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

Drug driving blood test

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    baalad
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭baalad


    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?

    Not 100% but i think if your last smoke was 2/3 days prior then you should not be failing a roadside test and even if you do. The blood test is to check for the matabolite tch-cooh which seemingly shows you have smoked cannabis recently so if your last smoke was 2/3 days ago then you may test positive but you should certainly not be over the limit.

    In my instance i produced a reading of 6.1ng putting me over the limit by 1.1ng and i had smoked about 7 hours prior to the actual blood test. I usually only smoke before bed but on this particular night i foolishly agreed to give a friend a lift before i go to bed and despite feeling fine, i was caught and tested positive on my way back home.

    The irony of it all is that i smoked my last joint that night and if i had of quit just one hour earlier i would not be in the mess iam in but at the same time if i wasn't caught i probably would have continued smoking and at some point made that stupid decision anyhow


  • Options
    #123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »
    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.

    That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Cannabis doesn't 'leave your system' for up to 90 days in some cases. You can be in no way impaired or under the influence but, if you smoked a joint three months ago, you might test positive and get banned.

    If there was a similar test for alcohol*, and it was detectable in the same bullsh1t manner as cannabis is, you'd effectively rule out 75% of the population from ever getting behind the wheel again.

    I also asked that last poster why he holds drink drivers in higher regard than 'drug drivers', but got no response.


    *There may well be such a test, but it either isn't used or is deemed to be excessive for whatever reason. Maybe there's just no need to R&D such a test if there's no appetite for it.


  • Options
    #124
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,205 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Cannabis doesn't 'leave your system' for up to 90 days in some cases. You can be in no way impaired or under the influence but, if you smoked a joint three months ago, you might test positive and get banned.

    If there was a similar test for alcohol*, and it was detectable in the same bullsh1t manner as cannabis is, you'd effectively rule out 75% of the population from ever getting behind the wheel again.

    I also asked that last poster why he holds drink drivers in higher regard than 'drug drivers', but got no response.


    *There may well be such a test, but it either isn't used or is deemed to be excessive for whatever reason. Maybe there's just no need to R&D such a test if there's no appetite for it.

    how much cannabis would you have to smoke to still be above the legal limit 90 days later? are we talking willie nelson levels?


  • Options
    #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    how much cannabis would you have to smoke to still be above the legal limit 90 days later? are we talking willie nelson levels?

    Depends, on a number of factors. Potency, strength, frequency, tolerance, type of test.....there's aplenty of factors to take into consideration.

    So, high-frequency users, of high-potency weed, with a relatively high tolerance level, can, if tested correctly, produce a positive after 90 days.

    Source: Link
    Hair tests are the most sensitive tests, detecting THC for up to 90 days after use

    The real answer is: nobody knows. It's pretty feckin ridiculous to be issuing fines, penalty points and bans based on such an unknown factor, though. "It says here you smoked a joint sometime between 5 minutes ago and last Monday afternoon, better hope you're not reliant on that car for work, bucko".


  • Options
    #126
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,205 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Depends, on a number of factors. Potency, strength, frequency, tolerance, type of test.....there's aplenty of factors to take into consideration.

    So, high-frequency users, of high-potency weed, with a relatively high tolerance level, can, if tested correctly, produce a positive after 90 days.

    Source: Link



    The real answer is: nobody knows. It's pretty feckin ridiculous to be issuing fines, penalty points and bans based on such an unknown factor, though. "It says here you smoked a joint sometime between 5 minutes ago and last Monday afternoon, better hope you're not reliant on that car for work, bucko".

    the gardai dont conduct hair tests so the 90 days is out. they conduct blood tests. according to your link that only remains detectable for 3-4 hours.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the gardai dont conduct hair tests so the 90 days is out. they conduct blood tests. according to your link that only remains detectable for 3-4 hours.

    They conduct saliva tests on the roadside: "Some saliva tests have detected marijuana for up to 72 hours."
    OP himself said his test was double that time of 3-4 hours.


  • Options
    #128
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    If only there was some way to not have cannabis in your system whilst driving.


  • Options
    #129
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,205 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They conduct saliva tests on the roadside: "Some saliva tests have detected marijuana for up to 72 hours."
    OP himself said his test was double that time of 3-4 hours.

    the saliva tests are indicative not evidentiary. if thc is detected in the saliva test then you are taken to a station for a blood test. only the blood test is admissible in court.


  • Options
    #130
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    If only there was some way to not have cannabis in your system whilst driving.

    Ignoring the moral handwringing for a second, if it was uncertain whether or not you would get popped for drink driving if you'd had a few pints 3 days previously, the country would grind to a halt.

    Having "cannabis in your system" does not equal "driving while under the influence". Cop on, and less of the schoolteacher talking down to others act.


  • Options
    #131
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,205 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ignoring the moral handwringing for a second, if it was uncertain whether or not you would get popped for drink driving if you'd had a few pints 3 days previously, the country would grind to a halt.

    Having "cannabis in your system" does not equal "driving while under the influence". Cop on, and less of the schoolteacher talking down to others act.

    but we haven't established that having a joint 3 days previously will put you over the limit for THC.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    blackbox
    Registered Users Posts: 4,158 ✭✭✭blackbox


    The effect on people at the 5ng limit my be different, but this also applies to alcohol limits.

    It is also an issue for speed limits - exceeding them isn't always dangerous, but it is always illegal.


  • Options
    #133
    baalad
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭baalad


    blackbox wrote: »
    The effect on people at the 5ng limit my be different, but this also applies to alcohol limits.

    It is also an issue for speed limits - exceeding them isn't always dangerous, but it is always illegal.

    Yeah but look at at the punishment for speeding and compare it to the punishment for being over the limit by 1nanogram? Its madness.


  • Options
    #134
    BuzzMcdonnell
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭BuzzMcdonnell


    baalad wrote: »
    Yeah but look at at the punishment for speeding and compare it to the punishment for being over the limit by 1nanogram? Its madness.

    You say “one nanogram” or “one billionth of a gram” and it makes it sound like a tiny amount.

    The way I see it is you were over the legally allowed limit by 20% which is akin to driving 144 km/h in a 120 zone, quite a bit above the limit.

    I know and acknowledge that speeding carries a much lesser punishment, but at the end of the day you admitted to smoking that day so it’s hardly outside the realm of possibilities that you were impaired by those 6 nanograms.


  • Options
    #135
    baalad
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭baalad


    BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »
    You say “one nanogram” or “one billionth of a gram” and it makes it sound like a tiny amount.

    The way I see it is you were over the legally allowed limit by 20% which is akin to driving 144 km/h in a 120 zone, quite a bit above the limit.

    I know and acknowledge that speeding carries a much lesser punishment, but at the end of the day you admitted to smoking that day so it’s hardly outside the realm of possibilities that you were impaired by those 6 nanograms.

    I understand exactly the point your trying to make. I also understand that im feeling sorry for myself. However.....

    If you take 2 guys and one is caught going 144 in 120 zone as you said and lets say another guy is caught adhering to the speed limit but is over the already tiny limit for cannabis by 20%

    I would genuinely suspect that the guy speeding is more likely to crash / kill someone but they would get away with a slap on the wrist whereas the guy that has 1 nanogram above limit of cannabis has his whole life turned upside down.

    Thats wrong! The punishment does not fit the crime in my opinion! Its well documented and accepted that the limit of 5nanograms is extremely small so 1 nanogram extra cannot possibly be a big enough jump to cause impairment!

    Iam not suggesting i should be left away with it. I broke the law at the end of the day but theres no way i deserve a 12 month ban, a fine of anything up to 5000 euro, A criminal conviction that apparently stays with you for 11 years resulting in me potentially losing my job, having trouble finding a new job, Having trouble renting a house etc let alone solicitor fees etc and my familys name dragged through the mud.

    But someone else can come along and have 1 nanogram less but ah its fine, theres no way he was impaired. Lets give him a second chance.


    Especially when its a lottery when smoking cannabis because you have no idea how strong it is in terms of TCH, Let alone how long its going to stay in your system. If i smoked a different strain of cannabis that night perhaps i would have been under the limit? who knows!


  • Options
    #136
    BuzzMcdonnell
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭BuzzMcdonnell


    baalad wrote: »
    I understand exactly the point your trying to make. I also understand that im feeling sorry for myself. However.....

    If you take 2 guys and one is caught going 144 in 120 zone as you said and lets say another guy is caught adhering to the speed limit but is over the already tiny limit for cannabis by 20%

    I would genuinely suspect that the guy speeding is more likely to crash / kill someone but they would get away with a slap on the wrist whereas the guy that has 1 nanogram above limit of cannabis has his whole life turned upside down.

    Thats wrong! The punishment does not fit the crime in my opinion! Its well documented and accepted that the limit of 5nanograms is extremely small so 1 nanogram extra cannot possibly be a big enough jump to cause impairment!

    Iam not suggesting i should be left away with it. I broke the law at the end of the day but theres no way i deserve a 12 month ban, a fine of anything up to 5000 euro, A criminal conviction that apparently stays with you for 11 years resulting in me potentially losing my job, having trouble finding a new job, Having trouble renting a house etc let alone solicitor fees etc and my familys name dragged through the mud.

    But someone else can come along and have 1 nanogram less but ah its fine, theres no way he was impaired. Lets give him a second chance.


    Especially when its a lottery when smoking cannabis because you have no idea how strong it is in terms of TCH, Let alone how long its going to stay in your system. If i smoked a different strain of cannabis that night perhaps i would have been under the limit? who knows!


    I get what you’re saying, and I’m probably on the more conservative side of the debate as I don’t smoke weed at all.
    I know the laws are harsh but in my view it needs to be this way as a deterrent. I know you may have differing views but the fact is that cannabis inputs driving ability and I’m not comfortable thinking of my family or myself sharing the public road with somebody who has wilfully impaired their driving by using an illegal substance.

    I hope I don’t sound biased here. For the record, I’m a consistent drinker but I also absolutely support stricter drink driving punishments and would never dream of driver after so much as a drink.

    And as for the speeding thing, it’s pretty easy to accidental break the limit, so I support graduated penalties. If somebody is 30km/h over the limit and driving dangerously by all means throw the book at them. Nobody accidentally smokes cannabis or drinks and gets behind the wheel.


  • Options
    #137
    Rubberchikken
    Registered Users Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭Rubberchikken


    No one 'accidently' breaks the speed limit. To be driving it's assumed the driver is paying proper attention.
    If not, then they shouldn't be driving.
    There's no grey area imo.

    People choose to go over the limit and each pitiful excuse is just that..an excuse.


  • Options
    #138
    baalad
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭baalad


    BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »
    I get what you’re saying, and I’m probably on the more conservative side of the debate as I don’t smoke weed at all.
    I know the laws are harsh but in my view it needs to be this way as a deterrent. I know you may have differing views but the fact is that cannabis inputs driving ability and I’m not comfortable thinking of my family or myself sharing the public road with somebody who has wilfully impaired their driving by using an illegal substance.

    I hope I don’t sound biased here. For the record, I’m a consistent drinker but I also absolutely support stricter drink driving punishments and would never dream of driver after so much as a drink.

    And as for the speeding thing, it’s pretty easy to accidental break the limit, so I support graduated penalties. If somebody is 30km/h over the limit and driving dangerously by all means throw the book at them. Nobody accidentally smokes cannabis or drinks and gets behind the wheel.

    The sad reality is though that a huge number of people are driving around on drink and drugs! Some may well be fit to drive but none the less over the limit while others are just recklessly driving around while out of their heads. The punishment should be far more severe for these people.

    To make the whole thing easier they should literally set the limit at zero because once you have a limit, there is going to be people that take the chance because they think "ah iam surely under the limit by now, i feel fine" but in reality the only way to be responsible is to not drive at all if you smoke cannabis because theres too many variables


  • Options
    #139
    BuzzMcdonnell
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭BuzzMcdonnell


    Rubberchikken wrote: »
    No one 'accidently' breaks the speed limit. To be driving it's assumed the driver is paying proper attention.
    If not, then they shouldn't be driving.
    There's no grey area imo.

    People choose to go over the limit and each pitiful excuse is just that..an excuse.

    Have you ever done 51 km/h in a 50 zone? If so you better stop driving by your own words.

    Speed limits are accidentally broken all the time, what are you talking about?


  • Options
    #140
    myfreespirit
    Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭myfreespirit


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    but we haven't established that having a joint 3 days previously will put you over the limit for THC.


    As several posters have pointed out, the Road Traffic laws in Ireland for drug driving roadside testing look for Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol in a saliva sample although this only used as a first step.


    Here's what the Road Safety Authority says about testing for cannabis at the roadside:
    (from their FAQ's on their website https://rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Anti%20Drug%20Driving/Preliminary%20Drug%20Testing%20List%20FAQs.pdf)


    "27. I smoke cannabis regularly, how do I know when I am allowed to drive after taking it? It is recommended to wait 24 hours after last using cannabis before driving. If you are sure you are no longer impaired as result of taking cannabis and more than 6 hours have elapsed since last use it should not be possible for a Garda to detect impairment and the 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level in you oral fluid should be lower than the detection limit for the Cannabis test on the Drager Drugtest 5000."


    It is only a guideline of course, and if I was a cannabis user, I wouldn't want to face one of those tests hoping to avoid detection even after 24 hours!


  • Options
    #141
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,205 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    myfreespirit wrote: »
    As several posters have pointed out, the Road Traffic laws in Ireland for drug driving roadside testing look for Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol in a saliva sample although this only used as a first step.


    Here's what the Road Safety Authority says about testing for cannabis at the roadside:
    (from their FAQ's on their website https://rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Anti%20Drug%20Driving/Preliminary%20Drug%20Testing%20List%20FAQs.pdf)


    "27. I smoke cannabis regularly, how do I know when I am allowed to drive after taking it? It is recommended to wait 24 hours after last using cannabis before driving. If you are sure you are no longer impaired as result of taking cannabis and more than 6 hours have elapsed since last use it should not be possible for a Garda to detect impairment and the 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level in you oral fluid should be lower than the detection limit for the Cannabis test on the Drager Drugtest 5000."


    It is only a guideline of course, and if I was a cannabis user, I wouldn't want to face one of those tests hoping to avoid detection even after 24 hours!

    I wasn't referring to the saliva test. some people are making wild claims about smoking joints putting you over the prescribed limit days after smoking. what is the evidence for this? your post refers to the saliva test. that is not evidential. the only test that matters is the blood test.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    baalad
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭baalad


    By the way i have just reread some of the messages exchanged between myself and the guard via private messages and its baffling how nice and sincere he is being ha

    He was chatting away to me about his own life, re mortgaging his house and what he thinks of this whole coronavirus stuff and he was sound enough to message me with updates regarding the summons, court dates etc

    In one text he specifies that "hates doing this to good people but unfortunately its his job and thats just the way it is"

    He also informed me that the limit was set to zero so that i had no chance of passing the test if i had smoked earlier that night and he suggests i will serve a minimum 2 year ban but that i can appeal it and he would be more then happy to put in a good word for me if it would help.

    On the night of arrest he was telling me i would only get a 12 month ban and would only serve 6 months.

    He also in one text said "if it was as simple as not turning up and the case would be struck out then i would but unfortunately it would just be adjourned"

    When he told me that i was likely to receive a 2 year ban and the limit was zero. I questioned him on that and stated that according to legislature the limit was 5nanograms and the sentence was a 12 month ban.

    I never got a reply since. Could any of this be relevant?


  • Options
    #143
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,518 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    No, stop trying to weasel out of it.


  • Options
    #144
    baalad
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭baalad


    Witcher wrote: »
    No, stop trying to weasel out of it.

    If there is a way to weasel out of it then of course iam going to weasel out of it!


  • Options
    #145
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,518 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    baalad wrote: »
    If there is a way to weasel out of it then of course iam going to weasel out of it!

    You need to look at who you are as a person then.


  • Options
    #146
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,205 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    baalad wrote: »
    By the way i have just reread some of the messages exchanged between myself and the guard via private messages and its baffling how nice and sincere he is being ha

    He was chatting away to me about his own life, re mortgaging his house and what he thinks of this whole coronavirus stuff and he was sound enough to message me with updates regarding the summons, court dates etc

    In one text he specifies that "hates doing this to good people but unfortunately its his job and thats just the way it is"

    He also informed me that the limit was set to zero so that i had no chance of passing the test if i had smoked earlier that night and he suggests i will serve a minimum 2 year ban but that i can appeal it and he would be more then happy to put in a good word for me if it would help.

    On the night of arrest he was telling me i would only get a 12 month ban and would only serve 6 months.

    He also in one text said "if it was as simple as not turning up and the case would be struck out then i would but unfortunately it would just be adjourned"

    When he told me that i was likely to receive a 2 year ban and the limit was zero. I questioned him on that and stated that according to legislature the limit was 5nanograms and the sentence was a 12 month ban.

    I never got a reply since. Could any of this be relevant?

    it doesn't matter what he says to you in a text.


  • Options
    #147
    baalad
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭baalad


    Witcher wrote: »
    You need to look at who you are as a person then.

    What are you talking about? I accept responsibility. I have nobody to blame but myself. If i am found to be guilty then so be it but i have no intention of walking into the court and hanging myself if there is any possibility of getting away with it. I learned my lesson the second i was arrested and i certainly do not need to question who i am as a person.

    Have you never ever tried to wiggle your way out of anything in your life??


  • Options
    #148
    baalad
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭baalad


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    it doesn't matter what he says to you in a text.

    Maybe not in my instance but generally speaking it hardly comes across good to the court if the guard thats giving evidence against you is also messaging you telling you he hates his job and sympathises with you lol

    I understand its not a defence however


  • Options
    #149
    BuzzMcdonnell
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭BuzzMcdonnell


    baalad wrote: »
    Maybe not in my instance but generally speaking it hardly comes across good to the court if the guard thats giving evidence against you is also messaging you telling you he hates his job and sympathises with you lol

    I understand its not a defence however

    Why are you contacting the guard in the first place through private message?


  • Options
    #150
    myfreespirit
    Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭myfreespirit


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I wasn't referring to the saliva test. some people are making wild claims about smoking joints putting you over the prescribed limit days after smoking. what is the evidence for this? your post refers to the saliva test. that is not evidential. the only test that matters is the blood test.

    The RSA FAQ on their website is silent on this point about evidential blood tests.

    However, if you think about the claims that smoking joints puts you over the permitted limit days after, how would a Garda blood test for cannabis use arise in any case?
    Presumably, the sequence of events is that an impairment test/saliva test happens first, and only if this shows the presence of Delta-9 THC, does a blood test follow.
    So, according to RSA, after about 6 hours following consuming cannabis, the roadside test won't be positive.
    If that's the case, the Garda presumably won't proceed to request a blood test?

    Or am I missing something?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,205 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    myfreespirit wrote: »
    The RSA FAQ on their website is silent on this point about evidential blood tests.

    However, if you think about the claims that smoking joints puts you over the permitted limit days after, how would a Garda blood test for cannabis use arise in any case?
    Presumably, the sequence of events is that an impairment test/saliva test happens first, and only if this shows the presence of Delta-9 THC, does a blood test follow.
    So, according to RSA, after about 6 hours following consuming cannabis, the roadside test won't be positive.
    If that's the case, the Garda presumably won't proceed to request a blood test?

    Or am I missing something?

    no, that is the procedure.


Advertisement