The pitfalls of per se thresholds in accurately identifying acute cannabis intoxication at autopsy
Some laws in the United States define cannabis-impaired driving criteria using various per se language that uses specific concentrations of various cannabinoid compounds to establish driving-under-the-influence (DUI). We hypothesize that there will be decedents whose postmortem toxicology profiles would be considered indicative of an acute cannabinoid intoxication under varying DUI per se laws, despite having survived longer than the expected duration of cannabinoid impairment effects. This study examined decedents in whom quantified cannabis metabolites were detected in Connecticut medical examiner autopsy samples, in which the medically-confined survival interval was longer (4–12 and > 12 h) than the expected duration of cannabinoid impairment effects. Several of the 15 decedents, despite being intubated and/or comatose during the medically-confined period of abstinence, would have exceeded DUI per se limits based upon their toxicology results. The use of drug concentrations alone to equate to an acute cannabis intoxication may result in inappropriate arrest, prosecution, and civil liability.
KeywordsForensic pathology Cannabinoids Autopsy Toxicology Driving under the influence laws
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
- 1.SAMHSA. Behavioral health trends in the United States: results from the 2014 national survey on drug use and health. Department of Health and Human Services USA; 2015.Google Scholar
- 13.Armentano P. Should per se limits be imposed for cannabis? Equating cannabinoid blood concentrations with actual driver impairment: practical limitations and concerns. HJSR. 2013:45–55.Google Scholar
- 17.Timpone JG, Wright DJ, Li N, Egorin MJ, Enama ME, Mayers J, et al. The safety and pharmacokinetics of single-agent and combination therapy with megestrol acetate and dronabinol for the treatment of HIV wasting syndrome. The DATRI 004 Study Group. Division of AIDS Treatment Research Initiative. AIDS Res Hum Retrovir. 1997;13:305–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar