Drug Driving query

SRFC

Just looking for advice,I was stopped by the gardai last week one of the passangers in the car was smoking a joint,Gard presumes I was also (dont smoke at all) and arrested me for drug driving,


Gave a blood test im just wondering will second hand smoke from the back seat passengers joint show up in my blood test,if it does I presume im rightly f**ked

Bandara

SRFC wrote: »

Just looking for advice,I was stopped by the gardai last week one of the passangers in the car was smoking a joint,Gard presumes I was also (dont smoke at all) and arrested me for drug driving,


Gave a blood test im just wondering will second hand smoke from the back seat passengers joint show up in my blood test,if it does I presume im rightly f**ked

No your blood test will be fine once you didn't smoke

SRFC

Hammertime wrote: »

No your blood test will be fine once you didn't smoke

No dont smoke or drink for that matter I'd be very unlucky if passive smoke got me banned.

jamesr123

Hammertime wrote: »

No your blood test will be fine once you didn't smoke

I'd disagree, In a small car you would almost defo have some of it in your system. A few years ago a mate of mine was smoking it in a car and I was just as stoned as he was:eek:.

That friend I had was caught smoking hash whilst driving, He has just started a 5 year ban.

dh0011

You let someone smoke intoxicants in your car of course you are going to have some in your system. This means that you may not have been fully with it when you were driving. A good ban will make sure you never let anyone smoke things they shouldnt in your car again.

drunkmonkey

Is it still a 4 year ban?

If you don't smoke you should be ok, can't have been much in your system.

JP 1800

I am not one for getting PC but as the driver you are responsible for what goes on in your car and letting someone have a J in the car is a stupid move, I would not even let someone travel in my car without a seat belt and if they want to be insistent about it they can walk as far as I am concerned. With regards to the blood test it all depends on how much of the THC you metabolised from the second hand smoke and how effective their ELISA test is.

SRFC

Im not the owner of the car just to be clear,not that it matters as I know im the user in charge but I wasnt going to be awkward telling someone to get out of car when its not even mine and the owner is present,windows were open at the time and half a joint was smoked hopefully Im not convicted.

JP 1800

As they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, I imagine you were just trying to help a mate out but sometimes we need to be a little selfish and think of how someones stupidity can effect us.

h2005

You should be fine.

Pro Hoc Vice

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Is it still a 4 year ban?

If you don't smoke you should be ok, can't have been much in your system.

Yes it is still a 4 year ban, it is either a positive result or negative, the test does not give quantity. But AGS will need to give evidence of impaired driving. I do not know the level required to produce a positive result.

CiniO

For alcohol we've got clear limits.

Are there any for drugs, or is any trace of drug use in your blood treated as drink driving?

OP case confirms this is quite relevant question - he possibly could have had some small amount in his blood, and therefore be fined.

Also after using drugs, how much time do you need to recover to be able to drive legally?

dh0011

CiniO wrote: »

For alcohol we've got clear limits.

Are there any for drugs, or is any trace of drug use in your blood treated as drink driving?

OP case confirms this is quite relevant question - he possibly could have had some small amount in his blood, and therefore be fined.

Also after using drugs, how much time do you need to recover to be able to drive legally?

considering drugs are illegal saying it is ok to drive with a certain amount in your system would be a contradiction

endacl

h2005 wrote: »

You should be fined.

CiniO

dh0011 wrote: »

considering drugs are illegal saying it is ok to drive with a certain amount in your system would be a contradiction

See, they are illegal here.
But hypothetically, assume you are just back from Amsterdam after few days of good fun, and once you land in Dublin airport, you want to drive from Long term parking back home to Galway.

How can you know if you are OK to drive?
If there is no measures or limits, how can people know how long they are under the influence of drugs after use?
Do you need 5 hours, 24hours, 3 days or maybe 4 weeks, before your blood is clear and wouldn't show up anything in case of a check?

With alcohol we are told - approx 1 unit per hour, so if you drink 3 pints in the evening, you should be OK to drive in the morning.
How can you know how long you need after a joint to drive?

dh0011

hadnt thought of the weekend away in amsterdam.

I still dont have sympathy for anyone doing drugs. I lived in Limerick for four years at the height of the gang problem in the city and so would love to see everyone involved in drugs from the recreational user to the drug lords in jail.

I better stop before I go off on a rant and take the thread away from where it was meant to be.

Pro Hoc Vice

CiniO wrote: »

For alcohol we've got clear limits.

Are there any for drugs, or is any trace of drug use in your blood treated as drink driving?

OP case confirms this is quite relevant question - he possibly could have had some small amount in his blood, and therefore be fined.

Also after using drugs, how much time do you need to recover to be able to drive legally?

The normal for drink driving is to show a certain measurement of alchool in breath, blood or urine, once a limit is exceed there is no need to show impaired driving.

A person can also be convicted if it can be proven that they do not have proper control of a MPV due to an intoxicant, that can be alchool, prescription drugs or illegal drugs. Once AGS give evidence of impaired driving and evidence of the intoxicant then more than likely a conviction will follow. Just to be clear this can include over the counter medication.

Pro Hoc Vice

dh0011 wrote: »

considering drugs are illegal saying it is ok to drive with a certain amount in your system would be a contradiction

A conviction can follow from illegal and legal drugs.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html

I believe the conviction was over turned on appeal. But there are a few every year.

Yamanoto

CiniO wrote: »

Do you need 5 hours, 24hours, 3 days or maybe 4 weeks, before your blood is clear and wouldn't show up anything in case of a check?

Seems there are a fair few variables which would determine the above.

The THC molecule, and related compounds, are usually detectable in drug tests from 3 days up to 10 days according to Redwood Laboratories; heavy users can produce positive tests for up to 10 months after ceasing cannabis use.The length of time varies greatly according to metabolism, quantity, and frequency of use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_drug_testing

dh0011

infosys wrote: »

A conviction can follow from illegal and legal drugs.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html

I believe the conviction was over turned on appeal. But there are a few every year.

i obviously meant illegal drugs

Pro Hoc Vice

dh0011 wrote: »

i obviously meant illegal drugs

I know you did, as you said so in your post, I am just pointing out, to anyone who is interested, that the use of even legal over the counter medication can lead to a minimum mandatory ban of 4 years.

dh0011

my bad - took what you were saying the wrong way

drunkmonkey

dh0011 wrote: »

I still dont have sympathy for anyone doing drugs. I lived in Limerick for four years at the height of the gang problem in the city and so would love to see everyone involved in drugs from the recreational user to the drug lords in jail.

I better stop before I go off on a rant and take the thread away from where it was meant to be.

You want to see pot smokers in Jail? That's a bit harsh.

jamesr123

I think it only makes sense that ANY trace of that stuff in your blood would warrant a conviction.

Have you any other convictions? If you have a clean record and get a solicitor, I'm sure you'll get a leniant sentence but garda/judges/people hate anything to do with drink/drug driving now a days.

infosys wrote: »

I know you did, as you said so in your post, I am just pointing out, to anyone who is interested, that the use of even legal over the counter medication can lead to a minimum mandatory ban of 4 years.

I actually have heard that somewhere before. Seems crazy but that's the law.

drunkmonkey

Might as well lock up somebody having a baileys ice cream on that logic.

Pro Hoc Vice

jamesr123 wrote: »

I think it only makes sense that ANY trace of that stuff in your blood would warrant a conviction.

Have you any other convictions? If you have a clean record and get a solicitor, I'm sure you'll get a leniant sentence but garda/judges/people hate anything to do with drink/drug driving now a days.

No matter what your previous or how nice you are, on conviction it is a minimum ban of 4 years. It can not be less, there is of course the ability to apply for your licence back after 2/3 of the ban so 32 months.

jamesr123

infosys wrote: »

No matter what your previous or how nice you are, on conviction it is a minimum ban of 4 years. It can not be less, there is of course the ability to apply for your licence back after 2/3 of the ban so 32 months.

OUCH!! 4 years is a very long time, especially if your used to having a car. Very harsh penalty when you consider how dear your insurance would be when the ban was finished :eek:


As I said in my original post, It'd have to be in his system if someone was smoking it in a small enviroment like a car. I reckon I was vey lucky not to have gotten stopped when my mate was smoking in my car a few years ago:rolleyes:

Sobanek

CiniO wrote: »

With alcohol we are told - approx 1 unit per hour, so if you drink 3 pints in the evening, you should be OK to drive in the morning.
How can you know how long you need after a joint to drive?

While I was in Poland, my mate and I had about three bottles of Johnny Walker (70cl). I went over to the police station the next morning (approximately 6 hours after we finished the last drink and went to bed) to get myself breathalysed to see if I was ok to drive, and then the magic 0.00 appeared I think it depends on a lot of factors.

CiniO

Sobanek wrote: »

While I was in Poland, my mate and I had about three bottles of Johnny Walker (70cl). I went over to the police station the next morning (approximately 6 hours after we finished the last drink and went to bed) to get myself breathalysed to see if I was ok to drive, and then the magic 0.00 appeared I think it depends on a lot of factors.

I'd say their alcometer must have been broken.
There's no way after over 1 litre of whiskey per head you were 0.00 6 hours later.

12gauge dave

Im not sure if your blood will show thc in it from passive smoking that you will have to wait and see im afraid.

My brother was arrested for driving while stoned last over a year ago and went to court facing a 4 year ban he had a very good barrister who specialises in traffic offences. He got my brother off the charge on these 3 points

1. Thc stays in the system for upto and over a month so how could they be sure my brother smoked the weed that night and not 3 weeks ago??

2. The gardai waited two days before the blood sample was sent off so blood could of been tampered with.

3. The doctor took only one blood sample and that sample was tested twice once for alcohol and again for thc. The judge didnt like this.

The judge was mary devins up here in mayo.

It all depends on the judge aswell some are more lenient than others on cannabis driving.

I wish you luck anyway mate:)

It wont be cheap either if my memory serves me correct the barrister cost nearly 3000euro but he was very good if your near mayo at all ill get his number for you

the culture of deference

12gauge dave wrote: »

1. Thc stays in the system for upto and over a month so how could they be sure my brother smoked the weed that night and not 3 weeks ago??

I was on a single decker dublin bus 2 or 3 years ago and going up parliament street the 3 people sitting in front of me sparked up a joint, I also go to gigs and when I am having a ciggy I can smell the weed hash smoke.

how could I prove that I don't smoke?

keithclancy

jamesr123 wrote: »

I'd disagree, In a small car you would almost defo have some of it in your system. A few years ago a mate of mine was smoking it in a car and I was just as stoned as he was:eek:.

That friend I had was caught smoking hash whilst driving, He has just started a 5 year ban.

Nah .. you'll be fine.

I've sat in coffee shops with friends having a beer on a regular basis while they were smoking and it never came out on a pee test.

Saying that I don't even let people smoke in the car, let alone smoke weed in the car, mainly because it stinks up your clothes, I have to change any time I come back from a coffee shop as the smell is bloody rank.

I'd say you'll be grand.

Sobanek

CiniO wrote: »

I'd say their alcometer must have been broken.
There's no way after over 1 litre of whiskey per head you were 0.00 6 hours later.

Wasn't broken, since the guy I was drinking with, had a score of 0.27. Checked myself twice, just to be sure.

smellslikeshoes

Make sure you get a good solicitor OP, a good one would eat this for breakfast.
The whole concept of drug driving is on pretty shaky legal ground. There really isn't any good way right now to prove someone is impaired from smoking unless they were completely out of it on the roadside. Sure you can tell if they have been smoking with blood tests, but that joint could have been smoked a week ago and the effects of it long gone.

dh0011 wrote: »

hadnt thought of the weekend away in amsterdam.

I still dont have sympathy for anyone doing drugs. I lived in Limerick for four years at the height of the gang problem in the city and so would love to see everyone involved in drugs from the recreational user to the drug lords in jail.

Yes sending people to jail has worked so far hasn't it? :rolleyes:

dr.fuzzenstein

dh0011 wrote: »

I still dont have sympathy for anyone doing drugs. I lived in Limerick for four years at the height of the gang problem in the city and so would love to see everyone involved in drugs from the recreational user to the drug lords in jail.

I better stop before I go off on a rant and take the thread away from where it was meant to be.

Well, this would certainly make the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" brigade happy, but it doesn't work throwing everyone in jail.
In a lot of countries people get hung, stoned, have limbs chopped off, shot, thrown in jail, etc...
And it works beautifully, none of those countries have any drugs in them whatsoever.
Yeah, right.
In the US the system is as you propose. This has been the solution to their drug problem and there's no drugs in the US?
No, the US has amongst the highest prison population in the world (higher than China), costing billions and breeding more and more criminals, since people who get thrown in jail for smoking a joint turn criminal.
It's idiotic, doesn't work and in fact is like trying to put out a fire with petrol.
The "I'd lock them all up, whip them and hang them, that'll show them" approach is simply a natural reaction from our primitive monkey brains, which tells us to throw stones at another monkey that won't behave. Sadly a lot of humanity is still stuck in primitive monkey mode. Some people have thankfully evolved to the point where they try to find intelligent solutions that the monkeys haven't been able to solve by throwing rocks at it, or hitting it with sticks.
Of course some people are dangerous and have to be locked up like the rabid dogs they are. It's all about locking up the right people, not just everyone.

SRFC

Looks like I opened up a can a worms starting this thread,Its a far from clean cut case im going to get a solicitor tomorrow and get advice dont know how long the test will take to come back hopefully I dont end up in court a 4yr ban would be sickening.

Just to add No drugs were found on me,my friend is being fined an summonsed I think after he admitted at the time to being the one smoking the cannabis in the car if thats any thing extra to help my case.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

dh0011 wrote: »

You let someone smoke intoxicants in your car of course you are going to have some in your system. This means that you may not have been fully with it when you were driving. A good ban will make sure you never let anyone smoke things they shouldnt in your car again.

dh0011 wrote: »

hadnt thought of the weekend away in amsterdam.

I still dont have sympathy for anyone doing drugs. I lived in Limerick for four years at the height of the gang problem in the city and so would love to see everyone involved in drugs from the recreational user to the drug lords in jail.

I better stop before I go off on a rant and take the thread away from where it was meant to be.

These posts are wrong on so many levels.

Anan1

dh0011 wrote: »

I still dont have sympathy for anyone doing drugs. I lived in Limerick for four years at the height of the gang problem in the city and so would love to see everyone involved in drugs from the recreational user to the drug lords in jail.

I better stop before I go off on a rant and take the thread away from where it was meant to be.

If you're in favour of prohibition then you're on the side of the drug lords. Decriminalisation would put them out of business overnight.

GTDolanator

Friend of mine was caught smoking and driving about 5 years ago, He was tested and brought to court and convicted of driving under the influence
or whatever the technical term is,He also had a charge for possession
of a very small ammount of ecstacy and was banned for 6 years.Now the interesting thing about this case was that no weed was in the car
and none had been smoked in the car either.Crafty feckin copper thought he was drunk bagged him and passed then went further and got a blood sample.
This guy was 22 had ALL driving licences,artic blah blah blah....even had his haz chem card and an operaters CPC all gone in an instant,still suffers from depression 5 years on

I smoke the occasional spliff and i wont lie i used to drive around all the time stoned,but since that has happened to him i treat it the same way as alcohol and if i smoke i wont get into the car until the next day. Its just not worth it
Plus you get a conviction which restricts your access to certain countrys

Dont be stupid.Dont smoke and drive.Dont let others carry or consume in your vehicle

da6xsi

America is going through this problem at the moment

Washington and colorado have legalized weed and it will be available to buy in shops and smoke in public and a system is being introduced to tax it in a similar fashion to alcohol/tobacco

Also interesting to note 20 out of 50 american states have legalized weed for medical treatment so lot of risk throughout the country of people driving after consuming marijuana not all people smoke it loads of medical patients eat foods with marijuana in them so they are regularly consuming it.

Anyways second hand smoke wouldnt contain much thc as the thc is consumed in the lungs and the exhaled smoke while it might stink should carry very little thc that is of course if your friends inhale properly lol plus one joint isnt worth talking about in regards to a high thc level so if it really was only the one your bloodwork should be fine

Im not so familiar on the law in regards to how much thc you can have in your system in ireland but either way your bloodwork will not show up a high thc level.

A good solicitor should be able sort this swiftly

And for the poorly educated and brainwashed people whove posted here you all need to educate yourselves

Its unfortunate we live in a small minded country thats very reluctant to change with the times and is unwilling to look at clear scientific data and change the laws accordingly

hfallada

It's weird how most doctors would consider weed fairly harmful. But it doesn't affect responses. But would the op be charged with driving under influence if he had taken a Valium something which will defiantly reduce your ability to drive.

Its weird how in the us, Bath salts which are like the stuff that was sold in head shops here can't be tested for in your blood. But can totally **** you up. But yet weed which is fairly harmless can land your in prison

Canis Lupus

hfallada wrote: »

It's weird how most doctors would consider weed fairly harmful. But it doesn't affect responses. But would the op be charged with driving under influence if he had taken a Valium something which will defiantly reduce your ability to drive.

Its weird how in the us, Bath salts which are like the stuff that was sold in head shops here can't be tested for in your blood. But can totally **** you up. But yet weed which is fairly harmless can land your in prison

Weed does mess with your reactions. The only 'benefit' to weed is the paranoia makes you drive like an overcautious granny so you're less likely to kill someone by driving like a loon.

ShaShaBear

I've a few friends who smoke. Some the odd time when a group is doing it (my partner and a few of his mates will smoke if they're down here gaming) and one in particular would smoke more often in a week than she wouldn't. Now, obviously I wouldn't get into the car with someone who has been smoking weed, but one or two of these friends I wouldn't even trust with the kettle when under the influence. I've seen some of them who drive to and from work in a busy customer-based setting and not one person noticed they had been smoking. Suppose it depends on how your body reacts.

Although in all technicality, it was your business as the driver to refuse based on someone in the car lighting up. Doesn't really matter that it wasn't your car. If someone in the car is doing something that could affect you negatively, you should refuse. If you are telling the full truth and you were only present for the smoking of half of a regular joint with the windows in the car open, a four year ban would be quite harsh. However, if the chemical shows up in your system it's going to be very hard to prove your side of the story.

Anan1

It has been shown that cannabis negatively affects ones ability to drive, and driving under the influence should therefore be an offence. What I have a serious problem with is the idea that any trace of the drug can result in a draconian penalty, even in cases where impairment was either negligible or even entirely absent.

Pro Hoc Vice

hfallada wrote: »

It's weird how most doctors would consider weed fairly harmful. But it doesn't affect responses. But would the op be charged with driving under influence if he had taken a Valium something which will defiantly reduce your ability to drive.

Its weird how in the us, Bath salts which are like the stuff that was sold in head shops here can't be tested for in your blood. But can totally **** you up. But yet weed which is fairly harmless can land your in prison

Yes you can be convicted if the drug is Valium, as I said earlier it is any intoxicant, that reduces your ability to have proper control of a MPV, it can be drink, drugs, both prescription and over the counter and illegal drugs.

From the act "“intoxicant” includes alcohol and drugs and any combination of drugs or of drugs and alcohol;"

Pro Hoc Vice

Anan1 wrote: »

It has been shown that cannabis negatively affects ones ability to drive, and driving under the influence should therefore be an offence. What I have a serious problem with is the idea that any trace of the drug can result in a draconian penalty, even in cases where impairment was either negligible or even entirely absent.

As I said in an earlier post AGS need to provide 2 very important pieces of evidence in such cases, the first is that the driver did not have proper control of an MPV, the second is that there was an intoxicant present in the person. Unlike reading cases where a person can be driving perfectly but if they are over a certain limit then they are convicted.

Anan1

infosys wrote: »

As I said in an earlier post AGS need to provide 2 very important pieces of evidence in such cases, the first is that the driver did not have proper control of an MPV, the second is that there was an intoxicant present in the person. Unlike reading cases where a person can be driving perfectly but if they are over a certain limit then they are convicted.

Would you be ok with the idea of banning someone for four years on the basis of a Garda's word that their driving was impaired together with an indeterminate, but above zero, BAC? That could easily amount to a four year ban for careless driving, which IMO is way over the top.

Pro Hoc Vice

Anan1 wrote: »

Would you be ok with the idea of banning someone for four years on the basis of a Garda's word that their driving was impaired together with an indeterminate, but above zero, BAC? That could easily amount to a four year ban for careless driving, which IMO is way over the top.

It matters not if I'm ok with it, its the legislation. See the Road traffic Act 2010.

Section 4 (1) is the relevant section,

"4.— (1) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle."

Section 4 (2) is a separate offence and deals with BAC, this is the section most commonly used, as its easier to get a conviction. But Section 4 (1) remains on the book and is still used but it is very hard to get a conviction.

Anan1

infosys wrote: »

It matters not if I'm ok with it, its the legislation. See the Road traffic Act 2010.

Of course it does, we're all part of our society and we all have a vested interest in how things are regulated.

infosys wrote: »

Section 4 (1) is the relevant section,

"4.— (1) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle."

This seems fair to me. As with any other prosecution, the State needs to be able to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that..

Pro Hoc Vice

Anan1 wrote: »

Of course it does, we're all part of our society and we all have a vested interest in how things are regulated.

This seems fair to me. As with any other prosecution, the State needs to be able to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that..

Yes hence why I said it matters not to me, the court decides on all the evidence, is it a foolproof system, no, but it is the best we can think of at the moment.

Anan1

infosys wrote: »

is it a foolproof system, no, but it is the best we can think of at the moment.

It's just not good enough. If the state wants to put someone off the road then they need to prove impairment.