New Drug Drive Tests

Author
Discussion

PAULJ5555

Original Poster:

3,554 posts

175 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
I was reading some news about the new drug drive tests that are now out. These tests include prescription drugs as well soft/hard drugs.

You can be done for having a certain level of the drug in you even if you are not under the influence. This seems the same as drink driving but with DD you can buy home tests or work out the units and the approx time the body gets rid of the units.
Is there any guidance for joe public to go by, i think quite a few people will get caught out by this.

Shnev91

179 posts

113 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
I got scared when I heard that prescription drugs were on there. If they are allowed to test us for prescription drugs then we need a way of testing ourselves surely... Or more information at least on how long certain drugs stay in the system etc.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31683571

I understand that the roadside tests can only check you for Cannibis or Cocaine. Anything else has to be done by a different machine in the police station.

I once watched a Road Wars type program on TV and they stopped some dodgy looking guy with his family in a knackered Vecta (the popular family car in every council estate) and he looked absolutely dreadful; stick thin, white as a sheet, sweating and shaking like mad.

The officers asked him is he was a 'user' and he said "oh yeah, all the time, I'm absolutely clucking right now mate, I need to get home for some as soon as I can" and after a quick check of his details they let him go home for his 'hit'

I never understood that situation at all. Why wasn't he arrested for being unfit to drive, and why didn't they also go straight round to his house and raid the place for Heroin? Would of seemed like an easy win all round?

rewc

2,187 posts

232 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
There is a Statutory Medical Defence regarding the prescription medicines:

"A patient who was investigated for drug driving would generally be entitled to raise
the statutory “medical defence” if:
a. The drug was lawfully prescribed, supplied, or purchased over-the-counter,
for medical or dental purposes; and
b. The drug was taken in accordance with advice given by the person who
prescribed or supplied the drug, and in accordance with any accompanying
written instructions (so far as the latter are consistent with any advice of the
prescriber)."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
NinjaPower said:
I never understood that situation at all. Why wasn't he arrested for being unfit to drive, and why didn't they also go straight round to his house and raid the place for Heroin? Would of seemed like an easy win all round?
Would you want them to arrest everyone who is tired, or who needs a cigerette?

Victimising addicts doesn't work. Many more people than you know suffer from addiction problems. Making their lives harder doesn't help out society. It just makes things worst for everybody.

More realistically - how many recourses would it take to arrest and search every drug addicts home???

I'm not really sure if I'm an alcoholic because I can not drink for months. But sometimes I will get horrific cravings for a drink. It will fill my mind. Small random things should set that off. Does that mean I should never drive???

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
photosnob said:
Would you want them to arrest everyone who is tired, or who needs a cigerette?

Victimising addicts doesn't work. Many more people than you know suffer from addiction problems. Making their lives harder doesn't help out society. It just makes things worst for everybody.

More realistically - how many recourses would it take to arrest and search every drug addicts home???

I'm not really sure if I'm an alcoholic because I can not drink for months. But sometimes I will get horrific cravings for a drink. It will fill my mind. Small random things should set that off. Does that mean I should never drive???
We shouldn't allow the debate over legalisation of drugs or victimisation of their users to influence road traffic law. If someone is unsafe to drive through impairment they should be dealt with. It is illogical to have proper lines in the sand for alcohol yet no such thing for the popular and common drugs that also impair driving ability.

photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
We shouldn't allow the debate over legalisation of drugs or victimisation of their users to influence road traffic law. If someone is unsafe to drive through impairment they should be dealt with. It is illogical to have proper lines in the sand for alcohol yet no such thing for the popular and common drugs that also impair driving ability.
I was doing no such thing... The chap seemed (to me) to be saying that people should get locked up for craving something rather than using it. I don't agree with that. I've got no problem with people stating the obvious - people who are craving something, are less likely to be able to concentrate completely. However unless we want to start criminalising being hungry or any other "normal" craving, I think it's a daft way to look at things.

In my opinion.

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.

Foliage

3,861 posts

121 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
I've got a feeling this is a first step towards legalising weed,

next step would be to put in place a means to tax the sale of it, id thought that this might not happen until more of the US has legalised weed and mainstream producers (tobacco industry) have gotten on board and have started supplying to supermarkets etc. (3-4 years down the line) but perhaps the UK government see the revenue that can be made and is making faster progress and has got a plan to tax cottage industry suppliers.

Bigyoke

152 posts

131 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Foliage said:
....cottage industry suppliers.
Aka.....Drug dealers!!

PAULJ5555

Original Poster:

3,554 posts

175 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Back on topic

If you got spiked or took drugs the effects could only last a few hours but you could still be over their limit the next day. I think drugs stay in the system longer than booze.

Foliage

3,861 posts

121 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Bigyoke said:
Foliage said:
....cottage industry suppliers.
Aka.....Drug dealers!!
I was thinking growers.

If you think drug dealers are like what you see on telly and films sadly I have to burst your bubble.

Eclassy

1,201 posts

121 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
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.



The Surveyor

7,576 posts

236 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
I'm not sure how you can link this to any perception that they are going to legalise cannabis, however back on topic.

How does this new law tie into the existing 'driving whilst impaired due to drugs etc' law? Does this sit with it and the roadside drug test being used to support an action brought under the old law, or does it sit separately and as such can you be prosecuted for both?

I seems a strange move to introduce a new law unless the test is used to support a 'driving whilst impaired' action. Especially confusing as you could be full of prescription drugs taken generally as prescribed and be totally unfit to drive and let off due to the exemption, or perfectly safe after a splif the night before and prosecuted.

On paper it has to be a good thing for general road safety to keep those who are unfit to drive due to drugs off the roads in the same way they did with drink-driving years ago. A genuine road safety initiative, however what will this achieve that the old law didn't? The new test should be used as a more accurate test of the presence of drugs than the old 'put your head back and put your finger up your nose' roadside test to support an officers view that driver is impaired.

Aretnap

1,643 posts

150 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
The Surveyor said:
How does this new law tie into the existing 'driving whilst impaired due to drugs etc' law? Does this sit with it and the roadside drug test being used to support an action brought under the old law, or does it sit separately and as such can you be prosecuted for both?
It will sit alongside it. There will be two quite separate offences: driving while unfit to do so (whether or not the concentration of any particular drug in your blood is over any particular limit), and driving while over the limit for certain specified drugs (whether or not your driving is actually impaired). You would not generally be charged with both - the idea is that normally the latter charge would be used as it will be easier to prove.

Much the same situation currently exists for drink driving - if you smell of booze and can't walk in a straight line you can still be charged with driving while unfit, even if the breathyliser says you're below the legal limit.

The medical exception will apply to the offence of driving while over the prescribed limit, but not to the offence of driving while unfit, so if you're totally off your head on prescription drugs you can still be prosecuted, just as you could previously.

The Surveyor

7,576 posts

236 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Aretnap said:
The Surveyor said:
How does this new law tie into the existing 'driving whilst impaired due to drugs etc' law? Does this sit with it and the roadside drug test being used to support an action brought under the old law, or does it sit separately and as such can you be prosecuted for both?
It will sit alongside it. There will be two quite separate offences: driving while unfit to do so (whether or not the concentration of any particular drug in your blood is over any particular limit), and driving while over the limit for certain specified drugs (whether or not your driving is actually impaired). You would not generally be charged with both - the idea is that normally the latter charge would be used as it will be easier to prove.

Much the same situation currently exists for drink driving - if you smell of booze and can't walk in a straight line you can still be charged with driving while unfit, even if the breathyliser says you're below the legal limit.

The medical exception will apply to the offence of driving while over the prescribed limit, but not to the offence of driving while unfit, so if you're totally off your head on prescription drugs you can still be prosecuted, just as you could previously.
Thank you. That make much more sense than the nonsense that was being spouted on the radio. thumbup

untakenname

4,951 posts

191 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Why did they set the levels so low for THC? You'd still be over the limit a couple days after smoking! Odd how you can have 5 times more cocaine and 250 times methadone in your system and still be legal.



ng/ml = micrograms per litre

[quote]
THC blood levels can be measured in two ways. Most labs used by U.S. law enforcement report levels based on concentration in whole blood, but others report concentration in blood serum or plasma instead. Concentrations in whole blood are about half as high as those in serum/plasma. Therefore 0.5 - 3.2 ng/ml in whole blood = 1.0 - 6.4 ng/ml in plasma or serum. Unless otherwise stated, whole blood concentrations are reported here.
In another study of 25 frequent users, 36% showed no measurable blood THC throughout 7 days of abstinence, while the rest had at least one positive, though not necessarily on the first day. Six subjects (24%) had detectable blood THC after seven days at levels ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 ng/ml (that is, 0.4 to 3.0 ng/ml in serum) [Karschner]. There have been anecdotal reports of even higher day-after blood THC levels in chronic users, but these haven't been confirmed in controlled studies.
Unlike urine, blood test results can give a useful indicator of whether one is under the influence of marijuana. Studies have shown that high THC blood levels are correlated with impaired driving. An expert panel review of scientific studies on driving under the influence of cannabis concluded that THC levels above 3.5 - 5 ng/ml in blood (or 7 - 10 ng/ml in serum) indicate likely impairment [Grotenhermen]. The same review found no increased driving hazard at low levels of THC. Despite the fact that accident studies have repeatedly failed to find evidence of increased driving risk at low levels (1 or 2 ng in blood) of THC, numerous states and foreign countries have enacted "zero-tolerance" laws, treating any non-zero trace of THC as legal evidence for driving under the influence. Others have fixed, per se limits above which DUI is presumed, often with no scientific basis. However, most states (including California) don't have per se limits, but define DUI in terms of whether the totality of evidence (including drug test results) shows that the driver was impaired by marijuana or drugs.
Although high blood THC is a fairly good indicator of being under the influence, it is not infallible. Chronic users who develop tolerance to THC may in some cases drive safely with very high blood levels of THC. In one study, a subject with severe attention deficit disorder could not pass a driving test while straight, but performed well with a blood level of 71 ng/ml [Strohbeck-Kühner]. No similar phenomenon is known for alcohol.

[/quote]

agtlaw

6,680 posts

205 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
PAULJ5555 said:
I was reading some news about the new drug drive tests that are now out. These tests include prescription drugs as well soft/hard drugs.

You can be done for having a certain level of the drug in you even if you are not under the influence. This seems the same as drink driving but with DD you can buy home tests or work out the units and the approx time the body gets rid of the units.
Is there any guidance for joe public to go by, i think quite a few people will get caught out by this.
If you are unfit to drive through prescription medication or illegal drugs then you could be prosecuted for driving whilst unfit. That has been the law for many years, and still is. It's difficult to prove impairment because of drugs - rather some other cause such as tiredness.

What's new is that there are now limits for some drugs. If certain drugs are found in your blood then you could be prosecuted for driving over the prescribed limit. The new limits impose a near 'zero tolerance' towards illegal drugs but reasonabke limits regarding some prescription drugs. If you've taken prescription drugs in accordance with medical advice then you would have a defence - even if over the limit. In practice, this is how it works:

You are stopped at the roadside. An officer suspects that you are unfit to drive through drugs (let's assume that drink isn't an issue). In some areas there will be a roadside saliva test for cannabis and or cocaine. If positive then you will be arrested. If negative then the officer may suspect impairment because of another drug and you will be required to undertake a field impairment test - either at the roadside (if the officer has the appropriate training) or back at the police station. If you "fail" either the saliva test or the field impairment test* then your blood will be taken. N.b. The police will not take a urine samples for the new limits (but could do for a section 4 offence). The blood sample is sent to a lab for analysis and you are granted bail to return to the police station in a few months, if the sample is over the limit then you could be charged, under the limit then no further action. I'm unsure if there will be an interview under caution where a medical prescription defence is raised.

  • strictly speaking you don't pass or fail a field impairment test.

Who me ?

7,455 posts

211 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
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.

Phatboy317

801 posts

117 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
Forget the "morning after" drivers, it now looks like we're on course to have "week after" drivers.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 4th March 07:15

PAULJ5555

Original Poster:

3,554 posts

175 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
Phatboy317 said:
Forget the "morning after" drivers, it now looks like we're on course to have "week after" drivers.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 4th March 07:15
So if you were spiked with drugs on friday night and the effects only last for 5/6 hours you could still get done 24/36/100 hours after for having it in your system, even though the effects have worn off and you are fit to drive even being able to pass an impairment test perfectly.