The legal minefield of drug driving prosecution.

Jimmy Garlic

First of all having a drug in your system like cannibas for instance is not illegal. It can stay in the body for quite a long time and a user wouldn't be the slightest bit impaired by it, unless they are completely baked out of their head.

If someone is caught driving irresponsibly and is stopped because of dangerous driving that is one thing, but here is the problem - let's say someone with cannibas in their system is tested randomly at a check point by way of the archaic Simon says touch your nose, Simon says stand on one leg etc test. Someone could have an undiagnosed eye condition. Someone could have arthritis. An injury. An inner ear problem. A panic attack. A bad back etc etc. There are a multitude of reasons why someone could fail that test that are unrelated to drug consumption.

The courts are going to be busy with this one. And as usual it will be cha ching for the legal profession.

Kristopherus

Stick to the garlic, Jimmy, and you won't have to worry about any of that stuff:D:D:D.

Joeseph Balls

I agree, I'd feel sorry for the chap with all them conditions. One is bad enough.

Junkyard Tom

Are you saying that people will be convicted of driving while impaired even if there are trace amounts of a drug found to be present in their bodies?

G_R

I would imagine, nothing to confirm this, that the roadside simon says tests are more indicative, and they'll do some kind of scientific test back at the station to confirm. Sure even the road side breath testers are only indicative - the need to use the more accurate machine in the station to actually charge you.

Jimmy Garlic

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

I would imagine, nothing to confirm this, that the roadside simon says tests are more indicative, and they'll do some kind of scientific test back at the station to confirm. Sure even the road side breath testers are only indicative - the need to use the more accurate machine in the station to actually charge you.

Limits will have to be set in that case. Alcohol stays in the system for about a day. Some drugs stay in the system for days, weeks even. Let's say they set the limit so low that someone who smoked a joint or two a few days previously is considered to be impaired by it. And where is the proof that cannabis impairs driving anyway? How many deaths have been directly linked to it?

dxhound2005

Australia

https://ncpic.org.au/media/1514/cannabis-and-driving.pdf

The latest review of the evidence reports that driving under the influence of cannabis appears to increase the risk of motor vehicle crashes by a factor of two to three times. In addition, it is also important to remember that many people mix cannabis with alcohol. There is now good evidence to suggest that using cannabis and alcohol together, even at low doses, could have a worse effect on driving than either cannabis or alcohol alone.
prevalence of

endacl

Cannabis should be legal and stuff because alcohol.

Studies.

Macavity.

I should be allowed ingest whatever chemical I want into my body, so long as I do not harm or infringe on any other person's comfort and safety.

endacl

Macavity. wrote: »

I should be allowed ingest whatever chemical I want into my body, so long as I do not harm or infringe on any other person's comfort and safety.

You are. It's the purchase and possession that may cause an issue.

mynamejeff

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

First of all having a drug in your system like cannibas for instance is not illegal. It can stay in the body for quite a long time and a user wouldn't be the slightest bit impaired by it, unless they are completely baked out of their head.

If someone is caught driving irresponsibly and is stopped because of dangerous driving that is one thing, but here is the problem - let's say someone with cannibas in their system is tested randomly at a check point by way of the archaic Simon says touch your nose, Simon says stand on one leg etc test. Someone could have an undiagnosed eye condition. Someone could have arthritis. An injury. An inner ear problem. A panic attack. A bad back etc etc. There are a multitude of reasons why someone could fail that test that are unrelated to drug consumption.

The courts are going to be busy with this one. And as usual it will be cha ching for the legal profession.

your understanding of the laws in relation to drug driving are so flawed that the only correct thing you said is that the legal profession will make even more money.

there has to be a reason why a car is stopped ie manner of driving.
there has to be a reason to suspect that consumption of drugs is a cause .ie smell of weed . coke on the nose . tinfoil on the dash .
the tests that you vaguely elude to are used to help form an opinion.
that opinion results in a blood or urine test.
my advice is stop trying to justify yourself and dont smoke and drive or dont drive like a tool and you ll be fine

Jimmy Garlic

mynamejeff wrote: »

there has to be a reason to suspect that consumption of drugs is a cause .ie smell of weed . coke on the nose . tinfoil on the dash .

Where is that written down? Do they have to see open bottles/cans of alcohol and smell alcohol to conduct a breath test?

there has to be a reason why a car is stopped ie manner of driving

Not at a checkpoint.

kneemos

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Where is that written down? Do they have to see open bottles/cans of alcohol and smell alcohol to conduct a breath test?




Not at a checkpoint.

I'm with you Jimmy. Lets argue about stuff that doesn't exist.

Guy:Incognito

Macavity. wrote: »

I should be allowed ingest whatever chemical I want into my body, so long as I do not harm or infringe on any other person's comfort and safety.

Like when you crash in to them because you're drunk or stoned?

Macavity.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Like when you crash in to them because you're drunk or stoned?

I've never driven a car under the influence nevermind been involved in any car accident.

ohnonotgmail

Joeseph Balls wrote: »

I agree, I'd feel sorry for the chap with all them conditions. One is bad enough.

you would wonder how they were able to leave the house at all.

mynamejeff

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Where is that written down? Do they have to see open bottles/cans of alcohol and smell alcohol to conduct a breath test?




Not at a checkpoint.

im giving examples but if you want to read the 2010 road traffic act feel free

InTheTrees

Well if they stop someone impaired by prescription drugs what do they do?

There's a thousand different drugs you can legally take that will result in impaired driving.

Guy:Incognito

Macavity. wrote: »

I've never driven a car under the influence nevermind been involved in any car accident.

The thread is about drug driving.


Just because the title contains the word drugs , doesn't mean a moan about legailising drugs is needed.

FanadMan

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well if they stop someone impaired by prescription drugs what do they do?

There's a thousand different drugs you can legally take that will result in impaired driving.

Think most prescription drugs that could affect driving have advisories on the pack and inside saying not to drive while taking them.