Drunk driver doing a runner from an accident

[Forester1965]

agtlaw said:

If arrest leads to OPL charge then the statutory defence is set out here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...

Evidential burden on D. Legal burden on P.

Does this lead to a situation where someone driving with a prescribed a drug can fail the roadside test and if;

A) Under the PL they can be charged with unfit and convicted or

B) Over OPL, can use the statutory defence and acquitted?

[Random_Person]

agtlaw said:

If arrest leads to OPL charge then the statutory defence is set out here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...

Evidential burden on D. Legal burden on P.

I know the defence, but this is at court. Fez wearer doesn't realise that he will still go through all the motions including a charge and court case before he gets to wave his piece of paper and cite his medical situation. The drivel posted in these forums always amuses me but this notion that he is going to walk away from failing a roadside test by way of an internet link, a piece of paper and saying that "all police know and agree about this" is going to lead him to a very disappointing outcome if he is ever stopped.

[agtlaw]

Random_Person said:

I know the defence, but this is at court. Fez wearer doesn't realise that he will still go through all the motions including a charge and court case before he gets to wave his piece of paper and cite his medical situation. The drivel posted in these forums always amuses me but this notion that he is going to walk away from failing a roadside test by way of an internet link, a piece of paper and saying that "all police know and agree about this" is going to lead him to a very disappointing outcome if he is ever stopped.

In fairness, he may not be charged if evidence is made available in advance of the charging decision. If the police were to charge him then the same evidence could be sent to CPS before the first hearing - the charge may then be withdrawn in advance of or at the plea hearing.

[Random_Person]

Either way, he is getting tested at the roadside, failing the test, arrested, booked into custody and going through the procedure.

His farcical ramblings above stated that he was walking away from this situation, pointing at a piece of a paper from a doctor and saying that all police agree. No police agree, as this is not even a thing. Comparable scenario:

Man gets into fight and breaks someones jaw. Police turn up and suspect pointed out. Suspect states he suffers with anger management issues and has a letter from his doctor to that effect. He then walks away as "all police agree".

A special kind of drivel is posted at times.

[AW111]

Random_Person said:

Either way, he is getting tested at the roadside, failing the test, arrested, booked into custody and going through the procedure.

His farcical ramblings above stated that he was walking away from this situation, pointing at a piece of a paper from a doctor and saying that all police agree. No police agree, as this is not even a thing. Comparable scenario:

Man gets into fight and breaks someones jaw. Police turn up and suspect pointed out. Suspect states he suffers with anger management issues and has a letter from his doctor to that effect. He then walks away as "all police agree".

A special kind of drivel is posted at times.

When you have quite finished scoring imaginary points against someone you've never met, and proved your superiority in your own head, maybe someone can post something interesting.

[VSKeith]

Random_Person said:

Either way, he is getting tested at the roadside, failing the test, arrested, booked into custody and going through the procedure.

His farcical ramblings above stated that he was walking away from this situation, pointing at a piece of a paper from a doctor and saying that all police agree. No police agree, as this is not even a thing. Comparable scenario:

Man gets into fight and breaks someones jaw. Police turn up and suspect pointed out. Suspect states he suffers with anger management issues and has a letter from his doctor to that effect. He then walks away as "all police agree".

A special kind of drivel is posted at times.

Your imaginary scenarios are not even remotely comparable.

Fez's 'farcical ramblings' ? By that do you mean his considered posts based on professional medical advice he's received as a patient prescribed cannabis based medicine?

You also assert that if he were to be drug wiped and fail, showing no impairment, he would certainly be arrested despite showing proof that he is a medical cannabis user.

What evidence do you have for this?

[Forester1965]

The Police have a duty to investigate and a duty of care towards other road users. They're unlikely to get a positive reading and then rely solely on a GP letter (or similar) by the roadside to release. If it were that easy every scroat from here to Timbuktu would have a proforma letter in their glovebox.

[Griffith4ever]

Random_Person said:

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.

Edited by Griffith4ever on Saturday 13th April 20:44

Your argument is based on harm to body. This thread is about legal tolerances to drive a motor vehicle. Different things.

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.

There is no "argument" I'm trying to "win". Quite simply, when someone says you are "stupid" for smoking cannabis, regardless of the setting, I will always ask why it's "stupid" when its less harmful than alcohol, and everyone drinks quite happily. It gets on my tits to be honest. It's just daft.

Using the word "druggie" makes me question whether I'm wasting my breath TBH. I, like a HUGE percentage of the population, occasonally take cannabis recreationally. I'm no more a "druggie" than you are an "alcy" or a "drunk", or a "boozer". Its lazy language picked up from television and the press. Of course, there are teens smoking mental weed and generally off their faces most of the time, but on the whole, people smoke the odd joint occasionally and don't fit any profile you or I would recognise.

We are NOT "druggies" - we are the people standing next to you you'd never realise.

With regard to driving and limits, the limits for THC are just wrong. UNLESS you take the zero tollerance approach, OR, follow the lines of "it's illegal so tough".

You say, "But these laws and processes are written by those in the ivory tower, not me." ..... but I don't put value on that. I don't agree with some laws, and I break some of them. Because they are law does not make them right or just. That is a decision I make. If you are happy following the letter of the law that's fine, no one can criticise that, but, I don't, and I'm not alone.

I value that you are engaging in a conversation / debate with me, but I would just ask that you look at cannabis smoking with a less "druggie" blinkered approach. You'd fall of your chair if you realised just how many people smoke the odd joint.

Edited by Griffith4ever on Sunday 14th April 14:51

[Random_Person]

VSKeith said:

You also assert that if he were to be drug wiped and fail, showing no impairment, he would certainly be arrested despite showing proof that he is a medical cannabis user.

What evidence do you have for this?

Erm - life?

What evidence do you have to state that people can evade the judicial system and processes enshrined in statute, based on fantasy?

Do you really and genuinely believe that a doctors note exonerates a driver who fails a preliminary test? If the answer is yes then there is no hope in continuing the conversation. If however you realise that this medical defence is only something that would come out at point 9 of 10 (i.e in court after ALL the prevailing points have occurred from test to arrest to blood sample to charge to court) then maybe there is hope after all.

[VSKeith]

Random_Person said:

Erm - life?

What evidence do you have to state that people can evade the judicial system and processes enshrined in statute, based on fantasy?

Do you really and genuinely believe that a doctors note exonerates a driver who fails a preliminary test? If the answer is yes then there is no hope in continuing the conversation. If however you realise that this medical defence is only something that would come out at point 9 of 10 (i.e in court after ALL the prevailing points have occurred from test to arrest to blood sample to charge to court) then maybe there is hope after all.

Wow.

You made the assertion, I asked if you had evidence.

For clarity: I'm not saying that a medical note will ensure that a medicinal user will not be arrested and charged. I'm simply questioning your statement that they certainly will be.

You even seem to think that the only point at which their medical defence will be examined is in court, in which they'll certainly be appearing, and for which they'll certainly need a barrister to put their case to a magistrate.

A specialist motoring lawyer has already stated that this can be assessed by the CPS post any charge and any prosecution halted.

It's my understanding, rightly or wrongly, that police have a level of discretion and they are minded to consider whether a prosecution is likely to succeed or is a waste of everyone's time/money.

I'm genuinely trying to understand how likely it is that a medicinal cannabis user, showing no impairment but a positive wipe, is arrested and potentially charged. An actual person taking this actual prescribed medicine with professional medical advice around driving is also interested in knowing this, whilst you contribute nothing to the discussion with your repeated pointless assertions.

[agtlaw]

Police generally charge straightforward drug driving offences without reference to CPS.

When CPS receives the file (post charge) then an actual lawyer reviews the case for the first time. The aforementioned lawyer applies the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

There isn’t a legal burden on the defendant regarding medical evidence. It’s an evidential burden only. A fairly low threshold.

Discontinuing proceedings does not require a court hearing. As said previously, that can be done before the plea hearing. It’s completely wrong to think that the defence postulated could only be determined at court.

[pavarotti1980]

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.

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&amp...

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.

Given that Sativex on the NHS is for spasticity 2° ti MS and Epidiolex is for severe epilepsy the likelihood of either of those cohorts holding a driving license is almost impossible so is a little bit of a moot point. Private prescribing is a different matter and data is unlikely to be available as to which indications are being treated

Also GPs can prescribe cannabinoids as I wrote the shared care guideline for the area I work to allow prescribing to be transferred back to the GP in primary care for Sativex to prevent unnecessary hospital trips for a prescription

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Sunday 14th April 22:49

[FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive]

[/quote]
Given that Sativex on the NHS is for spasticity 2° ti MS and Epidiolex is for severe epilepsy the likelihood of either of those cohorts holding a driving license is almost impossible so is a little bit of a moot point. Private prescribing is a different matter and data is unlikely to be available as to which indications are being treated

Also GPs can prescribe cannabinoids as I wrote the shared care guideline for the area I work to allow prescribing to be transferred back to the GP in primary care for Sativex to prevent unnecessary hospital trips for a prescription

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Sunday 14th April 22:49

[/quote]

That's interesting and has made me go and look over my clinic letters and cross referenced them with the prescriptions I've had from my GP/surgery in the last 18 months - and I've noted that Sativex was prescribed to me (but never fulfilled) a couple of days after a consultation appointment was typed up and summarised, then sent to my GP - with no medication request/comment from me about being prescribed it, it's interesting that it was approved when it seems to be so difficult to get prescribed.

Are cannabis registry clinicians able to recommend to GPs the use of Sativex/Epidiolex for management of conditions/symptoms? It has really piqued my interest.

Also, some very interesting replies over the last page or so - I appreciate getting a general consensus and the facts provided by agtlaw.

RP, can you remember where you have read that medical patients are not able to state a medical defence of an OPL while showing zero sign of impairment? If you are a member of any police force, are you able to share what the current training guidelines say on this particular topic?

I ask because I've had contact with my local constabulary and their answer regarding officer training says one thing, then the replies I've had from one officer contradicted the training - and I was TOLD that medical cannabis has 0% THC, thus if a roadside drug wipe returned a positive result, that would be illegal and therefore the medication I am prescribed would in fact be incorrect/illegal.

There's a disconnect somewhere along the way....I'm just trying to piece together an understanding of the law as a medical patient - I am not a "scrote" or a "druggie" or any other dehumanising term one might wish to cast on me for taking my medication as prescribed, as directed by a medical professional.

[Pit Pony]

Griffith4ever said:

You can't do someone for drunk driving if you can't prove they were drunk at the time.

If witnesses are prepared to stand up in court and say how many he'd had in the pub, etc then the magistrates would have to decide who was telling the truth. Proof doesn't require medical evidence.

[vikingaero]

Assuming the drunk drivers car was insured at the time of the accident, then you should be OK with insurance liability. Falling asleep isn't a medical episode like having a heart attack where the driver wasn't negligent due to the heart attack. If he is claiming falling asleep as a medical episode then I would personally report him to the DVLA to have his licence medically withdrawn - he won't be happy if he can't drive (legally) at all.

[pavarotti1980]

FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:

That's interesting and has made me go and look over my clinic letters and cross referenced them with the prescriptions I've had from my GP/surgery in the last 18 months - and I've noted that Sativex was prescribed to me (but never fulfilled) a couple of days after a consultation appointment was typed up and summarised, then sent to my GP - with no medication request/comment from me about being prescribed it, it's interesting that it was approved when it seems to be so difficult to get prescribed.

Are cannabis registry clinicians able to recommend to GPs the use of Sativex/Epidiolex for management of conditions/symptoms? It has really piqued my interest.

Also, some very interesting replies over the last page or so - I appreciate getting a general consensus and the facts provided by agtlaw.

RP, can you remember where you have read that medical patients are not able to state a medical defence of an OPL while showing zero sign of impairment? If you are a member of any police force, are you able to share what the current training guidelines say on this particular topic?

I ask because I've had contact with my local constabulary and their answer regarding officer training says one thing, then the replies I've had from one officer contradicted the training - and I was TOLD that medical cannabis has 0% THC, thus if a roadside drug wipe returned a positive result, that would be illegal and therefore the medication I am prescribed would in fact be incorrect/illegal.

There's a disconnect somewhere along the way....I'm just trying to piece together an understanding of the law as a medical patient - I am not a "scrote" or a "druggie" or any other dehumanising term one might wish to cast on me for taking my medication as prescribed, as directed by a medical professional.

There is no such thing as a cannabis registered clinician. The registry (patient one) is collating data on prescribing patterns/clinical data. The referring specialist will be neuro consultants and they will recommend to the GP based on this. Initial commencement on therapy is not necessarily difficult however you have to meet the criteria based on NICE guidance for the two NHS approved indications I quoted earlier. Private prescribing will only be done against licensed indications. Once started and monitored and stable it is straight forward for repeat Rxs to be done. There is no requirement for a prescription to be "approved" after it has been written by the consultant