Drug driving new laws

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

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 classed as impaired even though there last drink was taken over a month ago ?

And can you point at any current study that says if a person uses a drug today they will exceed the limits set out in the act in 30 days. Or are you missing that point.

The only study I have seen says in a study of 25 heavy chroinc users some may exceed the limits as set out after a number of days but no mention of 30 days.

Jkbored

What 30 days ? You are the only one who has mentioned 30 days ?

Drager tt5000 road side testing does not conform with impaired time frames, as clearly stated on their own website and has been proven in acquitted cases around the world.

Blood and urine samples also do not conform with impaired time frames as they too can show weeks after a substance has been consumed.

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

i was using 30 days as an example to explain.

Drager tt5000 road side testing does not conform with impaired time frames, as clearly stated on their own website and has been proven in acquitted cases around the world.

Blood and urine samples also do not conform with impaired time frames as they too can show weeks after a substance has been consumed.

We in Ireland do not use urine tests for the new drug system. The Drager only indicates presence can not be used in a case.

So the blood test has a limit can you show any study that shows a normal user will exceed that limit after a number of days?

Certain biomarkets can show up for months in blood tests for drinkers we just can't convict them of Drink driving based on it.

Jkbored

Sorry earlier I mentioned 30 hours not days.

The site will not let me post links as I am a new member ?

If there is a way around this please let me know

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

It will not let me post links as I am a new member ?

If there is a way around this please let me know

Just put in the link with no URL tabs may work or remove the www at the start

Jkbored

I am trying to find a link for the blood. Regular users a week show thc in the blood 4-7 days depending.

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

Marijuana Detection Time Based on Usage

Usage at 1 time only 5-8 days
Usage at 2-4 times per month 11-18 days
Usage at 2-4 times per week 23-35 days
Usage at 5-6 times per week 33-48 days
Daily Usage 49-63 days
Note: Detection times vary depending on many factors, including drug potency, tolerance, patient’s condition, fluid intake at time of test, method and frequency of marijuana use, body type, metabolism, exercise frequency and many others. These are general guidelines only.

That is detection times not that a person will exceed a certain limit after days. In fact according to links posted after taking a joint in blood after a short time reading can hit 100ng/ml quickly dropping so that after a few hours reading would be lower than 5ug/ml. So again I ask can you show any study that a person would exceed the below reading in blood 1 day after smoking for a normal user.

11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)

5ng/ml

Jkbored

Really Interested wrote: »

That is detection times not that a person will exceed a certain limit after days. In fact according to links posted after taking a joint in blood after a short time reading can hit 100ng/ml quickly dropping so that after a few hours reading would be lower than 5ug/ml. So again I ask can you show any study that a person would exceed the below reading in blood 1 day after smoking for a normal user.

11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)

5ng/ml

No but I'm working on it 😊 It's getting late

Really Interested

Jkbored wrote: »

No but I'm working on it 😊 It's getting late

Well I would be interested to see any such evidence I have been looking for over a week now and not found anything to show a normal user would exceed the limit after 8-12 hours.

Past research conducted in our laboratory showed that THC concentrations decreased rapidly and fell below quantification limits in approximately 12.5 ± 3.1 h after a 3.55% THC cigarette (13). Also, mean THC concentrations were only 0.86 ± 0.22 ng/mL in chronic users 12 h after last cannabis use in a study by Peat et al.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3159863/

Jkbored

Ok you win. 3.2 ng/ml was the best I could find.. I admit defeat and I thank you for educating me on this matter. I apologise.


In regular users, detectable amounts of blood THC can persist for days. In one study of regular users, residual THC was detected for 24 to 48 hours or longer at levels of 0.5 - 3.2 ng/ml in whole blood (1.0 - 6.4 ng/ml in serum

Miike

Really Interested wrote: »

That is detection times not that a person will exceed a certain limit after days. In fact according to links posted after taking a joint in blood after a short time reading can hit 100ng/ml quickly dropping so that after a few hours reading would be lower than 5ug/ml. So again I ask can you show any study that a person would exceed the below reading in blood 1 day after smoking for a normal user.

11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)

5ng/ml

Irish law limit is 1ng/ml THC in blood. 5 times lower than othe counterparts in Europe which is 5ng/ml. At work at the moment so can't go looking for links but Google tells all.

GM228

Miike wrote: »

Really Interested wrote: »

That is detection times not that a person will exceed a certain limit after days. In fact according to links posted after taking a joint in blood after a short time reading can hit 100ng/ml quickly dropping so that after a few hours reading would be lower than 5ug/ml. So again I ask can you show any study that a person would exceed the below reading in blood 1 day after smoking for a normal user.

11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)

5ng/ml

Irish law limit is 1ng/ml THC in blood. 5 times lower than othe counterparts in Europe which is 5ng/ml. At work at the moment so can't go looking for links but Google tells all.

Limit for 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol is 5ng/ml.

1 ng/ml limit is for Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol which is THC in it's purest form. 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol is the metabolite formed by smoking Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and as already shown is one of the highest legal limits in the EU.

Google isn't the law, the limits and the legislation have already been detailed in this thread.

Really Interested

Miike wrote: »

Irish law limit is 1ng/ml THC in blood. 5 times lower than othe counterparts in Europe which is 5ng/ml. At work at the moment so can't go looking for links but Google tells all.

1

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)
1ng/ml
2
11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)
5ng/ml



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/act/21/section/8/enacted/en/html#sec8

Miike

Really Interested wrote: »

1

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)
1ng/ml
2
11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis)
5ng/ml



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/act/21/section/8/enacted/en/html#sec8

I thought it was just Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol I read in the legislation. My bad!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951

(1A) A person, other than a person referred to in subsection (1B), commits an offence if, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place with intent to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle (but not driving or attempting to drive it), there is present in his or her body a quantity of a drug specified in column (2) of the Schedule such that, within 3 hours after so being in charge, the concentration of that drug in his or her blood is equal to or greater than the concentration specified in column (3) at the same reference number.

How is this 'intent' determined?

If I park my car on the street and go to a friend's pad and have a toke, would the mere fact of leaving my friend's place be sufficient to show intent?

Really Interested

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

How is this 'intent' determined?

If I park my car on the street and go to a friend's pad and have a toke, would the mere fact of leaving my friend's place be sufficient to show intent?

Intent is presumed unless the Defendant rebuts it. In the example you gave assuming you have not returned to the car which you have parked, then I'm not even sure they can prove you were in charge, even if they do prove that then intent can easily be rebutted.

This charge usually turns up where the Defendant is sitting in the car. Say you left your friends house and you waiting in bus stop for a bus then you not in charge. Say on the other hand you had returned to the car to get your overnight bag as you decided to stay in spare room, then there is no intent to drive.

Deciding to sleep in the car is more complex as if say your intention was to sleep and then drive home you may be guilty, but if you intended to sleep, and not drive the car on waking but say as your office was close by to go for breakfast and go to work and only after work drive home the intention is not connected to you being in charge at arrest.

To be honest this area of law is complex with a number of Irish Cases on point.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Naturally having driven the car and parked it I would have the keys in my possession.
In fact I always have the keys in my possession as they remain in my pocket at all times except when driving.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure ....... but that is not a practical solution.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The easiest way to disprove intent is not to have the keys. It would be an absolute defence to any in charge offences.

You don't have to disprove intent you just have to rebut the presumption. The state must prove to the criminal standard the Defendant only has to raise the rebuttal.

Really Interested

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Sure ....... but that is not a practical solution.

In reality it's a fact based issue. A person with keys in pocket walking away from car should not be in difficulty.

Most cases involve the person in the car, key in ignition often engine running.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/drunk-man-sleeping-in-car-may-face-intent-to-drive-charge-1.340923%3Fmode%3Damp

Johnboy1951

Really Interested wrote: »

You don't have to disprove intent you just have to rebut the presumption. The state must prove to the criminal standard the Defendant only has to raise the rebuttal.

Would it be true to say that if one sat into the driver's seat then it would be near impossible to convince a court that there was no intent to drive, but sitting in the rear of the vehicle might do so?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

There have been successful prosecutions for drunk in charge where a person was sleeping in the car and keys in possession.

Yes and there have been cases where the accused has got charge dismissed.

The issue is a factual one of intent at time when the accused went to sleep.

I intended to sleep then drive more than likely convict.
I intended to sleep then leave car go for breakfast, take bus the short distance to work, then at a later stage return to drive the car then more than likely dismiss.

Really Interested

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Would it be true to say that if one sat into the driver's seat then it would be near impossible to convince a court that there was no intent to drive, but sitting in the rear of the vehicle might do so?

It depends on the facts and the intent at time of entering the car even been in back seat could lead to conviction as being in front could lead to dismiss.

Johnboy1951

Really Interested wrote: »

Yes and there have been cases where the accused has got charge dismissed.

The issue is a factual one of intent at time when the accused went to sleep.

I intended to sleep then drive more than likely convict.
I intended to sleep then leave car go for breakfast, take bus the short distance to work, then at a later stage return to drive the car then more than likely dismiss.

That is troubling, as the 'drunk' element would not necessarily apply at the time of the attempt to drive in the morning.

I see little difference between a driver leaving his car at home while going 'for a few'. When he leaves the pub with his keys in his pocket, to go home and sleep, he has the intent to drive afterwards.

Really Interested

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That is troubling, as the 'drunk' element would not necessarily apply at the time of the attempt to drive in the morning.

I see little difference between a driver leaving his car at home while going 'for a few'. When he leaves the pub with his keys in his pocket, to go home and sleep, he has the intent to drive afterwards.

The deference in your example is he may have keys but I do not believe the state can prove the required in charge as he goes home to sleep!

I am not aware of any case of in charge where the accused was not at least near or in the car. I remember a reported case where accused was at home went out to car to get briefcase. The court accepted when he opened the car he was in charge but there was no intention while he was so in charge to drive the car.

In relation to intent in the future when not drunk it's not really about that it's what was the intent when in charge even sleeping it off as long as intention was to sleep and then drive the in charge and intention are connected.

Johnboy1951

Really Interested wrote: »

The deference in your example is he may have keys but I do not believe the state can prove the required in charge as he goes home to sleep!

I am not aware of any case of in charge where the accused was not at least near or in the car. I remember a reported case where accused was at home went out to car to get briefcase. The court accepted when he opened the car he was in charge but there was no intention while he was so in charge to drive the car.

In relation to intent in the future when not drunk it's not really about that it's what was the intent when in charge even sleeping it off as long as intention was to sleep and then drive the in charge and intention are connected.

If I understand this correctly, it is what I find troubling.
If I am over the limit - say consumed two or three pints of beer.
My intent is to drive when sober (maybe after a few hours sleep or rest).
I am in charge of the vehicle - even to the point of sitting/sleeping in the rear of the vehicle - or sleep at home - or anywhere else.

I am stating I have/had no intent to break the drink driving law, and have not exhibited any intent to do so (ex. by starting the vehicle), yet if I understand the info you have provided so far (thanks for that) I can be charged (and likely convicted) of having the intent to drive while under the influence.
[I have use alcohol in the example but this seems to apply equally to the new drug law]

I guess I do not understand how my intent can be determined with any accuracy, without me performing some act such as moving the vehicle with the engine running.
I could understand an acceptable assumption being made of my intent if I had a record of 'drink driving'.
Equally could not the assumption be in my favour if I have no such record?

We go through every day with varies intentions which we never act upon.