Traffic queue = time for a nice fat skunk bifta to reflax
Discussion
When out cycling I keep finding that my nose is often assaulted by the stench of weed, especially when passing queues of traffic. When did it become socially acceptable to drive around smoking a spliff? I know that weed has been pretty much de-criminalised for personal use but does the law also turn a blind eye (and nose) to driving under the influence of weed?
Chill out dude.jesusbuiltmycar said:
When out cycling I keep finding that my nose is often assaulted by the stench of weed, especially when passing queues of traffic. When did it become socially acceptable to drive around smoking a spliff? I know that weed has been pretty much de-criminalised for personal use but does the law also turn a blind eye (and nose) to driving under the influence of weed?
It's not so much that the Law turns a blind eye to it, rather that the Law is not an omnipresent all-seeing, all-knowing entity that sees every infraction on the road. Hope that helps.For all its worth:
There haven't been many in depth studies done into the effects of marajuana on driving ability, however of the few small test conducted, mainly on closed courses in the US. Suggests that at legal tolerance there is negligible effect on ability, however at above legal levels (California level), THC, unlike alcohol, effects peoples ability differently. With those with high tolerance maintaining ability even after consuming high amounts of THC, but those with low tolerance being knocked out by one spliff.
So odds are if he is a seasoned pothead, which let's be honest if he is smoking it in a queue of traffic he probably is, then the odds are his ability will be negligible affected.
Legally speaking it would be extremely difficult to set a fair limit as different people are effected differently, as such the state is likely to err on the side of caution, just as they do with drink drive limits.
There haven't been many in depth studies done into the effects of marajuana on driving ability, however of the few small test conducted, mainly on closed courses in the US. Suggests that at legal tolerance there is negligible effect on ability, however at above legal levels (California level), THC, unlike alcohol, effects peoples ability differently. With those with high tolerance maintaining ability even after consuming high amounts of THC, but those with low tolerance being knocked out by one spliff.
So odds are if he is a seasoned pothead, which let's be honest if he is smoking it in a queue of traffic he probably is, then the odds are his ability will be negligible affected.
Legally speaking it would be extremely difficult to set a fair limit as different people are effected differently, as such the state is likely to err on the side of caution, just as they do with drink drive limits.
jesusbuiltmycar said:
When out cycling I keep finding that my nose is often assaulted by the stench of weed, especially when passing queues of traffic. When did it become socially acceptable to drive around smoking a spliff? I know that weed has been pretty much de-criminalised for personal use but does the law also turn a blind eye (and nose) to driving under the influence of weed?
smell it almost every day in the evening rush hour from passing vehicles, often from vans. Not unusual at all. giantdefy said:
It is an offence for a person to drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while unfit to drive through drink or drugs.
I wonder what defines being 'unfit to drive' with weed?As far as i know it stays in the body for 28 days. How much is the limit?
With alcohol we know its 30 something mg or about a pint in old money.
It's too much aggro for the police to enforce, they have to carry out an impairment test, or a drug test which is usually and oral 'smear'. If found positive they have to take a blood or urine test back at the station, then have it sent for analysis. All cost time and money.
Drunk driving is far easier to prosecute.
In these police stop programmes on TV, I'm always surprised how many pot heads the police allow to drive off after confiscating their gear.
Drunk driving is far easier to prosecute.
In these police stop programmes on TV, I'm always surprised how many pot heads the police allow to drive off after confiscating their gear.
User33678888 said:
Intresting.So,
"If a driver tests positive for having more than 2µg of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol, or THC (the active compound found in cannabis), per 100ml of blood, then this is considered a positive test, and is likely to lead to prosecution."
Then,
"Under the new laws, the prosecution does not have to prove that a person’s driving was impaired, simply that the drugs were present in the system. If this can be proven, then the minimum penalty is a 12-month disqualification from driving, a maximum £5,000 fine and up to six months in prison."
But harsh in my opinion.
I often enjoy a smoke in the evenings and have done so for over 30 years. I've held down a job with responsibility's for about 15 years.
I wonder what the reading would be for a long term user like myself?
Luckily there's no old bill around on the roads any more so i guess/hope i never have to find out.
pc.iow said:
User33678888 said:
Intresting.So,
"If a driver tests positive for having more than 2µg of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol, or THC (the active compound found in cannabis), per 100ml of blood, then this is considered a positive test, and is likely to lead to prosecution."
Then,
"Under the new laws, the prosecution does not have to prove that a person’s driving was impaired, simply that the drugs were present in the system. If this can be proven, then the minimum penalty is a 12-month disqualification from driving, a maximum £5,000 fine and up to six months in prison."
But harsh in my opinion.
I often enjoy a smoke in the evenings and have done so for over 30 years. I've held down a job with responsibility's for about 15 years.
I wonder what the reading would be for a long term user like myself?
Luckily there's no old bill around on the roads any more so i guess/hope i never have to find out.
speedking31 said:
megaphone said:
In these police stop programmes on TV, I'm always surprised how many pot heads the police allow to drive off after confiscating their gear.
I think those are old programmes before the roadside test was developed and introduced.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff