Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Drug Driving

  • 21-03-2009 2:57pm
    #1
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭


    Every so often I come across a reference to a tighting up of the law around this issue, but have heard of nothing soild happening, so I was wondering what people here think about the issue.

    I'm aware of the nightmare involved in proving someone was actually intoxicated as opposed to the presence of a drug being dectected. Biggest one I see is the use of benzos, lots of my clients driving whilst under the influence of them. However, as these drugs stay in the person's system for so long in my understanding it is difficult to prove from a urine sample that they were intoxicated at the time of giving the sample, same for example with hash.

    So is it really difficult for you guys to prove it as I hardly ever hear of a conviction of drug driving? The last one I heard of the guy had a joint in the ashtray at a checkpoint.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    I have rarely seen anyone being arrested on suspicion of drug driving and I reckon because its down to the difficulty of knowing or realising that a person maybe under the influence. The one person I did see being arrested his pupils were large an his skin clammy so there was justification for his arrest. I dont know the result of the sample cos it wasnt my arrest.

    Thats the biggest falldown for me is having reasonable suspicion. I hvae met a few drivers where the thought passed through my mind but the person wasnt displaying enough symtoms for me to be happy to arrest them.

    I see in England they have the card system of measuring pupil dilution which is needed here.


  • #3
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    TheNog wrote: »
    I have rarely seen anyone being arrested on suspicion of drug driving and I reckon because its down to the difficulty of knowing or realising that a person maybe under the influence. The one person I did see being arrested his pupils were large an his skin clammy so there was justification for his arrest. I dont know the result of the sample cos it wasnt my arrest.

    Thats the biggest falldown for me is having reasonable suspicion. I hvae met a few drivers where the thought passed through my mind but the person wasnt displaying enough symtoms for me to be happy to arrest them.

    I see in England they have the card system of measuring pupil dilution which is needed here.

    Yeah I have seen that, I wonder how that is working out. Some forces use roadside saliva tests, but again that only proves the presence of a drug not the level. For example if I took a solpadine it would show opiate positive. It just seems like a nightmare to police. Most of my clients would be positive
    for a range of drugs, though that does not mean they are intoxicated. The longer I'm in my job the more difficult I find it to make that call, and with saying that there are no legal ramifications to noting it.


  • #4
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    Odysseus wrote: »
    The longer I'm in my job the more difficult I find it to make that call, and with saying that there are no legal ramifications to noting it.

    There maybe no legal ramifications to noting it unless that person has a serious accident, kills someone further down the road and I get question on it or my judgement called into question.

    But hey like you I probably wont be arresting anyone soon for drug driving unless it is very obvious they under the influence. There is just nothing there in the way of equipment nor even training for me to be happy with detaining a person.


  • #5
    eroo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,084 ✭✭✭eroo


    TheNog wrote: »
    There is just nothing there in the way of equipment nor even training for me to be happy with detaining a person.

    ..and the last thing you want is to be done for false arrest!


  • #6
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    eroo wrote: »
    ..and the last thing you want is to be done for false arrest!

    Exactly and the most important thing to remember is that no one and I mean no one, not even the Commissioner, can order the arrest of a person


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    I am aware of one person being arrested for drug driving, doctor was called in - blood samples were taken and sent off for analysis.


  • #8
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    I am aware of one person being arrested for drug driving, doctor was called in - blood samples were taken and sent off for analysis.

    Thanks. That's interesting, do you know if there was a conviction on it?

    We use urine samples in work, but the difficultly is they nearly dectect the presence of said drug, we also use level checks which can show they amount of the said drug being used, however, in my understanding if still diffcult to show the person was intoxicated at that particular time. With alcohol it much easier to show, there is a set level legally defined. If someone blows over 80 in the clinic they only get half their dose of methadone, none if over 160.

    If I used heroin last night for example, it would show for 3-5 days; however, I clearly would not be intoxicated for that amount of time, with benzos and hash your talking about a month to clear the system. Just interested in how you guys manage this one.


  • #9
    Hooch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    Hey lads.
    Done it more than a few times in Traffic and convicted every time, Very easy once someone in the know runs you through it. You must, like sec 49 be 100% that they are under the infulence to such and extent as to be incapable of having proper control of an MPV. Drug driving, sec 14, is not much different than sec 49.


  • #10
    djtechnics1210
    Closed Accounts Posts: 923 ✭✭✭djtechnics1210


    I did it good few times too, no problems, found them handy to convict, same as convicting drink drivers.
    Usually i stopped car found drugs and fella says i own it and had some earlier, then in ya come pal.


  • #11
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    I am surprised that the pupil size chart is not used here as it was in widespread use in the USA for at least 10 years. The problem is that it needs a fair bit of training to get it right. Defence lawyers were always hot at attacking our analysis of their clients pupils. That's where the training came into play.

    The pupil test would be used as well as the standard roadside sobriety tests.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Hooch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    Bond-007 wrote: »
    I am surprised that the pupil size chart is not used here as it was in widespread use in the USA for at least 10 years. The problem is that it needs a fair bit of training to get it right. Defence lawyers were always hot at attacking our analysis of their clients pupils. That's where the training came into play.

    The pupil test would be used as well as the standard roadside sobriety tests.

    Interesting, didnt know that they used it in the US. When you mean used here do I take it that you refer to the UK and can you elaborate on the training needed???


  • #13
    daithip
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭daithip


    On the normal run of the mill blood/urine sample sent to the Medical Bureau, the only samples tested for the presence of drugs are those that come back as zero. But you can request the sample to be tested for the presence of drugs.


  • #14
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    nice guy always wrote: »
    Interesting, didnt know that they used it in the US. When you mean used here do I take it that you refer to the UK and can you elaborate on the training needed???
    I worked in the US, where the pupil test is used by some police and sheriffs departments. The training was a course where we were trained to identify the users of drugs and how to guage the level of impairment using the cards.

    You can have the most stoned in the world guy walk away from a DUI if you did not have probable cause to arrest him. Some of them could get thru the standard sobriety tests and the breathalyser will not show up drugs. All you would be left with would be your suspicions and the pupil test. Defence lawyers were all over that.

    If you did not have probable cause any blood test showing positive for drugs would be deemed inadmissible as the fruits of a poisonous tree.


  • #15
    Satan Polaroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭Satan Polaroid


    Just to add, as I don't see it mentioned, the quantity of drugs in the system is not an issue.

    There just has to be a presence of drugs in the system.


  • #16
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    Satan Polaroid wrote: »
    Just to add, as I don't see it mentioned, the quantity of drugs in the system is not an issue.

    There just has to be a presence of drugs in the system.


    Sorry to bring this thread back up, but I was away on my little "sand holiday" see link below. But my question is around this issue what if the drugs are prescribed? Alot of my clients would be prescribed benzos, at the prescribed dose it shouldn't be an issue, however, alot of the neck loads of them they get off other docs or buy on the street.

    Surely the presence of a drug doesn't work here or does it? Same goes with methadone alot of addicts top up on drugs that they are prescribed, this is where my question comes from. My understanding is if you can prove it was a prescribed drug its then up to you guys to prove the person was unfit to drive, am I wrong in that?


  • #17
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Surely the presence of a drug doesn't work here or does it?
    Sadly it does. The mere presence of a controlled drug in the urine sample means you are banged to rights.

    That with the sworn evidence of prior opinion will be enough to convict.


  • #18
    Hooch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    Odysseus wrote: »
    Sorry to bring this thread back up, but I was away on my little "sand holiday" see link below. But my question is around this issue what if the drugs are prescribed? Alot of my clients would be prescribed benzos, at the prescribed dose it shouldn't be an issue, however, alot of the neck loads of them they get off other docs or buy on the street.

    Surely the presence of a drug doesn't work here or does it? Same goes with methadone alot of addicts top up on drugs that they are prescribed, this is where my question comes from. My understanding is if you can prove it was a prescribed drug its then up to you guys to prove the person was unfit to drive, am I wrong in that?


    The fact that drugs are found in someones system isnt enough for a prosecution alone.

    To arrest someone for drug driving you must form an opinion that the driver is intoxicated (from the drug or drugs or alcohol or combination) to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of an MPV in a public place. Prosecution under Section 49 (1) Rta 1961-06. The evidence given in court is from the arresting member and any assisting member/member i/c of the station that the driver was incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. That fact that drugs are present in the drivers system is only an aid to the prosecution of the said driver. So the bulk of the evidence is the Gardas sworn evidence.

    So taking from that if you are prescribed a drug and you over dose (or have a reaction that makes you incapable of driving safely) then you will be arrested for that and a sample taken at the station.
    Hope this helps, ask away if you need further clarification.
    NGA


  • #19
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    nice guy always wrote: »
    The fact that drugs are found in someones system isnt enough for a prosecution alone.

    To arrest someone for drug driving you must form an opinion that the driver is intoxicated (from the drug or drugs or alcohol or combination) to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of an MPV in a public place. Prosecution under Section 49 (1) Rta 1961-06. The evidence given in court is from the arresting member and any assisting member/member i/c of the station that the driver was incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. That fact that drugs are present in the drivers system is only an aid to the prosecution of the said driver. So the bulk of the evidence is the Gardas sworn evidence.

    So taking from that if you are prescribed a drug and you over dose (or have a reaction that makes you incapable of driving safely) then you will be arrested for that and a sample taken at the station.
    Hope this helps, ask away if you need further clarification.
    NGA

    Cheers mate, you hit the nail on the head, that was the info I was looking for. It scary when you know the amount of meds some people are taking and you see them driving around sometime with kiddies in the back:eek:


  • #20
    Hooch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    Odysseus wrote: »
    Cheers mate, you hit the nail on the head, that was the info I was looking for. It scary when you know the amount of meds some people are taking and you see them driving around sometime with kiddies in the back:eek:

    Who you telling!!! Were getting a lot more proactive at detecting this behavour at the moment so any info you have of possibility of drug driving would be welcomed by your local divisional traffic unit.:D


  • #21
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    nice guy always wrote: »
    Who you telling!!! Were getting a lot more proactive at detecting this behavour at the moment so any info you have of possibility of drug driving would be welcomed by your local divisional traffic unit.:D

    I have to be careful here as my name is contained in my sig, there is nothing like annoyed addicts. However, staff in clinics cannot ring the local station as a member of the organisation, but as a concerned citizen you can make the call.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Diamondmaker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Diamondmaker


    So where does the law stand with so called herbal or designer drugs that are generally cocktails of herbs, extracts and legal stimulants etc ?

    These are getting quite popular here and I have been exposed to them, they can leave you every but as high and as incapable to drive as any illegal substances.

    The effects are even magnified with a beer or 2, that could also have an individual under the drink driving limits but pupils may be all over the place, the individual may be displaying a whole host of side effects that would allow an officer to form a suspicion of drug driving, but on a test - no illegal substances would detect *

    * Provided the accuracy of the particular product in questions was 100% and the contents were all in fact legal.


  • #23
    Hooch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    Diamondmaker wrote: »
    So where does the law stand with so called herbal or designer drugs that are generally cocktails of herbs, extracts and legal stimulants etc ?

    These are getting quite popular here and I have been exposed to them, they can leave you every but as high and as incapable to drive as any illegal substances.

    The effects are even magnified with a beer or 2, that could also have an individual under the drink driving limits but pupils may be all over the place, the individual may be displaying a whole host of side effects that would allow an officer to form a suspicion of drug driving, but on a test - no illegal substances would detect *

    * Provided the accuracy of the particular product in questions was 100% and the contents were all in fact legal.

    My partner had one of these not too long ago. The bureau took 5 months to identify the then ''legal'' substance (now illegal) and returned the results just before statute of limitations kicked in.

    Prosecution and conviction was secured on the basis that the driver was incapable of having proper control of an mpv in a public place. In theory it does not matter if the intoxicant is illegal or not. Its back to the members observations at the time of the incident.


  • #24
    Dwardy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭Dwardy


    I was done there last year 2 times in 2 months was not high at the time found enough for a joint was broth down station blood taken im now banned for the next ten year


  • #25
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Excellent work from the Gardaí. Enjoy your life as a pedestrian.


  • #26
    Dwardy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭Dwardy


    Bond-007 wrote: »
    Excellent work from the Gardaí. Enjoy your life as a pedestrian.
    hope ya rite off your car


  • #27
    hedges
    Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hedges


    Dwardy wrote: »
    hope ya rite off your car


    God forbid that he does !!

    But just in case, can he borrow yours as you wont be needing it:D


  • #28
    djtechnics1210
    Closed Accounts Posts: 923 ✭✭✭djtechnics1210


    Dwardy wrote: »
    I was done there last year 2 times in 2 months was not high at the time found enough for a joint was broth down station blood taken im now banned for the next ten year

    And id say after that comment to bond you could be getting a ban after 2 posts :D


  • #29
    Hooch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    djtechnics1210 wrote: »
    And id say after that comment to bond you could be getting a ban after 2 posts :D

    + 1, childish comment. No need for that dwardy


  • #30
    Shield
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,643 CMod ✭✭✭✭Shield


    Dwardy wrote: »
    hope ya rite off your car

    Just as djtechnics1210's crystal ball predicted, this post earned Dwardy a permanent ban.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    sunnyjim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,302 ✭✭✭sunnyjim


    Dwardy wrote: »
    I was done there last year 2 times in 2 months was not high at the time found enough for a joint was broth down station blood taken im now banned for the next ten year

    What would such a case be prosecuted under? They took him in, took bloods and sent them off. Do the forensics lab test for drugs in blood for such cases?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement