Drug driving new laws

Really Interested · 16-04-2017 10:52am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If I understand this correctly, it is what I find troubling.
If I am over the limit - say consumed two or three pints of beer.
My intent is to drive when sober (maybe after a few hours sleep or rest).
I am in charge of the vehicle - even to the point of sitting/sleeping in the rear of the vehicle - or sleep at home - or anywhere else.

I am stating I have/had no intent to break the drink driving law, and have not exhibited any intent to do so (ex. by starting the vehicle), yet if I understand the info you have provided so far (thanks for that) I can be charged (and likely convicted) of having the intent to drive while under the influence.
[I have use alcohol in the example but this seems to apply equally to the new drug law]

I guess I do not understand how my intent can be determined with any accuracy, without me performing some act such as moving the vehicle with the engine running.
I could understand an acceptable assumption being made of my intent if I had a record of 'drink driving'.
Equally could not the assumption be in my favour if I have no such record?

We go through every day with varies intentions which we never act upon.

Your intent is presumed to rebut it you must give evidence, according to case law if you say I was going to sleep and then wake and drive then it's open to the court to convict. If you say nothing you can not rebut to presumption.

GM228 · 16-04-2017 11:22am

The DPP vs Byrne [2001] IESC 97 Supreme Court case is the authorative case on the subject.

It dealth with the issue under S50 of the 1961 Act, but applies equally to the 2010 Act as the 2010 Act contains the same provisions.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2001/97.html

See points 18, 19 and 20 which answer the last few questions raised in this thread and already answered by Really Interested.

18. As will be seen from subsection 4 (a) a Defendant could displace the presumption if he showed that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle “so long as he remained unfit to drive”. In contrast subsection 8 of Section 50 now inserted into the 1961 Act requires a Defendant to show that he did not intend to drive the vehicle in order to rebut the presumption contained in the subsection. It is not sufficient to show only that he did not intend to drive while he was unfit or during any particular period of time. That could only have been a deliberate alteration on the part of the legislature. It appears that Section 50 as it now stands seeks to create an offence of strict, or at least stricter, liability. The mischief which the legislature appears to have in mind are persons unfit to drive due to the consumption of alcohol who are in charge of a motor vehicle and have an intention to drive. That is to say, that it is an offence for a person to be in charge of a motor vehicle while at the same time having an intent to drive when he has in his body a level of alcohol prohibited by statute. Thus, it would not be a defence for a Defendant to admit that he was in charge of a motor vehicle with intent to drive while unfit due to the consumption of alcohol but did not intend to drive for 3 ½ hours, 6hrs or as the case may be. The Statute makes it an offence for such an unfit person to be in charge of a motor vehicle with the requisite intent.

19. Of course there may be particular circumstances where such a person contemplates driving the motor vehicle at some time in the future, and it would be an extreme interpretation of the Section and even an absurd one if, in all such circumstances, such a situation was to be treated as an “ intent to drive ” within the meaning of the section.

20. If a car owner left his house solely for the purpose of getting something from the boot of his car parked on the street outside when he was under the influence of alcohol he may be considered to be ‘in charge’ of the motor vehicle but the fact that he intended to drive to work the following day would not mean that he was in charge ‘ with intent to drive , within the meaning of the section. There I think the intention would be too remote to fall within the section. The relevant provisions of Section 50 creates an inextricable link between being in charge and the intention to drive. In the example given the sole purpose is to retrieve something from the car with the intention of leaving the car and returning to his house. There could not be said to be present in his mind an intention to drive while in charge of the car. There is an intent to relinquish or abandon his charge without driving. The link between being in charge of a vehicle and the intent to drive must mean that in the circumstances in which the Defendant is found to be in charge he has an intention, at some point, while in charge, to drive the motor vehicle. It is that intention which does not have to be immediate or an intention to do so within a particular time-frame. As in all cases of this nature there is a myriad combination of circumstances which can be conjured up on hypothetical basis. It is really a question of applying the terms of the relevant subsection to the facts of each case according to their ordinary and everyday meaning.

GM228 · 16-04-2017 11:45am

Only in a few days and Gardaí have already caught one!

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/853542715174400000

Fred Swanson · 16-04-2017 11:50am

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested · 16-04-2017 11:53am

GM228 wrote: »

Only in a few days and GardaÃ have already caught one!

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/853542715174400000

Well the case about driving while after drugs, will depend on the blood test, if he is currently banned for 10 years he is on that charge alone risking jail. Knowing that AGS will be out this weekend, why O why would anyone with a 10 year ban be so stupid.

GM228 · 16-04-2017 11:55am

Fred Swanson wrote: »

That is the roadside machine?

Yes that's the screen on the top of the Dräger Drug Test 5000.

GM228 · 16-04-2017 11:56am

Really Interested wrote: »

Well the case about driving while after drugs, will depend on the blood test, if he is currently banned for 10 years he is on that charge alone risking jail. Knowing that AGS will be out this weekend, why O why would anyone with a 10 year ban be so stupid.

Correct, blood test must follow the preliminary test.

Johnboy1951 · 16-04-2017 11:56am

Thanks for the further info .......

I can see no means of a defendant showing a lack of intent to drive while under the influence, if he is in possession of the car keys while under the influence.

It seems he would have to physically remove himself from the vicinity of the vehicle to have some hope of being believed.

The link between being in charge of a vehicle and the intent to drive must mean that in the circumstances in which the Defendant is found to be in charge he has an intention, at some point, while in charge, to drive the motor vehicle. It is that intention which does not have to be immediate or an intention to do so within a particular time-frame.

It seems the days of parking up for a night out, and sleeping in the back of the van or car, leaves you open to this charge, with no defence at all.

Makes me wonder if this could be applied to those sleeping in motorhomes also.

Really Interested · 16-04-2017 12:00pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thanks for the further info .......

I can see no means of a defendant showing a lack of intent to drive while under the influence, if he is in possession of the car keys while under the influence.

It seems he would have to physically remove himself from the vicinity of the vehicle to have some hope of being believed.

It seems the days of parking up for a night out, and sleeping in the back of the van or car, leaves you open to this charge, with no defence at all.

Makes me wonder if this could be applied to those sleeping in motorhomes also.

Did you even read the case quoted above by link to bali and earlier by Irish Times link?

Read the full case which sets out the law clearly and all will be revealed. BTW it would be very simple in a motorhomes case to rebut the presumption.

I am aware of at least 2 cases where the person was in the car, key in ignition where the accused did rebut the presumption.

Brussels Sprout · 16-04-2017 12:15pm

Really Interested wrote: »

why O why would anyone with a 10 year ban be so stupid.

I think the answer is in the question

Really Interested · 16-04-2017 12:19pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I think the answer is in the question

Well I am ever an optimist.

bodhrandude · 16-04-2017 5:07pm

It will be interesting to see if they have these check points going on, into and out of major weekend music events, that is the time when most people will indulge themselves. I could see some these springing up around Life festival, Forbidden Fruit, Longitude, Body & Soul festival, Electric Picnic and the like, could make travelling a painfully long experience. Definitely we will see this for the Townlands Carnival in Macroom County Cork, the guards had a checkpoint going into there last year standing around with their blue latex gloves so they will be swabbing no doubt this year.

Really Interested · 16-04-2017 5:10pm

bodhrandude wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if they have these check points going on, into and out of major weekend music events, that is the time when most people will indulge themselves. I could see some these springing up around Life festival, Forbidden Fruit, Longitude, Body & Soul festival, Electric Picnic and the like, could make travelling a painfully long experience. Definitely we will see this for the Townlands Carnival in Macroom County Cork, the guards had a checkpoint going into there last year standing around with their blue latex gloves so they will be swabbing no doubt this year.

Even Paddy Power wont give odds on that you can be sure every road out of such a festival will have checkpoints, just like drink there will be designated drivers.

Fred Swanson · 16-04-2017 5:18pm

This post has been deleted.

GhostyMcGhost · 17-04-2017 5:46pm

Really Interested wrote: »

Well the case about driving while after drugs, will depend on the blood test, if he is currently banned for 10 years he is on that charge alone risking jail. Knowing that AGS will be out this weekend, why O why would anyone with a 10 year ban be so stupid.

Anyone with a ban who flouts it should automatically serve the remainder of the ban in a 6x6 cell

Nobody in the land would insure them meaning they're appaling drivers with no regard for safety and no insurance to boot

They know damn well not to be behind a wheel and if they can't manage the temptation, then it should be managed for them....

Or do we have to let them cause carnage first before seeing the inside of a cell?

Really Interested · 17-04-2017 5:56pm

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Anyone with a ban who flouts it should automatically serve the remainder of the ban in a 6x6 cell

Nobody in the land would insure them meaning they're appaling drivers with no regard for safety and no insurance to boot

They know damn well not to be behind a wheel and if they can't manage the temptation, then it should be managed for them....

Or do we have to let them cause carnage first before seeing the inside of a cell?

Baned for 10 years and now a possible drug driving case, he is at risk of 6 months inside, and he can't as its district Court get more than 1 year (2 years if more than one offence) but it is very rare to get more than 6 months in DC.

Yachtcarpenter · 20-04-2017 11:57pm

Have found this thread quite helpful over the past couple of days in determining where I stand in relation to enjoying cannabis as a regular user. To give a bit of background, been smoking (vapeing now) for the past 15 odd years and these new machines have me a little concerned.

While I don't drive under the influence, I do have a small bit each evening when I'm home and the idea that if I was to get swabbed in the morning and it to return positive is scary.. I've been reading up quite a bit on various studies/reports (can't provide links as not allowed yet, but lots of info online from other countries) and from one or two posters on this thread.

It seems the chances of exceeding the 1ng/ml after say 12 hours is unlikely, but possible depending on individual tolerance and strength of material..

The blood content level at 5ng/ml is on par with Colorado and Washington in the US where it's legal and from my reading this would be very hard to be over unless you were tested within 3 to 6 hours of smoking, so being convicted of an offense is highly unlikely even if you tested positive on the swab.

unfortunately from my understanding it's all relevant to each persons tolerance, which will have varying results from person to person.

To give some background to myself, started a business in 2009, employ about 15 people now and operate both here and abroad in my field of work. I have one or two plants alongside my various vegetables in my polytunnel each year so I don't buy it of the street and generally enjoy it while out running / walking / exercising. Welcome any adult responses to this!

quintus · 21-04-2017 8:44am

Yachtcarpenter wrote: »

Have found this thread quite helpful over the past couple of days in determining where I stand in relation to enjoying cannabis as a regular user. To give a bit of background, been smoking (vapeing now) for the past 15 odd years and these new machines have me a little concerned.

While I don't drive under the influence, I do have a small bit each evening when I'm home and the idea that if I was to get swabbed in the morning and it to return positive is scary.. I've been reading up quite a bit on various studies/reports (can't provide links as not allowed yet, but lots of info online from other countries) and from one or two posters on this thread.

It seems the chances of exceeding the 1ng/ml after say 12 hours is unlikely, but possible depending on individual tolerance and strength of material..

The blood content level at 5ng/ml is on par with Colorado and Washington in the US where it's legal and from my reading this would be very hard to be over unless you were tested within 3 to 6 hours of smoking, so being convicted of an offense is highly unlikely even if you tested positive on the swab.

unfortunately from my understanding it's all relevant to each persons tolerance, which will have varying results from person to person.

To give some background to myself, started a business in 2009, employ about 15 people now and operate both here and abroad in my field of work. I have one or two plants alongside my various vegetables in my polytunnel each year so I don't buy it of the street and generally enjoy it while out running / walking / exercising. Welcome any adult responses to this!

First of all. you have given out, way too much info about yourself.

There are many people in this country like yourself who are perfectly responsible when it comes to the Herb.

This has spoilt my enjoyment to a certain degree and here's why...... When I partake of a night, to unwind and relax ( I do NOT drink alcohol indoors and rarely drink, PERIOD ) there is always that moment when the thought of giving a positive reading creeps up on you, and puts me in "The horrors".

A 1 year ban and 5000 Euro fine, not to mention the criminal record and insurance problems that may follow. Possible loss of employment etc, we're talking, life changing implications. A person who has any foresight, will be weighing up the pro's and cons and asking themselves the question.... Is it worth it?? If you can weather all the above without it having a dramatic effect on your life, then.... Smoke away.

Everybody needs something to help them relax. Many in this country, choose legalised alcohol, it is THEIR drug of choice. In fact millions have been made by pushing the old stereotype that "If your Irish you are supposed to drink a lot", bull**** of course. There are many who will claim that alcohol does not agree with them, and I would be one of those. Marijuana on the other hand has a very calming, focusing effect that brings clarity and peace to a stressful existence. Is it worth it?? For me the jury is still out, I'm still weighing up the pro's and cons.

I will say this though, make sure you have sachets of salt in your car ( I'll leave you to figure that one out on your own).

Peregrinus · 21-04-2017 9:00am

quintus wrote: »

. . . Everybody needs something to help them relax. Many in this country, choose legalised alcohol, it is THEIR drug of choice. There are many who will claim that alcohol does not agree with them, and I would be one of those. Marijuana on the other hand has a very calming, focusing effect that brings clarity and peace to a stressful existence. Is it worth it?? For me the jury is still out, I'm still weighing up the pro's and cons.

In the context of the present thread, whether you choose alcohol or cannabis the only issue is that you have to ensure that your drinking/smoking practices and your driving practices don't result in you driving while under the influence in a way that attracts the attention of the law.

Simple possession of cannabis is of course illegal, and I get that cannabis users might resent that. But in the present context it's irrelevant; the legal consequences for driving with a drug concentration in excess of the permitted limit are exactly the same regardless of whether the drug is alcohol or cannabis. In this regard, I don't see that cannabis users are facing demands or risks that are any different from the demands/risks we already impose on alcohol users.

The difference, possibly, is that most of us have (or think we have) a pretty good idea of how many beers/glasses of wine/whatever it is that we like will put us close to or over the limit, and for how long, and this makes the task of reconciling alcohol use with driving a bit easier. This may not be so true for cannabis users. This thread had included a number of suggestions to the effect that, eg., even being in the presence of cannabis plants can result in your being over the limit. Those look like rather exaggerated claims to me, but who am I to know? Perhaps there are cases out there of people who have been convicted under cannabis-driving laws in circumstances like these. If so, no doubt someone will post details.

To my mind, though, the issue isn't really how easy it might be to find yourself over the legal limit. It's whether the legal limit does in fact represent a concentration of cannabis that is associated with material impairment to driving ability. If it does, then I really don't care how easy it is to find yourself at that limit; you should not be driving at or over that limit, and you should make any changes you need to, either to your smoking habits or to your driving habits or both, to ensure that this doesn't happen. And if you fail to make those changes and find yourself convicted of driving when over the limit, well, suck it up.

Yachtcarpenter · 21-04-2017 11:48am

quintus wrote: »

First of all. you have given out, way too much info about yourself.

There are many people in this country like yourself who are perfectly responsible when it comes to the Herb.

This has spoilt my enjoyment to a certain degree and here's why...... When I partake of a night, to unwind and relax ( I do NOT drink alcohol indoors and rarely drink, PERIOD ) there is always that moment when the thought of giving a positive reading creeps up on you, and puts me in "The horrors".

A 1 year ban and 5000 Euro fine, not to mention the criminal record and insurance problems that may follow. Possible loss of employment etc, we're talking, life changing implications. A person who has any foresight, will be weighing up the pro's and cons and asking themselves the question.... Is it worth it?? If you can weather all the above without it having a dramatic effect on your life, then.... Smoke away.

Everybody needs something to help them relax. Many in this country, choose legalised alcohol, it is THEIR drug of choice. There are many who will claim that alcohol does not agree with them, and I would be one of those. Marijuana on the other hand has a very calming, focusing effect that brings clarity and peace to a stressful existence. Is it worth it?? For me the jury is still out, I'm still weighing up the pro's and cons.

I will say this though, make sure you have sachets of salt in your car ( I'll leave you to figure that one out on your own).

@ quintas

To be honest, I knew this was coming some time back and have put it on the back burner well before it was introduced.

Weighting up the pros and cons, I personally won't be going near it for the time being until I see how all this fairs out, have no choice.

ED E · 24-04-2017 1:34am

Given that AGS have to show:
A) Presence of substance

Impaired driving

If you were to take precautions so that you were never impaired but possibly detectable in saliva/blood would using a dash-cam provide significant legal protection? Given say a 2hr recording loop (practically it could be a lot longer).

GM228 · 24-04-2017 2:00am

ED E wrote: »

Given that AGS have to show:
A) Presence of substance
Impaired driving

If you were to take precautions so that you were never impaired but possibly detectable in saliva/blood would using a dash-cam provide significant legal protection? Given say a 2hr recording loop (practically it could be a lot longer).

Gardaí only have to show impaired driving if they pursue a charge of impaired driving under S4(1) or S5(1).

The charge of being over the legal limit under S4(1A) or S5(1A) does not require impaired driving, just a level of drugs above the limit.

ED E · 24-04-2017 2:21am

GM228 wrote: »

Garda? only have to show impaired driving if they pursue a charge of impaired driving under S4(1) or S5(1).

The charge of being over the legal limit under S4(1A) or S5(1A) does not require impaired driving, just a level of drugs above the limit.

Ahh ok, I misunderstood that bit.

On a more practical note am I right in saying the DDT5000 doesnt test for amphetamines? Considering the suspected prevalence of MDMA and its derivatives, especially among young people, you'd think it'd be a prime candidate for MITs tests. Granted they cant carry a mass spectrometer in every patrol car but it still seems like a glaring omission.

GM228 · 24-04-2017 2:43am

ED E wrote: »

Ahh ok, I misunderstood that bit.

On a more practical note am I right in saying the DDT5000 doesnt test for amphetamines? Considering the suspected prevalence of MDMA and its derivatives, especially among young people, you'd think it'd be a prime candidate for MITs tests. Granted they cant carry a mass spectrometer in every patrol car but it still seems like a glaring omission.

No the machine does not test for amphetamines, however if there is an opinion of impaired driving they can test for pretty much any drug via a blood test following an impairment test.

Yachtcarpenter · 24-04-2017 8:30am

GM228 wrote: »

Gardaí only have to show impaired driving if they pursue a charge of impaired driving under S4(1) or S5(1).

The charge of being over the legal limit under S4(1A) or S5(1A) does not require impaired driving, just a level of drugs above the limit.

There's a study in the us in Colorado where they were saying that the blood level, @ 5 is very high as you would be below that within approx 5/6 hours even with heavy users which in my books you would be still impaired at that stage and it seems to be accepted that 5 is on par with the level set for drink driving.. sorry can't provide direct links yet.

So the roadside test is @ 1ng which will end up detecting possibly up to 30 hours depending on user, but all of what I've read no test has shown blood levels over 5ng after 8 hours. Seems like there could be a lot of people detected but will not fail blood test unless you smoked pretty much up to 6 hours or less before being blood tested.

I'm not by any means condoning drug driving, and yes cannabis is still illegal, but setting a limit that high, U.K. Is 2ng, seems to me that it is being provisioned for medical use in the future.

If a limit has been set, there must be a basis where this has been derived, hense would be helpful to know where you stand if trying to be responsible.

The guidelines issued by the guards in relation to cannabis suggest waiting 6 to 24 hours before driving which to be honest should not cause anyone to be convicted of an offence but you would more than likely fail roadside test..

Peregrinus · 24-04-2017 8:48am

A possible issue here - this is a wild guess on my part - is that there's a greater variance for cannabis than for alcohol in relation to how much smoking puts you over the safe driving limit, and/or a greater variance in terms of how fast people process cannabis, and therefore how long before they are "safe" again. Bear in mind that cannabis is typically absorbed via the respiratory system, whereas alcohol is typically absorbed through the digestive system. Given that, we can't assume that the results of a roadside breath test map onto likely failing a blood test as reliably and predictable for cannabis as it does for alcohol. Maybe it does. But maybe it doesn't.

The upshot of this is that, if we're using a roadside breathalyser as a screening device to determine who is to have a blood test, we may have to allow a greater margin for variance, and therefore we may end up blood-testing a higher proportion of people for cannabis who turn out to be "safe" (i.e. below the permitted blood/cannabis level) than is the case when testing for alcohol. In other words, more dope smoker will be inconvenienced by having to undergo a blood test, and then not charged, than drinkers.

If so, that's unfortunate, but it's probably a consequence we can live with if the objective is to detect and prosecute those who are over the limit.

Yachtcarpenter · 24-04-2017 9:37am

Peregrinus wrote: »

A possible issue here - this is a wild guess on my part - is that there's a greater variance for cannabis than for alcohol in relation to how much smoking puts you over the safe driving limit, and/or a greater variance in terms of how fast people process cannabis, and therefore how long before they are "safe" again. Bear in mind that cannabis is typically absorbed via the respiratory system, whereas alcohol is typically absorbed through the digestive system. Given that, we can't assume that the results of a roadside breath test map onto likely failing a blood test as reliably and predictable for cannabis as it does for alcohol. Maybe it does. But maybe it doesn't.

The upshot of this is that, if we're using a roadside breathalyser as a screening device to determine who is to have a blood test, we may have to allow a greater margin for variance, and therefore we may end up blood-testing a higher proportion of people for cannabis who turn out to be "safe" (i.e. below the permitted blood/cannabis level) than is the case when testing for alcohol. In other words, more dope smoker will be inconvenienced by having to undergo a blood test, and then not charged, than drinkers.

If so, that's unfortunate, but it's probably a consequence we can live with if the objective is to detect and prosecute those who are over the limit.

I Agree. in studies posted earlier on this the subjects used were occasional and heavy users and a heavy user is 5+ marijuana joints a day, (no tobacco) and the heaviest tested under 3ng after 6 hours. Don't get me wrong by no means is this fact but its what I've found and read

Yup that's what will happen. Seems silly having levels so far apart if these studies (all on first one or two pages of google, will post when I can) are correct, a lot of time will be wasted as nothing will come of it unless driving a short time after which is the idea behind the machine. (Can't comment on any drug as have never used any other)

I'm not saying I'm right, just using info to hand to make an informed decision. Appreciate any comments that I may be missing something..

Peregrinus · 24-04-2017 9:53am

It may or may not be silly. If you're using breath concentration as a screening mechanism, and there's a wider variance between breath and blood concentrations for cannabis then for alcohol, then you're faced with an unpleasnt alternative:

- set a low-ish screening level which will catch, say, 95% of those whose blood cannabis concentration is excessive, and accept that this will inconvenience a lot of people whose blood cannabis concentration is within the permitted level; or

- set a high-ish screening level such that anyone caught by the breath test is almost certainly in excess of the permitted blood concentration, but accept that many of those who exceed the blood concentration level will pass the screening test (and therefore will not be blood-tested, and will not be detected or charged).

If your object is to detect and deter d.u.i. cannabis, then the first option is the one to go for, but you'll have to put up with a lot of heat from the relatively large number of people who fail the breath test, are hauled off to the station, and then have to wait days or weeks before they learn that, actually, they were under the limit, so there's no charge.

Yachtcarpenter · 24-04-2017 11:12am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may or may not be silly. If you're using breath concentration as a screening mechanism, and there's a wider variance between breath and blood concentrations for cannabis then for alcohol, then you're faced with an unpleasnt alternative:

- set a low-ish screening level which will catch, say, 95% of those whose blood cannabis concentration is excessive, and accept that this will inconvenience a lot of people whose blood cannabis concentration is within the permitted level; or

- set a high-ish screening level such that anyone caught by the breath test is almost certainly in excess of the permitted blood concentration, but accept that many of those who exceed the blood concentration level will pass the screening test (and therefore will not be blood-tested, and will not be detected or charged).

If your object is to detect and deter d.u.i. cannabis, then the first option is the one to go for, but you'll have to put up with a lot of heat from the relatively large number of people who fail the breath test, are hauled off to the station, and then have to wait days or weeks before they learn that, actually, they were under the limit, so there's no charge.

Makes a lot of sense what your saying. I think time will tell how this will all fair out.. the system being used suggests (from draeger site) and scenarios given out by rsa that it cannot be detected after 12 hours or so, seems to be a bit to close for comfort according to studies conducted..

Either way.. it will have to be a weekend activity for the time being.. I know one or two who arnt to bothered by the whole thing but are going by the 12 hour rule as they are very confident with regards blood tests, so will wait and see how they fair out if stopped.. I'd be lucky to see a guard where I live from one end of the week to the next.. although I'll get stopped this evening now lol..

There is an awful lot of fearmongering as per usual with all these things, but information is readily available from reputable sources which do help to make informed decisions nowadays. I still can't get my head around the blood level limit as from my understanding it's the same level as in countries where it's legal and there doesn't seem to be any issues with it, yet their industries are thriving..

Good discussion on topic so far!

drunkmonkey · 24-04-2017 12:27pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

and then have to wait days or weeks before they learn that, actually, they were under the limit, so there's no charge.

When there taking a blood sample you can have one to take home yourself and get an independent test.

Drug driving new laws

Comments