The Trouble with DUID: Part I

Five years ago, give or take, when Vermont was first getting a DRE ("Drug Recognition Evaluator" formerly "Drug Recognition Expert") program I did a presentation for my colleagues entitled "The Trouble with DUID." With the recent talk of banning Four Loko and dealing with the "Spice" issue, which I will save to discuss in detail later, it's gotten me thinking again about that presentation and the issue of legislation.

Legislation, as with any move from government agencies it seems, is very reactionary in it's nature. "Oh my God, here's one instance of something that happened, quick ban it!" Maybe a bit of a dramatization, but it certainly seems that way. Don't believe me? Look up www.stupidlaws.com. You'll note that in Vermont at one time it was illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole. Think that was reactionary? Or another example. How about the TSA screening procedures?

What has the focus been on the Four Loko ban? Look at any of the articles or the bills being introduced and you will see the focus is on the caffeine and the brightly colored packaging. Were those college kids hospitalized for caffeine intoxication? No, it was alcohol poisoning. My prediction is that the bills will ban caffeine containing alcoholic beverages. My second prediction is that Four Loko will simply drop the caffeine, add a little more guarana and be back on the shelves in no time. Leaving the problem of a 12% alcohol 24 ounce pop top beverage that will still be intriguing due to it's low price and high alcohol content.

The same thing is occurring with Spice. There are 400 variations of the synthetic THC used, but the lawmakers are all busily making lists of chemicals to ban. Chemicals that they are seeing now. They'll ban those few that are common place now, leaving the rest legal. The manufacturers will simply switch variations and it will be legal again. A presenter at NEAFS presented an interesting idea. Simply ban anything that binds to the cannabinoid receptor. Then every variation is, by mechanism of action, illegal.

So what does that have to do with DUID? Driving Under the Influence of Drugs for those not familiar with the acronym. Well, several years ago, I was presented with pending legislation to change the DUID statute in Vermont. We were asked to review and comment on the wording. The bill wasn't original. It was adapted from another state and followed a similar pattern and a poor one at that. It simply listed drugs that were no-nos. This created a problem for some. #1 Drugs that were Schedule I were less of an issue, since they are already illegal, but the legislature wanted numbers like the per se limits in the DUI laws. #2 Those drugs that had therapeutic uses were concerning. The legislature did not want to make it illegal for someone to drive "legally impaired."

That phrase absolutely screeches in my head like nails on a chalkboard. I'm sure I'd feel much better if a friend or family member were killed by someone driving "legally impaired." What they meant was that they felt that people who were prescribed medication should not be banned from driving since they were given the drug legally by their doctor. Some how the fact that those medications all come with warnings that people should not operate motor vehicles was irrelevant. The biggest problem with this is our country's love affair with pharmaceuticals, but that's a separate issue.

Anyways, I digress. Alcohol is a nice clean, linear, neat drug. The effects are universal and occur at vice nice linear progressions until at the highest level death occurs. Per se limits can be put into effect because ethanol's affect on people is very consistent. Drugs don't follow this pattern. They don't all affect people linearly nor have the same effects on every person. This makes per se limits very difficult to impose. Factoring in as well that people don't want to ban therapeutic levels of drugs, it's a complicated issue.

I think when we focus on lists and per se limits we're starting to be unable to see the forest for the trees. In Vermont, the DUI laws indicate that a person can not operate a motor vehicle when they are under the influence of alcohol to the slightest degree. The drug law however, states that the person must be unable to operate a motor vehicle safely. That is a huge discrepancy and due in part to the difficulties stated above. Unless someone crashes their car with an illegal drug in their blood at a high level, it's difficult to prove that the drug caused it.

On the next post we'll continue from there and continue to outline the Trouble with DUID.

Friday Cartoon!

Splash Patterns- Detecting a Hoax

Every once in a while a story appears in the crime section that stuns everyone as to it's apparently random and horrible nature. How horrible that something like that could occur just for the sake of doing it! The random nature certainly puts a certain amount of fear into the public. If it's random then by it's very definition it could happen to anyone. Crimes of passion we understand. Those involved are already involved, they're not chosen at random.

Some times these random acts are real and truly horrible. One of these occurred in the town I was living in shortly after college where a man snapped for lack of a better word. After killing his cat he decided to kill the first person that passed his house, and he did. It was tragic and the work of a very sick mind.

More often then not however we find that these stories are hoaxes. The wounds, if there are any, have actually been self inflicted. Further works of sick minds, but at least not to the public. One of these occurred on Halloween of this year where a man reported that someone trick-or-treating in a gorilla costume stabbed him when he opened the door. Just thinking, innocently opening your door to hand out candy, and what do you get but stabbed for your efforts! How terrible! Well, turns out it was all a hoax. After further questioning, he confessed that he had stabbed himself.

Another story which made national news follows a similar pattern. Just a random girl out celebrating a new job and a woman throws acid in her face! How terrible! Why her? There's no connection! It could have been me. Well...maybe not so much. Although her story held up longer than our gorilla man, it did fall apart eventually. Part of what made it fall apart was good old fashion forensics.

So often these stories fall apart. Officers questioning them find holes in the story or inconsistencies. So too is this true in forensics. Although my testimony is focused on toxicology I am often asked, is this consistent? Is the story consistent with the test result? Is the behavior consistent with dose? In the case of the acid splash it was, are these burns consistent with acid being thrown into someone's face?

Well, actually it doesn't take a lot of training to see that no, they are not consistent. Let's forgive the fact that she was wearing sunglasses at night, a girl has to celebrate a new job somehow! Ok, so her eyes are protected. Well, let's look at the rest of her face. To me, it looks like an acid peel gone horribly wrong. Her hair and neck are untouched. Well, if the acid was thrown it should have splashed not only against her face but also her hair, neck and chest. What about her lips? Ok, sunglasses, we got the eyes, but her lips? Extra strength chapstick maybe? No. They make no mention of her clothes, but I would bet those too were untouched. Have worked for several years in a metals lab I can tell you what acid does to clothes. It would be noticeable. The burns look as if they were applied along her face rather than thrown at her and indeed, that is how it was. She put on a pair of gloves and swabbed her face.

One of the arguments I've scene made against this type of forensic work is that it's subjective. I know it when I see it. Well...Yeah. Why is that a "bad" thing though?  I would hope that if I were having surgery my surgeon would know it when he sees it. Just as the stories given in interviews to Officers must be consistent so too must the stories be consistent with the resulting data, injury, etc. It's actually a simple concept and one that must be relayed to attorneys, judges and juries. Science isn't always a mysterious, scary concept!

Four Loko: A US ban?

The FDA is expected to make a decision on the safety of Four Loko by Wednesday in response to a number of states moving to ban the drink. It will be interesting to see how this proceeds and what the exact phrasing is once it's done. The focus appears to be on the caffeine portion of the drink, but removing the caffeine from the drink still leaves the basic problem: the alcohol concentration. Too often this type of legislation is a knee jerk response which is barely enforceable because the time is not taken to word it properly and understand the real issue. We will have to wait and see...

Staying up to Date Part II: THC Potency and Drug Changes

Marijuana is the number one used drug in this country with the exception of alcohol, so it makes sense that for years studies have been done on it's effects on behavior, especially on driving abilities. I've attended numerous seminars and read many articles where low and high levels of THC concentration have been given to subjects so that these studies can be done. Great! We have low and high, so we're all set right?

Wrong!

Let's discuss: Looking at these studies the low dose of THC equates to 1.7% and the high THC equates to 3.5%. Ok, so far so good. So naturally our questions should go to how do these values compare to what is used in the real world? Well, let's see.

This September, the Journal of Forensic Sciences featured an article entitled "Potency Trends of Δ⁹-THC and Other Cannabinoids in Confiscated Cannabis Preparations from 1993 to 2008" which first appeared online in May of this year. This study was put together by the University of Mississippi which acts as the Potency Monitoring Program for NIDA. So, how do our studies with concentrations between 1.7% and 3.5% compare to what's out there?
 
Well...pretty dismally. It turns out that the average THC concentration of marijuana that has been confiscated between 1993 to 2008 has risen from 3.4% in 1993 to 8.8% in 2008. Hmm...


This is another example of why it is vital for those involved in forensics to keep up to date with the literature and the trends. An opinion given in a case using the studies for THC concentrations of 1.7% or 3.5% would be woefully inaccurate when what was smoked was closer to 9%. That is a substantial increase and one that makes a substantial difference in interpretation. It also points to why it is important that theses studies continue and continue to be funded. 

Studies are only as good as their applicability to the real-world situation.

This past week I attended the annual meeting of the Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists which was held in conjunction with the New England Division of the International Association for Identification. It was a wonderful conference with many great people and presentations. One of which was presented by Vadim Astrakhan from the DEA in New York who made a comment about the good ole days when Ecstasy contained MDMA and it's variants. Now he is finding Ecstasy frequently that contains no MDMA at all, but does contain BZP or TFMPP. His presentation was on detecting these compounds since they co-elute, but whether your interest is in testing for the drug or discussing it's effects it's important to know what is actually out there.

The other trend in presentations was the "Spice Trade" which features plant material coated with synthetic marijuana and is sold legally. The general theme of these presentations was the concept of chasing a moving target. When there are 400 different variations of the compound where do you look? Some states are contemplating banning one or two of the compounds. How effective is that when the dealers can merely switch to one of the other 400? The appearance of spice has changed over time as well. How do you keep officers informed for what to look for now?


Keeping up to date is vital for anyone involved in forensics. Science is not static! It is ever changing and to be good at your job you have to keep up. Any state or county that under-funds their forensic section should think on that.

Friday Cartoon

Staying up to Date Part I: What is a Standard Drink now?

Recently I've realized that my entire primary school education has been proven wrong. Christopher Columbus did not discover America. Pluto is not a planet. You don't really use cursive. Brontosaurus is Brachiosaurus or Apatosaurus as they're calling it now and apparently the Triceratops was just the juvenile form of another dinosaur. Hmmm... Things change.

It's a good thing to remember especially as scientists whose job it is to stay up on the latest info. There used to be an old saying that is finally falling by the wayside. The saying that people eliminate one drink an hour. That hasn't been true for a long time for several reasons:

One: People gain different alcohol concentrations from the same drink based on gender and body type and Two: The alcohol concentration of drinks has risen.

In the "olden days" when the Brontosaurus roamed the earth and gas was 99 cents a gallon, regular beer was 4% alcohol. In the slightly more modern days when Apatosaurus roamed the Earth and gas was $4.50 a gallon, regular beer was 5% alcohol. That extra percentage makes a difference!

Now in the current days where some random dinosaurs may or may not roam the Earth and gas is around $2.80 a gallon at recent glance we need to re-evaluate what we are using for a standard beer. Budweiser advertises at 5% beer. Is that "standard?" I live in Vermont where micro brews reign supreme. When the typical micro brew is at least 6% and often more, should I be using a 5% beer as my standard drink? A quick look at Rock Art beers show 25 different brews where half of them are at least 8% alcohol and rise up to 10% alcohol. This means that a typical Rock Art is equal to nearly two Budweisers. That's using 12 ounce servings. If we start talking pints or the 20-24 ouncers that are starting to be served we're talking a substantial difference.

That's simply talking beer. You all know my opinion on Four Loko, the insanity of all alcohol beverages. Expert witnesses need to be aware of what's out there. We must stay on top of what is being sold and what is happening to the alcohol concentration of common beverages.

A few years ago, if  I were presented with a test of 0.160 and asked if it were possible for a person to reach that point on two drinks consumed a couple of hours ago as stated in a processing form, I would have answered in the negative. No way could a person do that. Now however with the presence of Four Loko and the trend of micro brews to reach 10% alcohol, the answer would not be so simple. Yeah, it's possible. Depending on what they were drinking, it may even be likely.

The problem we will be seeing is that the general public is not aware of the change either. I've already posted about the hospitalizations of people drinking Four Loko, but on the more common front defendants will easily be over an 0.08 and not understand how it happened. I've had to point out to my own husband, "That equals two!"

Keeping all of this in mind, what is a Vermont standard drink? Should we base the "standard" drink on region or should we get rid of it all together? I think that's best left up to a case by case basis, but expert witnesses should spend more time investigating what it is that is actually being consumed. If you have the name of the beer, it's very easy to find the alcohol concentration and well worth the extra couple of minutes for the greatly increased accuracy of your calculation.