Drug driving blood test

cityboyjim wrote: »

Got stopped at road block and arrested and drug driving blood tested.I got results back today .Just zero alcohol.No mention of drugs on the form .Do they also test for alcohol as well as drugs and drug results come later, or did I get the incorrect form back.Thanks .

Were you arrested for failing the drug test?

talla10 wrote: »

Impossible to say how one joint affected you. If at the time of driving you were incapable of having proper control of the vehicle they you may well be prosecuted.

If that's the case contact a solicitor

It does not need to be proved that the driver was incapable of having proper control there are two offences. Driving whilst impaired and driving whilst the drug is in the system. It's an offence in itself

talla10 wrote: »

They still need to prove the person was not in proper control of an MPV in a public place.

S4 Road Traffic Act 2010- 4.— (1) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

This is definitely correct, as intoxicants can stay in the system for a long time and it is difficult/if not impossible to determine from a blood test when they were ingested. Cannabis can stay in the system for (I think its up to 28 days) so if someone had smoked a j 2 weeks previous, it would be detected in the test but wouldn't be incapable of driving.

It is usually backed up with an impairment test done at the roadside, which would be adduced as evidence as proof of incapable. If there is no test, the defence would or at least should be able to easily put forward a reasonable doubt.

One thing in the above scenario (and in no way take this as concrete), the fact that there was speeding coupled with a possible positive test and eye pupil testing could be proof enough.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is also a strict liability offence of driving with an intoxicant in your system above a prescribed limit

Apologies, you are quite correct. I forgot about the 2017 update. FOr cannabis its 1ng/ml. Its only for cannabis, heroin and cocaine that the strict liability is there.

joeguevara wrote: »

From talking with colleagues who are more used to road traffic cases, I am shocked at the amount of cases that are thrown out for failure to follow procedure. It is definitely something that they go through with a fine tooth comb to see if all the t's crossed and i's dotted. In the scenario the OP outlined for example it did not mention anything about the B sample provided. That could be an oversight.

or it could be that the OP just didnt mention it as it doesnt become relevant until the A sample proves positive.

joeguevara wrote: »

Apologies, you are quite correct. I forgot about the 2017 update. FOr cannabis its 1ng/ml. Its only for cannabis, heroin and cocaine that the strict liability is there.

That would make me think twice about using cannabis. You don't even have to be under the influence of cannabis to end up with a motoring conviction as long as it's in your system.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

. . . .This is a genuine worry for me. I do smoke (but don't drink, so I'm the devil) but I only smoke when I know I won't be driving until the following day. But going by the 1ng/ml, I'd probably fail even if I quit for a few weeks. In this case, I would imagine evidence of impaired driving would be a necessity, rather than just going with 'it's in the system'.

Anyone know of a case where this was challenged? A google search isn't bringing back anything.

Just as with alcohol, there are two separate offences:

- Driving while impaired, for which it's not necessary to prove any particular blood concentration, just (a) consumption of the substance plus (b) impaired driving.

- Driving while having a blood concentration in excess of the permitted limit. To get a conviction here you need a test to prove the concentration, but you don't need to prove when the substance was consumed and you don't need to prove impaired driving.

In the case of alcohol, 99%+ of all cases are prosecutions for the second offence. A prosecution for driving while impaired is extremely rare. It's like to be the same for cannabis.

You cannot challenge a conviction for the second offence on the grounds that your driving was not impaired, because impaired driving is not an element of the offence. Siimlarly it's irrevant that your consumption of alcohol/cannabis was some time before you were driving; the time when you consumed the substance is not an element of the offence.

I think the core of any objection would be to argue that a concentration of 1ŋg/ml is too low; there is no evidence that driving with this concentration of cannabis is associated with poorer driving. (I've no idea what the science says about this, but I think you'd have to try to make the case that its unreasonable to penalise people for driving with this concentration, because there is no reason to think that driving with this concentration presents any risk to anyone.) However I don't think you'd get very far in court with this; the court would take the view that weighing up the scientific case and deciding at what concentration driving should be forbidden is a matter for the legislature, not for the courts.

I don't know if anybody has ever attempted to challenge the drink-driving laws on the grounds that the level is set too low but, if they have, they obviously didn't succeed.

ted1 wrote: »

Exceeding the limit would tick that box.

No, it wouldn't. If they prosecute you for the s. 4 offence they do have to prove that you were incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

Back in the day, they proved this by giving evidence about how you drove the car, or about your state when the stopped you (slurred speech, couldn't walk in a straight line, that kind of thing).

Driving with an excessive blood/alchohol concentration is an entirely separate offence. To get a conviction, they just have to prove the concentration of alcohol in your blood.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Interesting. Food for thought. I can't see how a court could rightly convict of the second offence due to the lack of research and proof showing that 1ng/ml is the limit.

The court can easily convict you. It's not the court's job to say what should be illegal; just to say whether you have or have not done the thing the legislature has made illegal. If your point is that this shouldn't be a crime at all, the court will tell you to take your complaint to the legislature. If you want to thrash this out in court, you'll have to mount an argument that, constitutionally, the legislature lacks the power to make this a crime.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Indeed, a quick search and reading of some material, and it seems it's basically impossible to set a limit because of too many varying factors. I'm sure 'll find out all about it if I ever get nabbed, but if I do, I'll be sure to post the outcome here! :pac:

One difference I suppose is there have been many tests, studies and evidence that the min amount of alcohol as per current levels can be enough to impair driving, whereas there's nothing to prove the drug limit.

Well, if you want to run the argument, you'll need to do more than a "quick search and reading of some material".

If we assume that there is some level of cannabis concentration is associated with poor driving, then it's reasonable for the legislature to ban driving while having an excessive cannabis concentration. It's then up to the legislature to decide what that level should be, and the fact that it's difficult to draw the line doesn't mean that they have no power to draw any line at all. They're entitled to draw a line, and they're entitled to err on the side of caution and draw it possibly lower than it needs to be rather than higher than it ought to be. The courts are not going to second-guess that.

I think you have a better chance of getting the law changed if you argue that there is in fact a clear scientific case as to what the limit should be, and that it's well above 1ƞg/ml. But that wouldn't be a legal case for striking down the law so much as a political case for changing the law.

paw patrol wrote: »

can somebody tell me what is meant by "strict liability" ?

it means there is no mental element to the offence; your state of mind is irrelevant. If doing X is a strict liability offence, then to convict you they don't have to prove that you intentionally, or recklessly, or carelessly, or dishonestly did X, or that you did X with any particular state of mind; just that you did X.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. If they prosecute you for the s. 4 offence they do have to prove that you were incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

Back in the day, they proved this by giving evidence about how you drove the car, or about your state when the stopped you (slurred speech, couldn't walk in a straight line, that kind of thing).

Driving with an excessive blood/alchohol concentration is an entirely separate offence. To get a conviction, they just have to prove the concentration of alcohol in your blood.

He was incapable of keeping the car controlled working the legal limit.

Peregrinus wrote: »

He may or may not have been; it doesn't matter. There will be no evidence about this given at the trial and even if he was in complete control of the car he will still be convicted.

Dependent on amount of cannabis (if any) in his system. If below the ng/ml required for strict liability but above 0 then capability comes into it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ted1 is discussing the case of someone who is above the 1ƞg/ml limit.

He argues that the very fact that he is above the limit shows that he is "under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle".

I'm saying no, it doesn't show that, but that doesn't matter. He is guilty of the offence of driving while in excess of the limit; nobody cares whether he is also guilty of the offence of driving while under the influence to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control. The whole point of introducing the offence based on blood/urine tests was to avoid having to prove incapability of having proper control.

Ah ok. In that case, nothing else matters only the level in the system.

It would be interesting if they did any impairment testing at the roadside if the level in the system came in below the 1ng/ml.

How does the Doctor get informed medical consent to take the blood sample? Given the Duress of prosecution for failing to give a sample?

Potential-Monke wrote: »

They do already. The roadside test is not as specific usually, just indicates a level (with the Drager for drink, it used to show something like Zero, below and above iirc, but was changed to Yes or No or something similar) and the station test is the final determination. I'd imagine the same is also applied to drugs now.

I still think the arbitrary figure of 1ng/ml shouldn't be enough to convict alone. Would love if there was a case of someone challenging it on the grounds that it's too specific for something that can be (and has been proven) very specific to the individual.

To quote Ryan Vandrey, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at John Hopkins University, "There is no typical window of detection. It is highly variable from person to persona and it varies based on the frequency of use and the amount of use. So there is no way of predicting or knowing how long someone would test positive with any kind of certainty".

I understand that that's the law, the judge has no say in it, I just find it strange that someone can be prosecuted on the 1ng/ml when there is so much evidence to prove that you can't put a figure on it. Surely if there was a legal argument to the law, the case couldn't be concluded without that being cleared first? Would the case not be put on hold if a valid argument was put against it, and wouldn't proceed until the law is upheld or amended? It's not much good putting someone off the road and possibly ruin their life because of an arbitrary figure with no scientific backing?

Does anyone have the research completed by the Irish Government, or at the least the studies they used, to come up with the 1 ng/ml? I don't even know what terms to search to find that. And do we know is it testing for THC, THC-COOH or OH-THC (the liver produced THC that everyone has)?

Similar questions could be, and no doubt have been, asked about the the permitted blood/alchohol concentration. Isn't this an arbitrary figure? Isn't it true that different people metabolise alcohol differently, may manifest different levels of impairment on the same blood/alcohol concentration, etc? And, yes, all this is true. But (the legislature takes the view that) it's still possible to say that, on average, a blood/alcohol concentration of 50mg/100ml is statistically associated with measurable impairment in driving skills, and therefore a general ban on driving in excess of that concentration is justified. And, so far, the courts have not seen fit to take the view that this is unconstitutional.

Given that, I think the fact that the effects of cannabis on driving-related skills vary from person to person is a complete non-runner as an argument against the law. There's a legitimate public interests in having clear and uniform laws, and in drivers knowing what is and isn't permitted, and if a material proportion of drivers are impaired at a given concentration, that justifies a ban and it's irrelevant that Joe Bloggs may not be impaired at that concentration.

So I think the question comes down to this; is there evidence of a statistically significant link in a material proportion of people between impairment to skills relevant to driving and the 1ƞg/ml limit? I don't know the answer to that question but, if you want to attack the law, I think that is the question you need to ask.

I wouldn't assume that Ireland is copying Germany, since the same limit applies in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and (in some cases) the Netherlands. And I think it also applies in most Australian states.

Ther's a couple of possiblities here, not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Ireland could have decided to go for a limit at the lower end of the range of limits used in different countries. While some countries have limits above 1ƞg/ml, few or none have limits below that. Irish legislators didn't want to appear "soft" on cannabis by comparison with other countries, so they adopted the limit that seemed to represent the toughest end of the range.

That just begs the question, though, why that figure has come to be the toughest end of the range.

It could be that, while there's a diversity of evidence about what level of cannabis concentration is associated with driving impairment, no evidence suggests that there is impairment below 1ƞg/ml, whereas there may be at or above that level. 1ƞg/ml therefore represents a very cautious approach; we won't accept any level of risk of driving impairment due to cannabis use.

Alternatively, 1ƞg/ml may represent the lower limit of what can be meaningfully measured. The view may be that, precisely because it's hard to identify a "safe" level of cannabis concentration, the correct approach is a zero tolerance approach: don't smoke and drive. 1ƞg/ml become the limit not because we know that it might be unsafe, but rather because we don't know that it's safe.

On either of these approaches, the confusion/difficulty about identifying the cannabis concentration that is associated with driving impairment becomes, not an argument for not punishing people with low levels, but an argument for not allowing them to drive.

It all looks a bit puritan, and it occurs to me that these approaches may be reinforced by the general illegality of cannabis use. But some of the countries with a very low level - notably the Netherlands - combine a relaxed attitude and liberal laws with regard to cannabis use and a hard line on cannabis-driving.

Be interesting to check if countries that have notably low cannabis-driving limits also tend to have notably low drink-driving limits.

A significant effect of the drink driving laws has been not to detect and punish drink drivers (though they do that) but to discourage drink driving in the first place by helping to bring about a change in attitudes (and they have been pretty successful at that also). And I think something similar may be at work here. The hope is that by taking a very strong line on cannabis-driving, the attitudes of cannabis users can be changed - not so that they stop using cannabis, but so that they separate their cannabis use and their driving.

It does seem to be the case that cannabis takes longer to metabolise than alcohol, and so cannabis use results in a longer period during which there is an elevated blood concentration.

But if the elevated blood concentration is in fact associated with a risk of impaired driving, that's not really an argument for allowing people to drive with a elevated blood concentration. It may be unfortunate for cannabis users that their drug of choice takes longer to eliminate from the system, but it's not a misfortune that they can ask others to bear on their behalf.

What this does is to raise the stakes on both sides, so to speak. If in fact 1ƞg/ml is associated with a risk of impaired driving, then the fact that a user may be at or above that level for several days after us makes it all the more important not to allow him to drive during that time; the longer the "risky period", the greater the chance of an accident.

On other hand, if it's not associated with a risk of impaired driving, then a restriction which prevents him from driving for several days after using is particularly harsh.

But this tells us nothing, one way or the other, about whether 1ƞg/ml is associated with an increased risk of impaired driving; it just underlines the importance of getting a definitive answer to that question. While you say that "the effects are completely gone . . . within 5-8 hours after smoking", the research you have been able to find doesn't seem to say that. And I should no more accept your word for this than you should accept my word that I'm just fine to drive the morning after a feed of pints and chasers.

With the current level of uncertainty, I think you have to plump for one of two approaches:

1. The precautionary approach: "Nobody needs to smoke dope. Therefore, we will not let people smoke dope and drive unless and until this is shown to be safe".

2. The [I can't think of a word which means the opposite of "precautionary"] approach: "Everybody needs to drive. Therefore, we will not ban smoking dope and driving unless and until this is shown to be dangerous".

Science can't steer you to one or other of these positions; the dilemma only arises because the science is inconclusive. So which way you jump must depend on some other factor. It could be your personal psychology - are you a risk-averse person or a more adventurous type? It could be personal interest or advantage - those who enjoy smoking will be motivated to prefer the approach which allows them to smoke and drive. It could be personal interest of a different kind - as a public representative, which approach is more likely to cost me votes/my seat? Or it could be a philosophical/ethical convictions - I would rather run the risk of inflicting unnecessary harm on cannabis users (by banning cannabis-driving when this may not be needed to protect the public) than on road users (by not banning cannabis-driving when this may be needed to protect the public) because the cannabis-drivers voluntarily put themselves in this position whereas the other road users do not.

Funny story on this. A girl I know had a gram of coke and stupidly went drove to buy drink. Stopped at checkpoint when they first came out. Breathalised. Clear. Swabbed for drugs. Clear too. On the one hand delighted. But also furious she had been scammed.