Roadside drug testing
Discussion
After hearing about the drug testing at the roadside law and limits, been very low, it spooks me into not even daring to drive soon after. But it’s got me thinking, how likely would it be to be pulled over and tested for these? After all, with limits so low consumption a few days after could see you prosecuted.
However, last night my friend was pulled over for doing 50 in a 40. The police officer noticed a grinder in the car, he received a ticking off for the speeding and a stern talking to. They checked he had no cannabis on him. Was he very lucky to not get drug tested? I would have assumed that would have instantly meant he would have been tested but it appears not.
Has anyone here ever been roadside drug tested for this? Or have I watched far too many police shows where it gives the impression every single person gets summoned to one?
However, last night my friend was pulled over for doing 50 in a 40. The police officer noticed a grinder in the car, he received a ticking off for the speeding and a stern talking to. They checked he had no cannabis on him. Was he very lucky to not get drug tested? I would have assumed that would have instantly meant he would have been tested but it appears not.
Has anyone here ever been roadside drug tested for this? Or have I watched far too many police shows where it gives the impression every single person gets summoned to one?
The problem with drug testing is proving that you're under the influence or impaired at the time of the test. There are not proscribed limits like blood/ alcohol, and whilst technically any illegal substance in your blood is a crime under the misuse of drugs act, its not under the road traffic act (IIRC).
So, driving like a drugged up muppet, and having something in your system = likely to get pulled apart and splashed all over the papers as drug driving maniac.
Random drug check and something in system = likely to get FPN (got to boost the figures, looks good in local press).
driving normally several days after use, still testing positive but not impaired = stern telling off and probably a drugs marker on car.
Its a tricky one, like driving the morning after, or after 2 pints. Probably fine, but would the courts agree?
So, driving like a drugged up muppet, and having something in your system = likely to get pulled apart and splashed all over the papers as drug driving maniac.
Random drug check and something in system = likely to get FPN (got to boost the figures, looks good in local press).
driving normally several days after use, still testing positive but not impaired = stern telling off and probably a drugs marker on car.
Its a tricky one, like driving the morning after, or after 2 pints. Probably fine, but would the courts agree?
Yeah it’s really unclear and does seem unfair.
I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
meehaja said:
and whilst technically any illegal substance in your blood is a crime under the misuse of drugs act, its not under the road traffic act (IIRC).
Section 5A "Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with concentration of specified controlled drug above specified limit"Edited by liquidfox on Saturday 12th May 14:50
meehaja said:
The problem with drug testing is proving that you're under the influence or impaired at the time of the test. There are not proscribed limits like blood/ alcohol, and whilst technically any illegal substance in your blood is a crime under the misuse of drugs act, its not under the road traffic act (IIRC).
So, driving like a drugged up muppet, and having something in your system = likely to get pulled apart and splashed all over the papers as drug driving maniac.
Random drug check and something in system = likely to get FPN (got to boost the figures, looks good in local press).
driving normally several days after use, still testing positive but not impaired = stern telling off and probably a drugs marker on car.
Its a tricky one, like driving the morning after, or after 2 pints. Probably fine, but would the courts agree?
There are limits for certain drugs (both legal and illegal ones) and have been since 2015.So, driving like a drugged up muppet, and having something in your system = likely to get pulled apart and splashed all over the papers as drug driving maniac.
Random drug check and something in system = likely to get FPN (got to boost the figures, looks good in local press).
driving normally several days after use, still testing positive but not impaired = stern telling off and probably a drugs marker on car.
Its a tricky one, like driving the morning after, or after 2 pints. Probably fine, but would the courts agree?
If you are found to have drugs in your system which either impair your driving or the amounts of which are over the limit you definitely won't be getting an FPN.
If you are over the limit for a given drug, then as with drink driving, your manner of driving is irrelevant.
Cat
Theuser26 said:
Yeah it’s really unclear and does seem unfair.
I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
Unfair? It's illegal - there is no "fair"!I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
Theuser26 said:
Yeah it’s really unclear and does seem unfair.
I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
Not just driving, a lot of companies now do random drug & alcohol tests.I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
Elroy Blue said:
Bless. Drug takers complaining about tests for drug driving. There is no 'random' drug testing (the kits are £18 each for a start and they are very tightly controlled), but if you provide a positive sample under sec 5a or are convicted under sec 4, you deserve everything you get.
Couldn't agree more. Everyone I stop gets asked when they last took drugs. If it was recently, they get drug wiped.
I don't care when people smoked it. If they are over the limit it's one less idiot on the road.
LosingGrip said:
Couldn't agree more.
Everyone I stop gets asked when they last took drugs. If it was recently, they get drug wiped.
I don't care when people smoked it. If they are over the limit it's one less idiot on the road.
But what is 'over the limit' when it comes to weed?Everyone I stop gets asked when they last took drugs. If it was recently, they get drug wiped.
I don't care when people smoked it. If they are over the limit it's one less idiot on the road.
Having a joint two days ago? getting totally blitzed a week ago? or would you need to have been smoking in the last few hours to be over the 'limit'?
Shuvi McTupya said:
But what is 'over the limit' when it comes to weed?
Having a joint two days ago? getting totally blitzed a week ago? or would you need to have been smoking in the last few hours to be over the 'limit'?
The limit is two ug/l. This doesn't mean anything to many though as dealers don't tend to put how strong their weed is on the bag...Having a joint two days ago? getting totally blitzed a week ago? or would you need to have been smoking in the last few hours to be over the 'limit'?
https://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2287.aspx?CategoryID=...
I've had people test positive for taking it a week ago and be under the limit on the blood test. To taking it yesterday and being under. And then taking it a week ago and being massively over. This is of course going on what they've said. They could be talking out their arse.
Really only one option when it comes to driving and drugs. If you want to take drugs, don't drive.
Theuser26 said:
Yeah it’s really unclear and does seem unfair.
I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
Unfair how? The drugs are illegal. Whether you think that's "right" or not, you know the risks. I'm smug in the knowledge that I can't possibly get done for this offence.I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
LosingGrip said:
The limit is two ug/l. This doesn't mean anything to many though as dealers don't tend to put how strong their weed is on the bag...
https://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2287.aspx?CategoryID=...
I've had people test positive for taking it a week ago and be under the limit on the blood test. To taking it yesterday and being under. And then taking it a week ago and being massively over. This is of course going on what they've said. They could be talking out their arse.
Really only one option when it comes to driving and drugs. If you want to take drugs, don't drive.
Seems totally absurd to me. https://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2287.aspx?CategoryID=...
I've had people test positive for taking it a week ago and be under the limit on the blood test. To taking it yesterday and being under. And then taking it a week ago and being massively over. This is of course going on what they've said. They could be talking out their arse.
Really only one option when it comes to driving and drugs. If you want to take drugs, don't drive.
We should be doing roadside sobriety tests for both drugs and booze IMO. and not that reciting the alphabet backwards s
t as i cant even do that when I am sober , officer
£20 each? So I assume they wouldn’t be used unless it was kind of obvious they are over the limit then?
It’s unfair that somebody could take something 4 days ago and then be deemed under the influence because it’s in the system, they wouldn’t be affected by this. But you could have 2 pints, drive, be impaired enough to cause a RTC and blow under the legal limit, theoretically.
I accept the law is the law. I’m not disputing that, unfair was the wrong word.
I’d never drive with drugs in my system, at all.
It’s unfair that somebody could take something 4 days ago and then be deemed under the influence because it’s in the system, they wouldn’t be affected by this. But you could have 2 pints, drive, be impaired enough to cause a RTC and blow under the legal limit, theoretically.
I accept the law is the law. I’m not disputing that, unfair was the wrong word.
I’d never drive with drugs in my system, at all.
Pothole said:
Theuser26 said:
Yeah it’s really unclear and does seem unfair.
I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
Unfair how? The drugs are illegal. Whether you think that's "right" or not, you know the risks. I’m all of those instances you described would result in a driving ban etc. too, right?
There’s just sometning mental about having something 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and it still been present, essentially ruining your life. I’d like to think a large majority of this is scare tactics and with no info on how the police operate these tests for the sole reason of making everyone think twice.
So it's a fair question I wouldn't have a clue how long stuff stays above a certain level in your system like alcohol.
Pothole said:
I'm smug in the knowledge that I can't possibly get done for this offence.
That's 2 of us then 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff