DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE

DUB777

I've just received a summons for allegedly Driving under the Influence of Cannabis. I wasn't stoned at the time, but was taken down to the station and made give a blood sample. I had a smoke at 2 o clock that day and was arrested at 11 o clock that night. Does anyone know of any good legal representation in Dublin that specializes in this kind of DUI as I'm not in a position to loose my licence.
Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

themadchef

I'm not trying to be smart but how is it any different to someone drinking till 2 and getting bagged the next day at eleven?

Also i have to wonder what caused the guard to make the assumption you were stoned and do the blood test in the first place.

If you are summoned to court then i take it the blood sample is positive for cannabis?

Best of luck with it but you havent a leg to stand on i'd say.

DUB777

The effects of it don't last half the time of drink. I could of smoked 2 weeks before I was pulled over[ for running an amber light] & the blood test would still be positive because it takes between 3 weeks to a month to clear out of your system. So had I had a smoke 2 weeks before, I'd still be looking at a ban, because they've no way to test exactly when it was taken.

Saruman

DUB777 wrote: »

The effects of it don't last half the time of drink. I could of smoked 2 weeks before I was pulled over[ for running an amber light] & the blood test would still be positive because it takes between 3 weeks to a month to clear out of your system. So had I had a smoke 2 weeks before, I'd still be looking at a ban, because they've no way to test exactly when it was taken.

That's a very good point and something that should be tested in court.

I am curious though, you can be pulled over for running an amber light? Amber means stop if it is safe to do so. Unless you floored it as the light went amber?

DUB777

I didn't floor it & I didnt make an effort to stop. It was late at night & there wasn't many around so instead of having to sit and wait for the 3 minute cycle to come around again I kept going. It was amber when I passed it & no doubt in my mind red when they ran it. I didn't realize they were behind me:(:mad::(

Offy

I wouldn't hold out much hope. Its illegial and I dont believe it will matter to a court that you were not off your bin at the time you were stopped. You were caught with it in your system while driving, in saying that I do believe that a good precentage of the population could be done for the same if everyone was tested at the roadside. Best of luck and let us know how you get on please? Vote for Ming anymore!

Offy

DUB777 wrote: »

I didn't realize they were behind me:(:mad::(

I wouldnt say that in court if I was you.

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

The effects of it don't last half the time of drink. I could of smoked 2 weeks before I was pulled over[ for running an amber light] & the blood test would still be positive because it takes between 3 weeks to a month to clear out of your system. So had I had a smoke 2 weeks before, I'd still be looking at a ban, because they've no way to test exactly when it was taken.

Thats not true when it comes to a blood test for cannabis. The levels drop rapidly after smoking a joint.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html

tayto lover

The OP obviously had a fairly high reading if it showed up in his blood. If it was alcohol the reading would have to be above a particular amount for him to be done and i presume cannabis has a limit too.
In America the amount of Drug Driving and Drunk Driving are on a par and there is no excuse for either. As the old saying goes " ignorance is no defence" but good luck anyway and i hope you learned your lesson. Something gave you away for you to be stopped and checked in the first place. It could have been worse if you had an accident.

Saruman

A quick google finds that someone already tried to play the "It's not fair, the amount of drugs in system cant be measured" card.

Looks like if you fight it, you will end up having to go further.

However in that case the Garda clearly believed he was under the influence.

Why did they insist on a drug test from you? That is not standard procedure is it? There must have been a suspicion that you were under the influence but not drink as you would have just had a breath test right?

drkpower

tayto lover wrote: »

The OP obviously had a fairly high reading if it showed up in his blood. If it was alcohol the reading would have to be above a particular amount for him to be done and i presume cannabis has a limit too.

I may be wrong, but i dont think there is a limit for cannabis levels here. I presume a conviction would be secured by a combination of the Garda's evidence as to the apparent level of intoxication of the driver supported by the actual level in the blood test. For instance, if the level was quitelow/negligible, it would require very persuasive evidence of the Garda, and vice versa.

DUB777

Saruman wrote: »

A quick google finds that someone already tried to play the "It's not fair, the amount of drugs in system cant be measured" card.

Looks like if you fight it, you will end up having to go further.

However in that case the Garda clearly believed he was under the influence.

Why did they insist on a drug test from you? That is not standard procedure is it? There must have been a suspicion that you were under the influence but not drink as you would have just had a breath test right?

I ran an amber light & thats why they pulled me.

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

I ran an amber light & thats why they pulled me.

But why did they insist on a blood test? It is not standard practice to bring those who run amber lights to the station and take a cannabis bloood test from them.

Saruman

DUB777 wrote: »

I ran an amber light & thats why they pulled me.

That's not what I asked, see drkpower's post.

DUB777

I ran an amber light, they pulled me & he breathalized me, came up clean & said he was taking me down to the station. I dont know what was going on inside his head, thats just what happened.

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

I ran an amber light, they pulled me & he breathalized me, came up clean & said he was taking me down to the station. I dont know what was going on inside his head, thats just what happened.

That is very hard to believe, to be honest.

First, if any normal person was breathylysed and came up normal and was then asked to go to the station, they would surely ask why? Did you not ask why you were being brought to the station?

Second, Gardai are usuallly very careful to explain why they are taking certain steps to ensure that any later conviction cannot be found to unsafe due to procedural irregularities.

Saruman

There had to be a reason your were brought to the station. Clearly they believed you were under the influence of something.

Gardai have better things to be doing than hauling everyone who runs a light off to get a blood test.

I'm afraid you are going to have to accept it and hope when you are in court that you are not up first in case the Judge decides to make an example out of you.

MagicSean

If the roadside test was clear and you were still arrested then you had to be showing signs of intoxication to such an extent that he was still satisfied you were under the influence. You only remember running a light but most people arrested for driving under the influence think they drive like a professional when in fact they could be all over the place.

You last smoked a joint at two so you would still have been under the influence of the drug. It takes a long time for the effects of cannabis to ware off. Some studies state that it can effect your abilities and responses for up to three months. And it sounds like you are a regular toker. If you think that you are safe to drive a few hours after smoking a joint you are a very irresponsable driver to be honest.

DUB777

k_mac wrote: »

If the roadside test was clear and you were still arrested then you had to be showing signs of intoxication to such an extent that he was still satisfied you were under the influence. You only remember running a light but most people arrested for driving under the influence think they drive like a professional when in fact they could be all over the place.

You last smoked a joint at two so you would still have been under the influence of the drug. It takes a long time for the effects of cannabis to ware off. Some studies state that it can effect your abilities and responses for up to three months. And it sounds like you are a regular toker. If you think that you are safe to drive a few hours after smoking a joint you are a very irresponsable driver to be honest.

I'd had the smoke, had something to eat & had slept for a couple of hours after. It depends on the individual how long the effects last for, some people it could last an hour others it could last far longer. If you smoke one a day its not going to affect you the same as someone who rarely smokes. Someone who isn't used to it would be cained after a smoke. I do like a smoke, I dont drink. It's the same as having a glass of wine or bottle of beer, only the government says it's illegal, & I wasn't under the influence at the time. I'd had a nap and woke up feeling fresh as a daisy.

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

I wasn't under the influence at the time. I'd had a nap and woke up feeling fresh as a daisy.

Why were you asked to go the station?
Did you ask why were you asked to go the station?

If not, one has to wonder why? Such placidity in attitude is a hallmark of cannabis intoxication....;)

Saruman

I doubt it's the same at all. A glass of beer (half pint) is completely gone from your system within an hour. However you could drink a full pint of beer, be over the limit but still feel "fresh as a daisy" as you put it. However your reaction times are slower, you just don't notice.

Cannabis is a mind altering substance and is completely different to alcohol. Alcohol is a depressant but cannabis is a depressant, stimulant and hallucinogen all rolled in to one little package which makes it far more dangerous and completely unpredictable.

How would you know how it affects you if you are under the influence? In the same way an alcoholic does not realise how their drinking really affects them.

The point is that as we have suggested, gardai don't just bring people for blood tests without good reason. You must have shown signs of being under the influence of something which means you should not have been driving.

only the government says it's illegal

They tend to be the only ones who can

Jagle

Saruman wrote: »

I doubt it's the same at all. A glass of beer (half pint) is completely gone from your system within an hour. However you could drink a full pint of beer, be over the limit but still feel "fresh as a daisy" as you put it. However your reaction times are slower, you just don't notice.

Cannabis is a mind altering substance and is completely different to alcohol. Alcohol is a depressant but cannabis is a depressant, stimulant and hallucinogen all rolled in to one little package which makes it far more dangerous and completely unpredictable.

How would you know how it affects you if you are under the influence? In the same way an alcoholic does not realise how their drinking really affects them.

The point is that as we have suggested, gardai don't just bring people for blood tests without good reason. You must have shown signs of being under the influence of something which means you should not have been driving.



They tend to be the only ones who can

go smoke a joint or 2 regularly, youll know when your not stoned, and that time frame is how long it takes me to deffinetly not be feeling the effects, taking a nap/sleeping etc.

the bottom line is they cant prove how high you were, only that it was in your system, id be getting the best lawyer i could afford.

but i have a feeling they will show no mercy and convict you to the fullest extent

charlemont

DUB777 wrote: »

The effects of it don't last half the time of drink. I could of smoked 2 weeks before I was pulled over[ for running an amber light] & the blood test would still be positive because it takes between 3 weeks to a month to clear out of your system. So had I had a smoke 2 weeks before, I'd still be looking at a ban, because they've no way to test exactly when it was taken.

Best of luck, deny deny deny.

Paulw

Jagle wrote: »

the bottom line is they cant prove how high you were, only that it was in your system

That's all they have to do, under the law.

What's the penalty? 1 year driving ban ... plus fine ... ???

charlemont

k_mac wrote: »

If the roadside test was clear and you were still arrested then you had to be showing signs of intoxication to such an extent that he was still satisfied you were under the influence. You only remember running a light but most people arrested for driving under the influence think they drive like a professional when in fact they could be all over the place.

You last smoked a joint at two so you would still have been under the influence of the drug. It takes a long time for the effects of cannabis to ware off. Some studies state that it can effect your abilities and responses for up to three months. And it sounds like you are a regular toker. If you think that you are safe to drive a few hours after smoking a joint you are a very irresponsable driver to be honest.

utter rubbish..

DUB777

Jagle wrote: »

go smoke a joint or 2 regularly, youll know when your not stoned, and that time frame is how long it takes me to deffinetly not be feeling the effects, taking a nap/sleeping etc.

the bottom line is they cant prove how high you were, only that it was in your system, id be getting the best lawyer i could afford.

but i have a feeling they will show no mercy and convict you to the fullest extent

Yea I kind of have that feeling myself:(

DUB777

Paulw wrote: »

That's all they have to do, under the law.

What's the penalty? 1 year driving ban ... plus fine ... ???

Think the minimum is a 2 year ban, & if you try pull the Gary Doyle card, they can double it to 4 years. I dont think I'll ask him to try that.

DUB777

charlemont wrote: »

utter rubbish..

I totally agree with you, they sound like a 'know it all' who doesn't know AT all.

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

I totally agree with you, they sound like a 'know it all' who doesn't know AT all.

Many people here are merely raising the types of questions that will be raised if you end up in court. Yet you are failing to answers these same questions.

So you come on here looking for advice & pointers; people raise the type of questions you may face in court; and then you dont address those questions and call people 'know it alls'.....:D:rolleyes:

DUB777

Saruman wrote: »

I doubt it's the same at all. A glass of beer (half pint) is completely gone from your system within an hour. However you could drink a full pint of beer, be over the limit but still feel "fresh as a daisy" as you put it. However your reaction times are slower, you just don't notice.

Cannabis is a mind altering substance and is completely different to alcohol. Alcohol is a depressant but cannabis is a depressant, stimulant and hallucinogen all rolled in to one little package which makes it far more dangerous and completely unpredictable.

How would you know how it affects you if you are under the influence? In the same way an alcoholic does not realise how their drinking really affects them.

The point is that as we have suggested, gardai don't just bring people for blood tests without good reason. You must have shown signs of being under the influence of something which means you should not have been driving.



They tend to be the only ones who can

Hallucinogen??Are you sure we are talking about delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol here?.? I've never heard of anyone hallucinate from a smoke, unless it was heroin, crack, pills or amphetamines.

colatube

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

Hallucinogen??Are you sure we are talking about delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol here?.? I've never heard of anyone hallucinate from a smoke, unless it was heroin, crack, pills or amphetamines.

Ah come on now, you can use google well enough to get the precise chemical name for it; surely you could have also found a milllion sites which confirms that THC can be a hallucinogen, albeit a mild one!

DUB777

drkpower wrote: »

Many people here are merely raising the types of questions that will be raised if you end up in court. Yet you are failing to answers these same questions.

So you come on here looking for advice & pointers; people raise the type of questions you may face in court; and then you dont address those questions and call people 'know it alls'.....:D:rolleyes:

Failing to answer what questions? I ran an amber light, got pulled, breathlised. Passed the breathliser, was the arrested & taken into the station. After being in the cells a few hours they said I can wait 2 hours for the doctor to come give me a urine test or get blood taken in 10 min. I wanted out of there as it was nearly 3 o clock in the morning so I opted for the blood. If you smoked you'd know yourself I wasn't stoned nearly 8 hours after having a smoke. As I said in a previous post it depends entirely on the individual & how much was consumed.

Offy

DUB777 wrote: »

Hallucinogen??Are you sure we are talking about delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol here?.? I've never heard of anyone hallucinate from a smoke, unless it was heroin, crack, pills or amphetamines.

I did from some northern lights in Amsterdam years ago, it does that Im afraid.

Offy

DUB777 wrote: »

Failing to answer what questions? I ran an amber light, got pulled, breathlised. Passed the breathliser, was the arrested & taken into the station. After being in the cells a few hours they said I can wait 2 hours for the doctor to come give me a urine test or get blood taken in 10 min. I wanted out of there as it was nearly 3 o clock in the morning so I opted for the blood. If you smoked you'd know yourself I wasn't stoned nearly 8 hours after having a smoke. As I said in a previous post it depends entirely on the individual & how much was consumed.

None of that matters, what matters is that you were caught driving with it in your system and it isillegial to drive with it in your system. Period. Your nicked mate!!!

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

Failing to answer what questions? .

Why were you asked to go the station?
Did you ask why were you asked to go the station?

DUB777 wrote: »

If you smoked you'd know yourself I wasn't stoned nearly 8 hours after having a smoke. As I said in a previous post it depends entirely on the individual & how much was consumed.

Used to smoke quite a bit actuallly.

But in any case, it is not a matter of whether you are 'stoned'; it is a matter of whether you had consumed an intoxicant to such an extent you were incapable of having proper control of a mechanically propelled vehicle. And, as many of us have said to you, the Gardai must have suspected same if he brought you to the station to have a blood sample taken.

DUB777

drkpower wrote: »

Ah come on now, you can use google well enough to get the precise chemical name for it; surely you could have also found a milllion sites which confirms that THC can be a hallucinogen, albeit a mild one!

I'm speaking from experience, not google. Any eejit can make up a web page. I suppose it as hallucinogenic as Paris Hilton made out to send her driving down the wrong way on a motorway?

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

I'm speaking from experience, not google. Any eejit can make up a web page. I suppose it as hallucinogenic as Paris Hilton made out to send her driving down the wrong way on a motorway?

There are many many reputable medical websites (and textbooks) that confirm that cannabis can be a hallucinogen.

When you took exception to Saruman's post, you said that you 'never heard of' anyone having hallucinogenic effects. I presume you appreciate that just because you have never had hallucinogenic effects, or because you never heard of anyone having hallucinogenic effects, does not mean that the drug cannot cause hallucinogenic effects?

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

I didnt ask him no because his partner was to busy frisking my lady friend which is totally illegal for a male officer to frisk a female. I was a bit preoccupied with that going on to listen to the sausage while he was reading my 'rights'.

You never asked in all the time that it took for you to be brought to the station; and in all the time that you were in the cells.....?:rolleyes: Do you think that is at all credible?

And when you say he read you your 'rights', do you mean you were arrested? Did you not ask at any time why you were being arrested...? Do you think that is at all credible?

What comes across here is one of three things:
1. You are an incredibly meek individual, afraid to ask why you are being arrested/brought to the station.
2. You were quite intoxicated and have forgotten most of what occurred.
3. You are lying.

DUB777

drkpower wrote: »

You never asked in all the time that it took for you to be brought to the station; and in all the time that you were in the cells.....?:rolleyes: Do you think that is at all credible?

And when you say he read you your 'rights', do you mean you were arrested? Did you not ask at any time why you were being arrested...? Do you think that is at all credible?

What comes across here is one of three things:
1. You are an incredibly meek individual, afraid to ask why you are being arrested/brought to the station.
2. You were quite intoxicated and have forgotten most of what occurred.
3. You are lying.

After I was put in the cells I didnt see either of them again, the sargent was in with me a to explain the urine / blood test option. The next person I saw after that was the cop who signed me in at the desk, who brought me out of the cells into a room with a doctor to take bloods. Watched the whole procedure, then returned my wallet, pouch of tobacco and skins. Then I had to wait a further few minutes before my phone was returned to me by another cop who until he returned my phone I had not seen either. I dont know where the two that arrested me went to.

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

After I was put in the cells I didnt see either of them again, the sargent was in with me a to explain the urine / blood test option. The next person I saw after that was the cop who signed me in at the desk, who brought me out of the cells into a room with a doctor to take bloods. Watched the whole procedure, then returned my wallet, pouch of tobacco and skins. Then I had to wait a further few minutes before my phone was returned to me by another cop who until he returned my phone I had not seen either. I dont know where the two that arrested me went to.

You claim you were perfectly fine to drive, you had merely ran an amber, and had passed a breathyliser...... yet you never asked during all of this time why you had been arrested?!!:D:D

Come on......!

DUB777

The sargent told me I was being detained for allegedly being under the influence. As I said before I wasn't. I had a spliff 8 hours- give or take a half an hour. Had it been 2 or 3 weeks before I'd still have allegedly been under the influence according to this farcical judicial system.

PARKHEAD67

DUB777 wrote: »

I'd had the smoke, had something to eat & had slept for a couple of hours after. It depends on the individual how long the effects last for, some people it could last an hour others it could last far longer. If you smoke one a day its not going to affect you the same as someone who rarely smokes. Someone who isn't used to it would be cained after a smoke. I do like a smoke, I dont drink. It's the same as having a glass of wine or bottle of beer, only the government says it's illegal, & I wasn't under the influence at the time. I'd had a nap and woke up feeling fresh as a daisy.

Take mr. mackeys [Embedded Image Removed]advice and dont do drugs.drugs are bad.mmmmkay.

Oh_Noes

Are you known to the gardai OP?

Any previous from smoking or anything like that?

PARKHEAD67

DUB777 wrote: »

The sargent told me I was being detained for allegedly being under the influence. As I said before I wasn't. I had a spliff 8 hours- give or take a half an hour. Had it been 2 or 3 weeks before I'd still have allegedly been under the influence according to this farcical judicial system.

Your right.If what your saying is true, I cant see how you could be still under the influence.Unless it was the best cannabis ever.Im no expert on this.Dont touch the stuff, but I know lads who do(as everyone does).Dont know how this will work out for you, but best of luck;)

drkpower

DUB777 wrote: »

The sargent told me I was being detained for allegedly being under the influence. .

S you were told; took a while to get that out of you!

So presumably the Garda had a reason to suspect you wre under the influence - they dont usually arrest people who run amber lights and who pass breathylisers. This is your problem; based on what you have divulged thus far, a court will believe a Garda over your inconsistent story every day.

DUB777 wrote: »

As I said before I wasn't. I had a spliff 8 hours- give or take a half an hour. Had it been 2 or 3 weeks before I'd still have allegedly been under the influence according to this farcical judicial system.

No; you wouldnt - read the link i already posted and the length of time cannabis shows up in your system in a blood test.

Finnbar01

DUB777 wrote: »

Failing to answer what questions? I ran an amber light, got pulled, breathlised. Passed the breathliser, was the arrested & taken into the station. After being in the cells a few hours they said I can wait 2 hours for the doctor to come give me a urine test or get blood taken in 10 min. I wanted out of there as it was nearly 3 o clock in the morning so I opted for the blood. If you smoked you'd know yourself I wasn't stoned nearly 8 hours after having a smoke. As I said in a previous post it depends entirely on the individual & how much was consumed.

I don't understand why you'd have to wait two hours for a doctor to take a urine sample, yet only 10 minutes for the doctor to take some blood?

DUB777

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Are you known to the gardai OP?

Any previous from smoking or anything like that?

Yea I have 1 previous for possession of cannabis over 9 years ago.

DUB777

Finnbar01 wrote: »

I don't understand why you would have to wait two hours for a doctor to take a urine sample, yet only 10 minutes for the doctor to take some blood?

Neither did I but a friend told me they pulled the wool over my eyes, as bloods would give a more accurate result of what was in my system.

Finnbar01

DUB777 wrote: »

Neither did I but a friend told me they pulled the wool over my eyes, as bloods would give a more accurate result of what was in my system.

Just about to alter my post when you beat it too me.

PARKHEAD67

DUB777 wrote: »

Neither did I but a friend told me they pulled the wool over my eyes, as bloods would give a more accurate result of what was in my system.

Pity theyre not so smart when it comes to arresting corrupt bankers,politicians,lawyers and drug kingpins..Get yourself a GOOD solicitor and you should be fine regardless of how daft the judge is.