Drug driving new laws

GM228

Miike wrote: »

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

The law allowing for testing does not take effect until the 15th (5 days time).

Miike

GM228 wrote: »

The law allowing for testing does not take effect until the 15th (5 days time).

So the test was conducted illegally?

drunkmonkey

What's a DTT5000?

GM228

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What's a DTT5000?

The Dräger DrugTest 5000, the machine used for preliminary drug testing.

https://www.draeger.com/en-us_us/Alcohol-and-Drug-Detection/Products/Breath-Alcohol-and-Drug-Testing/Drug-Testing-Devices/DrugTest-5000

drunkmonkey

Ah right the TLA threw me..

GM228

Miike wrote: »

So the test was conducted illegally?

As I said the law allowing for testing does not commence until the 13th.

I doubt the driver was tested especially as the few machines delivered thus far are held under lock and key in a number of stations by the local superintendent.

Pat Mustard

Mod note:

I think that this thread can remain as general discussion. Other posts relating to a more specific issue have been moved to this other thread.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Nope. They need no reasons to ask you to take the test.

Are you sure my understanding of the 2016 act is it amends the 2010 act so while check points may be use they must be authorised, after that the Garda must have formed an opinion if he just stops you that you consumed a drug.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Jkbored

Yes this is the case. It will be interesting to see it Ireland experiences the same problems as other countries who have introduced similar laws and the same testing equipment (drager 5000)

In austrailia where the same tests have been in place are now seeing a lot of cases being acquitted. In recent cases the judge has ruled the accused cannot be done for driving under the influence simply because there is a presence of an illegal substance. One driver who had consumed cannabis nine days before showing a positive on a road side test was acquitted because it could not be proven he was under any influence of the drug.

It seems as though this is a test to punish illegal drug users regardless of intoxication in an attempt to deter other drug drivers. The law states you must be driving under the influence but yet it seems now drivers can be prosecuted for presence only, regardless of influence or impairment.

In austrailia the drager 5000 detection times vary from state to state, some lists detection times up to 4, 12, 24 hour periods for cannabis.

We are being told 6 hours is the window for detection but 24 hours is considered safe to drive, yet on Dragers own website they list detection times up to 30 hours or more directly contradicting our government issued guidelines.

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

Yes this is the case. It will be interesting to see it Ireland experiences the same problems as other countries who have introduced similar laws and the same testing equipment (drager 5000)

In austrailia where the same tests have been in place are now seeing a lot of cases being acquitted. In recent cases the judge has ruled the accused cannot be done for driving under the influence simply because there is a presence of an illegal substance. One driver who had consumed cannabis nine days before showing a positive on a road side test was acquitted because it could not be proven he was under any influence of the drug.

It seems as though this is a test to punish illegal drug users regardless of intoxication in an attempt to deter other drug drivers. The law states you must be driving under the influence but yet it seems now drivers can be prosecuted for presence only, regardless of influence or impairment.

In austrailia the drager 5000 detection times vary from state to state, some lists detection times up to 4, 12, 24 hour periods for cannabis.

We are being told 6 hours is the window for detection but 24 hours is considered safe to drive, yet on Dragers own website they list detection times up to 30 hours or more directly contradicting our government issued guidelines.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Drager 5000 is the saliva test. A positive result leads to a trip to Garda station and a blood test taken by a doctor which is then sent to medical bureau any sample must exceed 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)

5ng/ml

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

You cannot be convicted from a road side test.

I will bet a person within next 3 hours will claim that a person can be convicted on the basis of the road side test no matter how many times the law had been clearly set out, some people so stoned they can't read not to mind drive a car.

Jkbored

"After approximately 5 hours, the Delta-9 THC component has metabolised into Carboxy THC in your body. Carboxy THC is inactive and may be present in your body for days or weeks after consuming the drug. Police will not be testing for Carboxy THC during the roadside swab test."

So the blood test is for carboxy thc (non active) which can stay in the system for weeks.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole point of dui is the drug being active in your system. Blood test showing carboxy thc from 2-3 weeks prior does not fit an under the influence charge ?

drunkmonkey

Jkbored wrote: »

"After approximately 5 hours, the Delta-9 THC component has metabolised into Carboxy THC in your body. Carboxy THC is inactive and may be present in your body for days or weeks after consuming the drug. Police will not be testing for Carboxy THC during the roadside swab test."

So if the blood test is for carboxy thc (non active) which can stay in the system for weeks.

What are they testing for in the blood test do we know?

Really Interested

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What are they testing for in the blood test do we know?

Yes it's in the act

Jkbored

any sample must exceed 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)

This is what it states

Jkbored

The point I am making is

A road side test can show positive up to 30 hours or more after consumption as stated by the manufacturer Drager.

If you test positive you are arrested and a blood test is taken that shows presence of carboxy thc which can stay in your system for up to a month or more after consumption depending on health, weight, metabolism etc.

These time frames are not consistent with being impaired or under an influence.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

The point I am making is

A road side test can show positive up to 30 hours or more after consumption as stated by the manufacturer Drager.

If you test positive you are arrested and a blood test is taken that shows presence of carboxy thc which can stay in your system for up to a month or more depending, health, weight, metabolism etc.

It must how presence above the limit. From what I have seen other than heavy chronic users limits are below that required for conviction within hours.

Tigger

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The test could easily delay me by up to 15 minutes would the Garda not Ned t have formed n opinion to delay me by that amount of time ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Jkbored

Edited

Jkbored

Really Interested wrote: »

It must how presence above the limit. From what I have seen other than heavy chronic users limits are below that required for conviction within hours.

This is not always the case as many different factors can affect this test result.

I am completely against driving under impairment of any description especially drugs but as seen in other countries this type of testing, oral and blood is not consistent or fair and does coincide with being under any influence or impairment.


To be convicted of driving under the influence, a person should be under an influence that is the law. I see this as another ideological campaign against drugs dressed up as a road safety issue. If someone is impaired or driving under the influence they should be prosecuted, prosecuting people who may have consumed a controlled substance weeks prior is unjust, especially considering the implications of such a serious conviction. Tying up the courts to convict people of a crime they didn't commit while real drug cases, violent crimes and other cases should have priority.

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

This is not always the case as many different factors can affect this test result.

I am completely against driving under impairment of any description especially drugs but as seen in other countries this type of testing, oral and blood is not consistent or fair and does coincide with being under any influence or impairment.

You bring up the crux of the issue. The question is where is the balance struck. Impairment cases are very hard to prove to the required standard on the other hand limit cases are easy to prosecute but may mean a person (Drink or drugs) may be convicted and the driving be perfect.

If you can come up with a balance that fixes those problems you are a genius

Jkbored

Really Interested wrote: »

You bring up the crux of the issue. The question is where is the balance struck. Impairment cases are very hard to prove to the required standard on the other hand limit cases are easy to prosecute but may mean a person (Drink or drugs) may be convicted and the driving be perfect.

If you can come up with a balance that fixes those problems you are a genius

I do not know the answer to that but I do know the new laws on their own, without any proof of impairment or evidence of recent drug taking are not fair or just.

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

I feel a positive road side test, failed impairment test (which has been in practice for years in this country) and a blood sample would be more along the correct lines.

At least the impairment test can prove actual impairment at the time, we can't rely on the other tests alone as they do not show current impairment and that is the law the person will be accused of actually breaking.

Impairment testing was only commenced by order in 2014 and the tests came in by regulation in 2014 . I have never seen any case where tests are carried out.

In your idea the blood test would only show that there is the presence of Drink or drugs, a person coming home from work may fail an impairment test or a person may have medical issues which mean a impairment test is thrown out or can not be performed.

If we want impairment test with positives for Drink or drugs expect it to become very difficult to get a conviction.

Limits while seeming unfair are very hard to get a dismiss

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/534/made/en/print

Jkbored

Really Interested wrote: »

Impairment testing was only commenced by order in 2014 and the tests came in by regulation in 2014 . I have never seen any case where tests are carried out.

In your idea the blood test would only show that there is the presence of Drink or drugs, a person coming home from work may fail an impairment test or a person may have medical issues which mean a impairment test is thrown out or can not be performed.

If we want impairment test with positives for Drink or drugs expect it to become very difficult to get a conviction.

Limits while seeming unfair are very hard to get a dismiss

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/534/made/en/print

They don't seem unfair, they are totally unjustified. I understand an impairment test on its own isn't enough for numerous reasons but combined with a positive road side drug test and also a confirmed blood sample it is at least closer to a reasonable conclusion.

Limits of a substance that have no affect whatsoever on impairment are not unfair they are completely beside the point. Drink can be easily tested this way but this is not the same for all drugs, it is not simply black or white and until a correct system has been put in place, falsely prosecuting and potentially ruining innocent people's lives shouldn't be acceptable.

As it stands now a person who responsibly uses cannabis and does not attempt to drive even after a 30 hour period (longer than what is now stated as considered safe to drive on the Garda.ie website) can still be prosecuted, fined, jailed, loose their licence, job, house, not be able to emigrate among many other things. All this for a law that they did not break.

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

They don't seem unfair, they are totally un-just. I understand an impairment test on its own isn't enough for numerous reasons but combined with a positive road side drug test and also a confirmed blood sample it is at least closer to a reasonable conclusion.

Limits of a substance that has no affect whatsoever to impairment or more than unfair.

Well we have had drink drive limits for 50 plus years did you advocate against them during the last half century if not why are the suddenly unfair.

Jkbored

Really Interested wrote: »

Well we have had drink drive limits for 50 plus years did you advocate against them during the last half century if not why are the suddenly unfair.

Why would I advocate against them ? Drink drive limits are not unfair as this is a reasonable scientific way of measuring someone's CURRENT alcohol level.

The key word is CURRENT are you missing the point. If someone got drunk a month ago and there was a way you could see a trace of alcohol in their system should this person be classed as impaired even though there last drink was taken over a month ago ?