New Drug Drive Tests
Discussion
The Surveyor said:
I'm not sure how you can link this to any perception that they are going to legalise cannabis, however back on topic.
Because that would be the sensible way to do it, 1. Criminalise drug driving and put in measures to quantify what is illegal
2. Put in place a strict taxation structure in order that 'criminals' can be jailed for tax evasion etc But new above board shops and growers can flourish (this is pretty much already in place).
3. ???
4. Massive Tax Profits (see US for figures)
Oddly - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/03/uk...
The Portugal model is a good apparently.
JulianHJ said:
Not knowing the details but he could well be fit to drive just have it in his system.I cant see the split from being unfit to drive and just having it in your system from days before.
Phatboy317 said:
Forget the "morning after" drivers, it now looks like we're on course to have "week after" drivers.
This is what concerns me about this. Strictly speaking, those who enjoy a smoke from time to time, often quite legally (Amsterdam, Denver, Lanzarote etc) can't drive for about a week afterwards. Considering the number of smokers I know with good, productive jobs, this strikes me as being a bit wrong to be honest. Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 4th March 07:15
bodhi said:
This is what concerns me about this. Strictly speaking, those who enjoy a smoke from time to time, often quite legally (Amsterdam, Denver, Lanzarote etc) can't drive for about a week afterwards. Considering the number of smokers I know with good, productive jobs, this strikes me as being a bit wrong to be honest.
The new limits were set following recommendations in this report.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
See page 63 et seq. for the discussion about cannabis elimination.
The recommended limit for cannabis was 5 ug. However, the government set a limit of 2.
I read this on a solicitor's website this morning;
"There is very little information available on how many of these drugs are eliminated from the system but with cannabis as an example, the expected level of drug that will stay in the system 24 hours after taking Cannabis.
Heavy users- more than one joint per day-1,3 – 6.4 µg / L
Moderate users – less than one joint per day – 1,8 µg / L
Light users – less than one joint per week, detectable but very close or less than 2 µg"
Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 4th March 11:47
Eclassy said:
Foliage said:
I've got a feeling this is a first step towards legalising weed,
And that would be the correct thing to do. Never smoked it in my life but I can never understand why a plant which is consumed in its natural form is classified as an illicit drug.I don't agree with the current stance on drugs and it clearly isn't actually working very well, but I don't understand how whether the plant is in it's natural form or not is relevant. What is relevant is the harm done.
agtlaw said:
The new limits were set following recommendations in this report.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
See page 63 et seq. for the discussion about cannabis elimination.
The recommended limit for cannabis was 5 ug. However, the government set a limit of 2.
I read this on a solicitor's website this morning;
"There is very little information available on how many of these drugs are eliminated from the system but with cannabis as an example, the expected level of drug that will stay in the system 24 hours after taking Cannabis.
Heavy users- more than one joint per day-1,3 – 6.4 µg / L
Moderate users – less than one joint per day – 1,8 µg / L
Light users – less than one joint per week, detectable but very close or less than 2 µg"
So effectively, a heavy smoker will never be able to drive legally unless they take a couple of days off. Is it like the breathalyser, and the BiB need a good reason to perform the tests, or will it be at random?https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
See page 63 et seq. for the discussion about cannabis elimination.
The recommended limit for cannabis was 5 ug. However, the government set a limit of 2.
I read this on a solicitor's website this morning;
"There is very little information available on how many of these drugs are eliminated from the system but with cannabis as an example, the expected level of drug that will stay in the system 24 hours after taking Cannabis.
Heavy users- more than one joint per day-1,3 – 6.4 µg / L
Moderate users – less than one joint per day – 1,8 µg / L
Light users – less than one joint per week, detectable but very close or less than 2 µg"
Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 4th March 11:47
bodhi said:
So effectively, a heavy smoker will never be able to drive legally unless they take a couple of days off. Is it like the breathalyser, and the BiB need a good reason to perform the tests, or will it be at random?
Unless the driver has been in an accident or is guilty of a moving traffic offence then the officer must "reasonably suspect" that the driver has a drug in his body - any of those would trigger a lawful 'roadside' test. That could allow a lawful blood sample to be taken for the new offences or blood/urine for the old offence.[quote=Who me ?]
Depends how they effect you though. I'm on Tramadol currently for back pain, I feel fine to drive & indeed am riding my motorbike to work everyday. Other people I know on the same dose appear to be totally out of it & would be totally unsave to drive.photosnob said:
ON TOPIC - Mr loophole was on the news stating the obvious about these tests. And also saying that he's never lost a case about unfit through drugs. So in my mind there should be a test to use. However I'd want to look at what drugs actually affect driving - and not just single out every drug.
Simple for prescription drugs- ask the person who prescribed them or pharmacist on any possible side effects with regard to driving. Or perhaps notify your employer/ask for advice ( if they operate a drugs testing regime) on the possible side effects on work /driving safety. Devil2575 said:
How has this got anything to do with legalising canabis?
I don't agree with the current stance on drugs and it clearly isn't actually working very well, but I don't understand how whether the plant is in it's natural form or not is relevant. What is relevant is the harm done.
I am sure there are many poisonous plants out there that are not banned but would kill me if I consumed them. If I choose to consume canabis (a natural plant), whose business is it if it harms me?I don't agree with the current stance on drugs and it clearly isn't actually working very well, but I don't understand how whether the plant is in it's natural form or not is relevant. What is relevant is the harm done.
On Topic
If you are under the influence of canabis over the prescribed limits, then you should be done. Prescribed limits should be sensible and not just an arbitrary figure.
bodhi said:
Phatboy317 said:
Forget the "morning after" drivers, it now looks like we're on course to have "week after" drivers.
This is what concerns me about this. Strictly speaking, those who enjoy a smoke from time to time, often quite legally (Amsterdam, Denver, Lanzarote etc) can't drive for about a week afterwards. Considering the number of smokers I know with good, productive jobs, this strikes me as being a bit wrong to be honest. Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 4th March 07:15
Unless they legalise a level of canabis which they probably won't, certainly not due to driving, this pattern may repeat.
I think the message on prescription drugs is also a bit clumsy. As I understand it, taking drugs to the prescription is fine unless told by your doctor. It's not if you're not prescribed or take in excess.
I reckon that the final arbiter ought to be whether or not actual impairment exists. Being over the limit simply indicates that one might be impaired, just as being under the limit is no guarantee that there's no impairment.
And simply because a drug is illegal is no excuse for prescribing a lower limit than otherwise.
And simply because a drug is illegal is no excuse for prescribing a lower limit than otherwise.
Phatboy317 said:
I reckon that the final arbiter ought to be whether or not actual impairment exists. Being over the limit simply indicates that one might be impaired, just as being under the limit is no guarantee that there's no impairment.
And simply because a drug is illegal is no excuse for prescribing a lower limit than otherwise.
And there is the same argument as speed limits and the rest. It's easier to enforce a limit that can be measured that a subjective assessment.And simply because a drug is illegal is no excuse for prescribing a lower limit than otherwise.
There are plenty of rubbish drivers on the road, is a good but impaired driver ok as their standard of driving is still better than a clean but crap one? It would keep PH going for years while it's debated.
Phatboy317 said:
I reckon that the final arbiter ought to be whether or not actual impairment exists. Being over the limit simply indicates that one might be impaired, just as being under the limit is no guarantee that there's no impairment.
And simply because a drug is illegal is no excuse for prescribing a lower limit than otherwise.
So an alcoholic who needs a bottle of buckfast in order to get out of bed in a morning and has another two with his breakfast is ok on the road as long as he can walk in a straight line, find his nose with his eyes shut, and has been lucky enough to not yet kill anybody? And simply because a drug is illegal is no excuse for prescribing a lower limit than otherwise.
Personally I think there needs to be a set limit to deter those who 'think' its OK to drive at a time when they're least capable of safely making that judgement.
The Surveyor said:
Phatboy317 said:
I reckon that the final arbiter ought to be whether or not actual impairment exists. Being over the limit simply indicates that one might be impaired, just as being under the limit is no guarantee that there's no impairment.
And simply because a drug is illegal is no excuse for prescribing a lower limit than otherwise.
So an alcoholic who needs a bottle of buckfast in order to get out of bed in a morning and has another two with his breakfast is ok on the road as long as he can walk in a straight line, find his nose with his eyes shut, and has been lucky enough to not yet kill anybody? And simply because a drug is illegal is no excuse for prescribing a lower limit than otherwise.
Personally I think there needs to be a set limit to deter those who 'think' its OK to drive at a time when they're least capable of safely making that judgement.
You need a limit, for the reasons you mentioned, but all I'm saying is that it perhaps shouldn't have the final say, but instead should be used as evidence of probable impairment.
Otherwise what we have are people being prosecuted for the morning after, or even several days later in the case of drugs, who might not be significantly impaired at all, and we also get cases where drivers are obviously impaired, but they get away with it because they're not over the limit.
The limits apply to excess alcohol ( & presumably drugs as applicable from now on ) not unfit. For an unfit charge additional evidence of impairment IS required, usually evidence from the arresting officer regarding the manner of driving etc, the alcohol ( drug level ) reading is used to corroborate those observations.
A driver in excess of the statutory limit should be prosecuted with that offence rather than unfit, so the morning after or a month later shouldn't matter, if you're over the limit you're over it.
A driver in excess of the statutory limit should be prosecuted with that offence rather than unfit, so the morning after or a month later shouldn't matter, if you're over the limit you're over it.
Bigyoke said:
The limits apply to excess alcohol ( & presumably drugs as applicable from now on ) not unfit. For an unfit charge additional evidence of impairment IS required, usually evidence from the arresting officer regarding the manner of driving etc, the alcohol ( drug level ) reading is used to corroborate those observations.
A driver in excess of the statutory limit should be prosecuted with that offence rather than unfit, so the morning after or a month later shouldn't matter, if you're over the limit you're over it.
Even if being over that limit has no effect on someone's ability to drive whatsoever? A driver in excess of the statutory limit should be prosecuted with that offence rather than unfit, so the morning after or a month later shouldn't matter, if you're over the limit you're over it.
Jon1967x said:
bodhi said:
Phatboy317 said:
Forget the "morning after" drivers, it now looks like we're on course to have "week after" drivers.
This is what concerns me about this. Strictly speaking, those who enjoy a smoke from time to time, often quite legally (Amsterdam, Denver, Lanzarote etc) can't drive for about a week afterwards. Considering the number of smokers I know with good, productive jobs, this strikes me as being a bit wrong to be honest. Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 4th March 07:15
Unless they legalise a level of canabis which they probably won't, certainly not due to driving, this pattern may repeat.
I think the message on prescription drugs is also a bit clumsy. As I understand it, taking drugs to the prescription is fine unless told by your doctor. It's not if you're not prescribed or take in excess.
The Government have got this terribly terribly wrong on this one.
The attitude towards Cannabis and driving makes it impossible to remain within legal limits for anyone who wishes to indulge in a joint and then drive for a very long time after being 'sober'.
This is so very poorly thought through by them and I predict some sort of a back lash or correction of levels in the next few years.
The attitude towards Cannabis and driving makes it impossible to remain within legal limits for anyone who wishes to indulge in a joint and then drive for a very long time after being 'sober'.
This is so very poorly thought through by them and I predict some sort of a back lash or correction of levels in the next few years.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff