Drug driving new laws

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951

In Ireland, there is a twin-track approach to drug driving: Firstly, it is against the law to drive under the influence of drugs (including prescribed drugs) where your driving is impaired to such an extent that you don’t have proper control of the vehicle. Secondly, it is against the law to drive under the influence of certain drugs (regardless of driving performance) above specified levels. There are currently three drugs tested for– cannabis, cocaine and heroin. If you are found to have any of these drugs above the specified limits, you can be prosecuted for drug driving even if your driving is not impaired.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Anti-Drug-Driving/

The part I am unsure about is the 'impairment'.
Besides opinions of observers (guardai) which might well be influenced by the results of blood tests, is there some definitive method of determining 'impairment'?
So far all I have read says that a specific amount of substance affects reactions and decision making to whatever extent.

That sort of vagueness causes me to wonder about the comparative quality of driving between people of different ages and attention span and other variables, and how it might be measured.
I don't expect the reactions etc of a 75 year old to be on a par with a 35 year old.
I might even expect an 'impaired' 35 year old to be more safe than an 'unimpaired' 75 year old.

I am not disputing the general statement that

marijuana can slow reaction time, impair judgement of time and distance, and decrease coordination

but am more wondering how this is all to be judged or determined in relation to various competency of drivers on our roads.

GM228

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

is there some definitive method of determining 'impairment'?

Yes, but they are optional, see the Road Traffic Act 2010 (Impairment Testing) Regulations 2014.

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

Miike

drunkmonkey wrote: »

When there taking a blood sample you can have one to take home yourself and get an independent test.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/enacted/en/print#sec15

Section 15.2

Johnboy1951

GM228 wrote: »

Yes, but they are optional, see the Road Traffic Act 2010 (Impairment Testing) Regulations 2014.

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

But ....... how is it determined that any impairment observed is due to consumption of some substance and not the norm for that person?

Many of those tests would be impossible for a large number of people without consumption of any specified substance.

GM228

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

But ....... how is it determined that any impairment observed is due to consumption of some substance and not the norm for that person?

Many of those tests would be impossible for a large number of people without consumption of any specified substance.

Impairement test results + results of a blood test = evidence used to show the impairment.

Johnboy1951

GM228 wrote: »

Impairement test results + results of a blood test = evidence used to show the impairment.

The impairment tests show the presence of the impairment and not its cause, that I can determine.
How many drivers, or percentage of drivers, would show impairment as a result of those tests?

I am not aware of any widespread study done on drivers in Ireland using those tests (drivers who have not taken any of the concerned substances).

I would like to see the results of such a study.

GM228

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The impairment tests show the presence of the impairment and not its cause, that I can determine.
How many drivers, or percentage of drivers, would show impairment as a result of those tests?

Other evidence will point to impairment rather than simply the impairment tests in itself such as a Gardas observation of how a car was being driven and the accuseds behaviour and this will be the main part of the evidence after the blood test results.

Convictions for impairment are not as common as other related offences, but they do happen based on a Gardas evidence and the blood test (irrespective of the level of drugs), once drugs are present and a Garda gives evidence of impairenent a conviction usually follows as the level of drugs are seen as irrelevant.

As one DC judge stated in an affidavid to the High Court in relation to the level of drugs present in an imparement charge in Doyle vs Judge Connellan & anor [2010] IEHC 287:-

Judge Connellan wrote:

The legislator has graded alcohol so it is possible to deal with ‘drunk driving’ by virtue of the amount of alcohol as dictated by the blood, urine or breath test. Because the legislator did not grade the quantity of drugs in one’s system it was obvious that it was the intention of the legislature that a conviction must follow where drugs are found in a person’s system

The case was not suitable for judicial review so it would seem that Connellan's opinion that the level of drugs is irrelevant isn't tested as I don't know of it coming up in any other cases.

DC judges seem to follow the same reasoning in such charges I believe - obviously that may change in relation to the drugs mentioned in the 2016 Act, but it probably still stands for other drugs not listed.

I don't agree with Connellan's statement as the level of drug should IMO be taken into account to a degree, also to note it is for the superior courts to decide on the legislative intent.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am not aware of any widespread study done on drivers in Ireland using those tests (drivers who have not taken any of the concerned substances).

I would like to see the results of such a study.

I doubt you will find any such study.

Johnboy1951

Thanks GM228 for that comprehensive reply.
It seems to confirm what I had set out as a concern when you write

Other evidence will point to impairment rather than simply the impairment tests in itself such as a Gardas observation of how a car was being driven and the accuseds behaviour and this will be the main part of the evidence after the blood test results.

I posted above

Besides opinions of observers (guardai) which might well be influenced by the results of blood tests, is there some definitive method of determining 'impairment'?

It seems to me that the 'impairment' charge is dependent on some garda's observation which might or might not be influenced by other matters, and even if an accused wished to counter the guarda's opinion, there is nothing available except the accused's opposing opinion.

It is possible to be impaired and yet quite capable of driving. There are specific licence categories for that.

I guess I do not like a law where the opinion of one person can mean so much, without any meaningful way an accused can show a counter opinion.
Essentially, it seems to me, that a garda's opinion could be taken as fact.

Kevin3

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thanks GM228 for that comprehensive reply.
It seems to confirm what I had set out as a concern when you write

I posted above


It seems to me that the 'impairment' charge is dependent on some garda's observation which might or might not be influenced by other matters, and even if an accused wished to counter the guarda's opinion, there is nothing available except the accused's opposing opinion.

It is possible to be impaired and yet quite capable of driving. There are specific licence categories for that.

I guess I do not like a law where the opinion of one person can mean so much, without any meaningful way an accused can show a counter opinion.
Essentially, it seems to me, that a garda's opinion could be taken as fact.

Their opinion would be backed up by an impairment test (a pupil dilation test, modified romberg balance test, walk and turn test, one-leg stand and a finger-to-nose test) and the accompanying paperwork made at the time of the test.

An interesting point you raised is that the legislation for the drugs that do not have a quantifiable limit use the legislative 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.

How can a blood test which shows the presence of a drug along with a guard's opinion of impairment due to the person's behaviour during impairment tests prove that both are linked?

The required proof is that the person is under the influence of an intoxicant (drink and/or drugs) to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle?

Could there not be the case where a small amount of, how ever many drugs, were detected in a person's blood but them not causing any actual impairment. The impairment could be caused by fatigue, lack of food or an infection of the inner ear which causes dizziness and affects balance.

How can the prosecution possibly link the impairment with the drug beyond reasonable doubt?

Really Interested

Kevin3 wrote: »

Their opinion would be backed up by an impairment test (a pupil dilation test, modified romberg balance test, walk and turn test, one-leg stand and a finger-to-nose test) and the accompanying paperwork made at the time of the test.

An interesting point you raised is that the legislation for the drugs that do not have a quantifiable limit use the legislative section:



How can a blood test which shows the presence of a drug along with a guard's opinion of impairment due to the person's behaviour during impairment tests prove that both are linked?

The required proof is that the person is under the influence of an intoxicant (drink and/or drugs) to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle?

Could there not be the case where a small amount of, how ever many drugs, were detected in a person's blood but them not causing any actual impairment. The impairment could be caused by fatigue, lack of food or an infection of the inner ear which causes dizziness and affects balance.

How can the prosecution possibly link the impairment with the drug beyond reasonable doubt?

This is why impairment cases are so hard for the state to win, even if a conviction in District Court, many are over turned on appeal, unless there is very good evidence to link the intoxicant and the impaired driving. Hence why the 2016 Act removes the impairment test and now it is an offence if certain drugs are in excess of certain limits in blood sample just like Drink.

Don't be surprised once the law has been tested that the limits will start to be reduced.

Kevin3

Really Interested wrote: »

This is why impairment cases are so hard for the state to win, even if a conviction in District Court, many are over turned on appeal, unless there is very good evidence to link the intoxicant and the impaired driving. Hence why the 2016 Act removes the impairment test and now it is an offence if certain drugs are in excess of certain limits in blood sample just like Drink.

Don't be surprised once the law has been tested that the limits will start to be reduced.

Well, the impairment tests are still there in the case where it's not one of the three drugs with limits. The 2016 Act didn't remove them.

Really Interested

Kevin3 wrote: »

Well, the impairment tests are still there in the case where it's not one of the three drugs with limits. The 2016 Act didn't remove them.

Yes the 2016 act does not remove impairment cases nor does it make it any easier to prosecute such cases. I looked over my earlier post and I did not mean to say it removed impairment test. My bad.

STB.

Really Interested wrote: »

Hence why the 2016 Act removes the impairment test and now it is an offence if certain drugs are in excess of certain limits in blood sample just like Drink.

Don't be surprised once the law has been tested that the limits will start to be reduced.

This is the crux of the issue.

Impairment doesnt come in to the equation whatsoever.

Some people will fail the saliva test as a result of smoking a joint many days previously. Given impairment is already not necessary for a roadside test the question is what these tests are set to achieve.

Is it to punish occasional dope smokers or to resolve supposed issues with deaths due to people smoking cannabis.

To do the latter impairment should come into the equation, otherwise you have a ludicrous situation whereby you are taking peoples licences away when someone might have a had a smoke or two of cannabis a few days before driving a car. This would be on par with a situation whereby someone has a beer a few days beforehand and gets taken off the road, because they failed an equally sensitive test.

They introduced a similar regime of random roadside tests in New South Wales in the last year or so. 1 in 7 people failed the test in the first year. At least one case has been thrown out where a driver failed the saliva test 9 days after smoking cannabis. The police had been advising recreational smokers not to drive for a week.

I am sure that is not the spirit of the legislation but there does not seem to be leeway. It has simply been introduced as a black and white scenario. Unfortunately a lot of people are at risk of falling foul of this legislation even though their experience of having used the drug would have had zero effect on their ability of driving a car safely.

Removing recreational smokers licences whose driving is not impaired, but have failed a random test is no way to "test" legislation.

Johnboy1951

STB. wrote: »

This is the crux of the issue.

Impairment doesnt come in to the equation whatsoever.

Some people will fail the saliva test as a result of smoking a joint many days previously. Given impairment is already not necessary for a roadside test the question is what these tests are set to achieve.

Is it to punish occasional dope smokers or to resolve supposed issues with deaths due to people smoking cannabis.

To do the latter impairment should come into the equation, otherwise you have a ludicrous situation whereby you are taking peoples licences away when someone might have a had a smoke or two of cannabis a few days before driving a car. This would be on par with a situation whereby someone has a beer a few days beforehand and gets taken off the road, because they failed an equally sensitive test.

They introduced a similar regime of random roadside tests in New South Wales in the last year or so. 1 in 7 people failed the test in the first year. At least one case has been thrown out where a driver failed the saliva test 9 days after smoking cannabis. The police had been advising recreational smokers not to drive for a week.

I am sure that is not the spirit of the legislation but there does not seem to be leeway. It has simply been introduced as a black and white scenario. Unfortunately a lot of people are at risk of falling foul of this legislation even though their experience of having used the drug would have had zero effect on their ability of driving a car safely.

Removing recreational smokers licences whose driving is not impaired, but have failed a random test is no way to "test" legislation.

I agree, but equally, it is not possible to gauge impairment without a base line, and each of us have different capabilities.
My 'base line' could be much worse than yours, so if gauged against your 'norm' I might seem impaired at my norm.

To expect anyone to be able to asses whether I am impaired or not would require them to have my base-line data.
Everything else is just guesswork or comparison with some 'average' which would be nonsense.

So it seems impossible to, in any meaningful manner, gauge impairment, and it should be dropped.
That of course leaves the possibility of what you describe ..... an ever reducing level which in itself will do nothing to ensure safer driving.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I wonder how much each individual test actually costs? Those fluid collection devices can only be used once?

I assume that not as expensive as the blood test, taking into account the test kit, postage and lab time.

From what I can see the contract worth 1.5 million I assume including supplies.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/183448[URL][/url]

myfreespirit

STB. wrote: »

This is the crux of the issue.

Impairment doesnt come in to the equation whatsoever.

Some people will fail the saliva test as a result of smoking a joint many days previously. Given impairment is already not necessary for a roadside test the question is what these tests are set to achieve.

Is it to punish occasional dope smokers or to resolve supposed issues with deaths due to people smoking cannabis.

To do the latter impairment should come into the equation, otherwise you have a ludicrous situation whereby you are taking peoples licences away when someone might have a had a smoke or two of cannabis a few days before driving a car. This would be on par with a situation whereby someone has a beer a few days beforehand and gets taken off the road, because they failed an equally sensitive test.

They introduced a similar regime of random roadside tests in New South Wales in the last year or so. 1 in 7 people failed the test in the first year. At least one case has been thrown out where a driver failed the saliva test 9 days after smoking cannabis. The police had been advising recreational smokers not to drive for a week.

I am sure that is not the spirit of the legislation but there does not seem to be leeway. It has simply been introduced as a black and white scenario. Unfortunately a lot of people are at risk of falling foul of this legislation even though their experience of having used the drug would have had zero effect on their ability of driving a car safely.

Removing recreational smokers licences whose driving is not impaired, but have failed a random test is no way to "test" legislation.

Check out The Road Safety Authority (RSA) website which says in a Frequently Asked Questions document:
Question 27: "I smoke cannabis regularly, how do I know when I am allowed to drive after taking it?
It is recommended to wait 24 hours after last using cannabis before driving. If you are sure you are no longer impaired as result of taking cannabis and more than 6 hours have elapsed since last use it should not be possible for a Garda to detect impairment and the 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level in you oral fluid should be lower than the detection limit for the Cannabis test on the Drager Drugtest 5000."

Note the use of the words "should not" and "should" however.

Johnboy1951

myfreespirit wrote: »

Check out The Road Safety Authority (RSA) website which says in a Frequently Asked Questions document:
Question 27: "I smoke cannabis regularly, how do I know when I am allowed to drive after taking it?
It is recommended to wait 24 hours after last using cannabis before driving. If you are sure you are no longer impaired as result of taking cannabis and more than 6 hours have elapsed since last use it should not be possible for a Garda to detect impairment and the 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level in you oral fluid should be lower than the detection limit for the Cannabis test on the Drager Drugtest 5000."

Note the use of the words "should not" and "should" however.

How is a Garda supposed to competently assess impairment at the side of the road?
It is impossible IMO.
Do the RSA address this?

Really Interested

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

How is a Garda supposed to competently assess impairment at the side of the road?
It is impossible IMO.
Do the RSA address this?

Impaired driving has been an offence for decades and there have been many prosecutions for same over the years.

The new Act just changes one thing in relation to 3 specified drugs it makes it an offence to after a blood test exceed certain readings just like it has been for Drink for years.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Little CuChulainn

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

How is a Garda supposed to competently assess impairment at the side of the road?
It is impossible IMO.
Do the RSA address this?

With a roadside impairment test.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The new law allows the Garda? to cast a wide net to catch offenders that would not otherwise up to now be caught.

I am personally aware of at least 6 drug driving case pre dating this new Act.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Yachtcarpenter

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It will catch people what would have previously been below the radar, as there is now no need to prove impairment.
Just throw up a MIT checkpoint and you won't be long catching a few smokers.

That certainly seems to be the case.

Am I correct in saying that the draeger machine is set to 1ng limit (can be set to suit each country's law ? )and whole blood is 5ng.

From my understanding the 5ng limit (whole blood) is pretty much comparable to the alcohol limit. From most references etc online and posted here to exceed that level after say 8 hours would be highly unlikely even in heavy smokers ( I would say this is similar in heavy drinkers) but you would more than likely fail roadside test as the sensitivity is quite low up to approx 24-30 hours.

the result will show a higher level of arrests at checkpoints, (looks good in the media) but can't see a whole lot of convictions unless you smoked pretty much within a few hours and blood sample taken..

It's certainly seems to be portrayed as if you test positive at the roadside, you will be convicted of an offence, but in the guarda statement saying "after 6 hours has elapsed etc " would suggest it's known that you won't fail blood test but it will put enough fear out there to achieve what's intended..

Miike

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Each test cassette costs €15.00

STB.

Yachtcarpenter wrote: »

From my understanding the 5ng limit (whole blood) is pretty much comparable to the alcohol limit. From most references etc online and posted here to exceed that level after say 8 hours would be highly unlikely even in heavy smokers ( I would say this is similar in heavy drinkers) but you would more than likely fail roadside test as the sensitivity is quite low up to approx 24-30 hours.

the result will show a higher level of arrests at checkpoints, (looks good in the media) but can't see a whole lot of convictions unless you smoked pretty much within a few hours and blood sample taken..

It's certainly seems to be portrayed as if you test positive at the roadside, you will be convicted of an offence, but in the guarda statement saying "after 6 hours has elapsed etc " would suggest it's known that you won't fail blood test but it will put enough fear out there to achieve what's intended..

You would think. Unfortunately the limits are not comparable as the sentivities of the test means it can detect someone who has smoked a joint days previously.

This is far from what the test is set to achieve. The test is not a replacement for prohibition laws or to punish occasional recreational smokers days later where impairment most certainly would not be an issue. This has been the expereince in Oz, wwith people failing the Drager threshold 9 days later.

The waste of time spent by Gardai dealing with these ludicrous istuations, not to mention those arrested on suspicion due to lack of certainty (66% accuracy of detection)the fear it puts in those that have tested positive given the damaging repercussions is OTT, and all without the need for impaired driving being displayed.

The stories are starting to appear already.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-was-humiliated-by-drug-driving-arrest-because-of-my-medication-driver-hits-out-at-new-laws-35639371.html

And if you really want to be annoyed, listen to the interview with a man who was stopped on the N11, failed the saliva test,, brought to Bray Garda Station, put in a cell and had to get a taxi back to the N11 at 2 in the morning. The mans results were then published in the newspaper. The man in question is on a rake of drugs for medical conditions, including cancer.

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F21161985%5F53%5F20%2D04%2D2017%5F

Yachtcarpenter

STB. wrote: »

You would think. Unfortunately the limits are not comparable as the sentivities of the test means it can detect someone who has smoked a joint days previously.

This is far from what the test is set to achieve. The test is not a replacement for prohibition laws or to punish occasional recreational smokers days later where impairment most certainly would not be an issue. This has been the expereince in Oz, wwith people failing the Drager threshold 9 days later.

The waste of time spent by Gardai dealing with these ludicrous istuations, not to mention those arrested on suspicion due to lack of certainty (66% accuracy of detection)the fear it puts in those that have tested positive given the damaging repercussions is OTT, and all without the need for impaired driving being displayed.

The stories are starting to appear already.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-was-humiliated-by-drug-driving-arrest-because-of-my-medication-driver-hits-out-at-new-laws-35639371.html

And if you really want to be annoyed, listen to the interview with a man who was stopped on the N11, failed the saliva test,, brought to Bray Garda Station, put in a cell and had to get a taxi back to the N11 at 2 in the morning. The mans results were then published in the newspaper. The man in question is on a rake of drugs for medical conditions, including cancer.

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F21161985%5F53%5F20%2D04%2D2017%5F

So basically the rsa and gardai are completely misleading the public in relation to their scenarios and guidelines on cannabis which were published?

What would a realistic limit be for saliva test to reflect the level set in blood, given that it has been accepted that a 5ng limit has been defined as being impaired in many countries? Yet to exceed that you would have to have smoked within the last 6 to 8 hours which I believe is fair enough..

The guy on the n11, taking that level of drugs may or may not cause a person to be impaired but if he is convicted of it, and a qualified doctor says he's not impaired, the levels set are not exceeded but guard says he was impaired there will be uproar over the whole thing..

The Specialist

Not driving for 6-8 hours after a joint is nonsense, even the strongest weed will wear off an hour or 2. It's not heroin.

Miike

The Specialist wrote: »

Not driving for 6-8 hours after a joint is nonsense, even the strongest weed will wear off an hour or 2. It's not heroin.

Just because you're no longer feeling the effects of the substance doesn't mean you won't test positive. The metabolites hang around for a fairly long time. I failed the THC component a drug screen urinalysis (that I got done myself) after a brief exposure through my line of work. I have never smoked weed in my life.