[News] Drink / Drugs checks

[HHGull]

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.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

 

[Mustafa II]

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.

Why are there not spot checks for these like all the other drugs?

 

[maffew]

I have without a doubt smoked at least 50 000 joints in my life.

That's about 7.5 spliffs per day, every day for 20 years. Or 1 around around every say couple of hours awake

Have you been smoking much longer than 20 years? Say 40 years? Then maybe it's only 3 to 4 joints per day, and just 1 every 3 to 4 hours awake for 40 years.

How many pizzas have you munched do you reckon? I'd need a pizza or/and a couple of packets of monster munch and a galaxy caramel/some fruit pastilles each smoke easy, washed down with a pint of milk. Man I'd be well fat after 50k reefas

Oh you'd probably be over the limit driving for a decade at least from now btw

 

[Zeberdi]

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".

If the drugs are still in their system and they are not intoxicated or impaired, they should NOT be prosecuted.

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

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.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

Watch it.

I'm a pharmacologist, not a chemist.

Anyway you are arguing law not pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. And you are of course correct.

Hope you are enjoying some nice weather up North East.

 

[portlock seagull]

Why are there not spot checks for these like all the other drugs?

Look all this what about iffery is ridiculous. Drivers with Alcohol and illegal drugs in system can be lethal. A Lemsip isn’t.

 

[tedebear]

I do find more brazen use of cannabis these days, and from very early in the morning. So I'm not against this to be honest...

The use of it has changed I think, I used to get the odd whiff of it around evening time when I am out walking the dog or whatever, and it was mild and didn't bother me. Now on several morning walks to the train station, its been thick in the air, and obviously mixed with something else (or new varieties), its really strong!

Has the use of it changed as people "think" its more acceptable or should be legalised?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Why are there not spot checks for these like all the other drugs?

Because the drugs themselves are legal?

I feel you have ground your axe a bit too much now.

 

[Justice]

I have without a doubt smoked at least 50 000 joints in my life.

Mate, I want to be your weed guy

 

[Driver8]

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

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.

 

[Official Old Man]

Coming back in the coach from West Ham Saturday night, we got diverted through Westerham and Oxted. All along that road were pubs packed with revelers having a great time and every pub had a full car park. Not all drivers drink, but makes you wonder.

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

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.

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).

I'm guessing (an educated guess) that he smokes most days. And he drives most days - so assume if he was stopped and tested, he'd probably fail the test.

So I'm wondering how many people who do smoke, will leave it say 4 days before driving? Do people that smoke weed generally do so on a regular basis? Or is it a weekend thing for many?

 

[Gabbafella]

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.

Apologies for the slow response, suffering with man-flu.
As others have touched on, prescription drugs come with warnings about not driving or operating machinery etc.
I honestly don't know how that affects any charges should an accident occur or insurance cover.