Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 497–502 | Cite as

The pitfalls of per se thresholds in accurately identifying acute cannabis intoxication at autopsy

  • Mary K. Schwerdt
  • James R. GillEmail author
Original Article


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.


Forensic pathology Cannabinoids Autopsy Toxicology Driving under the influence laws 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest


Ethical approval


Informed consent



  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Grotenhermen F. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabinoids. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42:327–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karschner EL, Schwilke EW, Lowe RH, Darwin WD, Pope HG, Herning R, et al. Do Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations indicate recent use in chronic cannabis users? Addiction. 2009;104:2041–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharma P, Murthy P, Bharath MM. Chemistry, metabolism, and toxicology of cannabis: clinical implications. Iran J Psychiatry. 2012;7:149–56.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johansson E, Halldin MM, Agurell S, Hollister LE, Gillespie HK. Terminal elimination plasma half-life of delta 1-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta 1-THC) in heavy users of marijuana. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1989;37:273–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelly P, Jones R. Metabolism of tetrahydrocannabinol in frequent and infrequent marijuana users. J Anal Toxicol. 1992;16:228–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Desrosiers NA, Himes SK, Scheidweiler KB, Concheiro-Guisan M, Gorelick DA, Huestis MA. Phase I and II cannabinoid disposition in blood and plasma of occasional and frequent smokers following controlled smoked cannabis. Clin Chem. 2014;60:631–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holland MG, Schwope DM, Stoppacher R, Gillen SB, Huestis MA. Postmortem redistribution of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), 11-hydroxy-THC (11-OH-THC), and 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH). Forensic Sci Int. 2011;212:247–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer B, Russell C, Sabioni P, van den Brink W, Le Foll B, Hall W, et al. Lower-risk cannabis use guidelines: a comprehensive update of evidence and recommendations. Am J Public Health. 2017;107:1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huestis MA. Cannabis-impaired driving: a public health and safety concern. Clin Chem. 2015;61:1223–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turnbull D, Hodge JG. Driving under the influence of marijuana laws and the public's health. J Law Med Ethics. 2017;45:280–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bergamaschi MM, Karschner EL, Goodwin RS, Scheidweiler KB, Hirvonen J, Queiroz RH, et al. Impact of prolonged cannabinoid excretion in chronic daily cannabis smokers' blood on per se drugged driving laws. Clin Chem. 2013;59:519–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Vandrey R, Raber JC, Raber ME, Douglass B, Miller C, Bonn-Miller MO. Cannabinoid dose and label accuracy in edible medical cannabis products. JAMA. 2015;313:2491–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brenneisen R, Egli A, Elsohly MA, Henn V, Spiess Y. The effect of orally and rectally administered delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol on spasticity: a pilot study with 2 patients. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;34:446–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wall ME, Sadler BM, Brine D, Taylor H, Perez-Reyes M. Metabolism, disposition, and kinetics of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in men and women. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1983;34:352–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Frytak S, Moertel CG, Rubin J. Metabolic studies of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in cancer patients. Cancer Treat Rep. 1984;68:1427–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Drummer OH. Postmortem toxicology of drugs of abuse. Forensic Sci Int. 2004;142:101–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lemos NP, Ingle EA. Cannabinoids in postmortem toxicology. J Anal Toxicol. 2011;35:394–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olson KN, Luckenbill K, Thompson J, Middleton O, Geiselhart R, Mills KM, et al. Postmortem redistribution of fentanyl in blood. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;133:447–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bosker WM, Karschner EL, Lee D, Goodwin RS, Hirvonen J, Innis RB, et al. Psychomotor function in chronic daily Cannabis smokers during sustained abstinence. PLoS One. 2013;8:e53127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hartman RL, Brown TL, Milavetz G, Spurgin A, Gorelick DA, Gaffney GR, et al. Effect of blood collection time on measured delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations: implications for driving interpretation and drug policy. Clin Chem. 2016;62:367–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huestis MA, Henningfield JE, Cone EJ. Blood cannabinoids. I. Absorption of THC and formation of 11-OH-THC and THCCOOH during and after smoking marijuana. J Anal Toxicol. 1992;16:276–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Andrews R, Murphy KG, Nahar L, Paterson S. Cannabinoid concentrations detected in fatal road traffic collision victims compared with a population of other postmortem cases. Clin Chem. 2015;61:1256–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ronen A, Gershon P, Drobiner H, Rabinovich A, Bar-Hamburger R, Mechoulam R, et al. Effects of THC on driving performance, physiological state and subjective feelings relative to alcohol. Accid Anal Prev. 2008;40:926–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sewell RA, Poling J, Sofuoglu M. The effect of cannabis compared with alcohol on driving. Am J Addict. 2009;18:185–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laumon B, Gadegbeku B, Martin JL, Biecheler MB, Group SAM. Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: population based case-control study. BMJ. 2005;331:1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Elvik R. Risk of road accident associated with the use of drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from epidemiological studies. Accid Anal Prev. 2013;60:254–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Frank H. Netter M.D. School of Medicine at Quinnipiac UniversityNorth HavenUSA
  2. 2.Office of the Chief Medical ExaminerFarmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations