Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Drug driving new laws

Options
13567…15

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Emmo-m- wrote: »
    So driving while on your phone is ILLEGAL. If you get pulled over and your phone is in your door can the guards charge you with using your phone will driving based on the fact that it is present in the car?

    They would have no proof of you using it but because it is present they can then ASSUME you were and charge you?

    I wish they would, but sadly we'll have to do without a phone in the boot law. Phones are legal. There seems to be a pattern to your posts, perhaps we could deal with the root issue rather than keep going through individual scenarios? What part of the following needs further explanation?

    Zero tolerance on legal substances is a perfectly acceptable policy decision.
    Drugs are illegal.
    Shrap wrote: »
    Ok, so fair enough if you're driving weirdly in front of a Garda car, you get pulled. I'd like to know if they're going to have the same "filling the quota" random spot checks as we get here from time to time. I might fail that one, having had one joint on a Friday and getting stopped and checked the following Thursday. That wouldn't seem very fair then. Random checks are one thing for alcohol and still being over the limit in the morning, but what if you're over the limit for a joint you had a week ago?

    And *yadayada* cannabis is illegal. I know. I also know how much better one illegal smoke is for me than a skinful of drink, and I like to relax once in a while. So sue me .....oh wait....the state is fine with suing me, right? 5,000 euro at a time. FFS.

    One is legal the other isn't. If you don't like that vote accordingly. You can only fill a quota when people oblige you by having drugs in their systems. You seem to be suggesting cannabis is in your saliva for 6 days, I took the first ston... er... posters word for it was gone after 24 hours, you refute this?


  • Options
    #63
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    This will set a terribly bad precedent. The test should be for impairment and so should have a limit below which there is no action taken. The idea that any guard can claim you were driving erratically and if any trace of an illegal drug is found in your system, no matter how minute, you can face severe penalties is outrageous.

    Why not say that if any quantity of alcohol is found in your system no matter how minute that must have been affecting your driving?

    Why not say that if any quantity of a prescription drug which mentions any possible side effect that might affect your driving (which is most of them) is found in your system that you should not have been driving?

    The obvious answer, as evidenced by a lot of responses here, is that people have no problem taking prescription painkillers and driving to work or doing drink maths to figure out if they spaced out their three pints enough to be able to drive home because they feel it won't seriously impair them (whether they are right or wrong varies a lot). They are very happy for a law supposed to be about impaired driving to double as random drug testing when it comes to illegal drugs.


  • Options
    #64
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    What part of the following needs further explanation?

    Zero tolerance on legal substances is a perfectly acceptable policy decision.

    This part. Zero tolerance policies in general are very wasteful to implement and ineffective. They do tend to appeal to the sort of people who like to overly simplify things though so politicians often use them to appeal to a naive electorate who are convinced that every issue has a simple solution if only anyone could see it as clearly as they can.


  • Options
    #65
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    This part. Zero tolerance policies in general are very wasteful to implement and ineffective. They do tend to appeal to the sort of people who like to overly simplify things though so politicians often use them to appeal to a naive electorate who are convinced that every issue has a simple solution if only anyone could see it as clearly as they can.

    Zero tolerance policies when it comes to driving are the best solution as everyone knows where they stand. The standard of driving is terrible as one man's impairment is another's ah sure it'll be grand. Case in point, some eejit asking what 'over the speed limit was' the other day.

    Either way the drugs mentioned are illegal so its moot.


  • Options
    #66
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    You seem to be suggesting cannabis is in your saliva for 6 days, I took the first ston... er... posters word for it was gone after 24 hours, you refute this?

    I've no idea. And btw, I'm nobody's definition of a stoner, any more than a person who drinks one or two G&T's on a Friday night every three weeks or so is an alcoholic. I've heard so many different stories about how long cannabis stays traceable in your system that I wouldn't know what to think of it. I do take your point about it being illegal, therefore it's my own fault if I get fined five grand. However, it's still petty and open to being a money racket, considering how many of our population use cannabis so sparingly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Keith186
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭Keith186


    I'd strongly disagree that zero tolerance is a good policy, quite the contrary. Zero tolerance is only required to deal with endemic problems where other solutions have failed, we are not at that point yet.
    The fact that something is illegal is irrelevant to driving laws if the substance does not have an effect on the persons driving. If you were transporting fireworks you would not get a driving disqualification as it does not impair driving. If had some trace of one of these substances in your system it wouldn't impair your driving, but if you had more than a trace it would likely impair your driving, so that's why the zero tolerance aspect with zero limits isn't really a fair law.

    Being a badly disabled driver is more of an impairment than someone who consumed substances days ago where the effects have worn off.


  • Options
    #68
    Emmo-m-
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭Emmo-m-


    Can anyone confirm whether or not the law states it is illegal to consume any of the illegal substances in Ireland?

    I know in the UK not strictly illegal to take drugs, only to unlawfully produce them, have them in your possession or pass them to someone else.


  • Options
    #69
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    MarkAnthony wrote: »

    Zero tolerance on legal substances is a perfectly acceptable policy decision.
    Drugs are illegal.

    No they are not. Possession of certain drugs under certain circumstances is illegal.
    The rsa recommend using caffeine to combat driver fatigue.
    The Oireachtas sells alcohol to legislators aftter ordinary citizens are legally barred from buying alcohol
    A landowner who has magic mushrooms growing on her land is breaking no law

    Tea, chocolate, nutmeg, ibuprofen, willow bark, all grand


  • Options
    #70
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    No they are not. Possession of certain drugs under certain circumstances is illegal.
    The rsa recommend using caffeine to combat driver fatigue.
    The Oireachtas sells alcohol to legislators aftter ordinary citizens are legally barred from buying alcohol
    A landowner who has magic mushrooms growing on her land is breaking no law

    Tea, chocolate, nutmeg, ibuprofen, willow bark, all grand

    I didn't think this thread could be taken to another level of ridiculous - wrong again it seems. Actually any of the above if they're causing impairment would be covered, but lets just read posts with the context of the thread will we? Regardless, drugs - as delimited in the bill - have controls. This is simply another control.

    The law is being brought in as a road safety measure. The rights of the public at large vs the rights of an individual that takes drugs to drive is really a no brainier. If you want to go on a bender simply make sure you're going to be clean next time you drive - simples.


  • Options
    #71
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Emmo-m- wrote: »
    So driving while on your phone is ILLEGAL. If you get pulled over and your phone is in your door can the guards charge you with using your phone will driving based on the fact that it is present in the car?

    They would have no proof of you using it but because it is present they can then ASSUME you were and charge you?

    No.
    Shrap wrote: »
    Ok, so fair enough if you're driving weirdly in front of a Garda car, you get pulled. I'd like to know if they're going to have the same "filling the quota" random spot checks as we get here from time to time. I might fail that one, having had one joint on a Friday and getting stopped and checked the following Thursday. That wouldn't seem very fair then. Random checks are one thing for alcohol and still being over the limit in the morning, but what if you're over the limit for a joint you had a week ago?

    And *yadayada* cannabis is illegal. I know. I also know how much better one illegal smoke is for me than a skinful of drink, and I like to relax once in a while. So sue me .....oh wait....the state is fine with suing me, right? 5,000 euro at a time. FFS.

    €5000 would be a maximum fine. Unless you have a habit of going before a judge then you wouldn't receive anything near that. I'm not sure what you mean with the "filling the quota" stuff.
    HivemindXX wrote: »
    This will set a terribly bad precedent. The test should be for impairment and so should have a limit below which there is no action taken. The idea that any guard can claim you were driving erratically and if any trace of an illegal drug is found in your system, no matter how minute, you can face severe penalties is outrageous.

    Why not say that if any quantity of alcohol is found in your system no matter how minute that must have been affecting your driving?

    Why not say that if any quantity of a prescription drug which mentions any possible side effect that might affect your driving (which is most of them) is found in your system that you should not have been driving?

    The obvious answer, as evidenced by a lot of responses here, is that people have no problem taking prescription painkillers and driving to work or doing drink maths to figure out if they spaced out their three pints enough to be able to drive home because they feel it won't seriously impair them (whether they are right or wrong varies a lot). They are very happy for a law supposed to be about impaired driving to double as random drug testing when it comes to illegal drugs.

    The current law also has zero tolerance for drugs and has done for some time. The only difference is that, at present, Gardaí have to also give some evidence of bad driving. The only difference the new law seems to make is that it removes the requirement to present evidence of bad driving if they can produce evidence of very recent consumption of drugs, i.e. the saliva test.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Does this law apply to prescription Medication?


  • Options
    #73
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    melissak wrote: »
    Does this law apply to prescription Medication?

    It is in the new legislation but with an impairment requirement.

    It should be noted the saliva test is limited to certain named illegal drugs.


  • Options
    #74
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    melissak wrote: »
    Does this law apply to prescription Medication?

    Impaired driving is impaired whatever causes the impairment.

    "Sleep Driving" has been a problem in the US for a long time. This story from 2007.

    "WASHINGTON -- All prescription sleeping pills may sometimes cause sleep-driving, federal health officials warned Wednesday, almost a year after the bizarre side effect first made headlines when Rep. Patrick Kennedy crashed his car after taking Ambien.
    It's a more complicated version of sleepwalking, but behind the wheel: getting up in the middle of the night and going for a drive _ with no memory of doing so."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031401027.html


  • Options
    #75
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    It is in the new legislation but with an impairment requirement.

    It should be noted the saliva test is limited to certain named illegal drugs.

    Is this constitutional, to pick and choose, God knows the likes of valium would impair driving as much as a joint


  • Options
    #76
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #77
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    Would your casual stoner have the money to take a case to the Supreme Court?

    How much does it cost do you know?


  • Options
    #78
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    melissak wrote: »
    Is this constitutional, to pick and choose, God knows the likes of valium would impair driving as much as a joint

    Yes it would. One is a percription drug being given for a medical reason, the other is an illeagal drug being used for the craic. The only issue I can see is if there is a theoputic use of cannabis perscribed by a doctor, if that ever happens here.

    It's illeagal to drive impaired by a perscription drug.


  • Options
    #79
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #80
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    You might get legal aid, alternatively you could run the case yourself. It would probably be off the back off a criminal charge. I'm sure it'll be challenged at somepoint and rightly so. Hopefully it survives the challenge.


  • Options
    #81
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    glued
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,446 ✭✭✭glued


    My understanding is that traces of drugs in your system cannot be used to prove possession but it can be used, obviously, to prove that you were under the influence.

    Now, unless they set a limit, there is the potential for the DPP to try an convict somebody who actually hasn't committed an offence i.e somebody smokes a small quantity of cannabis on Friday and gets tested on Monday. It's extremely unlikely that the DPP would successfully prosecute in this case as any lawyer should easily be able to argue the point that the driver had taken drugs in the past few days but was not under the influence at the time of testing.

    Ireland has a very poor record when it comes to dealing with drugs. Obviously it's important to keep people from driving under the influence but I'm not sure whether this law is going to change anything. I imagine any case that is to be successful under this law will have to be accompanied by an admission from the driver or failing a field test.


  • Options
    #83
    quintus
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭quintus


    So on the 12th April over the Easter weekend the Gardaí will be setting up check points and testing their new device, the Draeger Drugtest 5000.

    The accuracy of this device has been brought in to question in countries where it has been in use for many years (Cannot post links)

    What can I do if the kit gives a false reading? I do not have the finances to hire a solicitor to argue my point in court.

    As a social worker I do visit certain people who do indeed smoke and it is inevitable that THC or a certain amount of it may enter my system. The idea that I will be fined 5000 Euros, get banned from driving for a year and get a criminal record is a bit daunting.

    Is there anyone that can give me advice on this.

    On top of all this, my wife has family living in Amsterdam and we visit on a regular basis. I myself and my wife do not smoke but her sister and two daughters do ( more socially forward thinking over there) It means that we will be unable to stay with them which will cost a fortune in hotel bills ( can't afford this) or ask them to leave their own home if they want to light up. We of course cannot expect them to do this.

    It seems like this law was introduced with out one single thought given to people like myself.

    I can imagine the Garda's face as I try to explain this to him as he takes a saliva sample on the side of the road.

    To be honest it is only a matter of time before this happens, and I do indeed lose my licence and receive a criminal record, so we are wondering whether we are better off moving to a more progressive minded society like Holland.

    I would appreciate any advice, legal or otherwise or hear from anyone who maybe in a similar position.

    Thank you.


  • Options
    #84
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    The roadside test is only a preliminary test. You still have to do a full test back at the station.


  • Options
    #85
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #86
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    They would have to call a doctor to take a blood test.

    I think there are new machines being installed in stations similar to intoxalyser to be used by Gardai.


  • Options
    #87
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    The machines are only for preliminary testing, blood tests will be required upon failing the preliminary test.


  • Options
    #88
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    quintus wrote: »
    So on the 12th April over the Easter weekend the Gardaí will be setting up check points and testing their new device, the Draeger Drugtest 5000.

    The accuracy of this device has been brought in to question in countries where it has been in use for many years (Cannot post links)

    What can I do if the kit gives a false reading? I do not have the finances to hire a solicitor to argue my point in court.

    The device is only for preliminary testing, I know it only has a 67% accuracy result, but that is why a blood test will be required which is near to 100% accurate.

    quintus wrote: »
    As a social worker I do visit certain people who do indeed smoke and it is inevitable that THC or a certain amount of it may enter my system. The idea that I will be fined 5000 Euros, get banned from driving for a year and get a criminal record is a bit daunting.

    Is there anyone that can give me advice on this.

    On top of all this, my wife has family living in Amsterdam and we visit on a regular basis. I myself and my wife do not smoke but her sister and two daughters do ( more socially forward thinking over there) It means that we will be unable to stay with them which will cost a fortune in hotel bills ( can't afford this) or ask them to leave their own home if they want to light up. We of course cannot expect them to do this.

    It seems like this law was introduced with out one single thought given to people like myself.

    I can imagine the Garda's face as I try to explain this to him as he takes a saliva sample on the side of the road.

    To be honest it is only a matter of time before this happens, and I do indeed lose my licence and receive a criminal record, so we are wondering whether we are better off moving to a more progressive minded society like Holland

    Not sure about absorbtion rates when involved in passive smoking etc but the legal limits for THC will be as follows within three hours of driving:-

    Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol - 1ng/ml

    11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol - 5ng/ml

    Is it possible to reach those levels just from passive smoking?

    And by the way whilst Holland may have relaxed rules when it comes to taking drugs you may be surprised to know that they have the same legal limits for driving under the influence of drugs that we do since 2011 which was adopted following consultation with the Netherlands Advisory Committee, with strict roadside testing in place since 2013.


  • Options
    #89
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Impaired driving includes driving under the influence of prescription medications you know. These people aren't necessarily "stoners". Below is a statistic on sleep aids but there's many other medications that cause drowsiness.

    "A study published online in June 2015 by the American Journal of Public Health found that people prescribed sleeping pills were around twice as likely to be in car crashes as other people. The researchers estimated that people taking sleep drugs were as likely to have a car crash as those driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit."

    http://www.consumerreports.org/drugs/the-problem-with-sleeping-pills/


  • Options
    #90
    quintus
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭quintus


    GM228 wrote: »
    The device is only for preliminary testing, I know it only has a 67% accuracy result, but that is why a blood test will be required which is near to 100% accurate.




    Not sure about absorbtion rates when involved in passive smoking etc but the legal limits for THC will be as follows within three hours of driving:-

    Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol - 1ng/ml

    11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol - 5ng/ml

    Is it possible to reach those levels just from passive smoking?

    And by the way whilst Holland may have relaxed rules when it comes to taking drugs you may be surprised to know that they have the same legal limits for driving under the influence of drugs that we do since 2011 which was adopted following consultation with the Netherlands Advisory Committee

    With public transport in Amsterdam being the way it is, who needs a car. Saying that can you break your scientific terms down into plain English please.?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement