Safe Speed Forums

It would be bad if the coppers started prosecuting people for driving offences when they have drugs in their system and/or possession if they can't show that the drugs concerned adversely effect driving. That is because the legality or illegality of drugs is not directly co-related with their effects. For instance, alcohol is legal but has a demonstrably bad effect on driving for many hours, whereas dope is not legal, yet it wears off after an hour or two. We can't make up this kind of stuff on-the-fly. To make a policy judgement, we need proper medical trials to test the effects. Whatever the law says, it might be ten times worse to convert people from (more or less) harmless dope smokers into binge-drinking drunks, with all the social evil and stigma that carries.

_________________
I stole this .sig

It's a big leap from detecting the presence of a drug to assuming that the person is impaired. I am well aware of the effects of the medicine I am taking and am adult enough to manage my usage to ensure that I do not endanger myself or other road users by driving when unfit.

I certainly don't think that I should have to give up driving because you do not understand the effects of the medication I have been prescribed.

Edited for missing word!

Totally agreed up to now, for once


Broadly speaking it is the stereotype that alcohol makes people aggressive and cannabis makes them dopey, but it doesn't necessarily work that way for everyone - I have met people who are made aggressive by cannabis, and plenty of drunks are more befuddled than rowdy.

A dopey driver may be seriously unsafe because he is unable to react quickly, if at all, to unexpected situations as they develop.

It certainly would be wrong to generalise that cannabis-impaired drivers are likely to be significantly less dangerous than alcohol-impaired ones.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

It's worth mentioning the following document on the DfT website on the subject of cannabis and driving:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 67-02.hcsp

It's only intended to be a review of research and IIRC it's somewhat inconclusive.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Right on, but of course the converse is true - alcohol-impaired drivers may be no less dangerous than cannabis-impaired ones. Yet drivers are allowed some alcohol. I am unaware of the legal limit for cannabis, yet it is important. Many see cannabis and magic mushroom use as a social and cultural norm (like speeding?). These drugs are a now trivial, non-arrestable misdemeanours (again like speeding?). Indeed, no restrictions are put on mushrooms at all. Yet the usage limits for driving remain a mystery (to me, at least). Unless we are content to leave this as a matter of “common sense” (whatever that is), there is some work to be done in this area. For some fuddy-duddies and young fogies, drugs are still taboo, so I fear, with this authoritarian government, that there will be a knee jerk solution, rather than a thought out approach.

PS - it looks like you have preempted my last post! I'll look at that document you have found.

_________________
I stole this .sig

They are allowed some alcohol, but they are not allowed to be impaired by alcohol. Above the "legal limit" they can be prosecuted regardless of evidence of impairment, below it, impairment needs to be proved for a successful prosecution. Such prosecutions have occasionally taken place. However, there is ample evidence that low levels of alcohol do not impair drivers' abilities.


There isn't a legal limit - it is up to the authorities to demonstrate impairment.


I don't see the evidence that a knee jerk solution to drug-driving is on the cards, although one or two posters in this thread seem to want one.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Then here is one fact for them to digest, gleaned from the report. Within one hour, THC levels in the body metabolise to 5% to 10% of their initial levels. This implies two things – first, it seems to me that if the authorities want to demonstrate impairment, they’d have to be PDQ about it, or the offender’s “high” will be over and that’s that. Second, unlike booze, which takes you many hours to get over, dope is mostly gone in an hour. A quick walk in the park and a look at the paper, and you might be fit to drive home. Having said that, it takes an extremely long time to totally flush dope from your system – but that doesn’t impair your driving (in my opinion).

_________________
I stole this .sig

Then they should be dealt with for carrying the shotgun, as well as the driving offence they had committed.

It is not that we can only be dealt with for one offence, should the police find someone has committed another offence, that should also be dealt with, even if it does not impair their driving.

Prohibited drug use, does not classify how much is used, it is illegal in any amount. Hence upon a driver proving positive, they should automaticley be dealt with for the offence of illegal drug use.




So what you are saying, it is all right to use illegal substances, as long as you do not get caught in the act

_________________
Steve

Drugs & drink fall in the same slot.

The only differance is you are permitted some amount of drink in your system. Which is incorrect, it should also be 0%.

Illegal drugs, you are permitted 0% in your system. Therefore any amount found, is illegal.

Drunk & drugged drivers, are the scum of the earth and should be dealt with harshley

_________________
Steve

bmwk12, there has been a study (multiple studies?) conducted that shows low levels of alcohol do not impair driving ability. This is what PeterE was referring to in his post. There has been no such study conducted regarding other drugs, as far as I know. Yet you want 'zero tolerance' for any drug? Despite the fact that it might make no difference to someone's ability to drive? (Bear in mind that traces can stay in the body for a long time after the effects have worn off, so you could be 'done' for being no more impaired than someone who hadn't smoked/drunk/etc a substance.)

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

The blood labs come under part of my patch (though my authority is on the lurgy test side ...) But anyway .... the labs do deal with plod tests for drugs .... and - as with driving - there has to be a threshold limit at which you could make a prosecution stick.

In the case of Paul McCartney .. he would probably be above because of his prolonged useage of this drug... but he has been using for so long that his body and mind have built up a workable tolerance.

That is the real danger with a prosecution over cannabis in particular fro frequent and regular users. Tolerance would not necessarily impair as they would need to use more to get thoroughly stoned. Most seasoned users are like normal smokers in this respect.

And Mrs Miggins .. I think I know which drug you are trialling .. you need have no worries!

And don't foget of course .. certain PRESCRIPTION drugs can impair far more than cannabis

Read the labels ... if it says anything about operating machinery .... think hard about whether you feel fit to drive a car or ride a bike

I don't think you're covering my theoretical concerns - What about this example:

A non-regular cannabis user is stopped while driving two weeks after last consumption. The blood test finds the stuff, but our example driver has not been impaired for 13 days. What happens next?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

From my point of view -- I would hope the road side screening test would suffice to show that the person was not impaired and if he passed this .. probably would not need further test at the station.

The paperwork and getting a medic to do the test ... one heck of a chore - and we know this from current booze procedures.

But think we are going to be in for some fun and games over this one. We do not seem to have sufficient guidelines for procedures in place as I read into the bumph more thoroughly

And we need to get trafpol out there to do it and we need to get each Officer fully trained up and fully conversant with this too. We have trained up most of our available staff to required standard but really do think we need to do a lot more work on this yet.

Seasons Greetings to All

Charles...

Thanks Doc

It's not a secret, BTW; if any of you others are interested, the drug is now named Sativex. It tastes really bad but it is far and away the most effective drug I have taken for the nerve problem I have.

I know that the company manufacturing the drug have tested it for a wide range of conditions and the results have been largely positive. It's just a shame that there's such a high level of prejudice about cannabis purely because some people use it to get high.

The "tests" involve things like touching your nose while standing on one foot, and counting down from 10 to 1. If you fail, you'll then be blood tested.

And if you can't pass those simple co-ordination tests, you shouldn't be driving.

That sounds fine. So what do we need the blood test for? Exactly?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

To establish how much they have actually taken and for evidence to produce in the court.

The test is just the initial screening and we need to establish just how far impaired they really are,, Paul. The amount we find in their system is usually a good indication. Though as Mad Lad points out - seasoned users may function normally and pass the screening just the same.

But ... we need the lads out there to do the checking in any case .. and you know as well as I do that certain areas are short staffed..

What study

Please supply details

Drink effects people in differant ways, a seasoned drinker will proberly not feel any effects (that does not mean they are not effected), after a couple of pints. Where as a light drinker will.

As it is an unknown quantity, it is therefore better to have none in the system.

Lets face it the legal limit is so low anyway, it is not worth having the drink in the 1st place, if you intend driving.

_________________
Steve

All medication that effects your control of your senses, clearly states that you should not operate machinery.

A car is a Machine

It is clearly you, who does not understand the effects of medicine

_________________
Steve