Drunk driver doing a runner from an accident
Discussion
donkmeister said:
From what I can see from a cursory 2 minute google, there is only one THC threshold and no exemption for medical marijuana users. If you are sure that's the case do you have a link to where it's defined please?
It's been many many years since I held a joint and didn't inhale
however even I know that medical marijuana is different to marijuana bought from illicit sources. Lower THC, higher CBD. So you would need to do a lot more of it to hit the THC threshold vs the sticky icky grown in someone's loft.
Medical users have a medical defence - so long as they are not impaired when driving and showing as above 2mg per litre, they are free to carry on with their journey.It's been many many years since I held a joint and didn't inhale
however even I know that medical marijuana is different to marijuana bought from illicit sources. Lower THC, higher CBD. So you would need to do a lot more of it to hit the THC threshold vs the sticky icky grown in someone's loft.In reality, medical cannabis is much more strict in terms of growing conditions - you'll never find any medical bud to be sprayed with salt, which when combusted is incredibly bad for your lungs and your life.
Regarding your 'lower thc, higher cbd' - not true. Sativex which is available on the NHS (5 prescriptions granted since November 2018...) is made from Skunk #1 with a THC content of 30%. Here is a link to the current strains available for private prescription: https://medbud.wiki/strains/?hideUnavailable=1&...
As you can see, there are a few low THC, high CBD strains but the majority are high THC. A recent report emerged from Canada regarding rates of schizophrenia since 2014 - the increase has gone up in line with cannabis uptake, but in terms of % it is almost exactly the same as it was. It has also emerged that blood THC levels are not accurate markers of impairment for cannabis. There has been a drop in drink-driving due to many taking up cannabis instead - so overall, that has got to be classed as a positive, I think.
Fewer people consuming alcohol meals fewer hospital admissions on Friday and Saturday nights, fewer police and medics needed to staff local night life hotspots and A&E etc. Plus there's no need for liver transplants and dying a horribly painful death from alcoholism.
donkmeister said:
VSKeith said:
For cannabis, those legal tolerances are ridiculous and are intended as a zero tolerance approach, but allowing for accidental exposure. As stated above, many have probably been criminalised who were not remotely impaired at the wheel.
The hand wringing daily mail appeasing idiots who introduced this law allow medicinal cannabis users to have much higher levels. The medical guidance is effectively: 'Don't drive if you feel stoned'. This indicates that they know impairment occurs at much higher levels than those allowed, as they would never allow medicinal users of alcohol (if there were such a thing) to drive above the current legal limit.
From what I can see from a cursory 2 minute google, there is only one THC threshold and no exemption for medical marijuana users. If you are sure that's the case do you have a link to where it's defined please?The hand wringing daily mail appeasing idiots who introduced this law allow medicinal cannabis users to have much higher levels. The medical guidance is effectively: 'Don't drive if you feel stoned'. This indicates that they know impairment occurs at much higher levels than those allowed, as they would never allow medicinal users of alcohol (if there were such a thing) to drive above the current legal limit.
It's been many many years since I held a joint and didn't inhale
however even I know that medical marijuana is different to marijuana bought from illicit sources. Lower THC, higher CBD. So you would need to do a lot more of it to hit the THC threshold vs the sticky icky grown in someone's loft.I stand by the daily mail appeasing idiots comment - illustrated by Fez's highlighting of medical professionals' advice versus what they actually put into law
Griffith4ever said:
Re the roadside test and the follow up test - interesting, I have learnt something new. Be interesting to know the thresholds fot the actual test.
Re being "stupid enough to take drugs" - do you drink at all? because if you do, you are as "stupid" as cannabis smokers. They are both drugs, with one actually being far far more harmfull to society, and health, than the other. Clue - one of them is government "approved" and taxed.
Your argument is based on harm to body. This thread is about legal tolerances to drive a motor vehicle. Different things.Re being "stupid enough to take drugs" - do you drink at all? because if you do, you are as "stupid" as cannabis smokers. They are both drugs, with one actually being far far more harmfull to society, and health, than the other. Clue - one of them is government "approved" and taxed.
Edited by Griffith4ever on Saturday 13th April 20:44
I do drink and I agree that it is more harmful than drugs, per say. It is instant and has a real knock on effect in many different ways. But druggies and drunks will both still look like corpses when they are at the side of the road, messed up and having taken too much of their chosen drug.
Drink driving is perhaps more simple - alcohol is easier to detect at the time? (Not an doctor) whereas drugs is more complex. I agree a person who is hungover the morning after the night before is a bigger danger than an occasional cannabis smoker. But these laws and processes are written by those in the ivory tower, not me.
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Medical users have a medical defence - so long as they are not impaired when driving and showing as above 2mg per litre, they are free to carry on with their journey.
Oh my goodness, seriously. You could not be more wrong.You cannot just go out and expect that you are ok, based on a prescription, and based on an objective test of driving capacity.
Good luck with that, when you do get stopped and cite that fact to hopefully a police officer with more than 2 years service. You are of course free to carry on with your journey, because you say so. How often has that worked and what does history tell you about those that tried. Did they just carry on with their journey?
VSKeith said:
A fair point - as Fez says, there's no specific exemption, which I wrongly implied, but there is a defence.
The defence requires a weighty and documented evidential chain of medical direction and instruction and a competency to be able to control a vehicle. It is not that simple. Random_Person said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Medical users have a medical defence - so long as they are not impaired when driving and showing as above 2mg per litre, they are free to carry on with their journey.
Oh my goodness, seriously. You could not be more wrong.You cannot just go out and expect that you are ok, based on a prescription, and based on an objective test of driving capacity.
Good luck with that, when you do get stopped and cite that fact to hopefully a police officer with more than 2 years service. You are of course free to carry on with your journey, because you say so. How often has that worked and what does history tell you about those that tried. Did they just carry on with their journey?
"You cannot just go out and expect that you are ok, based on a prescription, and based on an objective test of driving capacity." - what do you mean? Vaping cannabis means impairment lasts for 4-6 hours. If you are driving the next day or days later, why on earth would you not be OK?
If you pass an impairment test and are not under the influence of cannabis and you have a prescription, what exactly would you be arrested/held in custody for? Other than an officer not knowing this particular area of the law.
You do realise that anyone who is prescribed any drug by their GP is subject to the same impairment threshold? It is medically prescribed cannabis, therefore no different in terms of legality to prescribed Codeine, Insulin, Morphine etc. You seem to have seen the word 'cannabis' and reacted hysterically.
Again, you may have a blood THC level of 4mg per litre yet have zero impiarment and a legal prescription - what, exactly, is the problem?
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
I got the info from here: https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=978c0ee1-93c0... so if I'm not correct, therefore the police are not correct.
"You cannot just go out and expect that you are ok, based on a prescription, and based on an objective test of driving capacity." - what do you mean? Vaping cannabis means impairment lasts for 4-6 hours. If you are driving the next day or days later, why on earth would you not be OK?
If you pass an impairment test and are not under the influence of cannabis and you have a prescription, what exactly would you be arrested/held in custody for? Other than an officer not knowing this particular area of the law.
You do realise that anyone who is prescribed any drug by their GP is subject to the same impairment threshold? It is medically prescribed cannabis, therefore no different in terms of legality to prescribed Codeine, Insulin, Morphine etc. You seem to have seen the word 'cannabis' and reacted hysterically.
Again, you may have a blood THC level of 4mg per litre yet have zero impiarment and a legal prescription - what, exactly, is the problem?
"You cannot just go out and expect that you are ok, based on a prescription, and based on an objective test of driving capacity." - what do you mean? Vaping cannabis means impairment lasts for 4-6 hours. If you are driving the next day or days later, why on earth would you not be OK?
If you pass an impairment test and are not under the influence of cannabis and you have a prescription, what exactly would you be arrested/held in custody for? Other than an officer not knowing this particular area of the law.
You do realise that anyone who is prescribed any drug by their GP is subject to the same impairment threshold? It is medically prescribed cannabis, therefore no different in terms of legality to prescribed Codeine, Insulin, Morphine etc. You seem to have seen the word 'cannabis' and reacted hysterically.
Again, you may have a blood THC level of 4mg per litre yet have zero impiarment and a legal prescription - what, exactly, is the problem?
"I got the info from...." (Online). Google?
Google is the answer to everything. I must be wrong then, sorry.
Your answers tell me it is barely worth even replying to. "If you pass an impairment test why would you be held in custody?" Exactly - you wouldn't. As you would have passed.
Depends what test you mean, a roadside saliva test or an actual impairment test (behaviors / follow instructions).
Being prescribed anything has no bearing on when you may be stopped and tested. The test is the test. Your argument about prescription (which requires more than that) is in court with a defence barrister.
Random_Person said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
I got the info from here: https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=978c0ee1-93c0... so if I'm not correct, therefore the police are not correct.
"You cannot just go out and expect that you are ok, based on a prescription, and based on an objective test of driving capacity." - what do you mean? Vaping cannabis means impairment lasts for 4-6 hours. If you are driving the next day or days later, why on earth would you not be OK?
If you pass an impairment test and are not under the influence of cannabis and you have a prescription, what exactly would you be arrested/held in custody for? Other than an officer not knowing this particular area of the law.
You do realise that anyone who is prescribed any drug by their GP is subject to the same impairment threshold? It is medically prescribed cannabis, therefore no different in terms of legality to prescribed Codeine, Insulin, Morphine etc. You seem to have seen the word 'cannabis' and reacted hysterically.
Again, you may have a blood THC level of 4mg per litre yet have zero impiarment and a legal prescription - what, exactly, is the problem?
"You cannot just go out and expect that you are ok, based on a prescription, and based on an objective test of driving capacity." - what do you mean? Vaping cannabis means impairment lasts for 4-6 hours. If you are driving the next day or days later, why on earth would you not be OK?
If you pass an impairment test and are not under the influence of cannabis and you have a prescription, what exactly would you be arrested/held in custody for? Other than an officer not knowing this particular area of the law.
You do realise that anyone who is prescribed any drug by their GP is subject to the same impairment threshold? It is medically prescribed cannabis, therefore no different in terms of legality to prescribed Codeine, Insulin, Morphine etc. You seem to have seen the word 'cannabis' and reacted hysterically.
Again, you may have a blood THC level of 4mg per litre yet have zero impiarment and a legal prescription - what, exactly, is the problem?
"I got the info from...." (Online). Google?
Google is the answer to everything. I must be wrong then, sorry.
Your answers tell me it is barely worth even replying to. "If you pass an impairment test why would you be held in custody?" Exactly - you wouldn't. As you would have passed.
Depends what test you mean, a roadside saliva test or an actual impairment test (behaviors / follow instructions).
Being prescribed anything has no bearing on when you may be stopped and tested. The test is the test. Your argument about prescription (which requires more than that) is in court with a defence barrister.
For one, as a medical defence I'd produce the FP10 showing my possession and consumption of cannabis is in accordance with my prescription and my prescribing clinician/clinics advice.
Having had this discussion with my clinician regarding usage, timing and how long to leave before driving, my clinician is more than happy for me to leave 9+ hours from consumption to then get behind the wheel and a clinic letter to prove what was discussed and agreed, I actually know more about this than you do. Park your hysteria and your ego and actually respond to questions instead of misdirection.
Again, I will ask you: If you have a valid FP10, a blood THC level of 4mg per litre of blood, and the officer is happy that you're not impaired - what exactly is the problem here? Why, specifically, would you not be "ok"?
If you're a medical patient and consume daily, you will 100% return a positive THC drug wipe. That is NOT the same as being impaired nor under the influence, nor does that make you a criminal.
I genuinely don't see your point here about not being ok if you have a prescription? I have been very specific and followed what I've been told by police and clinicians and I'm happy to try and understand others viewpoints.
Please do engage further as I'd like to try and get to the bottom of this.
But medical grade cannabis doesn't have THC content?
The question is if you were stopped for manner of dribibg etc and you had a positive drugs wipe. It would be a matter for court/appeal as agreed or not with your GP - you shouldn't have the psycho-active element in your blood stream when driving.
If you are saying 9 hours after taking THC cannabis you are fit/legal to drive you are not. I really would clarify that a). It contains THC and b). Is the Doctor confirming that in all situations your levels will be below the legal driving levels.
The question is if you were stopped for manner of dribibg etc and you had a positive drugs wipe. It would be a matter for court/appeal as agreed or not with your GP - you shouldn't have the psycho-active element in your blood stream when driving.
If you are saying 9 hours after taking THC cannabis you are fit/legal to drive you are not. I really would clarify that a). It contains THC and b). Is the Doctor confirming that in all situations your levels will be below the legal driving levels.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
But medical grade cannabis doesn't have THC content?
The question is if you were stopped for manner of dribibg etc and you had a positive drugs wipe. It would be a matter for court/appeal as agreed or not with your GP - you shouldn't have the psycho-active element in your blood stream when driving.
If you are saying 9 hours after taking THC cannabis you are fit/legal to drive you are not. I really would clarify that a). It contains THC and b). Is the Doctor confirming that in all situations your levels will be below the legal driving levels.
Where have you read that medical cannabis does not have THC in it? Because I can tell you medical cannabis absolutely does have THC in it. Often at the same/or higher levels than black market cannabis.The question is if you were stopped for manner of dribibg etc and you had a positive drugs wipe. It would be a matter for court/appeal as agreed or not with your GP - you shouldn't have the psycho-active element in your blood stream when driving.
If you are saying 9 hours after taking THC cannabis you are fit/legal to drive you are not. I really would clarify that a). It contains THC and b). Is the Doctor confirming that in all situations your levels will be below the legal driving levels.
Again, a positive drugs wipe does NOT indicate you are under the influence nor impaired - it merely means the metabolites of THC are present in saliva and they can be present for many days after use. That does not mean you go to court, again, if you are not impaired then there should be no further action - because what laws are you breaking?
Also, your GP cannot prescribe it - it has to be a clinician on the General Medical Council Specialist Registry.
And once again, we KNOW - via clinical studies - that impairment from smoking (not legal) or vaping (legal for medical patients) that impairment lasts 4-6 hours. So 9+ hours after consuming medication, I would absolutely be fit to drive.
And again, as I have stated in previous replies - patients have a medical defence as their blood THC levels will be above the 2mg/litre of blood level.
Here are some links:
https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=978c0ee1-93c0...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medical...
https://www.gov.uk/drug-driving-law
Are you able to accept that I am correct in this instance, seen as I am a patient and have been advised I am OK to drive 9+ hours after last use of my medication as per my clinicians advice?
Can you offer your thoughts on this?
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Typically THC is present in saliva for approximately five days after last use. Clinical studies show that impairment lasts 4-6 hours, with it returning to baseline by hour 8 after consumption (specifically via smoking or vaporising it). Sublingual oils and edible forms are longer lasting (6-12 hours). It's maddening that those who use cannabis for recreation can potentially lose their driving licence, job/career over a substance that has no deaths directly attributed to it and is often used medically for undiagnosed illness/pain etc.
I'm a medical patient and I absolutely don't condone driving while impaired.
The current limit is 2mg per litre of blood (https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=978c0ee1-93c0-ec11-983e-002248438848) - which is absurdly low. Government asked their medical board for a sensible limit - who recommended a limit of 5mg per litre of blood so as not to penalise those who had a joint/vape the previous night and who are no longer impaired/under the influence when behind the wheel. So what did the government do? Promptly ignored the advice and set it at 2mg because 'tough on drugs' stance.
2ug not 2mg. I'm a medical patient and I absolutely don't condone driving while impaired.
The current limit is 2mg per litre of blood (https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=978c0ee1-93c0-ec11-983e-002248438848) - which is absurdly low. Government asked their medical board for a sensible limit - who recommended a limit of 5mg per litre of blood so as not to penalise those who had a joint/vape the previous night and who are no longer impaired/under the influence when behind the wheel. So what did the government do? Promptly ignored the advice and set it at 2mg because 'tough on drugs' stance.
On a previous thread, I outlined the information posted about the advisory panel’s recommendation.
This discussion is largely repetition.
agtlaw said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Typically THC is present in saliva for approximately five days after last use. Clinical studies show that impairment lasts 4-6 hours, with it returning to baseline by hour 8 after consumption (specifically via smoking or vaporising it). Sublingual oils and edible forms are longer lasting (6-12 hours). It's maddening that those who use cannabis for recreation can potentially lose their driving licence, job/career over a substance that has no deaths directly attributed to it and is often used medically for undiagnosed illness/pain etc.
I'm a medical patient and I absolutely don't condone driving while impaired.
The current limit is 2mg per litre of blood (https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=978c0ee1-93c0-ec11-983e-002248438848) - which is absurdly low. Government asked their medical board for a sensible limit - who recommended a limit of 5mg per litre of blood so as not to penalise those who had a joint/vape the previous night and who are no longer impaired/under the influence when behind the wheel. So what did the government do? Promptly ignored the advice and set it at 2mg because 'tough on drugs' stance.
2ug not 2mg. I'm a medical patient and I absolutely don't condone driving while impaired.
The current limit is 2mg per litre of blood (https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=978c0ee1-93c0-ec11-983e-002248438848) - which is absurdly low. Government asked their medical board for a sensible limit - who recommended a limit of 5mg per litre of blood so as not to penalise those who had a joint/vape the previous night and who are no longer impaired/under the influence when behind the wheel. So what did the government do? Promptly ignored the advice and set it at 2mg because 'tough on drugs' stance.
On a previous thread, I outlined the information posted about the advisory panel’s recommendation.
This discussion is largely repetition.
I think I remember that discussion. Can you post the link as I can't find it?
agtlaw said:
I'd be very interested to see if there are any reviews of the limit etc. Everyone a friend pulled was not just over the prescribed limit but by a margin. Which tied in with their manner of driving (under the speed limit, hesitation etc). 
).Unfit through drink or drugs. No preliminary test needed, arrest based on how person presents.
Failing a roadside preliminary test - exactly that - and arrest based on that failure.
That's all there is to it. Fez wearing person who thinks that when you fail a roadside drug test you can simply wave a piece of paper from a doctor and cite medical articles is exactly why it is not worth engaging further.
Failing a roadside preliminary test - exactly that - and arrest based on that failure.
That's all there is to it. Fez wearing person who thinks that when you fail a roadside drug test you can simply wave a piece of paper from a doctor and cite medical articles is exactly why it is not worth engaging further.
Random_Person said:
Unfit through drink or drugs. No preliminary test needed, arrest based on how person presents.
Failing a roadside preliminary test - exactly that - and arrest based on that failure.
That's all there is to it. Fez wearing person who thinks that when you fail a roadside drug test you can simply wave a piece of paper from a doctor and cite medical articles is exactly why it is not worth engaging further.
If arrest leads to OPL charge then the statutory defence is set out here:Failing a roadside preliminary test - exactly that - and arrest based on that failure.
That's all there is to it. Fez wearing person who thinks that when you fail a roadside drug test you can simply wave a piece of paper from a doctor and cite medical articles is exactly why it is not worth engaging further.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
Evidential burden on D. Legal burden on P.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff