HHGull
BZ fan club
- Dec 29, 2011
- 743
Those are covered separately.This should apply to prescription drugs, including caffeine, painkillers, anti-depressants or any other kind of drug that can affect driving performance.
Those are covered separately.This should apply to prescription drugs, including caffeine, painkillers, anti-depressants or any other kind of drug that can affect driving performance.
Prescription drugs that can impair driving have warnings on the bottle/box. If you drive after taking them, and have an accident, it makes no difference to the charge.That's really obtuse.
Surely the only thing that matters is whether the driver is intoxicated and as a result of it their driving is impaired.
This should apply to prescription drugs, including caffeine, painkillers, anti-depressants or any other kind of drug that can affect driving performance.
If the drugs are still in their system and they are not intoxicated or impaired, they should NOT be prosecuted.
This shouldn't be controversial, but the law does need to catch up. Lots of drivers will be unfairly prosecuted, while others are legally while unsafely intoxicated, with the current laws.
Prescription drugs that can impair driving have warnings on the bottle/box. If you drive after taking them, and have an accident, it makes no difference to the charge.
That's about 7.5 spliffs per day, every day for 20 years. Or 1 around around every say couple of hours awakeI have without a doubt smoked at least 50 000 joints in my life.
Well then you're pretty unique. Most people who smoke weed wouldn't say "sorry, I still can't drive as I had a joint four days ago".
Who would decide if you are or are not impaired or intoxicated by the alcohol/drugs still in your system especially after the alleged event had taken place? - the whole point of testing is that it is an objective test based on legally defined levels of drugs/alcohol in ones system at the time of testing that deems you to be over the legal limit, not how well you think you can perform certain tasks.If the drugs are still in their system and they are not intoxicated or impaired, they should NOT be prosecuted.
You do realize that you don't go from intoxicated to completely cannabis-free once the 4 days are up do you.
The problem with cannabis is that it is nominally illegal, so detection of any amount triggers a 'hit'. That's not how we deal with alcohol.
I will look up the PK of cannabinol (sorry, I meant THC) and explain this in more detail.....
That was easy. This means that after 24 h there won't be an active amount in the blood for normal users. Probably sooner.
Estimates of the elimination half‐life of THC vary 20. A population pharmacokinetic model has described a fast initial half‐life (approximately 6 min) and long terminal half‐life (22 h) 47, the latter influenced by equilibration between lipid storage compartments and the blood 37.
A relatively longer elimination half‐life is observed in heavy users 18, attributable to slow redistribution from deep compartments such as fatty tissues 18, 19. Consequently, THC concentrations >1 μg l–1 may be measurable in the blood of heavy users more than 24 h following the last cannabis use 18, 48, 49.
CBD has also been reported to have a long terminal elimination half‐life, with the average half‐life following intravenous dosing observed to be 24 ± 6 h and post‐inhalation to be 31 ± 4 h 21. An investigation of repeated daily oral administration of CBD elicited an elimination half‐life ranging from 2 to 5 days 50.
Watch it.Who would decide if you are or are not impaired or intoxicated by the alcohol/drugs still in your system especially after the alleged event had taken place? - the whole point of testing is that it is an objective test based on legally defined levels of drugs/alcohol in ones system at the time of testing that deems you to be over the legal limit, not how well you think you can perform certain tasks.
I should probably add that you really shouldn’t be arguing with a chemist about the effects of drugs on the body - especially an autistic one
Look all this what about iffery is ridiculous. Drivers with Alcohol and illegal drugs in system can be lethal. A Lemsip isn’t.Why are there not spot checks for these like all the other drugs?
Because the drugs themselves are legal?Why are there not spot checks for these like all the other drugs?
Mate, I want to be your weed guyI have without a doubt smoked at least 50 000 joints in my life.
Who would decide if you are or are not impaired or intoxicated by the alcohol/drugs still in your system especially after the alleged event had taken place? - the whole point of testing is that it is an objective test based on legally defined levels of drugs/alcohol in ones system at the time of testing that deems you to be over the legal limit, not how well you think you can perform certain tasks.
I should probably add that you really shouldn’t be arguing with a chemist about the effects of drugs on the body - especially an autistic one
Apart from one or two cigarettes I smoked when I was 14/15 - which I hated and never repeated - I've never considered taking or smoking anything else. I know that my next door neighbour smokes weed/cannabis ... we can smell it almost every time we go into our house as he's not allowed to smoke in his rented house (the front doors are quite close to each other). He's back driving having been banned for drink driving a few years ago (that didn't stop him popping down to the local shop in his car when he was banned).As I mentioned above the roadside test for illegal drugs isn’t to see if you are above the level at which you are impaired, it is to see if you have any level above which you could have “accidentally” been exposed to. It’s why it is called zero tolerance. Personally I don’t agree but that’s the rule. Nobody is impaired four days after smoking weed but there may still be enough trace to fail a roadside test.