baalad wrote: » Thats what i was getting at in a commented i posted earlier. I feel like i have already been punished. The last year has been horrible having this hanging over me, constant worry! Im not looking for sympathy but my anxiety made this situation ten times. Its honestly been hell! I have twice considered seeking medication just to try and deal with the over thinking, stress etc but i absolutely hate the idea of relying on meds especially after past experiences. I cant say cannabis was much better given the trouble it brought me but at least there was no nasty side effects and it was effective at doing what i needed it to do! I am likely to contest the case purely just because its my only hope of escaping punishment and just cross my fingers theres a technical hick up somewhere that gets the case struck out but its a long shot and i almost feel stupid because the bloods say i am guilty and thats all that matters to the court! Just cannot believe 1 billionth of a gram is the difference between no punishment and having your life turned upside down. This messes up my chances of finding a new job, may even mess up my chances of moving in with my partner if her landlord Garda vets me! Let alone losing my licence is going to be a nightmare I should have listened to Mr Macky in South Park all those years ago
US2 wrote: » Speak to a solicitor. You can't just contest it on the grounds you don't want to be punished, you need a reason. I was fully expecting to lose my license but I got lucky . Not 100% on this but I don't think driving offense will hinder your chance of getting a job or house.
baalad wrote: » Solicitor has already told me my options 1, Enter a guilty plea 2, Get case adjourned so he can gather evidence and see if we can find any mistakes that could result in a failure to prosecute. Either way the ban received will be the same duration he said but the fine may be heftier if i fight the case and lose hence why he said its up to me to decide what way i want to go!
joeguevara wrote: » If Your Solicitor believes that the book of evidence is incomplete then you can ask for the case to be put back and seek the evidence that the solicitor requires. it will not add any further time to any sentence. if no further information arrives then a guilty plea then is the same as now. If Plea Innocent And Lose Then It Will be an aggravating factor. how experienced is your solicitor in these cases, as a barrister is usually more experienced in getting it thrown out on a technical issue. Phone Is The Reason For the Capital Letters. damn Huawei.
Potential-Monke wrote: » Don't take my word for it, but to me it sounds like your solicitor couldn't be arsed trying to fight it, and is actively putting you off. Yeah, the fine may be higher but this is all up to the judge. The judge doesn't care if it took longer, he still decides the fine and your solicitor should be fighting to keep it low because of the reasons you said above. I dunno, I'd ask for another solicitors advise first. At the very least, your solicitor should be looking for a Gary Doyle order, as this will give him the evidence that it's an open/shut case or is worth fighting. Saying plead guilty without even checking the evidence, of which I'm 99.9% sure they can request without having to enter a plea. Getting a Gary Doyle order is literally requesting the evidence, so I find it hard to believe it would require you to actually fight the case in order to get it. I could be remembering wrong, but I distinctly remember a specific case where a Gary Doyle order was requested, provided and the later court date they pleaded guilty and got the lower fine. I'm sure it's only if you plead not-guilty that you are then considered as fighting the case. But, i'm not a solicitor and only know the law from the Garda point of view, of which I stopped 5 years ago so my own experience could very well be outdated now.
amen wrote: » Re the reading of 6.1ng and being only 1.1ng over the limit of 5ng. That 1.1ng puts you 22% over the limit. So while the absolute amount seems small as a percentage it’s relatively high.
Deleted User wrote: » As someone who doesn't smoke I may perhaps have an unconscious bias, but I can't understand why there would be any allowable limit whatsoever (whether you're impaired or not) for drug driving. My reason for thinking this is simply that, the drug is illegal. Lawfully you shouldn't have it in your system or on your person in any capacity. I am surprised they don't also tack on some variant of a 'possession' charge as a further means of deterring people. I can understand a legal limit on alcohol, as alcohol (whether you agree or not) can be legally obtained in Ireland.
baalad wrote: » Btw as an ex guard can you explain the 3 hour rule?? I was asked if i was held longer then 3 hours and i suspect i was just over the 3 hours.
Potential-Monke wrote: » Not going to lie, I can't remember, but I believe it's something along the lines of has to be done within 3 hours of arrest or something like that. Also, again, I'd double check with another solicitor, I can't see how you can be done for the higher fine without even seeing the evidence. The adjournment wouldn't affect judgment, only the plea. Putting it back once to get the evidence shouldn't have an impact on the outcome if there's no plea of not-guilty. Just get it checked with someone else, there's a whole load that could be wrong in the Gary Doyle order which would then give the solicitor the information to make a better decision about pleading guilty or not-guilty and fighting it. Just my 2 cents. The only legal difference between alcohol and cannabis are 2 letters, "il". It only takes a pen stroke to change it. The reason there's a limit at all is because if they had a zero tolerance approach to drugs, they'd have to do the same for drink, and that's a sacred cow so won't happen, or at least I can't see it happening with the current government. As for it being in the system at all, just say you went on holidays to Spain, where it's not illegal per se. You smoke some, few days later you come home. That could very well still be in your system, and you could get done for drug driving days after the fact. You might have drank 20 litres of vodka inbetween, but that leaves the system super quick in comparison. Regardless, it's soon going to become legal, I've no doubt in my mind as soon as the right person with power realises just how much money can be made from it. As baalad said, it's horrible to be done for 1ng over the very small as it is limit. Once it's legal, the law will have to change, and the only change it needs is evidence of impaired driving.
Potential-Monke wrote: » . . . Regardless, it's soon going to become legal, I've no doubt in my mind as soon as the right person with power realises just how much money can be made from it. As baalad said, it's horrible to be done for 1ng over the very small as it is limit. Once it's legal, the law will have to change, and the only change it needs is evidence of impaired driving.
Peregrinus wrote: » I doubt this. Alcohol has always been legal, but we still have a drink-driving offence that doesn't require any impaired driving, and there seems to be no pressure to change that - if anything, the movement has been in the other direction.
baalad wrote: » I have seized smoking it because of the hassle but at the time i would literally smoke a joint before bed most nights. Maybe 2 on weekends but it was not about getting off my face. It was literally just a substance that would calm my mind. Help me sleep better etc I never ever felt "holy ****, i better not get behind the wheel" whereas with alcohol i would know that i was not fit to drive.
baalad wrote: » I do not like talking about the fact that i have anxiety and experience depression. I wish i didn't. My mom suffered her whole life with it also and i would describe her as having extremely off the scale anxiety / panic disorder so i find it hard to accept that i could be anything like her to be honest but the fact is i do suffer with it. And the only thing that ever helped me without nasty side effects was cannabis. I have witnessed my mom being given medication and then it being changed because it does not work or it causes side effects etc and this would go on and on. It was just guess work. Here try this drug. Not working? Try this one? Not working? Lets up the dosage! Its a road i do not want to go down and sadly i may have to because i can no longer take the risks associated with smoking cannabis!
Peregrinus wrote: » See, that's the thing. A lot of people don't drink to get sh1tfaced, and reckon that after just one or two they are safe to drive when, in fact, their driving is measurably impaired - not as much as when they are drunk enough to know it themselves, but enough to make a difference nevertheless. Believe me, you have my sincere sympathy. But medicinal drug therapies of one kind or another and other medical treatments which are inconsistent with driving are pretty common. Cannabis could have legitimate and valuable therapeutic benefits; that's wholly unconnected with the question of whether it impairs driving ability. If cannabis has benefits for you, then it may be that the risk that you can no longer are not the risks associated with smoking cannabis, but the risks associated with driving when you have smoked cannabis. I think what matters here is not "Does Balaad have a 'good' reason for using cannabis, or is he a recreational user?" The answer to that question tells us nothing at all about whether cannabis use affects his driving ability. And - no offence - "Does Balaad feel that his driving ability is impaired?" is also not a useful question to ask. And - recognising that there isn't going to be one law for Balaad and one for everyone else - questions about Balaad's objective driving ability (as opposed to what he thinks it is) are also not terribly relevant. The blood alcohol laws are based on research about the effect of alcohol on driving skills generally - specifically, what level of blood/alcohol is associated with impairment in the skills that are used in driving? I think blood cannabis laws need to be based on similar research. I haven't looked into this in any great detail, but my impression is that there simply hasn't been the same amount of research conducted into blood cannabis effects as there has into blood alcohol effects and, if so, that is where the effort needs to be concentrated. Perhaps 6µg is a level that generally wouldn't affect driving skills? I'm not sure if we know the answer to that.
Potential-Monke wrote: » The only legal difference between alcohol and cannabis are 2 letters, "il". It only takes a pen stroke to change it
The reason there's a limit at all is because if they had a zero tolerance approach to drugs, they'd have to do the same for drink
As for it being in the system at all, just say you went on holidays to Spain, where it's not illegal per se. You smoke some, few days later you come home. That could very well still be in your system, and you could get done for drug driving days after the fact. You might have drank 20 litres of vodka inbetween, but that leaves the system super quick in comparison.
Regardless, it's soon going to become legal, I've no doubt in my mind as soon as the right person with power realises just how much money can be made from it. As baalad said, it's horrible to be done for 1ng over the very small as it is limit. Once it's legal, the law will have to change, and the only change it needs is evidence of impaired driving.
baalad wrote: » Btw as an ex guard can you explain the 3 hour rule?? I was asked if i was held longer then 3 hours and i suspect i was just over the 3 hours. For example if memory serves me right i was arrested at 11:10pm , arrived at the station at around 11:20 - 11:30pm and had bloods taken around 2:10am and was asked a few questions afterwards before being released at 2:25am Obviously i cannot recall to the exact minute but the above is very very close to the time schedule. They doctor actually had trouble getting blood from me when she arrived and the guard was looking to speak to someone above him about letting me go and of course it was at the moment my body decided, here have some blood ha I think online i read that blood must be taken within 3 hours of arrest not 3 hours after you arrive at the station. Is this correct? My solicitor says that as long as the doctor arrived even if it was on the 3hour mark that they would be granted more time. The way i see it they could easily alter the times anyhow.
baalad wrote: » I am not sure man. You could be right although his reasoning is that there is nothing to fight ..... until he sees the evidence against me. As it stands my blood result is over the limit and that makes me guilty so there is nothing to fight. I remember asking him if he thought i would have a chance of putting together a reasonable defence and he more or less said that unfortunately once your over the limit you do not have a defence. You only hope is that the guards messed up on their end but the only way to investigate that is to adjourn the case and request evidence. On the night in question , i was technically caught in a parking lot not at the actual checkpoint. Now i did indeed drive the car but what is to say someone else was driving the car and did a runner before they arrived or whats to say i only smoked in the parking lot ? How do they prove i was actually driving the car other then just saying they saw me? Or is that all they have to say?? No matter the outcome. I cannot wait to put this behind me. I have to say that the guard that night was a gentleman as soon as he realised i was a good guy and not your stereotypical stoner! He was almost apologetic and i leaving the station.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » It depends on the exact offence that you are being summonsed for. If you are being prosecuted for an offence under Section 4(1A), which most people would be for drug driving cases, then the prosecution need to be able to show that the concentration of drug in your blood was over the prescribed limit within 3 hours of driving. In practice this means that the blood specimen has to have been obtained within 3 hours of arrest. However if you are being prosecuted under Section 4(1) then the 3 hour timeframe doesn't apply. The prosecution just need to show that you were under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent that you were unable to have proper control of the vehicle. They will be able to show that you had an intoxicant in your body at the time of driving, but this must be accompanied by strong evidence that your driving was impaired at the time of the alleged offence. I think it would be unusual if the prosecution went down this route, although if there was an issue with obtaining the sample within 3 hours then this is the route they could go down. As you can see, there are plenty of variables when it comes to intoxicated driving cases. It's why you really should get full disclosure from the prosecution to see what is actually supporting the case against you. The timeline of arrest to taking of sample, assuming you are being prosecuted under Section 4(1A), is important and disclosure is the only way you will know the facts for sure.
phildub wrote: » Did they provide you with a sample to get independently tested?
baalad wrote: » I would imagine the guards know what they are doing to be honest, and i have no idea what section iam being prosecuted under.
baalad wrote: » On a separate note, Im just thinking to myself here regarding the 3 hour thing, the second blood sample etc How would a defendant prove this? For instance let's say i was held for 4 hours. How would i prove that? Or if i was not offered a sample? Surely they can easily lie using a stroke of a pen. If its your word against theirs then your screwed surely
Rubberchikken wrote: » If only the laws drawn up were more clear and consistent. Driving with alcohol and or illegal drugs in your system should be illegal. Full stop. There should be no inconsistency. There should be no room for doubt. Adults make the decision to smoke/drink and then drive. The punishment should be severe and handed out clearly so as to discourage selfish unforgiving behaviour. As you can tell I've no sympathy or time for those who take illegal drugs. Not much more for those who drink. And absolutely no sympathy whatsoever fir anyone who drive a vehicle of any kind under the influence. There's no excuse.
Rubberchikken wrote: » Adults make the decision to smoke/drink and then drive. The punishment should be severe and handed out clearly so as to discourage selfish unforgiving behaviour. As you can tell I've no sympathy or time for those who take illegal drugs. Not much more for those who drink. And absolutely no sympathy whatsoever fir anyone who drive a vehicle of any kind under the influence. There's no excuse.
[Deleted User] wrote: » But the real inconsistency here is to do with the definition of "under the influence". Why do you have more sympathy for a drink driver than for a drug driver? Would your attitude change if they introduced a law where alcohol was not allowed up to 2 or 3 days prior to Driving? Would you support the testing and banning of people with alcohol 'in their system' from the weekend if they're stopped on a Tuesday morning? What about Friday morning? Or in three weeks' time? Because that's effectively the situation with regards to cannabis. Imagine the uproar if drinkers were effectively banned from driving forever?
Sierra Oscar wrote: » You'd be surprised to be honest. Not all Gardaí are experts on the law and plenty of prosecutions are struck out due to technical matters. It makes little odds to the prosecuting Garda at the end of the day. All of the information, including the time the sample was taken and so on, will be documented in the Custody Record. Furthermore, the doctor that obtained the sample will note the time it was taken in their statement. The Garda will probably also have recorded the time in his official notebook. All of this information can be provided to your solicitor following a request for disclosure.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5029bac657ae68f2ca4b7fa18994db0d.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/240e12baadbef0248a8a694618b3009d.svg)
