The Marijuana Detection Window - National Drug Court Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTEperiod is established for this purpose. Once inthe drug court program (following the initialdetoxification phase), the extent of a client’spast chronic marijuana usage does not influencethe cannabinoid detection window as long asappropriate supervision and drug monitoringfor abstinence continues on a regular basis.It would seem reasonable to assume thatchronic client marijuana usage of the extremelevels discussed here while within a properlyadministered drug court would be highlyunlikely. Therefore, the consequences ofchronic marijuana usage on the cannabinoiddetection window are effectively limited tothe initial entry phase of the program.Science is not black and whiteand the state of our knowledgeis continually evolving.The cannabinoid detection window guidanceprovided herein relies upon the widely usedcutoff concentrations for the initial screeningtests—20 ng/mL and 50 ng/mL. For programsutilizing GC/MS confirmation for the validationof positive screening results, the confirmationcutoff has little influence on the length ofthe cannabinoid detection window in urine.A review of the potential result possibilitiesdemonstrates this point. If a drug court sampletests negative for cannabinoids on the initialscreen, the confirmation cutoff is obviouslyirrelevant because the sample is not submittedfor confirmation testing. If a sample bothscreens and confirms as positive for cannabinoids(and is reported as positive), then thecutoff concentration of the confirmationanalysis is also not relevant because the samplewould not have been sent for confirmationunless it produced a result greater than orequal to the cutoff level of the initial screeningtest. In other words, the confirmation procedureis merely validating the results (andtherefore the cutoff) of the original screeningtest. The only scenario in which the confirmationcutoff could potentially impact the lengthof the cannabinoid detection window is if asample screened positive and the confirmationprocedure failed to confirm the presence ofcannabinoids (and the results of the drug testwere reported as negative). In this circumstance,the cannabinoid detection windowmight be shorter than the estimate provided asguidance. This would be true on the conditionthat the confirmation cutoff concentration waslower than that of the screening procedure—which is nearly always the case. A shortercannabinoid detection window would notbe seen as prejudicial to the client and mightactually be beneficial to the drug court.Using this cannabinoid detection windowguidance, the drug court decision-makinghierarchy should be able to establish reasonableand pragmatic cannabinoid detectionbenchmarks that both provide objectivecriteria for court decisions and protect clientsfrom inappropriate or unsupportable consequences.Some courts may choose to use thecannabinoid elimination information detailedin this paper exactly as presented to establisha marijuana detection window that will allowthe differentiation between abstinence andcontinued/renewed use. Other courts maydecide to build into the guidance an additionalsafety margin, granting clients further benefitof the doubt. Regardless of the approach,however, courts are urged to establish detectionbenchmarks and utilize these scientificallysupportable criteria for case disposition.Every day drug courts grapple with two seeminglydisparate imperatives—the need for rapidtherapeutic intervention (sanctioning designedto produce behavioral change) and the need toensure that the evidentiary standards, craftedto protect client rights, are maintained. Whileadministrative decision-making in a drugcourt environment (or a probation revocationhearing) does not necessitate the same dueprocess requirements and protections thatexist in criminal cases, as professionals weare obliged to ensure that court decisionshave a strong evidentiary foundation.10
DRUG COURT PRACTITIONER FACT SHEETCourts establishing detection windows forcannabinoids need to be aware of the existenceof research studies indicating prolongedelimination times in urine. It is not recommended,however, that drug courts manipulatetheir detection windows to include theseexceptional findings. Sound judicial practicerequires that court decisions be based uponcase-specific information. In weighing theevidence, courts also acknowledge the realitythat a particular client’s individualities or theuniqueness of circumstances may not alwaysallow the strict application of cannabinoiddetection window parameters in a sentencingdecision. These uncommon events, however,should not preclude the development ofcannabinoid detection windows for the usein the majority of court determinations.CLIENT DETOXIFICATION:THE “CLEAN OUT” PHASEAs a result of the extended elimination ofcannabinoids (as compared to other abuseddrugs), some drug courts have instituted adetoxification stage or “clean out” period inthe first phase of program participation. Thisgrace period allows new clients a definedtime frame for their bodies to eliminate storesof drugs that may have built up over yearsof substance abuse without the fear of courtsanctions associated with a positive drugtest. In many cases this detoxification periodextends for 30 days, which correspondsto the commonly held assumption thatthis represents the time period required formarijuana metabolites to be eliminated froma client’s system.Regardless of the origin of the 30-day marijuanadetection window and its influence on theduration of the detoxification period, 30 daysis certainly an equitable time period for clientdrug elimination purposes. Simply becausethe science may not support the necessity ofa detoxification period of this duration doesnot mean that a court cannot use the 30-dayparameter in order to establish programexpectations. However, based upon theCourts are urged to establishdetection benchmarks and utilizethese scientifically supportablecriteria for case disposition.cannabinoid detection guidelines presented inthis review, it is unlikely (utilizing reasonablephysiological or technology criteria) that a drugcourt client would continue to remain cannabinoidpositive at the end of this designatedabstinence period. After 30 days, using eithera 20 or 50 ng/mL testing cutoff, continuedcannabinoid positive urine drug tests almostcertainly indicate marijuana usage at somepoint during the detoxification period andshould provoke a court response to reinforceprogram expectations.ABSTINENCE BASELINEThe abstinence baseline can either be a pointat which a client has demonstrated theirabstinence from drug use via sequentiallynegative testing results (actual baseline) ora court-established time limit after which aclient should not test positive if that clienthas abstained from marijuana use (scientificbaseline). Each baseline has importance ina court-mandated drug monitoring program.The later has been the focus of this review.It is exemplified by establishing the detectionwindow for marijuana and utilizing positiveurine drug testing results to guide courtintervention. Individuals who continue toproduce cannabinoid positive results beyondthe established detection window maximums(the scientific baseline) are subject to sanctionfor failing to remain abstinence during programparticipation.The alternative approach uses negative testresults in establishing the actual abstinencebaseline. This has been referred to as the“two negative test approach” and has been11
Page 1 and 2: NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTEKAREN
Page 3 and 4: DRUG COURT PRACTITIONER FACT SHEETT
Page 5 and 6: DRUG COURT PRACTITIONER FACT SHEETT
Page 7 and 8: DRUG COURT PRACTITIONER FACT SHEET1
Page 9: DRUG COURT PRACTITIONER FACT SHEETc
Page 13 and 14: DRUG COURT PRACTITIONER FACT SHEETt
Page 15 and 16: DRUG COURT PRACTITIONER FACT SHEET1

The Marijuana Detection Window - National Drug Court Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?