Drug driving

rebell

Can anyone who has been through this process give me some advice.

Bloods taken at garda Station after being stopped at a drug test check point and testing positive for cannabis.

Yesterday I received a letter stating that I had 0mg of alcohol in my blood. I assume I will receive a letter in the future in regard to cannabis in my system. Or will they only test alcohol, once they've done the test.

Do they test for both drugs and alcohol everytime your bloods are taken?

Credit Checker Moose

You will receive a second letter regarding the drugs.

rebell

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

You will receive a second letter regarding the drugs.

That makes the most sense alot more so than what I was hoping ("they messed up)

I assume you are certain based on the finality of your response?

hierro

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

You will receive a second letter regarding the drugs.

Spot on.

drunkmonkey

The blood test might put you under the threshold depending on when you last had some, have a read through some of the posts about it on reddit r/Crainn
Do expect a knock on the door though after a positive roadside result. From what I gather it can take 3mts for the cannabis results to come back.

shaveAbullock

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The blood test might put you under the threshold

Is there an official website or document where I can read up on the threshold levels for all the substances tested?

Potential-Monke

shaveAbullock wrote: »

Is there an official website or document where I can read up on the threshold levels for all the substances tested?

This is the best I can find:

http://www.drugs.ie/features/feature/the_facts_garda_roadside_preliminary_drug_testing

The limit for cannabis is shockingly low imo. Basically anything above trace, which will be different from person to person depending on body mass, absorbance, amount consumed, how heavy/light of a smoker, etc. Lots of variables, so I find the figure (personally) unfair. I think cannabis (and only cannabis) should only be prosecuted if the level is stupidly high, or very low when paired with evidence of impaired driving.

Just my opinion, and from experience i've never encountered someone who was driving badly because they were stoned (and in my private experience as a passenger, stoners drive way safer in comparison to drink drivers and aggressive drivers/daydreaming drivers/tired drivers).

I haven't smoked in over 2 weeks, so I'd pass the roadside, but because I was a fairly heavy smoker, I've no doubt I'd fail a blood/urine test for at least another few weeks.

NIMAN

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Just my opinion, and from experience i've never encountered someone who was driving badly because they were stoned

So you think prosecuting people who drug-drive is wrong then?

hullaballoo

NIMAN wrote: »

So you think prosecuting people who drug-drive is wrong then?

That is absolutely not what he said.

I don't see the fun in putting words into other people's mouths but it is very common elsewhere on this site.

Potential-Monke said the limits are low in his opinion. Also in his opinion, people who have consumed cannabis are safer drivers than drunk or aggressive drivers. Not unreasonable opinions and a long long way away from saying people driving while under the influence of drugs should not be prosecuted.

CrankyHaus

Is there any international consensus on what Blood Cannabis Levels should be set at to strike a balance between safe driving and not criminalising people who were last under the influence of cannabis hours or even days before driving, and how does Ireland compare to it?

I would have assumed that US states which have leaglised Cannabis would quickly figure it out.

Effects

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Just my opinion, and from experience i've never encountered someone who was driving badly because they were stoned (and in my private experience as a passenger, stoners drive way safer in comparison to drink drivers and aggressive drivers/daydreaming drivers/tired drivers).

I'd a mate who gambled on a late amber light, which he said was because he was stoned, and he ended up T boning another car.

Just don't drive stoned. It's not that hard.

BaronVon

Possession of cannabis is already a criminal offence, so someone using an illegal substance and then choosing to go driving isn't really 'criminalising' them.

Plenty of drinkers could argue that the alcohol limits are too low too. The legislature chose a level, and that became the law. Don't want to risk being 'criminalised' for driving while under the influence of cannabis? Then don't smoke and drive!

CrankyHaus

BaronVon wrote: »

Possession of cannabis is already a criminal offence, so someone using an illegal substance and then choosing to go driving isn't really 'criminalising' them.

Plenty of drinkers could argue that the alcohol limits are too low too. The legislature chose a level, and that became the law. Don't want to risk being 'criminalised' for driving while under the influence of cannabis? Then don't smoke and drive!

Fair enough, but I'd rather that scarce Garda resources for Road Safety tackled actual threats to road safety instead of some lad who hit the bong on the weekend. If the Garda Twitter Account is anything to go by it seems Drug Driving is a big enough problem without widening the net to include people who aren't impaired.

shaveAbullock

Effects wrote: »

I'd a mate who gambled on a late amber light, which he said was because he was stoned, and he ended up T boning another car.

Just don't drive stoned. It's not that hard.

What if you're not the least bit stoned but have 5ng/ml THC-COOH in your blood?
COOH-THC has a half life of days and sometimes weeks.

Effects

shaveAbullock wrote: »

What if you're not the least bit stoned but have 5ng/ml THC-COOH in your blood?
COOH-THC has a half life of days and sometimes weeks.

Completely different argument. The poster I was quoting was saying it's fine to drive while stoned.

shaveAbullock

Effects wrote: »

Completely different argument. The poster I was quoting was saying it's fine to drive while stoned.

True and I agree, I should not have quoted your post.
My question is why are the levels set at a point where you will show positive while not mentally impaired?

Potential-Monke

Effects wrote: »

I'd a mate who gambled on a late amber light, which he said was because he was stoned, and he ended up T boning another car.

Just don't drive stoned. It's not that hard.

I completely agree. Don't drive while stoned. But your mate admitted to being stoned while driving and subsequently t-boning a car. I was making reference to someone who may have smoked a joint 6-10 hours ago, maybe even had a sleep in that time (or uses it to help them sleep for various reasons), and subsequently drives. It's akin to the morning after drinkers, or those who have a drink while on their lunch, and drive home that evening after work. Alcohol can be detected in the breath longer than cannabis (up to 25 hours vs the stated 6 hours for cannabis, but again depends on a lot of factors). The problem I have is that if detected in the breath, cannabis stays in the blood/urine a lot, lot longer than alcohol, so while the person who had a drink could fail the roadside breath test, they've a far higher chance of passing the blood/urine test. Whereas with cannabis, you fail the roadside one, you're nearly guaranteed to fail the blood/urine one because of how low the limit is set. That's all I was saying.

I'm not in any way excusing or condoning driving while under the influence of anything, be it cannabis, alcohol or medically prescribed legal drugs.

Effects wrote: »

Completely different argument. The poster I was quoting was saying it's fine to drive while stoned.

No, I wasn't. But that was already explained by someone else. I also gave my experience of being a passenger while the driver was under the influence. My point is with cannabis, it should be accompanied with evidence of impaired driving, so those mandatory testing checkpoints are catching people (imo) who are most likely fine but because of the half life of cannabis in blood/urine, will mostly likely fail. Cannabis is quickly becoming as prevalent as alcohol, and it's only a matter of time before it's legal here, but the law won't update to match this, again all in my own opinion. I still don't condone driving under the influence of anything, or the undetectable but just as if not more dangerous one, while tired.

kowloonkev

And you just know that if they hit someone they'd use the old 'out of my senses/substance addiction' argument to reduce their responsibility. Criminals make excuses shocker.

As others have said just don't break the law. If you don't like the law then emigrate to your chosen utopia, or maybe try to campaign for a change in the law.

Effects

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I completely agree. Don't drive while stoned. I was making reference to someone who may have smoked a joint 6-10 hours ago, maybe even had a sleep in that time (or uses it to help them sleep for various reasons), and subsequently drives.

You probably should have been more clear in that case.

Just my opinion, and from experience i've never encountered someone who was driving badly because they were stoned.

You didn't say "because they were stoned the night before, ten hours ago"

I also gave my experience of being a passenger while the driver was under the influence. My point is with cannabis, it should be accompanied with evidence of impaired driving

Well then shouldn't that be applied to alcohol as well?
I've been a passenger in a car driven by a drunk driver. They drove just fine. It doesn't make it ok to drink drive.

Peregrinus

shaveAbullock wrote: »

True and I agree, I should not have quoted your post.
My question is why are the levels set at a point where you will show positive while not mentally impaired?

Are you confusing "feelings stoned/being stoned" and "having impaired driving ability"? These are not the same thing.

There are two ways you could test for the effect of cannabis consumption on driving ability/competence. Neither of them involve asking test subjects how high they feel.

One would be to test people's reaction times, observation skills, gross and fine motor control, and other skills/abilities relevant to motoring in laboratory conditions and to correlate this with blood/THC levels.

The other would be to assemble data from motor accidents in which those involved have been THC-tested, to see whether there is a correlation of accident frequency with various levels of blood/THC.

You'd like to think that an evidence-based drug-driving policy would be based on work of this kind.

But, even if it isn't, you can't criticise drug-driving rules on the basis that they affect people for a considerable time after smoking, or at a time when they are not stoned. Neither of these things tells us anything at all about whether their driving ability is impaired by cannabis consumption, any more than "I know longer feel drunk" tells you that I am safe to drive.

zhulik222

So did you get second letter? Regarding drugs?