Cannabis & Driving

[Fermit]

JackJarvis said:

J6542 said:

Millions of people regularly smoke a joint at night and drive the next day, it’s no different to having a glass of wine after dinner and driving to work the next day.

Yes, quite. I mean, it's completely different but apart from that it's no different.

Have you ever smoked a joint? I have, very occasionally. Would I drive the same evening, hell no. The day after, I probably have at some point, completely unaffected by having a solitary joint the evening before. It's a moot point anyway, I've not had a joint in probably 10 years.

[DaiB]

Gareth79 said:

DaiB said:

Fair - I didn't word that particularly well. Perhaps I should have said there's no level at which you're allowed to smoke cannabis and then drive.

How do you mean "no level"? It's no different to there being a level for alcohol. Cannabis/THC is 2µg/L, alcohol is 80ml/L. How it gets there is mostly irrelevant in terms of you being stopped at the roadside and tested (other than if you believe you have a defence).

edit: Some ways you could be driving in excess of the cannabis limit and not have broken UK drugs laws:

- Prescription medication
- Accidental exposure
- Got off a plane from Amsterdam, Colorado etc

Edited by Gareth79 on Thursday 19th October 22:27

Its different to alcohol in that I could be stopped by the police, tell them that I've have had a couple of drinks, be breathalysed, quite feasibly be within the drink driving limit, and be sent on my way. It's acceptable in the eyes of the law to drink and drive up to a point.

Whereas if I told them I'd smoked a couple of joints and even a trace amount of THC was found in my blood, I'd potentially lose my license for a year. OK, there's a limit technically which enables them to say definitely they've found something, but it's set so low that it's effectively a zero tolerance approach. The limit isn't based on some 'safe level', as is the case with alcohol, it's designed to merely confirm that you've taken the substance (or even just acquired it some other way, as in your examples).

The other point I was trying to make is that there is a well known rule of thumb approach to alcohol as to how drinks relate to units relate to blood alcohol content. So you can make a judgement call based on how much you drink of what and when, and whether that is likely to put you over the limit. There's no equivalent with cannabis and THC, so especially when you throw in the biological factors as well you can't make an assessment on how much is too much from a 'risk of being caught' point of view.

[Griffith4ever]

With cannabis it's not about how long it stays in your system, in regards to a roadside swab test, it's how long traces of TCH stay in your mouth. A fair bit of searching suggests 24 hours max, mitigated somewhat with mouthwash! I researched this as the Mrs smoked for a while to relieve chronic pain from Lupus, and didn't want to get caught the "morning after".

The problem is less likely to be a random test but a test when someone t-bones him at a junction etc.

My advice is two fold.

1) Give it 48 hours before driving to be certain
2) Give it up OR find a source of old school hash / non-skunk weed. The stuff out there now is horrible. Totally put me off ages ago. It's way way too strong and can trigger psychological issues that would otherwise remain dormant (in a small but significant amount of people)

[untakenname]

I wonder if the holier than thou posters in this thread would feel the same if they could be done for drink driving mid week after drinking a solitary pint the weekend before?

Zero tolerance set on punitive levels doesn't work as it means that instead of consuming a small amount and then leaving a decent length of time before driving people will consume more till they are actually impaired and then drive shortly afterwards as the consequences are the same.

To the OP it may be worth buying a swab kit and giving it to your son so they can make an informed decision.

[Durzel]

untakenname said:

I wonder if the holier than thou posters in this thread would feel the same if they could be done for drink driving mid week after drinking a solitary pint the weekend before?

Zero tolerance set on punitive levels doesn't work as it means that instead of consuming a small amount and then leaving a decent length of time before driving people will consume more till they are actually impaired and then drive shortly afterwards as the consequences are the same.

To the OP it may be worth buying a swab kit and giving it to your son so they can make an informed decision.

If alcohol still persisted in your system until mid week, potentially impairing your driving, then I'd presume people would say the same thing about it?

It doesn't, so they don't. Alcohol leaves your system relatively quickly, although people can and do get done for driving the following morning without having put much thought into the fact they're still over.

Perhaps it speaks to the difference between alcohol and cannabis if the argument is that a "solitary pint" could still be in your system half a week later.

[TikTak]

bhstewie said:

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

if your son is smoking cannabis, and then potentially driving whilst under the influence can I suggest you buy him a bus pass.

I'm glad it's not just me thinking that.

Bloody remarkable.

Tend to agree with this and glad it was mentioned early on in the thread.

Luckily it's the kind of thing you can notice 3 streets over, so shouldn't take too long.

[Hol]

JackJarvis said:

J6542 said:

Millions of people regularly smoke a joint at night and drive the next day, it’s no different to having a glass of wine after dinner and driving to work the next day.

Yes, quite. I mean, it's completely different but apart from that it's no different.

Agreed. Not the same thing. Different long term affects.

[ChevronB19]

119 said:

I think the limit of 0.0 is spot on.

Lets hope he gets caught and banned sooner rather than later.

I mean, FFS.

A limit of zero is impossible due to the vagaries of limits of detection. There is also a world of difference between being unfit to drive through cannabis and being over a prescribed limit. So ‘FFS’ back at you

There are plenty of studies, properly researched, which show that (for example) the active component of cannabis (I.e. the bit that makes you stoned) has no effect after about 6 hours. But lots of people get caught due to the latency in the body due to the nature of the chemical, despite it having no adverse/negative effect on motor (ha!) skills or perception after the initial ‘stoned’ period. So you could fail a ‘zero’ criteria several days after using, despite no effect whatsoever on your abilities.

[ChevronB19]

tight fart said:

Do us all a favour, and most of all your son, take the car away now.

Because the father is concerned due to the *possibility* he might smoke cannabis at a party?

Draconian or what? He has asked an entirely reasonable question (kids be kids) and was asking advice, and a lot of posters here seem to think the son is a member of Cypress Hill…

A far better approach would be to point out the risks of driving whilst stoned (as per alcohol) and also the latency effect up to 21 days (ish) later, and how the law works in that regard.

[Biker 1]

There are now many countries where weed is either decriminalised or legal for personal recreational use.
I hope that we go down a similar route as Portugal & decriminalise weed at least. The 'war on drugs' is a joke & just produces more & more criminals.
That said, there must be a way of testing better at the roadside - it seems daft that someone could get a ban many days after indulging...

[8IKERDAVE]

untakenname said:

I wonder if the holier than thou posters in this thread would feel the same if they could be done for drink driving mid week after drinking a solitary pint the weekend before?

Zero tolerance set on punitive levels doesn't work as it means that instead of consuming a small amount and then leaving a decent length of time before driving people will consume more till they are actually impaired and then drive shortly afterwards as the consequences are the same.

To the OP it may be worth buying a swab kit and giving it to your son so they can make an informed decision.

This. There are very few people who would smoke a joint in an evening and then be in any way affected by it the following day. Think of it as drinking a pint with your tea and then 3 days later being arrested for drink driving. Legalities aside, someone on the road who has smoked a joint the previous night will be no more of a danger than anyone else.

I watch a lot of Police Interceptors and the like and often wonder when these people are nicked, how long ago have the people who get charged actually smoked anything. It appears a lot of them end up convicted but whether this is down to selective editing to deter people or the tolerances being set too low I don't know.

Regarding the OP, definitely avoid ever carrying anything in the car as it stinks and will almost definitely result in a drug wipe and more importantly definitely avoid driving under the influence for obvious reasons!

[pavarotti1980]

untakenname said:

I wonder if the holier than thou posters in this thread would feel the same if they could be done for drink driving mid week after drinking a solitary pint the weekend before?

Zero tolerance set on punitive levels doesn't work as it means that instead of consuming a small amount and then leaving a decent length of time before driving people will consume more till they are actually impaired and then drive shortly afterwards as the consequences are the same.

To the OP it may be worth buying a swab kit and giving it to your son so they can make an informed decision.

Great whataboutery. I love the idea you think people drink more to become impaired because of "punitive levels"

Neither the drink drive or drug drive limits are at punitive levels and if people are stupid enough to risk being in the position of being impaired then they deserve to be banned for being thick as f**k. The standard of driving on the roads is bad enough among likely sober people without hoying drink and drugs into the mix

[ChevronB19]

pavarotti1980 said:

untakenname said:

I wonder if the holier than thou posters in this thread would feel the same if they could be done for drink driving mid week after drinking a solitary pint the weekend before?

Zero tolerance set on punitive levels doesn't work as it means that instead of consuming a small amount and then leaving a decent length of time before driving people will consume more till they are actually impaired and then drive shortly afterwards as the consequences are the same.

To the OP it may be worth buying a swab kit and giving it to your son so they can make an informed decision.

Great whataboutery. I love the idea you think people drink more to become impaired because of "punitive levels"

Neither the drink drive or drug drive limits are at punitive levels and if people are stupid enough to risk being in the position of being impaired then they deserve to be banned for being thick as f**k. The standard of driving on the roads is bad enough among likely sober people without hoying drink and drugs into the mix

You think that a swab that shows you smoked cannabis up to 21 days prior, and has been clearly shown (many, many references available) to have no impact on driving skills/perception after about 6 hours for periodic use isn’t punitive? You seem to think alcohol and THC work in the same way - they don’t.

[Griffith4ever]

Durzel said:

If alcohol still persisted in your system until mid week, potentially impairing your driving, then I'd presume people would say the same thing about it?

It doesn't, so they don't.

But weed doesn't impare you until midweek, even the next morning. You all keep reading the headline "it stays in your system" - which translates in reality to traces of THC can be detected in your blood. That's a world away from "impares you".

That use of "potentially" is super vague and can equally be applied to cough medicine and prescribed pain killers.

I am fairly sure almost all of the knee jerk posts on here ("take his car away", lmao) are from those that have never smoked cannabis, and consequently treat it like some kind of crack cocaine / herione parallel.

The "holier than thou" responses are to be expected , of course, and, there is no reasoning with them

[Hants PHer]

The attitude of some posters on this topic seems to be "Yeah, it's just a bit of weed, it doesn't really affect you the next day. If the legal limits say that it does, then those limits are too punitive".

That sounds remarkably similar to people who say "I'll have a fourth pint: I've had some food so I'm fine to drive."

Neither is acceptable, and some posters who seem to think the weed one is OK should have a word with themselves.

[8IKERDAVE]

Hants PHer said:

The attitude of some posters on this topic seems to be "Yeah, it's just a bit of weed, it doesn't really affect you the next day. If the legal limits say that it does, then those limits are too punitive".

That sounds remarkably similar to people who say "I'll have a fourth pint: I've had some food so I'm fine to drive."

Neither is acceptable, and some posters who seem to think the weed one is OK should have a word with themselves.

Have you any evidence of this or even experience? It's quite clear from the posts on this thread that there is a divide of people who understand cannabis and people who blindingly hate it. I suspect a lot of the input that went into these laws was made by the latter.

[119]

ChevronB19 said:

119 said:

I think the limit of 0.0 is spot on.

Lets hope he gets caught and banned sooner rather than later.

I mean, FFS.

A limit of zero is impossible due to the vagaries of limits of detection. There is also a world of difference between being unfit to drive through cannabis and being over a prescribed limit. So ‘FFS’ back at you

There are plenty of studies, properly researched, which show that (for example) the active component of cannabis (I.e. the bit that makes you stoned) has no effect after about 6 hours. But lots of people get caught due to the latency in the body due to the nature of the chemical, despite it having no adverse/negative effect on motor (ha!) skills or perception after the initial ‘stoned’ period. So you could fail a ‘zero’ criteria several days after using, despite no effect whatsoever on your abilities.

It was figuratively speaking but the point still stands.

If you can't afford to get caught, don't do it.

So, why do you think cannabis hasn't been legalised in this country (I appreciate has been in others)?

[pavarotti1980]

ChevronB19 said:

You think that a swab that shows you smoked cannabis up to 21 days prior, and has been clearly shown (many, many references available) to have no impact on driving skills/perception after about 6 hours for periodic use isn’t punitive? You seem to think alcohol and THC work in the same way - they don’t.

I didnt say alcohol and THC work in the same way so try not to presume. I am fully aware how plasma concentration, half life, excretion etc works. It is hard enough to measure accurately in chemical compounds which have defined values never mind some random green off the streets.

The swab is a screening device, the blood test is evidential. the levels are prescribed in law. Follow them or expect to deal with the consequences

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 20th October 13:10

[J6542]

119 said:

ChevronB19 said:

119 said:

I think the limit of 0.0 is spot on.

Lets hope he gets caught and banned sooner rather than later.

I mean, FFS.

A limit of zero is impossible due to the vagaries of limits of detection. There is also a world of difference between being unfit to drive through cannabis and being over a prescribed limit. So ‘FFS’ back at you

There are plenty of studies, properly researched, which show that (for example) the active component of cannabis (I.e. the bit that makes you stoned) has no effect after about 6 hours. But lots of people get caught due to the latency in the body due to the nature of the chemical, despite it having no adverse/negative effect on motor (ha!) skills or perception after the initial ‘stoned’ period. So you could fail a ‘zero’ criteria several days after using, despite no effect whatsoever on your abilities.

It was figuratively speaking but the point still stands.

If you can't afford to get caught, don't do it.

So, why do you think cannabis hasn't been legalised in this country (I appreciate has been in others)?

Because making it legal would cause a backlash from people with views like yourself.

[119]

J6542 said:

119 said:

ChevronB19 said:

119 said:

I think the limit of 0.0 is spot on.

Lets hope he gets caught and banned sooner rather than later.

I mean, FFS.

A limit of zero is impossible due to the vagaries of limits of detection. There is also a world of difference between being unfit to drive through cannabis and being over a prescribed limit. So ‘FFS’ back at you

There are plenty of studies, properly researched, which show that (for example) the active component of cannabis (I.e. the bit that makes you stoned) has no effect after about 6 hours. But lots of people get caught due to the latency in the body due to the nature of the chemical, despite it having no adverse/negative effect on motor (ha!) skills or perception after the initial ‘stoned’ period. So you could fail a ‘zero’ criteria several days after using, despite no effect whatsoever on your abilities.

It was figuratively speaking but the point still stands.

If you can't afford to get caught, don't do it.

So, why do you think cannabis hasn't been legalised in this country (I appreciate has been in others)?

Because making it legal would cause a backlash from people with views like yourself.

Back lash?

I don’t care what people do with their lives as long as it doesn’t affect me or anyone else.

Drugs, drinking etc etc


Nice try though.