The principle is fine, but as usual the practice is not.
The original expert proposal was that the limits should be set based on evidence of impairment, but the government rejected this in favour of setting the limits at the lowest detectable point, which basically means any detectable amount regardless of whether the driver is actually under its influence or not.
This is especially relevant in the case of cannabis, which stays in the body long after its influence has gone. The government has yet to comment on that, and probably won't, though the Department of Transport has actually admitted the proposal is intended to stop all drug consumption before driving, rather than to stop driving under the influence.
Delta–9–Tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis and Cannabinol), 2 µg/L - how much is that? Would a person consume that amount normally through one joint for instance?
(FWIW I'm all for this law, regardless of moral arguments of taking drugs, anything that keeps drivers more focussed has to be a good thing).
A new law, which comes into force in March 2015, makes it illegal to drive with certain drugs in the body over a specified limit.
Currently, police have to prove the driver was impaired due to drug use.
If the levels measured for actually do significantly impair driving, then fair enough. But otherwise it becomes another way of oppressing people for using drugs on their own time.
Obviously difficult to find an unbiased source on the internet who else would host such material other than those with an interest in reading it? Feel free to follow their citations and read the studies they have summarised yourself
Obviously difficult to find an unbiased source on the internet who else would host such material other than those with an interest in reading it? Feel free to follow their citations and read the studies they have summarised yourself
Peer reviews journals per chance????
Also, and stupidly, personal experience- small amounts are extremely dangerous. If you're caught drug-driving you're a cretin who deserves everything they get (including losing job etc)
Slowing down, because you're not capable of driving properly is hardly an excuse to allow driving whilst under the influence of drugs. You seem to be missing the point.
Indeed, I smoke a couple of joints most nights but I would never drive whilst stoned because I know I'm not safe.
I don't drive until the next day after I've slept.
The principle is fine, but as usual the practice is not.
The original expert proposal was that the limits should be set based on evidence of impairment, but the government rejected this in favour of setting the limits at the lowest detectable point, which basically means any detectable amount regardless of whether the driver is actually under its influence or not.
This is especially relevant in the case of cannabis, which stays in the body long after its influence has gone. The government has yet to comment on that, and probably won't, though the Department of Transport has actually admitted the proposal is intended to stop all drug consumption before driving, rather than to stop driving under the influence.
So, less about safety more about moralising.
Looks like I'm ****ed, I better start drinking the hard stuff again instead.>:(
Indeed, I smoke a couple of joints most nights but I would never drive whilst stoned because I know I'm not safe.
I don't drive until the next day after I've slept.
So, less about safety more about moralising.
Looks like I'm ****ed, I better start drinking the hard stuff again instead.>:(
Well at least you'll be mellow about being arrested and charged and maybe losing your job.
The fact is that people who drive when stoned slow down their cars and drive more carefully perhaps even leading to a safer driver when compared to someone not intoxicated. Here is a video although not entirely scientific with only one driver from 5th gear a few years ago
Most drink drivers will slow down too (I've followed and caught enough), that doesn't make them more careful, it means they're trying to compensate for their impairment.
The current method of testing drug drivers - field impairment tests - is far from ideal.
I would have thought that this applies to prescribed drugs as well ?
This kind of thing seems to go under the radar.I've had several arguments with family/friends who think it's OK to drive whilst taking medication
It seems to be the legal status of a drug which makes it dangerous. In countries where cannabis is illegal it is found to be a contributing cause of accidents, but in all American states where it has been decriminalised - deaths by road traffic accident (and suicides) have significantly reduced, compared to those where it remains illegal.
Those who self medicate with illegal drugs, in order to more easily cope with stressful situations like driving, will not be tolerated, while "Our approach does not unduly penalise drivers who have taken properly prescribed medicines". In many cases those same legal medicines are so debilitating that users find they can't drive, whereas they gain enough relief, using illegal cannabis, to be able to.
There will be fewer good drivers on our roads after March 2015.
Cannabis generally leads to safer driving so I dont see why that should be tested for
No it doesn't. It makes people dopey and slows their reactions. Sheesh. Reminds me of the boy racers who used to swear a few pints made them a better driver. In their heads they became Bodie & Doyle, but to everyone else they were death on wheels.
Indeed, I smoke a couple of joints most nights but I would never drive whilst stoned because I know I'm not safe.
I don't drive until the next day after I've slept. So, less about safety more about moralising.
Looks like I'm ****ed, I better start drinking the hard stuff again instead.>:(
Looks like it!!! You're doomed!!!
So are all of those who do the weekend jaunts to Amsterdam and spend the weekend in coffee shops!
Or those who meet up occasionally with old uni mates and spend the night recreating their fresher years!😜
I would have thought that this applies to prescribed drugs as well ?
This kind of thing seems to go under the radar.I've had several arguments with family/friends who think it's OK to drive whilst taking medication
The problem is that the impact they have on each person is variable. I've got a friend who gets woozy after half a Co-codamol, but I regularly take several a day along with Ibuprofen when I am in severe pain and it they don't make me woozy at all.
It seems to be the legal status of a drug which makes it dangerous. In countries where cannabis is illegal it is found to be a contributing cause of accidents, but in all American states where it has been decriminalised - deaths by road traffic accident (and suicides) have significantly reduced, compared to those where it remains illegal.(
I would have thought that this applies to prescribed drugs as well ?
This kind of thing seems to go under the radar.I've had several arguments with family/friends who think it's OK to drive whilst taking medication
At the moment, and for many years, it has been an offence to drive whilst unfit through drink or drugs, and that includes prescribed, or any legal drug. It is about the impairment, not what caused it.
This can only be a good thing, there's no tolerance to drunk drivers and even some medication you cannot drive so if they crack (pardon the pun) on drugged drivers then the roads will be a safer place
This can only be a good thing, there's no tolerance to drunk drivers and even some medication you cannot drive so if they crack (pardon the pun) on drugged drivers then the roads will be a safer place
the problem with this test is that cannabis can be detected in saliva for up to ten days afterwards.
I can't speak for others, but I couldn't drive a car when I'm stoned.
I can when I am not though, but seeing as drugs tests show positive for THC metabolites as much as a month later, does this mean I could be done for "drug driving" the day after a smoke when I am not at all stoned?
the problem with this test is that cannabis can be detected in saliva for up to ten days afterwards.
At the moment there is no legislation that places a limit on a specific drug, although there will be next year, and we need to know the details of that before we can say anything.
This test is a guide, much like the roadside breath test procedure, and gives grounds to suspect an offence. At the moment, it still has to be proved that a person is unfit to drive due to drugs, and that is far from simple.
At the moment there is no legislation that places a limit on a specific drug, although there will be next year, and we need to know the details of that before we can say anything.
This test is a guide, much like the roadside breath test procedure, and gives grounds to suspect an offence. At the moment, it still has to be proved that a person is unfit to drive due to drugs, and that is far from simple.
the problem again, is that they are using the kits "within the next few days" and "Forces will be encouraged to use the devices "as quickly as possible", the spokesperson added."
cannabis stays in the blood for a couple of days too, i`d like to know how they are going to be assessing it.
Comments
The original expert proposal was that the limits should be set based on evidence of impairment, but the government rejected this in favour of setting the limits at the lowest detectable point, which basically means any detectable amount regardless of whether the driver is actually under its influence or not.
This is especially relevant in the case of cannabis, which stays in the body long after its influence has gone. The government has yet to comment on that, and probably won't, though the Department of Transport has actually admitted the proposal is intended to stop all drug consumption before driving, rather than to stop driving under the influence.
Delta–9–Tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis and Cannabinol), 2 µg/L - how much is that? Would a person consume that amount normally through one joint for instance?
(FWIW I'm all for this law, regardless of moral arguments of taking drugs, anything that keeps drivers more focussed has to be a good thing).
Not an unbiased source at all.....
Jesus wept.
If the levels measured for actually do significantly impair driving, then fair enough. But otherwise it becomes another way of oppressing people for using drugs on their own time.
Obviously difficult to find an unbiased source on the internet who else would host such material other than those with an interest in reading it? Feel free to follow their citations and read the studies they have summarised yourself
Peer reviews journals per chance????
Also, and stupidly, personal experience- small amounts are extremely dangerous. If you're caught drug-driving you're a cretin who deserves everything they get (including losing job etc)
Indeed, I smoke a couple of joints most nights but I would never drive whilst stoned because I know I'm not safe.
I don't drive until the next day after I've slept.
So, less about safety more about moralising.
Looks like I'm ****ed, I better start drinking the hard stuff again instead.>:(
I'd have to agree with this. There's not much difference between a stoned driver and an OAP out for a Sunday drive. Annoying yes, unsafe?...hardly
Well at least you'll be mellow about being arrested and charged and maybe losing your job.
What a load of rubbish. Well done for posting up a completely unbalanced source too. ;-)
Most drink drivers will slow down too (I've followed and caught enough), that doesn't make them more careful, it means they're trying to compensate for their impairment.
The current method of testing drug drivers - field impairment tests - is far from ideal.
This kind of thing seems to go under the radar.I've had several arguments with family/friends who think it's OK to drive whilst taking medication
Those who self medicate with illegal drugs, in order to more easily cope with stressful situations like driving, will not be tolerated, while "Our approach does not unduly penalise drivers who have taken properly prescribed medicines". In many cases those same legal medicines are so debilitating that users find they can't drive, whereas they gain enough relief, using illegal cannabis, to be able to.
There will be fewer good drivers on our roads after March 2015.
No it doesn't. It makes people dopey and slows their reactions. Sheesh. Reminds me of the boy racers who used to swear a few pints made them a better driver. In their heads they became Bodie & Doyle, but to everyone else they were death on wheels.
Looks like it!!! You're doomed!!!
So are all of those who do the weekend jaunts to Amsterdam and spend the weekend in coffee shops!
Or those who meet up occasionally with old uni mates and spend the night recreating their fresher years!😜
All doomed!!!!
The problem is that the impact they have on each person is variable. I've got a friend who gets woozy after half a Co-codamol, but I regularly take several a day along with Ibuprofen when I am in severe pain and it they don't make me woozy at all.
That's very interesting.
At the moment, and for many years, it has been an offence to drive whilst unfit through drink or drugs, and that includes prescribed, or any legal drug. It is about the impairment, not what caused it.
the problem with this test is that cannabis can be detected in saliva for up to ten days afterwards.
I can when I am not though, but seeing as drugs tests show positive for THC metabolites as much as a month later, does this mean I could be done for "drug driving" the day after a smoke when I am not at all stoned?
Excellent news.
At the moment there is no legislation that places a limit on a specific drug, although there will be next year, and we need to know the details of that before we can say anything.
This test is a guide, much like the roadside breath test procedure, and gives grounds to suspect an offence. At the moment, it still has to be proved that a person is unfit to drive due to drugs, and that is far from simple.
the problem again, is that they are using the kits "within the next few days" and "Forces will be encouraged to use the devices "as quickly as possible", the spokesperson added."
cannabis stays in the blood for a couple of days too, i`d like to know how they are going to be assessing it.