Drug driving new laws

quintus

It just seems like this is just another way to hit the Irish people. Who in this day and age has 5000 lying around to pay a fine when the majority are barely living from pay cheque to pay check. If you can't pay the fine, what then... Jail? A criminal record, unable to get insurance, loss of employment. This is going to ruin lives. Don't get me wrong I totally disagree with driving under the influence, but there has to be a some kind of gauge like the 50 mgs allowed for alcohol.

Even a Garda with some semblance of right thinking must feel this is a bit OTT. We all know there are those "Boy Racers" out there who abuse the laws and carry on the way they do, but there just seems to more and more taken off the Irish people. where does it end?

GM228

quintus wrote: »

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.?

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol are the psychoactive constituents of cannabis which is tested.

ng/ml is the blood measurement value - the metabolites in the blood are measured in nanograms per milliliter.

GM228

quintus wrote: »

there just seems to more and more taken off the Irish people. where does it end?

We have some of the highest THC limits in Europe for driving (only Portugal and Poland is ahead of us). The rest are much lower.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

GM228 wrote: »

We have some of the highest THC limits in Europe for driving (only Portugal and Poland is ahead of us). The rest are much lower.

Out of curiosity what are the limits and are they contained in Act or SI.

It's ok I found it http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/act/21/section/8/enacted/en/html#sec8

According to site this has not been commenced yet any idea when the SI coming into effect.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Miike

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.

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.

Being in the same kind of work position that you are and assuming you're working for a state agency my advice is to fill out a NIMS NIRF for any and all exposure incidents. Keep a paper trail. I've raised these questions with the powers to be and made it explicitly clear that I expect the state to handle any matters arising from this law and associations with my line of work. I took a urine test on my self after two passive-exposure incidents in one week in work and failed the THC component, I do not smoke nor have I ever. Some serious question marks around where we stand with this law

STB.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hardly helpful.

The truth in the matter here is that it is highly (not intentional) likely that those people who have smoked a joint 24 hours previously and whose driving is not impaired, could still fail a roadside saliva test. Infact depending on how much was smoked, its potency, general health and fitness, it could still show up 3 days after smoking a joint.

This is where the no tolerance attitude falls flat on its face, especially where the randomness rather than suspicion of impairment is used to test roadside users. Invariably it will catch people who are occasional recreational users rather than those deliberately driving under the influence within a short period of time of smoking.

And thats where the accusations of nanny state health solutions, to cover up the real work not being done becomes an angry thorn for the general public, smokers or not.

Dont get me wrong. Anyone who is driving under the influence of any drug is a fruitcake that needs to be removed from the road but the accuracy of the tests, coupled with unfortunate positive saliva tests for tokers whose ability to drive was not impaired but are caught up in a its not an exact science scenario, wastes time and resources of AGS and fails to capture what its set out to do.

Your advice of not smoking at all is of no real benefit. 1 in 10 adults have smoked a joint in the last year.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Miike

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and those who get put off the road because of passive smoke? just collateral?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Miike

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've been exposed through my occupation. My friends don't come into it. Studies suggest that as much as one lung full of "passive" smoke can show in OF tests for up to three days?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Miike

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Science doesn't back your doubts I'm afraid.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Miike

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I find it wonderful that you're a scientist.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15516313

Initial testing of OF for Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol ranged from 3.5 - 26.4ng/ml at 20 and 50 minutes.
Legal limit of 1ng/ml in BLOOD, cutoff of the Draeger system is 5ng/ml. Well within the test ranges for a positive Enzyme Immunoassay, far exceeding the legal limits.

Albeit I concede the study concludes that after a 30 minute CDP the detection is limited you still AS A SCIENTIST must respect the data and what it reveals in terms of collateral damage for road users exposed through no fault of their own?

Subsequently lets consider the false positive rates for Draeger system that's been tendered can be as high as 43%. Those who fall outside of the OFT Limit of 5ng/ml but obtain a false positive will then be subject to the scrutiny of 1ng/ml in a blood sample despite the evidence from the road side test being nothing short of wrong? So Person A gets a false positive OFT but has 1ng/ml in their blood and Person B gets a real ROADSIDE NEGATIVE OFT but has 2.9ng/ml in their oral fluid and skips off. You think it's fair that person A should fall to a much lower permissible rate than person B despite the difference? (See: Collateral Damage)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Miike

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Very scientific in your response but you must also consider they were smoking a much lower THC level of cannabis than is widely available and some of the subjects in the test were positive at a rate of nearly 20x the legal limit, what relationship of absorption exists for the total time of exposure? Is it linear? I can't imagine the state nor Draeger has examined that but it's passively ruled out.

Whats your background exactly that makes you so duly qualified?

STB.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But Fred I am not asking to condone anything. Infact nobody has asked you to.

Your perception as to what is legal or acceptable (alcohol) and what is not (marijuana) is not the issue. The simple matter is that neither drug that impairs driving is acceptable.

The issue is that the method of testing for one and what it is set to achieve is flawed, scientifically.

Your suggested solution that midnight tokers giving up smoking altogether is narrow minded.

Alcohol leaves the body quicker than marijuana, despite being over 100 times more toxic. Heroin leaves the body quicker than marijuana. I have my own view on which is more destructive but thats irrelevant too.

By the way what do you mean that even occasional smokers must accept the suspicion the state will have ?

Peregrinus

quintus wrote: »

. . . 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 wouldn't think you'd be any better off in the Netherlands. By your own account you would be more regularly exposed to passive smoking, and according to GM228 in post #94 the Netherlands has lower permitted blood/cannabis levels for driving than is proposed for Ireland. Unless the Netherlands has very lax enforcement policies, it seems to me you'd be at much greater risk of conviction as a result of passive exposure there than you would here.

And this seems to me to suggest an obvious line of enquiry for those concerned about the risk of conviction as a result of passive exposure. Ireland is coming relatively late to this. There must be a fair amount of experience from other countries with varying permitted concentrations, and varying testing methods, and we can examine other countries' experience to see what kind of incidence of passive-exposure-convictions they have experienced.

Tigger

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't think you'd be any better off in the Netherlands. By your own account you would be more regularly exposed to passive smoking, and according to GM228 in post #94 the Netherlands has lower permitted blood/cannabis levels for driving than is proposed for Ireland. Unless the Netherlands has very lax enforcement policies, it seems to me you'd be at much greater risk of conviction as a result of passive exposure there than you would here.

And this seems to me to suggest an obvious line of enquiry for those concerned about the risk of conviction as a result of passive exposure. Ireland is coming relatively late to this. There must be a fair amount of experience from other countries with varying permitted concentrations, and varying testing methods, and we can examine other countries' experience to see what kind of incidence of passive-exposure-convictions they have experienced.

Their limits are higher and aren't tested for except in cases of accidents or traffic law breaches where the law enforcement person has formed an opinion
https://injepijournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-014-0026-z

quintus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I cannot believe what I have just read. "Choose your friends better". Let's just round up all the marijuana smokers and burn them shall we. Or maybe we should treat them like "Lepers" and make them wear an arm band so we NEVER accidentally befriend them, or socialise with them.

Destroying someone's life because they have a small amount of THC in their blood, that in NO WAY impairs their driving is just plain WRONG.

We are talking massive fine, criminal record, unable to get insurance, possible loss of employment and the knock on effect of losing your home ( rent or mortgage can't be paid). The destruction of relationships, the break up of a family unit, the effect that may have on the children etc etc. There is NO foresight here, or maybe there IS, and the misery this will bring IS known to the powers that be.

Rational thought is what is needed here, before those lives ARE destroyed.

Peregrinus

quintus wrote: »

Destroying someone's life because they have a small amount of THC in their blood, that in NO WAY impairs their driving is just plain WRONG.

We are talking massive fine, criminal record, unable to get insurance, possible loss of employment and the knock on effect of losing your home ( rent or mortgage can't be paid). The destruction of relationships, the break up of a family unit, the effect that may have on the children etc etc. There is NO foresight here, or maybe there IS, and the misery this will bring IS known to the powers that be.

Well, this is already what we do for people who have a small amount of alcohol in their blood. Given that we do that, why would we treat cannabis differently?

The article linked by Tigger suggests that, for countries with comparable per se enforcement regimes (i.e. it's an offence to drive with more than a given concentration in your blood, regardless of whether there is evidence that your driving was impaired) the Irish THC concentration of 2 µg/L is not out of line. The max limit varies from 0.3 µg/L in Slovenia to 3 µg/L in Portugal. If anything, as GM228 notes, Ireland is above average. And the same article notes a suggestion from Norway that a 3 µg/L limit is comparable in terms of severity of impairment to a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.05%. If that's correct, it suggests that the Irish standards for THC concentration are tougher than the the standard for alcohol concentration, but not massively so.

quintus

Any rational argument is just met with a wall of ignorance to REAL LIFE SITUATIONS. You can only push people so far before they decide they have nothing to lose, and just PUSH BACK regardless of the consequences. THAT IS A FACT.

Peregrinus

Well, I have pointed out in post #112 that if the proposed limits create a real risk of people being convicted on the basis of passive exposure, such convictions must have been happening already in other countries that have had this system for some time, and that have limits which are as low or lower than the Irish limits. So if this is a REAL LIFE SITUATION it shouldn't be difficult to produce examples of it, complaints about it that point to actual convictions, etc.

Printing in all caps is no substitute for actual evidence or experience.

quintus

What's the point? The mental block with some people runs deep. This country is just going from bad to worse and getting there fast.

Peregrinus

The point would be to dispel the gathering suspicion that you have no evidence to support your beliefs; that the "wall of ignorance" against "rational argument" is in fact yours, and not your opponent's.

What I've said in my posts seems to me to be entirely rational, and I have outlined a strategy which, if your beliefs are correct, points the way to a powerful evidence-based challenge to the proposed drug-driving regime. You don't seem interested in looking for evidence to confirm your views or to support that challenge; you think abusing people in posts partly typed in all caps is a better strategy. I cannot avoid wondering why that might be.

drunkmonkey

I'm only half getting this but seem like a dingbat law that's open to a lot of challenges from a lot of sides.

1. This law encourages smoking, why? If you eat or consume cannabis it stays in your blood longer, to avoid detection it is safer to smoke.
2. The law is discriminatory against fat people as it takes their body longer to process.
3. Eating some fruit like mangos increases the effects of cannabis, people might be using fruit to get higher effects while using less cannabis to avoid detection while driving but actually being higher than if they had no fruit but more cannabis.
4. A blood test can't prove impairment.
5. A regular user can have traces in saliva up to a week after there last use, again it will be up to the Garda/State to prove impairment. I can't see how you could get convicted if admitting to being a regular user.

These are some silly points and some serious ones but all true none the less.

Little CuChulainn

I'm looking forward to the case of a Garda who spends the day cataloging a grow house and then gets done for drug driving after being stopped at a checkpoint on the way home. Would it technically be entrapment?