Drug driving new laws

STB.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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?

It would certainly be justification for going to the chipper to pick up a few batterburgers and a bag of chips.

GM228

Tigger wrote: »

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

The report is fairly accurate, however the fact that a 2014 report has Irish limits (the lower one being incorrect anyway) which were only set in 2016 and an incorrect limit for the Netherlands does question the accuracy of the report.

The DRUID Final Report of 2012 shows the Netherlands had already droped to 3ng/ml limits in 2012 - I would not rely on what you have linked.

The DRUID Final Report 2012:-
http://www.druid-project.eu/Druid/EN/Dissemination/downloads_and_links/Final_Report.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1

Norway and the Netherlands recently tried to determine safe driving limits and they arrived to very similar values, e.g. 3ng/mL THC or 48 and 50ng/mL for MDMA in whole blood. Both countries defined a risk threshold for THC, where the impairment is equivalent to 0.5 g/L BAC.

In the course of DRUID two EU countries changed their legislation regarding drug risk thresholds. In The Netherlands and in Norway efforts were made to define cut-off levels for drugs in per se legislation. Both countries tried to determine lower effect limits and risk thresholds. The cut-off levels are based on the expertise of scientists of different subjects and politicians. Norway and The Netherlands introduced a THC risk threshold of 3ng/mL in whole blood.

The Netherlands limits were the same for smoking THC and have actually gone lower than Ireland.

The Netherlands had an overall limit of 5ng/ml for all forms of THC - now it's 3ng/ml.

Ireland has a higher 5ng/ml limit for 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

Yes we have a lower 1ng/ml limit for Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, but my understanding is that is for the purest form of THC when consumed - unless someone is taking Dronabinol for example or any other oral consumption of THC then they don't need to worry about the 1ng/ml limit.

The carboxy limit is the limit that applies when you smoke THC as 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinoland is the metabolite formed by smoking Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol - that is the important one here for the OPs sake - the Netherlands has a 3ng/ml limit meaning they are stricter than us.

Random roadside drug testing started in the Netherlands on 1 January 2013.

drunkmonkey

GM228 wrote: »

unless someone is taking Dronabinol for example or any other oral consumption of THC then they don't need to worry about the 1ng/ml limit.

The new trial will be using liquid or some oral method, how will this law effect them as they are medicinal users or are we just going to punish cancer patients?

GM228

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The new trial will be using liquid or some oral method, how will this law effect them as they are medicinal users or are we just going to punish cancer patients?

They can get a medical exemption certificate.

quintus

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

I am certainly not abusing anyone in my posts. Life is not "Black and White", not to broad minding people. The law does not prove impairment, it proves one thing, the presence of THC, no matter what the levels, and that alone, is what the person will be charged with. Why not have random tests among the general public, "Stop and test", where random members of the public are stopped in the street and tested for any presence of THC. If there is, then an on the spot fine is issued. That sounds ridiculous doesn't it, or does it? Depending on who you ask, and their own personal idea of what's socially acceptable and what's not the answer would vary.

The fact here is, innocent people are going to get caught up in this, and made to suffer. People who lead good law abiding lives. Since "Apathy" is in fashion these days.... Who Cares?

If you feel that I have abused you I apologise, it was not my intention.

GM228

quintus wrote: »

I am certainly not abusing anyone in my posts. Life is not "Black and White", not to broad minding people. The law does not prove impairment, it proves one thing, the presence of THC, no matter what the levels, and that alone, is what the person will be charged with

Drink driving laws also don't prove impairment, the laws are not about weather they imapir or not, it's the mere fact that they are in your system that is the issue.

"No matter what the levels" isn't accurate though is it, it would realistically need to be above 5ng/ml.

Really Interested

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The new trial will be using liquid or some oral method, how will this law effect them as they are medicinal users or are we just going to punish cancer patients?

The Act deals with that,

(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply to a person in respect of a drug specified at reference number 1 or 2 in column (2) of the Schedule where the person is the holder of a certificate, in the prescribed form (referred to in this Part as a “medical exemption certificateâ€) which indicates that at the time at which that drug was found to be present in his or her blood ∆9 - Tetrahydrocannabinol had been lawfully prescribed for him or her and which is signed by the doctor who prescribed it.


(1C) A person who signs a medical exemption certificate containing information which he or she knows to be false commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class C fine.â€,


The road side test is oral but the test used in a prosecution is blood.

If someone does not take any of the listed drugs and believes its a false reading due to passive exposure, then it will be open to produce evidence that the blood test can be incorrect.

drunkmonkey

So it's ok to drive if you've a cert but not ok if you don't.

Seems crazy that soutpark nails the situation we've created now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un7QiXsnF_Y

**post in ah last night didn't think it would be relevant today, sorry mods!

Really Interested

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So it's ok to drive if you've a cert but not ok if you don't.

Seems crazy that soutpark nails the situation we've created now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un7QiXsnF_Y

**post in ah last night didn't think it would be relevant today, sorry mods!

It only gives a defence to been in excess of a certain reading. The person may not be capable of having proper control due to drugs which is a different offence.

Not sure yet how the defence will play out with that.

quintus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So it's ok to drive if you've a cert but not ok if you don't.

Seems crazy that soutpark nails the situation we've created now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un7QiXsnF_Y

**post in ah last night didn't think it would be relevant today, sorry mods!

Driving a wheel barrow while you may, or may not be impaired? We WILL have a law for that. Everyone will pay.

Thanks for sharing. Funny stuff

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Is it actually necessary to show impairment? Or is it a case you can be made submit to a mandatory test as is the case with alcohol?

It will be the same as for alcohol.

srsly78

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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?

The only way your scenario could cause the relevant outcome is if the growhouse was on fire. In that case the garda in question may have bigger problems to worry about.

quintus

After I little research I discovered that there are 9 everyday items that will cause a positive reading from saliva test. So all of you out there including myself who do not partake should be aware that you may test positive. see below. Number 9 and 6 surprised me because I work out on a regular basis as do a lot of people. I eat well take vitamins including vitamin B and various seeds in a protein shake after a work out. So think on all those who are going to return a positive reading even though they have never smoked marijuana. Sorry for copy and pasting, I cannot post links.

1. Hemp Seeds
Whether you enjoy hemp seeds, hemp seed oil, or hemp seed milk, every single one of these items, especially if you consume them regularly, will cause you to test positive for THC. Although hemp seeds are legal, drug tests cannot tell the difference between marijuana users and hemp seed eaters. There are microscopic traces of THC in hemp seeds. You should also know that THC is stored in body fat, which means you will test positive for as long as 30 days after you stop eating it. Now, you would most likely have to consume quite a bit to test positive, but many people enjoy the taste and make hemps seeds a regular part of their diet. Consumed regularly over time, even if you don’t eat them in large amounts, hemp seeds will cause you to test positive. Try almond milk and almonds until you land a job.

2. Cold Remedies
Almost all over-the-counter cold and flu remedies work by narrowing the blood vessels in the nasal passages, which helps to relieve congestion. The ingredient in cold remedies that does this, pseudoephedrine, is a synthetic amphetamine, which can be used (in huge quantities of course) to make meth. Taking cold medication can cause you to test positive for amphetamines. Even a review presented at the 2010 American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting found that over-the-counter cold medications can give a false positive on drug tests.

3. Azo
If you have ever had a urinary tract infection, then you are familiar with this product that can give you some immediate relief. Azo strips your urinary tract, which is great for removing the bacteria causing the infection; however, many people use Azo to try to fool a drug test. Azo tends to turn the urine bright red or super yellow, which is usually a red-flag to test administrators who will automatically kick out your results, believing that you are trying to hide something.

4. Sudafed
This is perhaps one of the most common offenders when it comes to failed drug tests. Sudafed is often mistaken on pee tests for numerous hard-core drugs. This is because, like most cold remedies, Sudafed’s main ingredient is pseudoephedrine, which is a type of synthetic amphetamine. Avoid Sudafed at least 48 hours before a drug test. If you take Sudafed for allergies, feel free to sneeze away during your pee test.

5. Tonic Water
Are you kidding? That’s what we said when we found out about this! The truth is, tonic water, which is also known as quinine water, was originally made as a means of delivering quinine from South America. Drinking tonic water can lead to a false positive for opiates. According to a study published in the journal Addictive Behaviors, drinking even a few gin and tonics the night before can be enough to cause you to fail a drug test the next day.

6. Vitamin B Supplements
Many natural herbs that contain vitamin B2, or vitamin B complex supplements, can lead to a false positive. This is because most commercial B2 supplements (also known as riboflavin) are synthetic. These are made from the fermentation of a particular plant, or they can be products of hempseed oil. As you might have figured out, this will give you a false positive for marijuana. Avoid taking vitamin B supplements until you know you have passed your drug test.

7. Ibuprofen
This every day, over-the-counter pain killer might be your first choice when it comes to relieving pain, but you should try Tylenol or plain old aspirin if you plan to take a drug test within 48 hours. This is because little old ibuprofen can cause you to test positive for barbiturates, marijuana, or benzodiazepines. The Mayo Clinic Proceedings published a review in 2008 which found that typical NSAIDS, like ibuprofen, can lead to false positive drug tests.

8. Poppy Seeds
Many people enjoy poppy seeds in their muffins and bagels, but wait just a minute! If you plan to take a drug test in the near future, you should skip those delicious favorites until your first day on the job. Poppy seeds contain tiny traces of opiates, such as the kind found in codeine and opium. After eating something containing poppy seeds, you can test positive for these drugs for as long as 48 hours. It’s best to skip the poppy seeds for now, and enjoy some sesame seeds or sunflower seeds in the meantime.

9. Granola Bars
Some snack bars, breakfast bars, and granola bars contain — you guessed it — hemp seeds. This seems to be especially prevalent in granola bars that contain smoke flavors, honey mustard, Thai sweet chili, roasted jalapeno, or honey smoked flavors, but hemp seeds can actually be in anything. Although granola bars and snack bars all pass the USDA testing standards, if you eat these regularly, you might test positive for marijuana.
With such poor testing results, drug testing seems like an alarmist reaction that is more fluff than substance, but that is not the point of this article. We simply want to alert our readers to the fact that common substances can lead to false positives, so it is best to avoid these foods and other items for the time being. We can tackle drug testing later.

GM228

^^ Hence why a blood test is required. The false posative can only occur on a preliminary test.

You also need to remember that a false posative on a test like in these types of studies may show you have some amount of THC in your system, but not necessarily an amount over the legal limit, it may only show trace amounts.

quintus

GM228 wrote: »

^^ Hence why a blood test is required. The false posative can only occur on a preliminary test.

You also need to remember that a false posative on a test like in these types of studies may show you have some amount of THC in your system, but not necessarily an amount over the legal limit, it may only show trace amounts.

To hell with the inconvenience of it. Escorted to the Garda station for a blood test while your car is either parked up or impounded ( depending on where your check point is) and the cost. Your time means nothing.

Will you be instructed to show up at a later date for a blood test, or will it be the above scenario?

I predict chaos ahead. Simple as that. It is obvious that very little thought has gone into this.

Miike

quintus wrote: »

To hell with the inconvenience of it. Escorted to the Garda station for a blood test while your car is either parked up or impounded ( depending on where your check point is) and the cost. Your time means nothing.

Will you be instructed to show up at a later date for a blood test, or will it be the above scenario?

I predict chaos ahead. Simple as that. It is obvious that very little thought has gone into this.

There is actually nothing we can do about it though. Not a thing. You're right about the car being impounded and the cost for you.

GM228

Gardaí have no power of detention of vehicles when involved in drink/drunk driving.

They may only park it at the station or roadside but they can't impound it.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Miike

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My concern stems from a number of issues with the DTT5000. To highlight a few:
(1) Take a solpadeine and get tested. Positive for opiates, despite zero implications on my driving ability since the dose is so low you could give it to a toddler.
(2) DTT5000 false positive rates are ultra high for THC.
(3) Passive occupational THC exposure and the legal minefield we'll have to navigate around that.
(4) our comparative low limits in line with most recent research blood serum levels of THC vs driving impairment.

Esel

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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.

Are you a mango wholesaler?

quintus

Miike wrote: »

My concern stems from a number of issues with the DTT5000. To highlight a few:
(1) Take a solpadeine and get tested. Positive for opiates, despite zero implications on my driving ability since the dose is so low you could give it to a toddler.
(2) DTT5000 false positive rates are ultra high for THC.
(3) Passive occupational THC exposure and the legal minefield we'll have to navigate around that.
(4) our comparative low limits in line with most recent research blood serum levels of THC vs driving impairment.

These are my concerns as well.

BaronVon

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

S 4 (1)(a) of the 2016 Act contains a new offence of driving while having an intoxicant in your system, and the new machine will test for 4 of them, benzo's, opiates, cocaine and THC (Cannabis) above the prescribed levels, which were mentioned earlier. If convicted, it's a 1 year ban and a fine.

S 4 (1) will remain the same as it currently stands, if drugs are detected, the Guard will have to prove impairment as well as the presence of drugs via a blood test. It is proposed that impairment will generally be proven by Road Traffic Impairment Testing, Section 11 of the Act. It's then a fine and a 4 year ban.

So the Impairment Test will be the difference between a 1 year ban and the 4 year ban. Expect that to be heavily contested!

GM228

infacteh wrote: »

S 4 (1)(a) of the 2016 Act contains a new offence of driving while having an intoxicant in your system, and the new machine will test for 4 of them, benzo's, opiates, cocaine and THC (Cannabis) above the prescribed levels, which were mentioned earlier. If convicted, it's a 1 year ban and a fine.

S 4 (1) will remain the same as it currently stands, if drugs are detected, the Guard will have to prove impairment as well as the presence of drugs via a blood test. It is proposed that impairment will generally be proven by Road Traffic Impairment Testing, Section 11 of the Act. It's then a fine and a 4 year ban.

So the Impairment Test will be the difference between a 1 year ban and the 4 year ban. Expect that to be heavily contested!

Gardaí do not need to prove impairment, they can prove if they want for the purposes of S4(1) or 5(1) of the 2010 Act, but the offence of simply having the drugs in your system above the specific levels when tested (the new S4(1A) or 5(1A)) does not require impairment.

Impairment tests under S11 are optional for Gardaí­ to aid forming an opinion of impaired driving.

drunkmonkey

Isn't there something seriously wrong with being convicted of a crime when you weren't actually impaired.
A regular user might not have had some cannabis in 3 weeks yet would still fail a blood test and end up convicted.
I assume this is wide open to challenge in the courts, you'd have to show some level of impairment?

GM228

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Isn't there something seriously wrong with being convicted of a crime when you weren't actually impaired.
A regular user might not have had some cannabis in 3 weeks yet would still fail a blood test and end up convicted.
I assume this is wide open to challenge in the courts, you'd have to show some level of impairment?

But the crime is having it in your system above a certain level within three hours of driving, not impairment. The exact same can be said for alcohol.

Drink driving laws are probably the most tested laws in relation to motoring offences so no doubt the drug driving laws will be alongside them.

drunkmonkey

We haven't had any test of the law in relation to cannabis yet though or have we? Drug driving has been illegal for a while I'm not sure how long just remember the penalty was way out of line with other crimes, was it a mandatory 4 years off the road?

GM228

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We haven't had any test of the law in relation to cannabis yet though or have we?

Pretty certain we havn't just yet as it dosn't become law for another five days

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Drug driving has been illegal for a while I'm not sure how long just remember the penalty was way out of line with other crimes, was it a mandatory 4 years off the road?

Impairment from drug driving has been an offence since 1933.

The four year ban is for impairment and applies to drink driving aswell as drug driving and will still apply.

Miike

GM228 wrote: »

Pretty certain we havn't just yet as it dosn't become law for another four days

I was in a car on Thursday, pulled at a check point in Limerick and DTT5000 test was used on the driver?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.