Drug driving blood test

US2 · 19-12-2020 2:32am

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

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 · 19-12-2020 2:42am

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.

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!

Potential-Monke · 19-12-2020 3:20am

If I'm not mistaken, can it not be adjourned to get the evidence (Gary Doyle order), and if nothing found you can enter a guilty plea on the next date? I don't think adjourning it automatically means it will be contested. Could be wrong, I'm away from the game for 5 years now so memory may not be the best. But I'm fairly confident on this.

joeguevara · 19-12-2020 5:03am

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!

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.

baalad · 20-12-2020 2:10am

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.

I tried finding a barrister but could not find one in my county for some reason! Iam too believe they are very very expensive too. To the best of my knowledge my solicitor specialises in criminality and in traffic offences so whilst i am sure there may be better professionals out there that are better equipped to find technical errors etc i simply could not afford them!

I was essentially advised that drug driving charges work a little differently to other criminal charges. For example lets say a guy robs a store, and he decided to fight his case and ultimately waist the courts time and is found guilty in the end. He is likely to receive a longer sentence etc

With a drug driving charge the sentence is set out as mandatory so wether you fight your case or not, your sentence is still the same (12 month ban for first time offence) For this reason , its often worth fighting these cases where as in the previous instance your better off pleading guilty unless you really do have a case to fight of course! The only negative to this is that the fine imposed on you will be bigger because of the cost to have the case adjourned!

So according to my solicitor i either go in and plead guilty and hypothetically accept a 12 month ban along, roughly 400 euro fine along with owing my solicitor 200 bucks also.

Or i can request evidence, get the case adjourned and pray to god there is a technical error which can get me off the hook. Unlikely but in the event of this, i then up receiving no ban but i now owe my solicitor 1,500 for winning my case.

Or i lose the case and am back to square one and get a 12 month ban, 200 solicitor fee but a bigger fine closer to 1000 euro as a result of having the case adjourned.

This is how it was put to me. Either i plead guilty or i take a gamble and see if i get lucky basically. If the latter fails, then i get the same duration of ban, just a bigger fine for waisting the courts time i am told.

Iam preparing for the worst. My oul lad always told me if you do the crime you do the time. I have nobody to blame but myself at the end of the day but at the same time we are all human and we all make mistakes. I have suffered enough already in my opinion and i have learned my lesson. Literally gave up smoking that very night. I would like to think that i deserve a second chance as oppose to almost having my life ruined but i understand the system does not work like that.

Look at Jack Grealish recently being done for being intoxicated and crashing into two cars. Absolutely in the horrors and slurring his speech when the police arrived and despite the law in the uk being very similar to here...... he somehow gets an 8 month ban is all but i will be looking at 12 months minimum because i was 1 nanogram over a 5nanogram limit and i was 100% not impaired but in the eyes of the law thats irrelevant.

Its hard to not feel hard done by despite the fact i accept responsibility! Its just a hard pill to swallow

Potential-Monke · 20-12-2020 2:15am

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.

baalad · 20-12-2020 2:36am

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.

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.

baalad · 20-12-2020 2:47am

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.

20-12-2020 3:07am

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.

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 · 20-12-2020 3:27am

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.

Believe it or not i actually think you make a very good point. However the term 'drug driving' clearly implies that you are impaired to drive. Lets say you were able to somehow prove your driving was not affected. The charge of drug driving could not stand. It would have to be possession etc

How can a judge look me in the eye and tell me that i was a danger on the road with 6nanograms of cannabis in my blood but if i only had 5nanograms i would have been fine , bearing in mind that 5nanograms is relatively small number!

You can see its irrelevant but if my driving was not impaired then i should be charged with something else not drug driving!

If i had heroin in my system i would receive the same punishment. Its madness!

Potential-Monke · 20-12-2020 8:57am

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.

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.

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.

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.

baalad · 21-12-2020 3:16am

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.

I think myself its only a matter of time before they legalise it. But will that change the drug driving legislation? I am not so sure.

I know that the law is the law and the results say iam over the limit and its that simple but nobody can tell me that i deserve a 12 month ban minimum, A fine, Possibly lose my job, Criminal conviction that causes other difficulties for me also let alone the possibility of it making the headlines in the paper as "drug driving" and neighbours and family jumping to conclusions that i need help and im an addict. God knows what they will think. And all because iam over the limit by 1 nanogram with zero evidence suggesting i was impaired.

I could smoke heroin and crash my car and would likely receive the same punishment! There needs to be common sense. If i did not smoke the day before then my blood reading may have been lower possibly.

Again i accept nobody is to blame but myself but it the punishment is severe. I have spoke to people about it who don't smoke cannabis and never would and even they cannot believe the consequences.

I was naive to some extent too because i had no idea what the consequences were myself. I have never been in trouble before so i was genuinely clueless. I knew of course that it was illegal but never knew it served a 12 month mandatory ban nor the other consequences it comes with. I thought a first offence would be a fine and slap on the wrist unless you were actually proven to be impaired and a danger. Wish i knew at the time what i know now

Peregrinus · 21-12-2020 3:28am

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.

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 · 21-12-2020 3:29am

Contacting another solicitor is difficult. The response they all give me is "Make an appointment for a consultation and bring your summons with you"

But i already gave my summons to a solicitor and if they know that then they have no interest in offering advice because they know someone else has the job!

baalad · 21-12-2020 3:41am

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.

I think people feel stronger about alcohol convictions because theres no denying that alcohol does impair driving and the majority of people do not just have one drink and leave it at that where as cannabis is a different substance and its used differently. Its the stereotypical dopes that smoke cannabis to get **** faced that give it a bad name.

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.

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 · 21-12-2020 3:59am

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.

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.

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!

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.

baalad · 21-12-2020 4:17am

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.

Totally understand what you are saying. I think in truth we would probably all accept that if we drank lets say 5/6 pints that we should not be going near a car to drive and likewise if we smoke cannabis to the point of being "stoned out of it" for want of a better phrase, then we again, should not be getting behind the wheel!

I'ts the limit they have set that is the issue. It would make more sense to have it set at zero so there can be no argument what so ever. I feel as though the law is telling me that i would have been fine if i didn't take the last drag of the joint for instance but because i took that last drag its tough luck.

I may as well of smoked my brains out and had a blood reading of 100 nanograms because the consequences would likely be the same!

I remember years ago my father would always order a 'shandy' if he knew he was driving. This was common enough practice from responsible drivers as far as i know back in the day! He would never have a second or 3rd. He always told me that he was safe to have a shandy but could not have any more then that.

With cannabis nobody knows what they can or cannot smoke so having a limit at all is pointless. I could smoke a joint one night and potentially be under the limit and the following night smoke a different strain and be over the limit despite waiting the same duration of time before driving. There is no way to know the TCH concentration so it is impossible to responsible unless you simply do not smoke at all because if its advised to wait 12 - 24 hours to drive then you basically can never smoke without taken a risk. The limit should either be zero or else an impairment test should be carried out to prove that you consumed enough to cause impairment!

21-12-2020 2:48pm

Potential-Monke wrote: »

The only legal difference between alcohol and cannabis are 2 letters, "il". It only takes a pen stroke to change it

I don't understand that argument. The same pen strokes make it legal to rape you.

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

No, the point I was making was: one of them is legal, and the other is not. So they can be treated differently. They don't have to do the 'same' for alcohol as alcohol is widely, legally, available.

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.

But if it's in your system, you wouldn't be taking the chance with driving, as if you're driving, you're an adult and would know the rules and how it works. I'm not saying that would make it any more or less fair, but if the rules were in place, then that's that. You could contest them, but you'd be aware getting into a car, after being in spain, that in Ireland you could find yourself in trouble.

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.

I know it's all down to personal opinion, i realise, but I don't think you're correct. There are too many moves against it in the Irish government's general attitude/approach to this kind of thing. Trying to put minimum unit pricing on alcohol and painting it as the devil, banning smoking indoors and in hospital, school, etc. grounds - there's no way the same mindset of government would make cannabis legal (unless as a medicinal thing in a very tight, extremely limited number of cases).

(which is a good thing in my opinion).

Sierra Oscar · 21-12-2020 3:45pm

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.

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 · 21-12-2020 9:45pm

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.

Did they provide you with a sample to get independently tested?

baalad · 22-12-2020 2:29am

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.

I would imagine the guards know what they are doing to be honest, and i have no idea what section iam being prosecuted under.

I just remember the guard saying to me "tonight might be your lucky night because i can only hold you for 3 hours" At that time i had no idea if that mean from the time of arrest or the time of arriving at the station etc but i remember thinking 15 more minutes and i am out the door if what he is saying is true and then the doctor arrived of course. I was certainly held for more then 3 hours from the time of arrest to the time of release but in terms of the time frame between arrest and the bloods being taken i am not so sure although its certainly very close to the 3 hour mark i believe.

Initially the doctor could not get blood from me and the guard was looking for someone to explain this. It appeared to me that he was under the impression that the 3 hours were up and they could not hold me any longer and he was seeking clarification as to let me go or not but seconds later my arm twitched and out came the blood.

I don't necessarily think i have any defense here but it was the first thing of interest for sure when brought up with my solicitor!

baalad · 22-12-2020 2:47am

phildub wrote: »

Did they provide you with a sample to get independently tested?

When the blood was taken, i re call one of the guards then saying something along the lines of "Theres two samples taken if you want to hold on to one of them for your own record' I should have been a bit more clued in perhaps but i perceived it as if he was jokingly saying "you can have the second one as a souvenir" It was not explained clearly that i could get one tested myself. In fact i was unaware that was even possible until it was brought up earlier in this thread. It's not something my solicitor even mentioned although i don't see how me having a second sample tested independently would change anything!

baalad · 22-12-2020 3:06am

Probably irrelevant but just for the record. It was a strange experience. At the time of arrest the guard was the typical smart guard that was smug about catching me and i was expecting a hard time from them back at the station but ironically the more he chatted to me the more he came out of his role as guard and began to just chat to me man to man and he came across in the end as genuinely sympathetic!

I also "knew" one of the guards in the station (A friend of mine is involved in the pub/nightclub scene and would be good friends with him) I wouldn't know him well by any means and he wouldn't know me as such but he did recognise me and say hello and he mentioned my friend and if we were out together in recent times etc

From there on everything became very casual. There were 3 or 4 guards standing in the room / at the door having a bit of banter and chatting to me and to the other guards and one of them joked at one point that i was positive for heroin. Others were talking about cannabis as if they had smoked it themselves before.

At one point i told the guard that arrested me that i appreciated him not being to tough on me or something along those lines and he replied saying that i seemed like a good guy and that i should have parked the car and got out and run because he would not have come after me and that he would rather not be stuck in the station at all hours having to fill out paper work because his shift was supposed to finish at 2am i believe.

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

Sierra Oscar · 22-12-2020 5:57pm

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.

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.

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

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.

Rubberchikken · 22-12-2020 6:06pm

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.

ohnonotgmail · 22-12-2020 6:07pm

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.

what is unclear and inconsistent about the current legislation?

22-12-2020 6:19pm

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.

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?

BuzzMcdonnell · 22-12-2020 6:30pm

[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?

But the difference is drink leaves your system in a matter of hours while cannabis does not so you’re argument doesn’t make much sense.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to argue for the sake of it, I just don’t think anybody should be allowed operate a vehicle with cannabis in their system purely because it’s inconvenient for them that it’s in their system for days.

baalad · 23-12-2020 2:03am

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.

It would be interesting to see the times alright. Because on my blood results paperwork the times stated is 2:12am but that was the time the Doctor arrived NOT took blood. The doctor had trouble taken blood and it was maybe 5 minutes later when the actual blood was taken. Might not seem relevant buut given the time of arrest and the whole 3 hour rule thing. I believe i was very very close to the 3 hour mark when my blood was taken. Because i was for sure held for more then 3 hours from the point of arrest to the point of release

baalad · 23-12-2020 2:13am

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.

Im not going to argue with you. Just because im in this situation does not mean i condone it or think its ok.

Nobody should drive under the influence. 100%

However. Not every case is the same and its not fair for everyone to be punished the same. At least not under current legislation.

If the limit was zero well then fair enough but its not fair to fine lad, put him off the road for 12 months, give him a criminal conviction and ruin his life to some extent all because he made a mistake and was over the limit by 1 nanogram of a substance that causes much milder impairment then other substances that carry the exact same punishment!

A second person could be 10 times more over the limit and maybe even crash the car and he still ends up getting the same punishment as the guy thats 1 nanogram over. Its harsh. I know its the law and ye have nobody to blame but yourself but thats harsh and i do not care what anyone says.

Its well documented that the cannabis limit is extremely low at 5ng. I know the line must be drawn somewhere but you cannot possibly tell somebody they are impaired at 6ng but fine to drive at 5ng. We are talking 1 billionth of a gram here.

They should have set the limit at zero

Drug driving blood test

Comments