURDERER

I disagree. It is a big deal.
As a parent, I teach my daughter to respect authority and follow rules and laws.
If something is illegal, you just don't do it.
It's illegal for a reason.

The attitude that it's no big deal is just a wrong lesson to teach our kids IMO.

Melanie
05-18-2012, 11:40 AM
I was suprised to hear It is a crime to possess any amount of marijuana in Florida and, depending on the amount, you can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony.

In San Diego it's often perscribed for those with ADHD- yes minors too with parents permission (you see a lot of stoned kids around these days, and none of them get arrested). The only problem we have is those same kids try to sell their stash and that gets them booted out of school.

I personally don't have a problem with TM having traces of THC in his system. and don't see how it effects this case. Unlike booze, Marijuana is far less likely to make one violent (save for the cases of chronic marijuana abuse -- which we don't know to be the case here).

IMHO, it tends to mellow people out (thus the reason it's perscribed for ADHD) and doesn't turn one into a raging lunatic.

Just my opinion --

Mel

Littleone48
05-18-2012, 11:53 AM
I think it would surprise some of you to find out that many of those professional people you deal with actually smoke a little weed. I know I was.

For years I advocated against pot and then MS struck. The pain, not being able to sleep at night, my nerves sending signals throughout my body. For the first 2 years I spent it in a fog because of pain medication I was put on. But those were OK to take because they were legal and I have a prescription for them.

My neice is the one who convinced me to try it. I argued and fought it then I had a huge flare and decided to give it a try. It worked and I was not in a fog, the pain was a lot less but most of all my nervous system was not sending signals throughout my body. I don't smoke a whole joint at a time but a few hits every 3-4 hours works for me. I am mellow and can complete my activities of daily living. The biggest thing? I take 3/4 less of the pain medication than I did! That to me is huge.

Call me whatever you want but it has saved my life. If I am breaking the law so be it.

The amount that TM had in his system is very very small. I know this because one of my urine test came back with THC and I stopped smoking it 4 days before I had to go. Sad really because when I stop I have to take more pain medication to just get out of bed for those days but it's ok for that to show up in my test. Go figure.

IMO drinking/drugs are 100 times worse but they are OK because they are legal. Pot had nothing to do with TM getting shot that evening IMO now if they found percs, adderall, meth I would change my opinion.

seattlechiquita
05-18-2012, 11:56 AM
My few thoughts:
Marijuana does not make people violent, it slows your reflexes. Someone high on THC does not have the pump to break your nose, smash your head yada yada yada.

<modsnip>

jjenny
05-18-2012, 11:58 AM
My few thoughts:
Marijuana does not make people violent, it slows your reflexes. Someone high on THC does not have the pump to break your nose, smash your head yada yada yada.

<modsnip>

I find the idea that someone high on THC does not have the pump to break your nose or smash your head absurd. To what degree do you think THC slows reflexes?

JeannaT
05-18-2012, 12:00 PM
My few thoughts:
Marijuana does not make people violent, it slows your reflexes. Someone high on THC does not have the pump to break your nose, smash your head yada yada yada.

<modsnip>

Well, looking at the lab numbers, it seems pretty clear he wasn't high at the time of his death. That's residual, from past use.

JeannaT
05-18-2012, 12:02 PM
I was suprised to hear It is a crime to possess any amount of marijuana in Florida and, depending on the amount, you can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony.

In San Diego it's often perscribed for those with ADHD- yes minors too with parents permission (you see a lot of stoned kids around these days, and none of them get arrested). The only problem we have is those same kids try to sell their stash and that gets them booted out of school.

I personally don't have a problem with TM having traces of THC in his system. and don't see how it effects this case. Unlike booze, Marijuana is far less likely to make one violent (save for the cases of chronic marijuana abuse -- which we don't know to be the case here).

IMHO, it tends to mellow people out (thus the reason it's perscribed for ADHD) and doesn't turn one into a raging lunatic.

Just my opinion --

Mel

In Texas, what Trayvon did is a Class B misdemeanor. Paraphernalia in a protected zone (public school campus).

Littleone48
05-18-2012, 12:03 PM
I was suprised to hear It is a crime to possess any amount of marijuana in Florida and, depending on the amount, you can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony.

In San Diego it's often perscribed for those with ADHD- yes minors too with parents permission (you see a lot of stoned kids around these days, and none of them get arrested). The only problem we have is those same kids try to sell their stash and that gets them booted out of school.

I personally don't have a problem with TM having traces of THC in his system. and don't see how it effects this case. Unlike booze, Marijuana is far less likely to make one violent (save for the cases of chronic marijuana abuse -- which we don't know to be the case here).

IMHO, it tends to mellow people out (thus the reason it's perscribed for ADHD) and doesn't turn one into a raging lunatic.

Just my opinion --

Mel

~Hi Mel~ There is a prescription out now that contains the same thing pot does. A friend of mine who has cancer is taking it.

People think you have to smoke it but you don't. I can buy cookies, brownies, stews, soups etc that pot is added to. I do this once in awhile however you can get pretty fat :).

I had the same attitude as many here for years until it happened to ME. Funny how that changes your opinion about things.

The only people that don't want pot legal are the pharmaceutical companies and the US government because of the money they would lose. I think within the next five years every State will have some kind of medical marijuana laws in place. The Indians used it for years for healing and other things. The history is pretty interesting if you read up on it IMO.

IMO it's a moot point in this case

seattlechiquita
05-18-2012, 12:04 PM
I find the idea that someone high on THC does not have the pump to break your nose or smash your head absurd. To what degree do you think THC slows reflexes?

To the degree that I have smoked marijuana in the past. It makes you woozy and calm, hence why it is used in cancer patients to ease the pain. It is not a stimulant like say, cocaine, ecstasy, etc. :)

jjenny
05-18-2012, 12:05 PM
To the degree that I have smoked marijuana in the past. It makes you woozy and calm, hence why it is used in cancer patients to ease the pain. It is not a stimulant like say, cocaine, ecstasy, etc. :)

Every person is not going to respond to it the exact same way.

Here are some facts. Although concentration in TM's system was low enough to indicate the use of marijuana was not in very recent, in general, just because marijuana has a mellowing effect on most people doesn't mean it has the same effect on everybody.

"However, sometimes when marijuana is used it can cause fear, anxiety, panic or paranoia, which can result in an aggressive outburst. For most people, however, once the effects of the drug wear off, their behaviour gradually improves."

http://adai.washington.edu/marijuana/factsheets/aggression.htm

JeannaT
05-18-2012, 12:06 PM
~Hi Mel~ There is a prescription out now that contains the same thing pot does. A friend of mine who has cancer is taking it.

People think you have to smoke it but you don't. I can buy cookies, brownies, stews, soups etc that pot is added to. I do this once in awhile however you can get pretty fat :).

I had the same attitude as many here for years until it happened to ME. Funny how that changes your opinion about things.

The only people that don't want pot legal are the pharmaceutical companies and the US government because of the money they would lose. I think within the next five years every State will have some kind of medical marijuana laws in place. The Indians used it for years for healing and other things. The history is pretty interesting if you read up on it IMO.

IMO it's a moot point in this case

Well, if stoners voted, it would probably be legal. Stoners don't typically vote, though, and a politician would have a HUGE uphill battle trying to legalize marijuana when the folks who reliably vote are against it.

I wish it were legal too, but I don't see any politicians who believe that way successfully getting in to office.

JeannaT
05-18-2012, 12:07 PM
Every person is not going to respond to it the exact same way.

Well that's true. It makes some people terribly paranoid. Some people can either be relaxed or paranoid, depending on . . . I don't know what.

seattlechiquita
05-18-2012, 12:07 PM
Every person is not going to respond to it the exact same way.

Ok then. I am only talking from personal experience. Which in this case matters not, since the amounts found on the murder victim were residual.

seattlechiquita
05-18-2012, 12:10 PM
Well, if stoners voted, it would probably be legal. Stoners don't typically vote, though, and a politician would have a HUGE uphill battle trying to legalize marijuana when the folks who reliably vote are against it.

I wish it were legal too, but I don't see any politicians who believe that way successfully getting in to office.

OMG here in Seattle medical marijuana is a huge business. I live close to the UW campus and holy cow Batman, there is a dispensary every block. I kid you not. I am happy that folks have access to it in an open, non judgmental way.

There has been a big push for legalizing it in WA, but I doubt that it will happen.

Littleone48
05-18-2012, 12:14 PM
Well, if stoners voted, it would probably be legal. Stoners don't typically vote, though, and a politician would have a HUGE uphill battle trying to legalize marijuana when the folks who reliably vote are against it.

I wish it were legal too, but I don't see any politicians who believe that way successfully getting in to office.

You are way off base here. Stoners? That's from the 60's. It's actually Rep vs Dem and the Reps want to make it legal but the Dems don't. These are probably the same people that helped approve Percs, Oxys and the rest of those wonderful legal drugs. Why? $$ so they can be elected to approve these wonderful drugs...

I know of at least 3 of my Dr. that advocate to legalize it and I am sure there are many more and they are not "stoners".

Anyhoo this is about TM and very little THC he had in his system at the time which IMO was very little.

tlcya
05-18-2012, 12:15 PM
In Texas, what Trayvon did is a Class B misdemeanor. Paraphernalia in a protected zone (public school campus).

Still trying to connect the dots to how being caught at school with paraphernalia months prior to the night of his death is relevant in any way to his being killed by GZ while walking in an area he was authorized to be doing nothing criminal. So the THC levels in TM's system align with him having used pot at some point, maybe even more than once. No shocker as we were all aware of the school incident well before these tox results were released.

and yes, that paraphernalia at school was a Class B misdemeanor but the school apparently didn't pursue this, LE didn't pursue it. My only thought as to why is that someone or someones in those agencies did not feel it worth making a federal case over so I wish it were not being given such scrutiny now, months and months after the fact.

Again, I just don't see the relevance.

Some might say - it goes to state of mind, proves he is a criminal and GZ was right in his assessment (profile) of TM. I say baloney. I do not expect the same maturity and decision making ability from a 17 year old that I do from an adult man. GZ's prior actions, I DO feel are relevant. GZ is an adult, and not a new one. His pattern of behaviors, brushes with the law and treatment of others can show us this man's thought process.

GZ's thought process is what is going to be examined in this trial, as well it should, HIS state of mind is relevant. IMO TM's is not because he did not shoot anyone or engage in any criminal activity that fateful night that is supported by evidence. (I am not going into the much debated scuffle as no one can show me that TM was the aggressor, to me it is just as likely that GZ was)

ETA This reply is not aimed at JeannaT or argumentative but simply jumping off her post regarding the criminality of TM's pot situation.

JeannaT
05-18-2012, 12:43 PM
You are way off base here. Stoners? That's from the 60's. It's actually Rep vs Dem and the Reps want to make it legal but the Dems don't. These are probably the same people that helped approve Percs, Oxys and the rest of those wonderful legal drugs. Why? $$ so they can be elected to approve these wonderful drugs...

I know of at least 3 of my Dr. that advocate to legalize it and I am sure there are many more and they are not "stoners".

Anyhoo this is about TM and very little THC he had in his system at the time which IMO was very little.

I guess we all live in different areas - "Stoner" is a term used here by young adults who are stoners. Go figure.

And we've had many politicians who openly say they are for legalization, and they don't have a prayer of winning. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, for one. I could go on and on, but it would be boring. . .

Can you think of a reason it's not legal? Besides what I firmly believe, that a politician who openly states it should be legal hasn't a prayer.

beach
05-18-2012, 01:07 PM
Please leave the political debate/references regarding the legalization of marijuana out of this thread. It is spiraling way off topic and has zero relevance to the case.

Thanks.

2goldfish
05-18-2012, 01:40 PM
it doesnt really matter - IMO trayvon could have sat under a tree and been nodding off from a heroin fix and that still doesnt make it okay for someone to walk up to him and shoot him.

I've seen it said that everyone's trying to play like trayvon was perfect, no one is perfect, I for one never think any such thing. what trayvon WAS, was a normal teenager. come on, we were all in high school....anyone playing the "GASP!! but marijuana is ILLEGAL" thing is coming off as rather...innocent.

seattlechiquita
05-18-2012, 01:44 PM
it doesnt really matter - IMO trayvon could have sat under a tree and been nodding off from a heroin fix and that still doesnt make it okay for someone to walk up to him and shoot him.

I've seen it said that everyone's trying to play like trayvon was perfect, no one is perfect, I for one never think any such thing. what trayvon WAS, was a normal teenager. come on, we were all in high school....anyone playing the "GASP!! but marijuana is ILLEGAL" thing is coming off as rather...innocent.

Bravo. Post of the day to you, sister.

ScubaTwinn
05-18-2012, 02:42 PM
is this significant?

Please be civil and remember Trayvon is dead. This thread is to discuss the potential ramifications of testing positive for pot in a victim of homicide.

What do you think and show respect for Trayvon please.

Respecfully snipped for space.

I don't believe it is significant. What would be significant to me would be what was in GZ's body at the time.

diesel
05-18-2012, 04:19 PM
it doesnt really matter - IMO trayvon could have sat under a tree and been nodding off from a heroin fix and that still doesnt make it okay for someone to walk up to him and shoot him.

I've seen it said that everyone's trying to play like trayvon was perfect, no one is perfect, I for one never think any such thing. what trayvon WAS, was a normal teenager. come on, we were all in high school....anyone playing the "GASP!! but marijuana is ILLEGAL" thing is coming off as rather...innocent.

bbm

Is that why it's called 'high' school? Never thought about that before. I am joking of course.

chefmom
05-18-2012, 04:28 PM
I don't think it means anything. I smoked my share of pot in the 70's and early 80's, and quite a few of ya'lls shares, too! :) Yet, I was a straight A student, honor student, worked, helped my parents, and never got into any trouble. IMO, the fact that TM liked to smoke and the fact that he may have gotten in trouble are not necessarily connected. Pot smokers aren't usually aggressive A-holes. They can't remember where they put their shoes, and get sidetracked by a box of Twinkies and a bag of Cheetos while looking for them! :)

flourish
05-18-2012, 04:44 PM
I disagree. It is a big deal.
As a parent, I teach my daughter to respect authority and follow rules and laws.
If something is illegal, you just don't do it.
It's illegal for a reason.

The attitude that it's no big deal is just a wrong lesson to teach our kids IMO.

You're correct that things are illegal for a reason. However, that reason may not be the one that "seems" the most obvious. Marijuana's legal status originally had more to do with the lumber industry and politics than marijuana itself.
Here's a couple of resources where you can read up on the history of the laws re: marijuana:
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/norml-report-on-sixty-years-of-marijuana-prohibition-in-the-us

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=history+of+marijuana+laws+Us&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CGQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Ftemplates%2Fstory%2 Fstory.php%3FstoryId%3D113971561&ei=WbK2T6LhC-iViAKcjLWGBw&usg=AFQjCNHn3-2QjUZjsbJXwMHUq-b1KafuTw

Additionally, there are a lot of laws on the books across the nation which are literally silly--in my hometown it's technically illegal NOT to smile. So essentially I suppose the entire town and every visitor is a criminal.

I really really wish we knew what was in GZ's system that night, if anything. Alcohol is known to assist people in losing inhibitions and many people become aggressive when using alcohol. Not so much with pot.

Also, I'm highly offended to see that behaviors such as cutting are seemingly being put in the same category as marijuana usage. Cutting is a mental health issue. Perhaps doing research on things could assist folks with understanding those things.

Finally, how does the THC in TM's system really affect the shooting? Does this information make the shooting more justifiable? I don't think so. I guess I'll answer myself and say that it really doesn't have any bearing on the shooting. I worry, though, that this will become an excuse to drag TM through the mud (yet again). I hope that isn't the case, though.

flourish
05-18-2012, 04:45 PM
it doesnt really matter - IMO trayvon could have sat under a tree and been nodding off from a heroin fix and that still doesnt make it okay for someone to walk up to him and shoot him.

I've seen it said that everyone's trying to play like trayvon was perfect, no one is perfect, I for one never think any such thing. what trayvon WAS, was a normal teenager. come on, we were all in high school....anyone playing the "GASP!! but marijuana is ILLEGAL" thing is coming off as rather...innocent.

Have I mentioned lately how much I love you, 2goldfish? You rock (where have all the smilies gone? Imagine the rock one here)

flourish
05-18-2012, 04:49 PM
Well, if stoners voted, it would probably be legal. Stoners don't typically vote, though, and a politician would have a HUGE uphill battle trying to legalize marijuana when the folks who reliably vote are against it.

I wish it were legal too, but I don't see any politicians who believe that way successfully getting in to office.

Huh...is there a link to the statistics showing the voting rate of "stoners?" I don't think a large amount of Oregonians got that memo.Thanks in advance.

flourish
05-18-2012, 04:51 PM
Well that's true. It makes some people terribly paranoid. Some people can either be relaxed or paranoid, depending on . . . I don't know what.

The folks I've viewed who became paranoid were usually very reluctant to leave the location they were at. As in, "I'm feeling paranoid, I don't want to go out in public." Seems logical to me.

PinkiGreen
05-18-2012, 04:52 PM
I think if we tested the teenagers in my area, 90% if them would have THC in their systems.

Also...most people that smoke regularly do not act high, get the munchies, or randomly fall asleep...you can't even tell. I think its a moot point regarding Trayvon. JMO

Soulmagent
05-18-2012, 05:03 PM
I do not think it matters at all that Trayvon had THC in his system.

I dont believe Trayvon needed to have a reason to go to the store ,it is open and a public place.
Why does he need a plausable explaination other then he wanted skittles and a tea?

So what he had a lighter?

What impact does that have on the facts of the case that matter ?

Is there a new way to get high and rob people by cooking up skittles in a tea can ?

FLmom777
05-18-2012, 05:10 PM
The thc is irrelevant. Yes, it is illegal, to the same level as a 17 yr old drinking a beer. If you drank any alcohol before you were if age, you too are a criminal. The residue he had at school would be about the same legally as underage alcohol possession.

flourish
05-18-2012, 05:21 PM
My private thought that I haven't shared here previously is that he didn't go right home and, thus, avoid George completely because he may have been waiting for someone to hook him up. That would also explain why he was so concerned about someone watching him that he confronted George and why he got a call overlapping the girl friend's call that's not been explained. It also would explain why he picked up a lighter at the convenience store. I skimmed this stuff quickly while I was in the airport waiting for a flight, so I could be wrong about this, but I think I remember specifically reading that it was a red 7-11 lighter found on his person. jmo

I also noticed that he had quite a bit more money on him than originally stated. Maybe he also went to the 7-11 to get change of a $50. also jmo

The 7-11 video was released last night and clearly shows him buying his skittles and iced tea with exact change. Also, I didn't see him buying a lighter in the video, neither do I remember it being on the receipt (I don't think we actually saw the receipt but IIRC there was an early report that the authorities stated he just bought iced tea and skittles). Finally, I apologize for not knowing this, but could someone be so kind as to direct me to where it's stated he had a lighter on his body? I haven't had time to read all the documents yet. tia

flourish
05-18-2012, 05:30 PM
I think his now verified use of marijuana provides a very plausible explanation for why he went to the 7-11 in the first place and didn't go right home afterward. Aside from whether smoking pot in and of itself is a crime or a big deal. jmo

I understand this is your opinion, and I respect that:) However, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to share what facts your opinion is based on other than him having THC in his system. I guess what I'm wondering is, what leads you to choose to think he was attempting to buy pot that night? Like, how would he have a pot hook-up in an area he didn't live in? Pot isn't as easy to buy as iced tea LOL. Also, was there something found on him that could be used to smoke pot, besides the iced tea can, which was full and therefore hadn't been used for smoking?

Also, I'm wondering if you can clarify what you mean by he didn't go right home afterward. I thought he was on his way home, and that he may or may not have been walking at a "slow" or slow-ish pace, presumably in order to have some time to talk to his girlfriend in private.

gxm
05-18-2012, 06:11 PM
IMO, the only thing the THC does is give some credence to GZ's initial suspicion. It would have been much worse for the defense if the tox tests had come back clean so, at the very least, it's a wash. And even a wash favors the defense perspective.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

Melanie
05-18-2012, 06:15 PM
The thc is irrelevant. Yes, it is illegal, to the same level as a 17 yr old drinking a beer. If you drank any alcohol before you were if age, you too are a criminal. The residue he had at school would be about the same legally as underage alcohol possession.

Yes, I smoked weed and drank alcohol at 17. Dang, I lived close to Hollyweird and UCLA we did a lot of crazy things.

But I tell ya what, that doesn't give anyone an excuse to shoot me as I am walking down the street going about my bidness!

MOO

Mel

gxm
05-18-2012, 06:15 PM
The 7-11 video was released last night and clearly shows him buying his skittles and iced tea with exact change. Also, I didn't see him buying a lighter in the video, neither do I remember it being on the receipt (I don't think we actually saw the receipt but IIRC there was an early report that the authorities stated he just bought iced tea and skittles). Finally, I apologize for not knowing this, but could someone be so kind as to direct me to where it's stated he had a lighter on his body? I haven't had time to read all the documents yet. tia

BBM.

Serino's report, page 4 of 7:

One red "711" brand name lighter.

seattlechiquita
05-18-2012, 06:33 PM
Yes, I smoked weed and drank alcohol at 17. Dang, I lived close to Hollyweird and UCLA we did a lot of crazy things.

But I tell ya what, that doesn't give anyone an excuse to shoot me as I am walking down the street going about my bidness!

MOO

Mel

What?!?!?!? O.M.G. The shame Melanie, the shame....

Aedrys
05-18-2012, 06:37 PM
IMO, the only thing the THC does is give some credence to GZ's initial suspicion. It would have been much worse for the defense if the tox tests had come back clean so, at the very least, it's a wash. And even a wash favors the defense perspective.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

What does smoking pot have to do with breaking into houses? And GZ did not know about the THC in TM's system. This would not help him. A lot of people smoke pot and it tends to stay in the system for a long time afterward. This is just a red herring distraction, nothing more.

Karmady
05-18-2012, 06:39 PM
The 7-11 video was released last night and clearly shows him buying his skittles and iced tea with exact change. Also, I didn't see him buying a lighter in the video, neither do I remember it being on the receipt (I don't think we actually saw the receipt but IIRC there was an early report that the authorities stated he just bought iced tea and skittles). Finally, I apologize for not knowing this, but could someone be so kind as to direct me to where it's stated he had a lighter on his body? I haven't had time to read all the documents yet. tia

fwiw, that was a theory I had before I knew about the lighter and speculated about the change. So I still think it's a plausible theory about why he was dawdling around outside not wanting to go home or been observed, particularly since he was going to be stuck at his dad's for a period of time, had an older cousin in the area -- so clearly he had some contacts, and had some overlapping calls/texts on this cell during that time frame.

Like I said, I'm not surprised or terribly concerned that he was a pot smoker. To me, it's just a possible explanation for how he came to be not home when he easily could have been. jmo
jmo

eta: I just saw your other post with questions about why I think this. I think I answered them here, even though I didn't know they had been asked lol. And, although I'm not a pot smoker, let's just say I'm drawing on some personal experience in similar situations. :::we need an incognito emoticon:::

flourish
05-18-2012, 06:58 PM
fwiw, that was a theory I had before I knew about the lighter and speculated about the change. So I still think it's a plausible theory about why he was dawdling around outside not wanting to go home or been observed, particularly since he was going to be stuck at his dad's for a period of time, had an older cousin in the area -- so clearly he had some contacts, and had some overlapping calls/texts on this cell during that time frame.

Like I said, I'm not surprised or terribly concerned that he was a pot smoker. To me, it's just a possible explanation for how he came to be not home when he easily could have been. jmo
jmo

eta: I just saw your other post with questions about why I think this. I think I answered them here, even though I didn't know they had been asked lol. And, although I'm not a pot smoker, let's just say I'm drawing on some personal experience in similar situations. :::we need an incognito emoticon:::

Thanks:) I agree we need an incognito emoticon LOL
IMO, you offered more plausible reasons above as to why he might be considered to have been dawdling. My impression was that you were implying he was dawdling because he was buying or using pot that night, which there appears to not be evidence of, as far as I know. I don't consider a lighter evidence. Additionally, I don't see how he would have known where to get pot in a community where he doesn't live and doesn't seem to have spent a whole lot of time at.
Again, I appreciate the response:)

gxm
05-18-2012, 08:40 PM
What does smoking pot have to do with breaking into houses? And GZ did not know about the THC in TM's system. This would not help him. A lot of people smoke pot and it tends to stay in the system for a long time afterward. This is just a red herring distraction, nothing more.

For one thing, it helps the defense because it is another crack in the pure and innocent choir boy image of TM that Crump has fed to the nation. And it also supports GZ's "profiling" that TM was a drug user. Again, a wash, but even that is in the defense's favor. It would have been much worse for the defense if the test had come back clean. IMO.

Beyond Belief
05-18-2012, 09:08 PM
Unfortunately in the state of Florida having drugs show up in your system in taken very seriously. You can be fired from your job or not hired for a job, and the big one is that your children can and most likely will be taken away from you. No matter how you look at it in this state you are on the poo poo list if your a drug user.

Karmady
05-18-2012, 09:57 PM
Unfortunately in the state of Florida having drugs show up in your system in taken very seriously. You can be fired from your job or not hired for a job, and the big one is that your children can and most likely will be taken away from you. No matter how you look at it in this state you are on the poo poo list if your a drug user.

Unfortunately?

Chris_Texas
05-18-2012, 10:01 PM
IMO, the only thing the THC does is give some credence to GZ's initial suspicion. It would have been much worse for the defense if the tox tests had come back clean so, at the very least, it's a wash. And even a wash favors the defense perspective.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

They might try to argue this but I don't think it will work. The level of THC in Trayvon's system was tiny, and it seems unlikely that it even impacted Trayvon in any way, let alone so much that a casual observer would state that he was on drugs and that something was definately wrong with him.

And those words, in my opinion, are going to metaphorically hang George Zimmerman. As it turns out, there was nothing definately wrong with Trayvon Martin. Yet Zimmerman said that there was. Consider that a moment.

Zimmerman, during his 911 call, described Trayvon using language typically used to describe a threat. Trayvon was on something, he was messed up, something was wrong with him, something was DEFINATELY wrong with him, he was looking his way, coming towards him, reaching for something in his wasteband, holding something in his hands!

And there is no reason now to assume that ANY of this is true. The foundation of all of it -- that Trayvon was high as a kite and dangerous -- was blown completely out of the water with this tox report.

Beyond Belief
05-18-2012, 10:20 PM
Unfortunately?
For recreational users it is most unfortunate. LOL

Karmady
05-18-2012, 10:28 PM
For recreational users it is most unfortunate. LOL

And for their children, family, employers and members of the general public, it is most fortunate, imo.

jaded cat
05-18-2012, 10:38 PM
And for their children, family, employers and members of the general public, it is most fortunate, imo.

Yes, because my smoking pot is such a burden on my family and members of the general public. Not really

Karmady
05-18-2012, 10:43 PM
Yes, because my smoking pot is such a burden on my family and members of the general public. Not really

My understanding is that you are using drugs legally, not recreationally. So your experience is not relevant to my point.

beach
05-18-2012, 11:18 PM
ahem....

this topic of this thread is regarding the THC levels found in Trayvon's body, per the autopsy report.


we're not here to bicker about whether it is okay or not okay according to personal beliefs or by sharing personal experiences.
Personally, I wouldn't advise that anyway. This is the internet, after all. .

It's not about George Zimmerman's medications. There is a topical thread for that so please don't bring it over here.


Keep it about Trayvon, please. :)

Beyond Belief
05-18-2012, 11:35 PM
I don't really know what to say about the drug in Trayvons system.

AJ Noiter
05-20-2012, 01:19 AM
I've always said that unless they find something harder than marijuana in his system, it doesn't really matter in my opinion. I stand by that. If twitter/facebook/etc come into play it may be used to show that he wasn't the innocent little boy that has been portrayed, otherwise it's a "meh" to me.

LolaMoon08
05-20-2012, 07:25 PM
I'd rather take someone smoking a bit of pot over someone on highly addictive prescription medications like GZ was!

MOO

Reality Orlando
05-20-2012, 08:18 PM
I'd rather take someone smoking a bit of pot over someone on highly addictive prescription medications like GZ was!

MOO

We need to keep in mind that GZ's medication was legally prescribed by a doctor and is used by children and adults worldwide. I'd hate to see a negative connotation placed on a drug someone is taking to correct a physical ailment. It's no different than the earlier bashing of GZ because he was seeking counseling. I applaud those who understand they need help and seek a solution and personally find it unsettling when these same people are vilified for doing so.

Kimberlyd125
05-21-2012, 08:29 AM
I'd rather take someone smoking a bit of pot over someone on highly addictive prescription medications like GZ was!

MOO

I take a couple of highly addictive medications due to a medical condition.
Nice to know people like me are thought less of than an illegal drug user.
I'd gladly give my condition away but can't.
I don't have a choice.

:waitasec:

LiveLaughLuv
05-21-2012, 08:55 AM
is this significant?

Please be civil and remember Trayvon is dead. This thread is to discuss the potential ramifications of testing positive for pot in a victim of homicide.

This doesn't have to be a fight. It can be a conversation- it is all about presentation of your ideas.

As for my opinion, I have no idea because I don't know when he used, how often he used or how pot manifests itself with Trayvon when is is using.

So for me it is not significant at this point but certainly could be in the future.

We had a case here not too long ago where a drunk driver killed 3 people, one of whom was a an Angel pitcher.(Adenhart). Driver was convicted of 2nd degree murder. It did come out that the driver of the other vehicle also had a BAC well over the limit. Did it matter? Not at all. So in some cases this might be significant and in other it might not.


What do you think and show respect for Trayvon please.


Coming in late, been out of the site for awhile...I needed to take a break before I get banned permanantly...:smile: Sorry...


This matters not to me...Trace amount is nothing significant. Which is why he was living there...Lots of folk smoke weed, I believe if the world smoked weed we'd have a much less violent society. Weed is a mellow head, helps medicinally so how bad can it be?

This still goes back to GZ, Trayvon's death would have been avoided if he stayed in his vehicle. It appears to me, GZ instigated this situation, was getting his ass whipped and fired his weapon within inches of his contact with Trayvon. That in itself removes the SYG defense....You can't start an altercation and then use this very confusing statute..

If not for GZ....this is wholly his fault....he should have stayed in his vehicle...

Cher352
05-21-2012, 11:24 AM
We have heard THC levels were considered low but does anyone what the level of the THC-COOH level means, I have never heard this term before? Also would the presence of cannabinoids in the urine give a better idea of how long ago the pot was smoked?


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.

Read more: http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/autopsy-drug-thc-found-in-trayvon-martins-system#ixzz1vWA1KxDv

gxm
05-21-2012, 01:41 PM
I take a couple of highly addictive medications due to a medical condition.
Nice to know people like me are thought less of than an illegal drug user.
I'd gladly give my condition away but can't.
I don't have a choice.

:waitasec:

Hugs to you, Kimberlyd125. I, too, take several medications for medical conditions and although none are highly addictive, I've also felt the sting from the anti-prescription drug comments.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

gxm
05-21-2012, 01:58 PM
They might try to argue this but I don't think it will work. The level of THC in Trayvon's system was tiny, and it seems unlikely that it even impacted Trayvon in any way, let alone so much that a casual observer would state that he was on drugs and that something was definately wrong with him.

And those words, in my opinion, are going to metaphorically hang George Zimmerman. As it turns out, there was nothing definately wrong with Trayvon Martin. Yet Zimmerman said that there was. Consider that a moment.

Zimmerman, during his 911 call, described Trayvon using language typically used to describe a threat. Trayvon was on something, he was messed up, something was wrong with him, something was DEFINATELY wrong with him, he was looking his way, coming towards him, reaching for something in his wasteband, holding something in his hands!

And there is no reason now to assume that ANY of this is true. The foundation of all of it -- that Trayvon was high as a kite and dangerous -- was blown completely out of the water with this tox report.

I completely disagree. First, Crump's ready-made choir boy image has been completely damaged. While there are many here who think smoking pot is a common practice, it is not commonly thought of as a virtue. Further, if this case goes to trial, IMO there's a good chance that the defense will get an expert to testify on cannabis withdrawal to give a possible reason as to why TM attacked GZ (as the prosecution will surely have witnesses claiming he would never do such a thing). Sure, the defense may choose to ignore the THC levels altogether, but if the prosecution tries to use them, IMO, they'll do so at their own risk.

This was not a win for the prosecution side. And even though I think it's a wash, it is evidence that the defense may be able to use in their favor.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

Elley Mae
05-21-2012, 02:06 PM
We have heard THC levels were considered low but does anyone what the level of the THC-COOH level means, I have never heard this term before? Also would the presence of cannabinoids in the urine give a better idea of how long ago the pot was smoked?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
nterpretation of Blood Concentrations: It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. THC concentrations typically peak during the act of smoking, while peak 11-OH THC concentrations occur approximately 9-23 minutes after the start of smoking. Concentrations of both analytes decline rapidly and are often < 5 ng/mL at 3 hours. Significant THC concentrations (7 to 18 ng/mL) are noted following even a single puff or hit of a marijuana cigarette. Peak plasma THC concentrations ranged from 46-188 ng/mL in 6 subjects after they smoked 8.8 mg THC over 10 minutes. Chronic users can have mean plasma levels of THC-COOH of 45 ng/mL, 12 hours after use; corresponding THC levels are, however, less than 1 ng/mL. Following oral administration, THC concentrations peak at 1-3 hours and are lower than after smoking. Dronabinol and THC-COOH are present in equal concentrations in plasma and concentrations peak at approximately 2-4 hours after dosing.

bbm found this on THC-cooh

annalia
05-21-2012, 02:09 PM
I completely disagree. First, Crump's ready-made choir boy image has been completely damaged. While there are many here who think smoking pot is a common practice, it is not commonly thought of as a virtue. Further, if this case goes to trial, IMO there's a good chance that the defense will get an expert to testify on cannabis withdrawal to give a possible reason as to why TM attacked GZ (as the prosecution will surely have witnesses claiming he would never do such a thing). Sure, the defense may choose to ignore the THC levels altogether, but if the prosecution tries to use them, IMO, they'll do so at their own risk.

This was not a win for the prosecution side. And even though I think it's a wash, it is evidence that the defense may be able to use in their favor.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

It doesn't matter who thinks it's a virtue or not a virtue. What will matter is that the amounts were too low and that proves that he wasn't high when GZ said he looked like he was. The defense can say, see he wasn't like his family said he was, so what, evidence showed he wasn't high that night and whether or not he was high that night, as GZ stated, is what matters. So yes, that would be considered a win for the prosecution.

I haven't heard one expert, even ones who usually speak in favor of the defense say anything other than this is completely irrelevant to the case. Highly doubtful that anyone would ever testify that he was going through any cannibus withdrawl, no way to ever be able to prove such a thing, how much or how long Trayvon even smoked pot.

Aedrys
05-21-2012, 02:10 PM
I completely disagree. First, Crump's ready-made choir boy image has been completely damaged. While there are many here who think smoking pot is a common practice, it is not commonly thought of as a virtue. Further, if this case goes to trial, IMO there's a good chance that the defense will get an expert to testify on cannabis withdrawal to give a possible reason as to why TM attacked GZ (as the prosecution will surely have witnesses claiming he would never do such a thing). Sure, the defense may choose to ignore the THC levels altogether, but if the prosecution tries to use them, IMO, they'll do so at their own risk.

This was not a win for the prosecution side. And even though I think it's a wash, it is evidence that the defense may be able to use in their favor.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

I disagree completely here. I have never heard of anyone getting violent because they were withdrawing from cannabis. Actually, I've never heard of anyone withdrawing from cannabis. It's not that kind of drug. Good luck on the defense finding someone to say that. The only things I've ever heard in conjunction with cannabis is mellowing out, reaction time slowing down so people shouldn't do things like drive, and getting the munchies. It's not a hard drug and it's very prevalent in society. I hear someone smokes pot, I shrug my shoulders. They aren't dangerous unless they are operating heavy machinery. Most just smoke at home, and lot use for medicinal purposes. I don't immediately think cannabis = homicidal maniac on the loose. The ones I worry about are people who get high on heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. Those people get violent and kill each other for the next high.

rossva
05-21-2012, 02:30 PM
BBM. Wow, talk about profiling.




I disagree completely here. I have never heard of anyone getting violent because they were withdrawing from cannabis. Actually, I've never heard of anyone withdrawing from cannabis. It's not that kind of drug. Good luck on the defense finding someone to say that. The only things I've ever heard in conjunction with cannabis is mellowing out, reaction time slowing down so people shouldn't do things like drive, and getting the munchies. It's not a hard drug and it's very prevalent in society. I hear someone smokes pot, I shrug my shoulders. They aren't dangerous unless they are operating heavy machinery. Most just smoke at home, and lot use for medicinal purposes. I don't immediately think cannabis = homicidal maniac on the loose. The ones I worry about are people who get high on heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. Those people get violent and kill each other for the next high.

magnolia
05-21-2012, 02:34 PM
I completely disagree. First, Crump's ready-made choir boy image has been completely damaged. While there are many here who think smoking pot is a common practice, it is not commonly thought of as a virtue. Further, if this case goes to trial, IMO there's a good chance that the defense will get an expert to testify on cannabis withdrawal to give a possible reason as to why TM attacked GZ (as the prosecution will surely have witnesses claiming he would never do such a thing). Sure, the defense may choose to ignore the THC levels altogether, but if the prosecution tries to use them, IMO, they'll do so at their own risk.

This was not a win for the prosecution side. And even though I think it's a wash, it is evidence that the defense may be able to use in their favor.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

I had thought about possible cannabis withdrawal as well.


Chronic cannabis users showed decreases in mood and appetite and increases in irritability and anxiety and their scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (http://www.websleuths.com/wiki/Hamilton_Rating_Scale_for_Depression) scale increased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_withdrawal

Aedrys
05-21-2012, 02:48 PM
BBM. Wow, talk about profiling.

That's not profiling. There are new stories everyday of people killing each other for hard drugs like cocaine and meth. They have been a serious epidemic and problem in the United States and around the world for a long, long time. How many people are in jail for drug related crimes? That is not profiling, that is reality.

Aedrys
05-21-2012, 02:51 PM
I had thought about possible cannabis withdrawal as well.

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.

claudicici
05-21-2012, 03:10 PM
Since when is weed a drug you can tell someone is on? Unless you're out of your mind super high swith that little bit of THC in your system nobody can tell by looking at you walking down the street that you're high.He couldn't even see his eyes.It's ridiculous.We see Trayvon in the store and he doesn't seem high.Plus if you call 911 each time you think someone may have smoked some weed and that somehow makes the person a threat or something you'd be calling 911 all day every day (at least where I live)

Cher352
05-21-2012, 03:13 PM
http://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
nterpretation of Blood Concentrations: It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. THC concentrations typically peak during the act of smoking, while peak 11-OH THC concentrations occur approximately 9-23 minutes after the start of smoking. Concentrations of both analytes decline rapidly and are often < 5 ng/mL at 3 hours. Significant THC concentrations (7 to 18 ng/mL) are noted following even a single puff or hit of a marijuana cigarette. Peak plasma THC concentrations ranged from 46-188 ng/mL in 6 subjects after they smoked 8.8 mg THC over 10 minutes. Chronic users can have mean plasma levels of THC-COOH of 45 ng/mL, 12 hours after use; corresponding THC levels are, however, less than 1 ng/mL. Following oral administration, THC concentrations peak at 1-3 hours and are lower than after smoking. Dronabinol and THC-COOH are present in equal concentrations in plasma and concentrations peak at approximately 2-4 hours after dosing.

bbm found this on THC-cooh

Thanks but it still rather sounds like Greek to me...LOL!!!

But I did find this on the same link under Urine Test Results:


Positive test results generally indicate use within 1-3 days; however, the detection window could be significantly longer following heavy, chronic, use.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm

SNOWINMEMPHIS
05-21-2012, 03:26 PM
The THC content available in marijuana nowadays is much higher than it used to be.
When I am in a store and someone who has been smoking it, say in their car, comes in and is next to me, the odor is very obvious. A strong "skunky" odor.
About 15 years ago, a friend of mine who was an early inside grower took some of the fresh buds from his plants with him on a trip on Amtrak. The older ladies near him complained to the workers on the train that a skunk must have been run over and was somehow attached to the train.
As far as how long the effects of today's marijuana can stay in a person's system, I would have to say that it depends on the person's tolerance level as well as the THC level in the marijuana.
As far as a withdrawal from marijuana, again it depends on the person's usage. One common side-effect of withdrawal from longterm usage is the loss of appetite. Being in my middle 40's, I have known (and still do) a lot of daily pot smokers. Some of them can't sleep or really eat without their pot.
Many of them are very successful in all aspects of their lives and no one outside of their immediate group of family and friends would ever suspect they are cannabis users.
It is criminal but if alcohol and cigarettes remain legal, I see no reason for it not to be decriminalized. IMO, TM would've been more suspect in my mind if he were intoxicated on alcohol. A drunk person is much more likely to be aggressive.
I don't put much evidenciary weight at all on the THC in TM's autopsy report. Having educated people in classrooms on the effects of marijuana, good and bad, my research showed that upwards of 1/4 of most teens in TM's age group would test positive for it.
Trayvon was not displaying any type of marijuana psychosis. In the 7-11 video played at normal speed, he didn't come off as threatening to me.
jmo

gxm
05-21-2012, 03:33 PM
I disagree completely here. I have never heard of anyone getting violent because they were withdrawing from cannabis. Actually, I've never heard of anyone withdrawing from cannabis. It's not that kind of drug. Good luck on the defense finding someone to say that. The only things I've ever heard in conjunction with cannabis is mellowing out, reaction time slowing down so people shouldn't do things like drive, and getting the munchies. It's not a hard drug and it's very prevalent in society. I hear someone smokes pot, I shrug my shoulders. They aren't dangerous unless they are operating heavy machinery. Most just smoke at home, and lot use for medicinal purposes. I don't immediately think cannabis = homicidal maniac on the loose. The ones I worry about are people who get high on heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. Those people get violent and kill each other for the next high.

BBM.

Marijuana withdrawal symptoms (http://recoveringaddict.hubpages.com/hub/Marijuana-withdrawal-symptoms-Insomnia--anxiety--iritability--headache)

Withdrawal symptoms to marijuana can be somewhat characterized as the opposite to the intoxicating effects of the drug…instead of hunger, a loss of appetite, and instead of drowsiness, an inability to sleep.

Some additional symptoms of marijuana withdrawal can include headache, nausea, anxiety (common) paranoia and even irritability or aggression.

These sensations will endure with some intensity for several days before gradually subsiding, and it is during this period that the cravings to use are strongest, and there is the greatest risk of relapse.

Google "cannabis withdrawal" and there are lots of hits. My point is simply that the defense can look at TM's THC levels and figure out how they want to approach it at trial. They can bring on experts who will say that TM may have been high, or they can bring on experts who can say that TM may have been experiencing withdrawal symptoms that caused aggression (linking with the twitter comment about him throwing a punch at a bus driver). The THC levels can be used by the defense in whatever manner they decide this evidence will be best used (or they may choose to ignore it). IMO, this evidence can not be favorably used by the prosecution and the SA is best to avoid it altogether.

JMO, OMO, and MOO.

SNOWINMEMPHIS
05-21-2012, 03:35 PM
One other thought while I am at it:~)
The old adage about marijuana being a gateway drug is not really valid.
The real gateway drugs are alcohol and tobacco.
A person who ends up dead with a syringe in their arm usually didn't use marijuana as their first illegal drug. Most of them, as many of us, smoked a cigarette or drank alcohol under the legal age.
The only reason I can see that anyone is putting emphasis on the THC in TM's system is to try to make him look like a hardened criminal. If they applied that same logic to their own children, grandchildren and friends, I have to wonder how many "hardened criminals" they might uncover?
jmo

Aedrys
05-21-2012, 03:36 PM
BBM.

Marijuana withdrawal symptoms (http://recoveringaddict.hubpages.com/hub/Marijuana-withdrawal-symptoms-Insomnia--anxiety--iritability--headache)

Withdrawal symptoms to marijuana can be somewhat characterized as the opposite to the intoxicating effects of the drug…instead of hunger, a loss of appetite, and instead of drowsiness, an inability to sleep.

Some additional symptoms of marijuana withdrawal can include headache, nausea, anxiety (common) paranoia and even irritability or aggression.

These sensations will endure with some intensity for several days before gradually subsiding, and it is during this period that the cravings to use are strongest, and there is the greatest risk of relapse.

Google "cannabis withdrawal" and there are lots of hits. My point is simply that the defense can look at TM's THC levels and figure out how they want to approach it at trial. They can bring on experts who will say that TM may have been high, or they can bring on experts who can say that TM may have been experiencing withdrawal symptoms that caused aggression (linking with the twitter comment about him throwing a punch at a bus driver). The THC levels can be used by the defense in whatever manner they decide this evidence will be best used (or they may choose to ignore it). IMO, this evidence can not be favorably used by the prosecution and the SA is best to avoid it altogether.

JMO, OMO, and MOO.

Again, he had TRACES of it in his blood. A trace amount is a very, very, tiny amount. There is no proof that he was withdrawing from it. There is no proof that he was a chronic or heavy user. There is no proof that it made him become aggressive and violent. The defense should not go near this with a ten foot pole if O'Mara is smart.

SNOWINMEMPHIS
05-21-2012, 03:43 PM
To me, it doesn't even matter if Trayvon was "high" on pot when he died.
It's just not relevant.
As far as the bad side effects of marijuana, many of the studies were performed in countries where it isn't actually illegal. The psychotic effects of high THC marijuana have been one of the leading causes of some forms of psychosis in places like Afghanistan for a long time.
Also it can trigger a subject with the predisposition for schizophrenia to have their first psychotic break.
So yes, it can be dangerous to use. Especially with the United States now having marijuana readily available that compares to the THC levels routinely found in samples like Afghani Hash.
It depends on the user and the actual marijuana they have smoked.
Unless the defense can come up with some reason to suggest that Trayvon was experiencing any type of psychosis relating to his marijuana usage, it is entirely irrelevant, IMO.
For the record, I'm not on any "side" except the side of justice. Only a jury with all of the facts can make an informed decision.
jmo

whateva
05-21-2012, 03:48 PM
IMO.... the presence of THC in general is a very minor issue... but in the context of the case it will have significant import:

the entire case is: who initiated the fight?

team G will no doubt pile up a stack of evidence to portray T's character as:
an adult sized football player, involved with drugs, on drugs that night which reduced his inhibitions, emulating gang behavior with tattoos grills etc., bragging about acts of violence on twitter, suspended for burglary tools / marijuana / etc.... and T decided he was going to teach a Watch volunteer a lesson for following him.

The THC positive result is another problem for the State in pressing a prosecution.... and it's significant....

Aedrys
05-21-2012, 04:00 PM
IMO.... the presence of THC in general is a very minor issue... but in the context of the case it will have significant import:

the entire case is: who initiated the fight?

team G will no doubt pile up a stack of evidence to portray T's character as:
an adult sized football player, involved with drugs, on drugs that night which reduced his inhibitions, emulating gang behavior with tattoos grills etc., bragging about acts of violence on twitter, suspended for burglary tools / marijuana / etc.... and T decided he was going to teach a Watch volunteer a lesson for following him.

The THC positive result is another problem for the State in pressing a prosecution.... and it's significant....

No, it's not. There were TRACES of it in his blood. I guess a lot of people here don't understand what TRACES means. According to merriam-webster.com, "trace" is an amount of a chemical constituent not always quantitatively determinable because of minuteness. Dictionary.com further defines "trace" - an extremely small amount of some chemical component: a trace of copper in its composition. We're talking minute quantities so small it doesn't make a darn bit of difference to what happened that night.

There is no proof of anything about the THC that night except that it was in trace amounts in his system. That is it. It does not automatically prove that it made TM aggressive or that he intiated the fight. Now, if there were mass amounts of THC in his system, that would be a different story. But we're talking TRACE AMOUNTS here, and some people are making a dang mountain of a molehill. We don't even know that he smoked it that night. I can see the defense maybe using it for character assassination, but I don't think the prosecution is going to do anything with it. It's too dang small to be of any difference to what happened that night.

beach
05-21-2012, 04:05 PM
Mod warning:

What is it with LONG TIME MEMBERS who continue to quote and respond to a post with a link that is questionable instead of alerting???

I have removed the original post with the blog link and surrounding posts quoting it. Everyone here is responsible for continuing this bickering instead of alerting the post. One person alerted it and that person did not respond. Thank you.

Tired of the petty bickering. Have some respect and act like adults.

SNOWINMEMPHIS
05-21-2012, 04:08 PM
The fact is that traces of marijuana can be found in a person's blood and urine for at least 28 days following usage. Period.
Since Trayvon had been suspended because of the empty baggie containing traces of marijuana, isn't it possible that his last usage was at that time? If I'm not correct on the timeline of his suspension in relation to the time of his death, I apologize.
Yes more than likely the defense will try to have this admitted in at GZ's trial. I think it is foolish to do so. Unless the jury is made up almost entirely of totally uninformed people (concerning marijuana and its' effects), I don't see it playing a role in GZ's defense.
Seems to me it is being used to try to justify GZ's words on his call saying "looks like he's on drugs or something". I have no idea what was going through GZ's mind at the time and I am not trying to crucify him. I do not see him as a sociopath or a psychopath, which are almost interchangeable. Rather he seems to me to be a somewhat typical 28 year old male. As Trayvon seemed to be a typical 17 year old male.
This shooting should not have happened. Period. I'm not sure that a charge of 2nd degree murder without a lesser included charge of criminally negligent homicide will work for the prosecutor. Not knowing what they have besides what has been released already, I can only hope that they did not overcharge him in response to the public outcry.
Since this thread is about the THC in Trayvon's system, I'm sorry for going a bit off-topic. Pitting GZ's prescription drugs against TM's THC is just a red herring. It's all just to incite more anger from both sides.
For example, we all know how totally anti-drug and alcohol Jane Velez-Mitchell is. However, is it just me or does she seem to be putting much more emphasis on GZ's prescription drugs than Trayvon's THC? I don't get it at all as it seems more than a little hypocritical to me.
jmo

lonetraveler
05-21-2012, 04:24 PM
I disagree completely here. I have never heard of anyone getting violent because they were withdrawing from cannabis. Actually, I've never heard of anyone withdrawing from cannabis. It's not that kind of drug. Good luck on the defense finding someone to say that. The only things I've ever heard in conjunction with cannabis is mellowing out, reaction time slowing down so people shouldn't do things like drive, and getting the munchies. It's not a hard drug and it's very prevalent in society. I hear someone smokes pot, I shrug my shoulders. They aren't dangerous unless they are operating heavy machinery. Most just smoke at home, and lot use for medicinal purposes. I don't immediately think cannabis = homicidal maniac on the loose. The ones I worry about are people who get high on heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. Those people get violent and kill each other for the next high.

I agree with your post up to the last two comments. You might want to quantify that "some" people have become violent and have killed for the next high........instead of lumping them all in the same basket. JMO.

lillygator
05-21-2012, 04:44 PM
it doesnt really matter - IMO trayvon could have sat under a tree and been nodding off from a heroin fix and that still doesnt make it okay for someone to walk up to him and shoot him.

I've seen it said that everyone's trying to play like trayvon was perfect, no one is perfect, I for one never think any such thing. what trayvon WAS, was a normal teenager. come on, we were all in high school....anyone playing the "GASP!! but marijuana is ILLEGAL" thing is coming off as rather...innocent.
I don't believe for one second that anyone walked up and shot him...there was more going on than that.


What does smoking pot have to do with breaking into houses? And GZ did not know about the THC in TM's system. This would not help him. A lot of people smoke pot and it tends to stay in the system for a long time afterward. This is just a red herring distraction, nothing more.
as a pp stated, I think it leads more into, that he was willing to do illegal activity, hence he could have been casing houses and looking suspicious that night.

I don't think this will become an issue in the court room.

....being caught on a public school campus with drug residue and paraphernalia and not being charged is a huge pass here...I am pretty sure FL has strict laws on that. Unless they have changed recently.

whateva
05-21-2012, 04:51 PM
No, it's not. There were TRACES of it in his blood. I guess a lot of people here don't understand what TRACES means. According to merriam-webster.com, "trace" is an amount of a chemical constituent not always quantitatively determinable because of minuteness. Dictionary.com further defines "trace" - an extremely small amount of some chemical component: a trace of copper in its composition. We're talking minute quantities so small it doesn't make a darn bit of difference to what happened that night.

There is no proof of anything about the THC that night except that it was in trace amounts in his system. That is it. It does not automatically prove that it made TM aggressive or that he intiated the fight. Now, if there were mass amounts of THC in his system, that would be a different story. But we're talking TRACE AMOUNTS here, and some people are making a dang mountain of a molehill. We don't even know that he smoked it that night. I can see the defense maybe using it for character assassination, but I don't think the prosecution is going to do anything with it. It's too dang small to be of any difference to what happened that night.


a bunch of sarcasm about the definition of 'trace' is unnecessary.... I thought I was clear... the case that Team G will attempt to pitch is one of a bad kid / gang emulator / drug user... and T having a positive THC test result helps them... and the test is significant because it helps complete their story on drugs: it definitively proves he used them... they are illegal... and they have definite effects on behavior which includes suppression of inhibition which could have resulted in the fight




I don't think it's as significant as the drugs GZ was supposedly taking at the time. After all, TM had no recorded history of violence, nor is marijuana use shown to increase aggression.

GZ has a history of assault, and the drugs he was prescribed are often reported to increase agitation and aggression.

I have no doubt that O'Mara will use all at his disposal to dirty up the victim, be it the THC levels or anything else he can show that will play into negative stereotypes. IMO.

what drugs G was on are immaterial to this thread but the incidence of aggression is less than .5% with Temazepam making it not 'often'... in fact it makes it almost statistically irrelevant and not conclusively linked to the drug...

marijuana use has not been shown to increase aggression, but it has been shown to reduce inhibition which can easily result in the same outcome

tlcya
05-21-2012, 05:17 PM
* backs out of the thread til some dust settles

flourish
05-21-2012, 11:39 PM
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, 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:


"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:



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).
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+cann abis+withdrawal%22.+Journal+of+Abnormal+Psychology +112+%283%29:&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESii60B_CTsME8O1WGNkPKn6inLu9er1VmnM1T1S CA4na72I7AwN64DJSNgtFIcc2wAWpCMctQHB6DKb0BXC1qFXKs _NFWCZ9wC4tS-iVC1K75pyfo-_ZmJ5gq9xlEKYT8xrt1tW&sig=AHIEtbR82Kg9WxcyofDmcFVnvpEbt8DOIA (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+cann abis+withdrawal%22.+Journal+of+Abnormal+Psychology +112+%283%29:&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESii60B_CTsME8O1WGNkPKn6inLu9er1VmnM1T1S CA4na72I7AwN64DJSNgtFIcc2wAWpCMctQHB6DKb0BXC1qFXKs _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.
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
(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
05-22-2012, 08:02 AM
(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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_withdrawal)
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:



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:
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+cann abis+withdrawal%22.+Journal+of+Abnormal+Psychology +112+%283%29:&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESii60B_CTsME8O1WGNkPKn6inLu9er1VmnM1T1S CA4na72I7AwN64DJSNgtFIcc2wAWpCMctQHB6DKb0BXC1qFXKs _NFWCZ9wC4tS-iVC1K75pyfo-_ZmJ5gq9xlEKYT8xrt1tW&sig=AHIEtbR82Kg9WxcyofDmcFVnvpEbt8DOIA (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+cann abis+withdrawal%22.+Journal+of+Abnormal+Psychology +112+%283%29:&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESii60B_CTsME8O1WGNkPKn6inLu9er1VmnM1T1S CA4na72I7AwN64DJSNgtFIcc2wAWpCMctQHB6DKb0BXC1qFXKs _NFWCZ9wC4tS-iVC1K75pyfo-_ZmJ5gq9xlEKYT8xrt1tW&sig=AHIEtbR82Kg9WxcyofDmcFVnvpEbt8DOIA) Here's some information on the participants in that study:
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
(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
05-22-2012, 09:21 AM
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
05-22-2012, 09:32 AM
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
05-22-2012, 09:38 AM
<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
05-22-2012, 12:42 PM
<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
05-22-2012, 12:51 PM
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
05-22-2012, 01:18 PM
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
05-22-2012, 01:26 PM
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
05-22-2012, 01:38 PM
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
05-22-2012, 08:32 PM
Closed for clean up. Will re-open.

beach
05-22-2012, 09:20 PM
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. Link to Political Pavilion



George Zimmerman's medications. Wrong thread. Link to that discussion here.



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
05-23-2012, 10:57 AM
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
05-23-2012, 11:44 AM
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
05-23-2012, 12:03 PM
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
05-23-2012, 12:04 PM
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
05-23-2012, 12:43 PM
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
05-23-2012, 04:02 PM
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
05-23-2012, 04:11 PM
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.

Chris_Texas
05-23-2012, 04:24 PM
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.

What violent behavior is owning a lighter indicative of?

The two flashlights thing is not really a big deal, but it does perhaps suggest that he was "into" police gear or something. Or perhaps not. He was the neighborhood watch guy, so carrying a flashlight or even two is not exactly surprising.

Chris_Texas
05-23-2012, 04:28 PM
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.

It's a huge gift to the prosecution.

Zimmerman started this drama by reporting to the police that Trayvon was on drugs and was DEFINATELY messed up. Now we can conclude that this report was a lie.

FasHawks8
05-23-2012, 04:48 PM
It's a huge gift to the prosecution.

Zimmerman started this drama by reporting to the police that Trayvon was on drugs and was DEFINATELY messed up. Now we can conclude that this report was a lie.

Well, I think GZ said 'like he's on drugs or something' which is implying erratic behavior but is a far cry from "definitely messed up".

tehcloser
05-23-2012, 05:00 PM
I think GZ said "definately messed up".

tlcya
05-23-2012, 05:03 PM
BBM in blue.
What could the defense possibly say that would make this obvious trace amount "a big deal"?

They will attempt to show that TM was a "drug user" and therefore that GZ's profiling of him was not racially motivated but rather, on target as someone worthy of suspicion. "he looks like he is on drugs" (Paraphrased)

MOO

TM's THC levels in the autopsy are irrelevant but a defense attorney is going to have to pull out all the stops in order to undo the public perception already in place about GZ and his motivations that night.

MOO

AJ Noiter
05-23-2012, 05:04 PM
I think GZ said "definately messed up".

Are you thinking of this?


Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.

tehcloser
05-23-2012, 05:06 PM
Are you thinking of this?

no................

AJ Noiter
05-23-2012, 05:07 PM
no................

There was only two times where he mentioned anything about drugs. This was the other:


Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

tehcloser
05-23-2012, 05:09 PM
"Something’s wrong with him. "...........my bad. He didn't say definately. I would have sworn he did.

Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.

He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]

suzihawk
05-23-2012, 05:35 PM
Well, I think GZ said 'like he's on drugs or something' which is implying erratic behavior but is a far cry from "definitely messed up".

Being high on pot - IF he, indeed, was high on pot that evening and I'm not convinced he was - would equate somehow to "erratic behaviour"??

FasHawks8
05-23-2012, 05:40 PM
I think GZ said "definately messed up".

I just doubled check the transcript. Didn't see that but he does say "somethings wrong with him". FWIW

FasHawks8
05-23-2012, 05:48 PM
"Something’s wrong with him. "...........my bad. He didn't say definately. I would have sworn he did.

Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.

He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]

When I read your message I thought 'oh yeah he did say that'! So no need to apologize. The Wikipedia transcript includes this:

"He's [unintelligible], he was just staring..."

Maybe that was where it occurred?

FasHawks8
05-23-2012, 05:56 PM
Being high on pot - IF he, indeed, was high on pot that evening and I'm not convinced he was - would equate somehow to "erratic behaviour"??

How you got that out of what I wrote is beyond me. I don't want to be the nasty guy on the internet board, but I literally have no idea how to respond to this.

LynnM
05-23-2012, 06:35 PM
I think GZ said "definately messed up".

You know, this is weird because I could have sworn the first time I heard the tape of Zimmerman's call I heard the words "He's definitely messed up." I would have bet the farm on it and I've listened to the tape since and I don't hear it. It doesn't seem possible that we BOTH imagined this.

Karmady
05-23-2012, 06:55 PM
You know, this is weird because I could have sworn the first time I heard the tape of Zimmerman's call I heard the words "He's definitely messed up." I would have bet the farm on it and I've listened to the tape since and I don't hear it. It doesn't seem possible that we BOTH imagined this.

It's been quoted in the msm as "definitely messed up". Of course that doesn't mean much in this case lol

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-21/news/ct-oped-0321-page-20120321_1_law-grand-jury-dispatcher

eta: actually, its quoted that way ALL OVER the msm. I haven't listened to the full call again, though.

LynnM
05-23-2012, 07:09 PM
It's been quoted in the msm as "definitely messed up". Of course that doesn't mean much in this case lol

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-21/news/ct-oped-0321-page-20120321_1_law-grand-jury-dispatcher

eta: actually, its quoted that way ALL OVER the msm. I haven't listened to the full call again, though.

I'm still thinking this is weird. I can hear his voice in my head and I remember thinking, he's really emphasizing that point but he's not saying why he thinks it. I can't think of any possible reason to cut it out, it doesn't add either to the defense or the prosecution perspectives but I really think it's was there and now it's gone. I think it was about one minute second seconds in just after "there's something wrong with him."

Karmady
05-23-2012, 07:16 PM
I'm still thinking this is weird. I can hear his voice in my head and I remember thinking, he's really emphasizing that point but he's not saying why he thinks it. I can't think of any possible reason to cut it out, it doesn't add either to the defense or the prosecution perspectives but I really think it's was there and now it's gone. I think it was about one minute second seconds in just after "there's something wrong with him."

The abc article about it quotes it this way:

On one call to a non-emergency dispatch number, according to Julison, Zimmerman says, "He's checking me out," and then, "This guy looks like he's on drugs, he's definitely messed up."

i.b.nora
05-23-2012, 07:36 PM
Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department ...
GZ: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there's this real suspicious guy, uh, Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something — It's raining, he's just walking around, looking about.