Drug driving blood test

Peregrinus · 19-06-2020 8:22am

It seems to be saying that the Drager unit shouldn't detect THC in oral fluid more than about six hours after last use - unless you are still feeling the effects of it, in which case (I'm guessing) that's a sign that your THC levels have remained high, and are likely to be detectable.

But that's shouldn't detect THC, not definitely won't detect it. There'll be a few unfortunates who metabolise it slowly or ineffeciently. So the recommendation to wait 24 hours seem to be a piece of "to be sure, to be sure" advice - after 6 hours, most people, most of the time, will have undetectable THC levels. But after 24 hours virtually everyone, all the time, will have undetectable levels.

At least, that's what it seems to me to be saying.

Chicoso · 19-06-2020 8:27am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems to be saying that the Drager unit shouldn't detect THC in oral fluid more than about six hours after last use - unless you are still feeling the effects of it, in which case (I'm guessing) that's a sign that your THC levels have remained high, and are likely to be detectable.

But that's shouldn't detect THC, not definitely won't detect it. There'll be a few unfortunates who metabolise it slowly or ineffeciently. So the recommendation to wait 24 hours seem to be a piece of "to be sure, to be sure" advice - after 6 hours, most people, most of the time, will have undetectable THC levels. But after 24 hours virtually everyone, all the time, will have undetectable levels.

At least, that's what it seems to me to be saying.

I thought that was the jist of what the Garda was saying

You should pass the roadside drug test after a nights sleep?

Chicoso · 19-06-2020 8:30am

Not talking about the blood test now back at the station

Sorry for confusion

Peregrinus · 19-06-2020 8:32am

Chicoso wrote: »

I thought that was the jist of what the Garda was saying

You should pass the roadside drug test after a nights sleep?

If I've understood correctly, unless you're still feeling the effects, you should pass. But "should" is not the same as "definitely will".

BaronVon · 19-06-2020 3:53pm

Potential-Monke wrote: »

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.

You could be convicted of simple possession of cannabis, so being convicted of driving while under the influence of it isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination!

But to take a quote re Urine samples:

"In regular users, metabolite levels can build up to background levels above 1,000 ng/ml. Many days or weeks of abstinence are required to clear out, as illustrated in the following graph of metabolite levels in test subjects who were regular users"

So blood is definitely the better option at the station, but even then if you're a regular user (daily) or heavy user, you could show above the min level even if you hadn't smoked for a few days with urine.

If you fail a roadside drug test, you are brought back to the station where a doctor takes a blood specimen, there is no option for urine when drugs is suspected. This is because the blood test is much more reliable. The blood/urine option is only for alcohol, but normally a breath test is the preferred option.

If you do provide blood / urine specimen when suspected for alcohol, it will be tested for drugs if no alcohol is found. But the guard would still need evidence of impairment to convict.

The Medical Bureau of Road Safety are the think tank for all of this, and would have made the recommendations to the government on the drug limits. Here is their report on the process.....

https://www.ucd.ie/mbrs/t4media/MBRS%20Roadside%20Drug%20Testing%20Report.pdf

Potential-Monke · 19-06-2020 7:38pm

BaronVon wrote: »

You could be convicted of simple possession of cannabis, so being convicted of driving while under the influence of it isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination!

You can only be convicted of simple possession if the product is found on you, wouldn't have any bearing on the test. Having it in your system isn't the same as having the product on your person.

BaronVon wrote: »

https://www.ucd.ie/mbrs/t4media/MBRS%20Roadside%20Drug%20Testing%20Report.pdf

That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks!

Carawaystick · 20-06-2020 9:17pm

Potential-Monke wrote: »

By law, you've to provide a sample by signing a form for the doctor. If you refuse, you get charged with a separate offence of failing to provide a sample and it carries the same penalty as if you were charged with being over the limit.

So how is the doctor covered?

the Medical council rules on informed patient consent

Patients undergoing invasive procedures should normally give express consent
– either by signing a consent form or stating that they agree to go ahead with
treatment.
Written consent should always be taken where:
■ There are significant risks or side effects associated with the proposed
treatment or procedure.
■ The patient’s lifestyle, employment or personal relationships could be
adversely affected by the outcome of the treatment or procedure.
■ The treatment or procedure is being undertaken as part of a research
programme.
■ The main purpose of the proposed treatment or procedure is not the patient’s
clinical care.
However, consent is often implied by the patient’s compliance, an obvious
example being when a patient rolls up a sleeve so that a blood sample can be
taken. Nevertheless, patients should be told about the nature and purpose of any
examination, investigation or procedure beforehand.

Lets say a person gets their blood taken, is below the legal limit, and then complains to the medical council stating they did not freely consent to the medical procedure undertaken by the doctor.

Or if there are side effects from the procedure, is the state or the doctor liable?

Potential-Monke · 20-06-2020 9:55pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

So how is the doctor covered?

the Medical council rules on informed patient consent

Lets say a person gets their blood taken, is below the legal limit, and then complains to the medical council stating they did not freely consent to the medical procedure undertaken by the doctor.

Or if there are side effects from the procedure, is the state or the doctor liable?

IIRC, it's all on the form, the suspect giving the sample signs the form which is read out to them and gives their consent to the doctor to take the sample. It's well covered (can't find an example of the form). You can read the procedure legislation here but I'm not savvy enough to know if there are amendments, which I'm sure there are due to the drug driving legislation now. The legislation just references consent, but doesn't have a copy of the form.

Basically, there's written consent so nothing can be done afterwards. You even get to keep half of the sample if you wish.

Plus you'll have the Garda there taking notes of what happens and what was said, and they'll give evidence as to same if needed. If there was a loophole, it would already have been found, and it's well covered because someone already thought of this at some point, challenged it, won, and the legislation was amended.

Edit: Clarified, there is no form for consent, it's a legal demand of the Gardai which carries a penalty for not complying.

Vestiapx · 20-06-2020 9:59pm

antix80 wrote: »

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.

It's the reason I never smoke anymore. I just can't have the Hassel of a conviction for having a joint on a Friday evening and watching Breakfast club and being tested the following Wednesday.

Probably be legalised some day but right now I'll have to go without.

Potential-Monke · 20-06-2020 10:05pm

Vestiapx wrote: »

It's the reason I never smoke anymore. I just can't have the Hassel of a conviction for having a joint on a Friday evening and watching Breakfast club and being tested the following Wednesday.

Probably be legalised some day but right now I'll have to go without.

Even if it's legalised, I can't see them changing the current legislation until it's challenged and the legislation is found lacking. I think there's a strong case there, but you'd need the right solicitor, a motivated one who actually wants to win rather than getting paid to win. If one could tie it into a breach of some right, or against some part of the constitution, you'd be onto a winner imo.

BaronVon · 20-06-2020 11:52pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

So how is the doctor covered?

Lets say a person gets their blood taken, is below the legal limit, and then complains to the medical council stating they did not freely consent to the medical procedure undertaken by the doctor.

Or if there are side effects from the procedure, is the state or the doctor liable?

The Guard makes the legal demand to the arrested person to provide a specimen to the doctor, who is a registered doctor who is designated by the guard to take the specimen. His role is not for the medical purposes of the arrested person. The arrested person can have their own doctor present too at their own expense, if they wish. It is an offence not to comply with the Guard's requirement to provide the specimen, and it carries a 4 year driving ban, if convicted.

The arrested person does not sign a consent form. The doctor completes the form, which is sent with the specimen to the Medical Bureau for Road Safety for analysis.

Potential-Monke · 20-06-2020 11:57pm

BaronVon wrote: »

The arrested person does not sign a consent form. The doctor completes the form, which is sent with the specimen to the Medical Bureau for Road Safety for analysis.

Clarified, thank you. I was incorrect. I knew there was a form though! :pac:

joeguevara · 21-06-2020 12:19am

BaronVon wrote: »

The Guard makes the legal demand to the arrested person to provide a specimen to the doctor, who is a registered doctor who is designated by the guard to take the specimen. His role is not for the medical purposes of the arrested person. The arrested person can have their own doctor present too at their own expense, if they wish. It is an offence not to comply with the Guard's requirement to provide the specimen, and it carries a 4 year driving ban, if convicted.

The arrested person does not sign a consent form. The doctor completes the form, which is sent with the specimen to the Medical Bureau for Road Safety for analysis.

I never did road traffic offence cases but listened to colleagues discuss the mechanics of them. I remember one specific issue of someone smoking or chewing gum or something similar before the breathalyser in the station and it was dismissed as there should be nothing eaten or swallowed. I could have picked it up wrong.

But me being me, I throw different scenarios around in my head to see if they would work. Now I have to preface this as purely academic and not suggesting it. If it is a breach of any rules then Mod have no problem deleting. So I was thinking that the roadside test is only indicative and not admissible as evidence in court. Now heard so many stories about wanting to be spoken to in Irish and want to read the Legislation in Irish as a delay tactic. Not the best. But if a person when arrive in station and before any interaction suddenly collapsed and had to be rushed to hospital where they were unconscious and unresponsive for over 3 hours, then any blood test is past the time period. It would be illegal to take blood without consent. Be a good one for a play, but not in real life.

Peregrinus · 22-06-2020 1:24am

Refusing to give a sample is itself an offence which attracts a similar penalty to giving a sample and failing. To refuse you don't have to say "I refuse"; just to behave in a way that means a sample can't be taken. So if you were to fake unconsciousness, you'd be guilty of that offence. And if you think you can spend three hours in hospital faking an unconscious collapse and not have the medics aware that you are faking it, think again.

Plus, if you're brought in unresponsive to A&E they'll be taking bloods anyway, for diagnostic purposes. Your consent is presumed in those circumstances. Oh, gosh, look, here's a blood sample that was taken within the 3-hour window; we can test that.

Might be a good one for a play, but it wouldn't be a very realistic play.

ohnonotgmail · 22-06-2020 8:37am

joeguevara wrote: »

I never did road traffic offence cases but listened to colleagues discuss the mechanics of them. I remember one specific issue of someone smoking or chewing gum or something similar before the breathalyser in the station and it was dismissed as there should be nothing eaten or swallowed. I could have picked it up wrong.

But me being me, I throw different scenarios around in my head to see if they would work. Now I have to preface this as purely academic and not suggesting it. If it is a breach of any rules then Mod have no problem deleting. So I was thinking that the roadside test is only indicative and not admissible as evidence in court. Now heard so many stories about wanting to be spoken to in Irish and want to read the Legislation in Irish as a delay tactic. Not the best. But if a person when arrive in station and before any interaction suddenly collapsed and had to be rushed to hospital where they were unconscious and unresponsive for over 3 hours, then any blood test is past the time period. It would be illegal to take blood without consent. Be a good one for a play, but not in real life.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Refusing to give a sample is itself an offence which attracts a similar penalty to giving a sample and failing. To refuse you don't have to say "I refuse"; just to behave in a way that means a sample can't be taken. So if you were to fake unconsciousness, you'd be guilty of that offence. And if you think you can spend three hours in hospital faking an unconscious collapse and not have the medics aware that you are faking it, think again.

Plus, if you're brought in unresponsive to A&E they'll be taking bloods anyway, for diagnostic purposes. Your consent is presumed in those circumstances. Oh, gosh, look, here's a blood sample that was taken within the 3-hour window; we can test that.

Might be a good one for a play, but it wouldn't be a very realistic play.

the preferred method to test if somebody is unresponsive is to rub your knuckles down their breast bone. If you are faking it you will be found out immediately.

BaronVon · 22-06-2020 10:53am

joeguevara wrote: »

I never did road traffic offence cases but listened to colleagues discuss the mechanics of them. I remember one specific issue of someone smoking or chewing gum or something similar before the breathalyser in the station and it was dismissed as there should be nothing eaten or swallowed. I could have picked it up wrong.

Yeah, the arrested person has to be 'nil by mouth' for 20 minutes prior to obtaining the breath specimen, to ensure there is no excess alcohol in the mouth, which could cause a higher reading. Like everything in drink driving, it was fought to death in the courts, and many cases were dismissed on it, or some other technical breach, but I think most of them have been exhausted by now....:eek:

talla10 · 22-06-2020 7:05pm

joeguevara wrote: »

But if a person when arrive in station and before any interaction suddenly collapsed and had to be rushed to hospital where they were unconscious and unresponsive for over 3 hours, then any blood test is past the time period. It would be illegal to take blood without consent. Be a good one for a play, but not in real life.

In such a scenario the designated doctor/nurse may refuse to allow a sample to be taken. The Guards could then drop the case or proceed under S 4(1) and give evidence of their belief the suspect was under the influence.

A doctor or nurse would be able to tell if the person is acting the mick or in need to urgent medical attention. If it was the case the person was faking and refused to provide a sample they would be charged for failure to provide a sample which has significantly higher penalties

phildub · 28-10-2020 10:40am

joeguevara wrote: »

There are two other things that are important. Firstly the blood test must have been taken within 3 hours of the actual driving. If not, it is highly likely that its inadmissible. Secondly, the B sample should have been offered to the accused for independent testing. If not, then it would be a good argument to get the case thrown out. Hypothetically.

Hi all, I know this thread is a few months old but I didnt want to start a new one on a similar topic! Does anyone know an independent lab where you can send the sample the police give you to get tested?

ohnonotgmail · 28-10-2020 10:44am

phildub wrote: »

Hi all, I know this thread is a few months old but I didnt want to start a new one on a similar topic! Does anyone know an independent lab where you can send the sample the police give you to get tested?

The Medical Bureau of Road Safety conduct the tests on behalf of the gardai. They have some info on their website regarding the sample provided to you. Pay particular attention to storing the sample correctly and not breaking the seal

https://www.ucd.ie/mbrs/faqs/

phildub · 28-10-2020 10:49am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The Medical Bureau of Road Safety conduct the tests on behalf of the gardai. They have some info on their website regarding the sample provided to you. Pay particular attention to storing the sample correctly and not breaking the seal

https://www.ucd.ie/mbrs/faqs/

Yes but they do not recommend an independent lab, I just need to know a plave I can send the second sample to, they say to check the accreditation website but non are specifically drug later, wondering has anyone ever sent their sample in for testing

ohnonotgmail · 28-10-2020 10:55am

phildub wrote: »

Yes but they do not recommend an independent lab, I just need to know a plave I can send the second sample to, they say to check the accreditation website but non are specifically drug later, wondering has anyone ever sent their sample in for testing

They tell you where you can get the information you require. They are obviously not going to recommend individual laboratories.

Q5: Where can I get this independent testing done?

A. The MBRS does not recommend any particular laboratory; however, it is strongly advised that a laboratory accredited to ISO 17025(2017) is used. The Irish National Accreditation Board (www.inab.ie) or the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (www.ukas.com) has information on service providers and the analysis they offer.

phildub · 28-10-2020 11:15am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They tell you where you can get the information you require. They are obviously not going to recommend individual laboratories.

Ok again thanks for your reply but im looking to see of anyone can recommend a place they have used before, I have read all that information already

baalad · 18-12-2020 10:24pm

Just came across this and thought i would offer my own story!

I was approaching a checkpoint this time last year and knowing that i had smoked a joint earlier , i panicked and exited at the roundabout before the checkpoint. I didn't speed or drive eratically or anything. I just casually indicated to turn right which would bring me into an apartment complex where i then parked up.

Little did i bloody know that my front headlight was gone and they had noticed this and followed me. They pulled up beside me and mentioned the headlight. They then smelled cannabis from the car and arrested me and took me back to the station.

I admitted to smoking a joint earlier that night, but the smell of cannabis from the car was from me foolishly allowing a passenger to smoke a joint while i dropped him home 10-15 mins prior to being arrested.

In my opinion the guard was smug initially and was rubbing it in my face how stupid i was with him even saying to me "why didn't you get out and run because i wasnt running after you"

Back at the a station a few of the guards were openly telling me not to worry as i may be under the limit and one or two even joked about smoking cannabis themselves and asked me was it "good stuff"

My results came back after about 2 months and i contacted a solicitor who told me that the the test they carried out is for a metabolite called THC-COOH and the limit was 5ng. My reading was 6ng and i was over by 1ng. He said i was extremely unfortunate but that by law, once your over the limit you are over the limit and that i face a minimum 12 month ban!

My case has not yet been heard so have no update regarding the outcome yet!

I feel its very unfair as i have never been in trouble in my entire life and i know 100% i was not impaired. I also feel stupid because i was so niave. Believe it or not i had no idea what the consequences were. I had heard of people receiving bans for drink driving but never heard of anyone being prosecuted for having cannabis in their system.

I was using cannabis at the time to treat anxiety and depression. I would have typically smoked most nights before bed so i would never have been driving afterwards but on this particular night i was asked to give a friend a lift and i felt fine so figured i would be ok. I have never touched a joint since that night. The past year has been horrible thinking about the consequences this will have on me and having anxiety has only multiplied the magnitude of this.

If anyone is thinking "if you genuinely suffer with depression and anxiety you would be on medication". Well, i have been a good few years ago but did not like the side effects or how i felt in general whilst taken them.

I do not condone drug driving for a second but i personally think its wrong that someone can virtually have there life ruined without any evidence of impairment. I recently read that Jack Grealish crashed his car and was intoxicated at the scene and slurring his speech. He received an 8 month ban and less then a weeks wages, fine!

Meanwhile i am looking at a 12 month ban minimum, a fine of up to 5,000 euro, a criminal conviction which could cause me issues for the next few years aswell as potentially losing my job and all because iam 1ng over the limit which is 1 billionth of a gram.

Nobody to blame but myself of course but its a hard pill to swallow!

Potential-Monke · 19-12-2020 12:49am

Hopefully you'll get a decent judge, but I reckon like the solicitor because you're over you're getting done. I would ask the solicitor to question the Garda on the day in court over any evidence of impaired driving, while not required it may help paint you in a better light. Make sure you solicitor explains to the judge everything you've just explained here. At most though I'd say it'll just keep the fine down (I've never heard of anyone getting the full fine, usually it's a few hundred).

Let us know how you get on, like yourself I try not to drive after smoking, and have been 99.9% successful on that account. The only time in the last while I did drive with it in my system was after a night smoking and 6 hours sleep. I would have been over, but far from under the influence. And I agree, it's crazy that the limit is that low, and considering how long it can stay in your system for, I reckon if I stopped smoking right now, it would still be detectable in 2 months. Cannabis based driving offences should 100% come with evidence of impaired driving imo (unless you're multiples over the limit, in which case evidence would be all over the shop for impaired driving then).

Best of luck with it.

ohnonotgmail · 19-12-2020 1:08am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Hopefully you'll get a decent judge, but I reckon like the solicitor because you're over you're getting done. I would ask the solicitor to question the Garda on the day in court over any evidence of impaired driving, while not required it may help paint you in a better light. Make sure you solicitor explains to the judge everything you've just explained here. At most though I'd say it'll just keep the fine down (I've never heard of anyone getting the full fine, usually it's a few hundred).

Let us know how you get on, like yourself I try not to drive after smoking, and have been 99.9% successful on that account. The only time in the last while I did drive with it in my system was after a night smoking and 6 hours sleep. I would have been over, but far from under the influence. And I agree, it's crazy that the limit is that low, and considering how long it can stay in your system for, I reckon if I stopped smoking right now, it would still be detectable in 2 months. Cannabis based driving offences should 100% come with evidence of impaired driving imo (unless you're multiples over the limit, in which case evidence would be all over the shop for impaired driving then).

Best of luck with it.

being impaired due to drugs is a separate offence. As you say where you are over the proscribed limit the issue of impairment does not arrive as it is not a necessary element of the offence.

baalad · 19-12-2020 1:14am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Hopefully you'll get a decent judge, but I reckon like the solicitor because you're over you're getting done. I would ask the solicitor to question the Garda on the day in court over any evidence of impaired driving, while not required it may help paint you in a better light. Make sure you solicitor explains to the judge everything you've just explained here. At most though I'd say it'll just keep the fine down (I've never heard of anyone getting the full fine, usually it's a few hundred).

Let us know how you get on, like yourself I try not to drive after smoking, and have been 99.9% successful on that account. The only time in the last while I did drive with it in my system was after a night smoking and 6 hours sleep. I would have been over, but far from under the influence. And I agree, it's crazy that the limit is that low, and considering how long it can stay in your system for, I reckon if I stopped smoking right now, it would still be detectable in 2 months. Cannabis based driving offences should 100% come with evidence of impaired driving imo (unless you're multiples over the limit, in which case evidence would be all over the shop for impaired driving then).

Best of luck with it.

Iam not sure if i have confidence in my solicitor. He was recommended to me and my understanding is that he is supposed to have a good reputation.

However, when i met with him i explained my story and he was pretty blunt! He essentially said i have 2 options. I either plead guilty (which is what the system wants he said) and i then do my 12 months ban, get a fine of a few hundred euro etc or i can fight my case....

If i fight my case, then my case is adjourned and we basically cross our fingers that there is a mistake on the guards part that we can expose. If i choose to go down this road and win then happy days (apart from having to pay the solicitor alot of money ha) but should i lose then he says i will still only get a 12 month ban but i will get a much heftier fine.

Maybe i am wrong to think this but the reason i have not got much confidence in him is because i don't feel like he wants to fight my case. I feel like he is saying yeah your guilty and your only way out is if they messed up! Maybe he is just being totally truthful with me but it feels like he just wants a handy few euro without having to make an effort to actually come up with some sort of defence!

I suffer with anxiety and i also have an undiagnosed medical condition which would cause anyone anxiety to begin with. All of this can be verified and confirmed by my doctor but sadly my solicitor says that the only thing they look at is the blood results. They have heard all the sob story's before and i will receive no sympathy. Over the limit means your guilty and its that simple unfortunately!
I have messages on facebook between me and the gaurd who arrested me that night. I made contact initially after realising he was friends with a facebook friend of mine and i made contact to ask him about what was going to happen next etc

He was very sympathetic with me and said i seem like a nice guy and that he would be more then happy to help me in any way he could AFTER iam prosecuted , if i needed to appeal a lengthier ban for example! But thats once the file is sent to the DPP it is out of his hands and he wishes me well with how it goes etc

Don't think thats worth anything but it is something i have not mentioned to my solicitor as some of the messages contain some personal information that i would not want being brought up in a court case!

baalad · 19-12-2020 1:19am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

being impaired due to drugs is a separate offence. As you say where you are over the proscribed limit the issue of impairment does not arrive as it is not a necessary element of the offence.

I am sure this is an extremely weak argument but given that iam only over by approximately 1.1ng and the limit is already set at a rather low 5ng is there anything to be said for challenging the court that it would be impossible to suggest that my driving would be deemed to be affected at 6ng but iam ok to drive at 5ng ?

I guess this brings impairment into it...... however it ultimately is about impairment because its not a crime to have 5ng in your system. Its only a crime once you go over that limit because your clearly deemed as being impaired!

ohnonotgmail · 19-12-2020 1:20am

your solicitor is being very realistic. The offence is having more than the allowed limit of THC in your blood. Nothing else. the issue of impairment is not relevant. you had more than the allowed limit. as your solicitor says, barring a mistake on the part of the guard or laboratory you will be found guilty.

ohnonotgmail · 19-12-2020 1:21am

baalad wrote: »

I am sure this is an extremely weak argument but given that iam only over by approximately 1.1ng and the limit is already set at a rather low 5ng is there anything to be said for challenging the court that it would be impossible to suggest that my driving would be deemed to be affected at 6ng but iam ok to drive at 5ng ?

I guess this brings impairment into it...... however it ultimately is about impairment because its not a crime to have 5ng in your system. Its only a crime once you go over that limit because your clearly deemed as being impaired!

It is a crime to have more than 5ng in your system. that is the problem you have. you were tested and found to have more than this amount. there is a separate offence of being impaired due to drugs where the amount of drugs in your system is not relevant.

baalad · 19-12-2020 1:30am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is a crime to have more than 5ng in your system. that is the problem you have. you were tested and found to have more than this amount. there is a separate offence of being impaired due to drugs where the amount of drugs in your system is not relevant.

Your right and i understand but iam desperate to find something to clutch on too!

1ng is such a tiny tiny amount that its hard not to feel hard done by but the law is the law i guess.

I would love to know if i had not allowed the passenger of my car to smoke his joint as i dropped him off. Would my levels have been lower. I wonder to what extent the second hand smoke i inhaled for 10 minutes prior to being caught, contributed to the blood reading / result!

In truth i can't lie. I expected to fail because i knew i had smoked earlier that night but when i got the results and then was told i was only over by 1ng. I cannot help but wonder if i could have possibly passed the test if i was not inhaling second hand smoke minutes before being caught

Potential-Monke · 19-12-2020 1:44am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

being impaired due to drugs is a separate offence. As you say where you are over the proscribed limit the issue of impairment does not arrive as it is not a necessary element of the offence.

I understand that, but cannabis is far from alcohol, where the limit is fair across the board. But with cannabis, one could still be at the limit days or even weeks later depending on so many factors. As I said, I would still test positive after 2 months because I would be considered a heavy smoker. Drink is gone after a few days. I feel like the person who came up with the legislation just picked an arbitrary figure. IMO cannabis driving convictions should always have evidence of impaired driving.

I'd nearly be willing to give it up for 2 months if I could find someone to take a blood test every day to get the limits. Here is an estimate for how long cannabis stays in someones system, but it's only an estimate as it is genuinely impossible to make even a rough guide:

One time only: 4-8 days!
2-4 times per month: 11-18 days
2-4 times per week: 23-35 days
5-6 times per week: 33-48 days
Daily usage: 49-70 days after last use

To make it even crazier, some chronic users with a high tolerance can clear their system in the same time as a one time only user. Genetics also play a big part. The more weight you have, the longer you will test positive. But it doesn't matter, alcohol is completely gone from your system within a few days, but cannabis is being treated the same as alcohol, which is wrong, regardless of what the law says or how you feel. It's not a simple yes/no drug for being over some arbitrary limit. Even the one they test, THCCOOH, stays far longer in your system than the main delta-9 THC. The half life of THCCOOH is 20-57 hours for occasional users. That's a crazy amount of time, which is why I say that it should always include evidence of impairment. It would take a lot of time, money and effort to bring this through the court.

That's the thing too, you'd need a medical expert to explain all this, backed with hundreds of thousands of pages of trials and experiments to prove this, and no district court in Ireland could bothered, so you'd end up in the circuit or higher, which also means increased costs and time. It's a losing battle from the get go really.

US2 · 19-12-2020 1:49am

Get a good solicitor. I recently got off with drug and drink driving, apparently the guard forgot to log something fairly meaningless but my solicitor spotted it and got struck out.

Sierra Oscar · 19-12-2020 1:51am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I understand that, but cannabis is far from alcohol, where the limit is fair across the board. But with cannabis, one could still be at the limit days or even weeks later depending on so many factors. As I said, I would still test positive after 2 months because I would be considered a heavy smoker. Drink is gone after a few days. I feel like the person who came up with the legislation just picked an arbitrary figure. IMO cannabis driving convictions should always have evidence of impaired driving.

I'd nearly be willing to give it up for 2 months if I could find someone to take a blood test every day to get the limits. Here is an estimate for how long cannabis stays in someones system, but it's only an estimate as it is genuinely impossible to make even a rough guide:

One time only: 4-8 days!
2-4 times per month: 11-18 days
2-4 times per week: 23-35 days
5-6 times per week: 33-48 days
Daily usage: 49-70 days after last use

To make it even crazier, some chronic users with a high tolerance can clear their system in the same time as a one time only user. Genetics also play a big part. The more weight you have, the longer you will test positive. But it doesn't matter, alcohol is completely gone from your system within a few days, but cannabis is being treated the same as alcohol, which is wrong, regardless of what the law says or how you feel. It's not a simple yes/no drug for being over some arbitrary limit. Even the one they test, THCCOOH, stays far longer in your system than the main delta-9 THC. The half life of THCCOOH is 20-57 hours for occasional users. That's a crazy amount of time, which is why I say that it should always include evidence of impairment. It would take a lot of time, money and effort to bring this through the court.

That's the thing too, you'd need a medical expert to explain all this, backed with hundreds of thousands of pages of trials and experiments to prove this, and no district court in Ireland could bothered, so you'd end up in the circuit or higher, which also means increased costs and time. It's a losing battle from the get go really.

Even if you had such resources it doesn't really matter. Yes, the legislation may seem unfair but from a legal perspective it seems fairly solid. It is on the legality of the law and its application that you would have to base the foundation of an appeal when it comes to any sentence imposed.

Your problem is with the legislators in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Unfortunately, the law that you are being prosecuted for was in place at the time of the offence and that remains irrespective of whether legislators decided to change the law in the morning.

To get yourself through this you should be focusing on identifying whether the prosecution, i.e. the Garda, followed the correct procedures to the letter of the law. Your solicitor of course will assist you with this. Focusing on the unfairness of the law will not help you unfortunately.

baalad · 19-12-2020 1:56am

US2 wrote: »

Get a good solicitor. I recently got off with drug and drink driving, apparently the guard forgot to log something fairly meaningless but my solicitor spotted it and got struck out.

Some people get lucky i guess. A friend told me a story about a guy he knew in his college days that crashed his car into the side of a pub after being on the beer all day. He was 100% screwed

On the day of his trial the guard never showed up and it was adjourned. It was then adjourned again after it another no show and on the 3rd attempt the guard was a no show again because he was involved in an incident a night or two before where him and another colleague were beaten up!

His case ended up being struck out as a result! He was blessed

baalad · 19-12-2020 2:06am

Has anyone ever had a successful defence so or is it literally a case of praying they made a mistake once your bloods test positive for being over the limit??

There was an article in the paper earlier this week involving a 71 yr old man who was pulled over and asked to produce papers as he was driving a uk reg vehicle. He stopped the car but moments later he took off and ran a red light until the patrol car eventually caught up with him and stopped him.

He was looking at a fine plus driving ban but his solicitor'd defence was that that man was a farmer with a sick wife who needed his licence and that he experienced a rush of blood to the head and took off and it was out of character. The judge over turned the ruing and he was left off with just a fine.

Yet i and many others will have their lives turned upside down over a plant! I know this changes nothing but i honestly believe that its wrong prosecuting someone with zero evidence of impairment. I think you should receive an on the spot fine and matters should only be taken further if your impaired

L1011 · 19-12-2020 2:10am

Talk to your solicitor - you are not going to get useful advice online.

If you don't have a solicitor, find one experienced in this of defence urgently. It may be the most important money you ever spend.

US2 · 19-12-2020 2:13am

baalad wrote: »

Some people get lucky i guess. A friend told me a story about a guy he knew in his college days that crashed his car into the side of a pub after being on the beer all day. He was 100% screwed

On the day of his trial the guard never showed up and it was adjourned. It was then adjourned again after it another no show and on the 3rd attempt the guard was a no show again because he was involved in an incident a night or two before where him and another colleague were beaten up!

His case ended up being struck out as a result! He was blessed

Luck can have the same affect as getting punished though. I learned my lesson without losing my license.

amen · 19-12-2020 2:19am

Re the reading of 6.1ng and being only 1.1ng over the limit of 5ng. That 1.1ng puts you 22% over the limit. So while the absolute amount seems small as a percentage it’s relatively high.

baalad · 19-12-2020 2:26am

US2 wrote: »

Luck can have the same affect as getting punished though. I learned my lesson without losing my license.

Thats what i was getting at in a commented i posted earlier. I feel like i have already been punished. The last year has been horrible having this hanging over me, constant worry! Im not looking for sympathy but my anxiety made this situation ten times. Its honestly been hell!

I have twice considered seeking medication just to try and deal with the over thinking, stress etc but i absolutely hate the idea of relying on meds especially after past experiences. I cant say cannabis was much better given the trouble it brought me but at least there was no nasty side effects and it was effective at doing what i needed it to do!

I am likely to contest the case purely just because its my only hope of escaping punishment and just cross my fingers theres a technical hick up somewhere that gets the case struck out but its a long shot and i almost feel stupid because the bloods say i am guilty and thats all that matters to the court! Just cannot believe 1 billionth of a gram is the difference between no punishment and having your life turned upside down.

This messes up my chances of finding a new job, may even mess up my chances of moving in with my partner if her landlord Garda vets me! Let alone losing my licence is going to be a nightmare

I should have listened to Mr Macky in South Park all those years ago

baalad · 19-12-2020 2:31am

amen wrote: »

Re the reading of 6.1ng and being only 1.1ng over the limit of 5ng. That 1.1ng puts you 22% over the limit. So while the absolute amount seems small as a percentage it’s relatively high.

If the limit was 100ml for alcohol but you drank 122ml by accident because you didn't measure the amount.

Your over by 22%

I am sure you would agree that would be harsh regardless of the law!

US2 · 19-12-2020 2:32am

baalad wrote: »

Thats what i was getting at in a commented i posted earlier. I feel like i have already been punished. The last year has been horrible having this hanging over me, constant worry! Im not looking for sympathy but my anxiety made this situation ten times. Its honestly been hell!

I have twice considered seeking medication just to try and deal with the over thinking, stress etc but i absolutely hate the idea of relying on meds especially after past experiences. I cant say cannabis was much better given the trouble it brought me but at least there was no nasty side effects and it was effective at doing what i needed it to do!

I am likely to contest the case purely just because its my only hope of escaping punishment and just cross my fingers theres a technical hick up somewhere that gets the case struck out but its a long shot and i almost feel stupid because the bloods say i am guilty and thats all that matters to the court! Just cannot believe 1 billionth of a gram is the difference between no punishment and having your life turned upside down.

This messes up my chances of finding a new job, may even mess up my chances of moving in with my partner if her landlord Garda vets me! Let alone losing my licence is going to be a nightmare

I should have listened to Mr Macky in South Park all those years ago

Speak to a solicitor. You can't just contest it on the grounds you don't want to be punished, you need a reason. I was fully expecting to lose my license but I got lucky .

Not 100% on this but I don't think driving offense will hinder your chance of getting a job or house.

baalad · 19-12-2020 2:42am

US2 wrote: »

Speak to a solicitor. You can't just contest it on the grounds you don't want to be punished, you need a reason. I was fully expecting to lose my license but I got lucky .

Not 100% on this but I don't think driving offense will hinder your chance of getting a job or house.

Solicitor has already told me my options

1, Enter a guilty plea
2, Get case adjourned so he can gather evidence and see if we can find any mistakes that could result in a failure to prosecute.

Either way the ban received will be the same duration he said but the fine may be heftier if i fight the case and lose hence why he said its up to me to decide what way i want to go!

Potential-Monke · 19-12-2020 3:20am

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

joeguevara · 19-12-2020 5:03am

baalad wrote: »

Solicitor has already told me my options

1, Enter a guilty plea
2, Get case adjourned so he can gather evidence and see if we can find any mistakes that could result in a failure to prosecute.

Either way the ban received will be the same duration he said but the fine may be heftier if i fight the case and lose hence why he said its up to me to decide what way i want to go!

If Your Solicitor believes that the book of evidence is incomplete then you can ask for the case to be put back and seek the evidence that the solicitor requires. it will not add any further time to any sentence. if no further information arrives then a guilty plea then is the same as now.

If Plea Innocent And Lose Then It Will be an aggravating factor. how experienced is your solicitor in these cases, as a barrister is usually more experienced in getting it thrown out on a technical issue.

Phone Is The Reason For the Capital Letters. damn Huawei.

baalad · 20-12-2020 2:10am

joeguevara wrote: »

If Your Solicitor believes that the book of evidence is incomplete then you can ask for the case to be put back and seek the evidence that the solicitor requires. it will not add any further time to any sentence. if no further information arrives then a guilty plea then is the same as now.

If Plea Innocent And Lose Then It Will be an aggravating factor. how experienced is your solicitor in these cases, as a barrister is usually more experienced in getting it thrown out on a technical issue.

Phone Is The Reason For the Capital Letters. damn Huawei.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential-Monke · 20-12-2020 2:15am

Don't take my word for it, but to me it sounds like your solicitor couldn't be arsed trying to fight it, and is actively putting you off. Yeah, the fine may be higher but this is all up to the judge. The judge doesn't care if it took longer, he still decides the fine and your solicitor should be fighting to keep it low because of the reasons you said above.

I dunno, I'd ask for another solicitors advise first. At the very least, your solicitor should be looking for a Gary Doyle order, as this will give him the evidence that it's an open/shut case or is worth fighting. Saying plead guilty without even checking the evidence, of which I'm 99.9% sure they can request without having to enter a plea. Getting a Gary Doyle order is literally requesting the evidence, so I find it hard to believe it would require you to actually fight the case in order to get it. I could be remembering wrong, but I distinctly remember a specific case where a Gary Doyle order was requested, provided and the later court date they pleaded guilty and got the lower fine. I'm sure it's only if you plead not-guilty that you are then considered as fighting the case.

But, i'm not a solicitor and only know the law from the Garda point of view, of which I stopped 5 years ago so my own experience could very well be outdated now.

baalad · 20-12-2020 2:36am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Don't take my word for it, but to me it sounds like your solicitor couldn't be arsed trying to fight it, and is actively putting you off. Yeah, the fine may be higher but this is all up to the judge. The judge doesn't care if it took longer, he still decides the fine and your solicitor should be fighting to keep it low because of the reasons you said above.

I dunno, I'd ask for another solicitors advise first. At the very least, your solicitor should be looking for a Gary Doyle order, as this will give him the evidence that it's an open/shut case or is worth fighting. Saying plead guilty without even checking the evidence, of which I'm 99.9% sure they can request without having to enter a plea. Getting a Gary Doyle order is literally requesting the evidence, so I find it hard to believe it would require you to actually fight the case in order to get it. I could be remembering wrong, but I distinctly remember a specific case where a Gary Doyle order was requested, provided and the later court date they pleaded guilty and got the lower fine. I'm sure it's only if you plead not-guilty that you are then considered as fighting the case.

But, i'm not a solicitor and only know the law from the Garda point of view, of which I stopped 5 years ago so my own experience could very well be outdated now.

I am not sure man. You could be right although his reasoning is that there is nothing to fight ..... until he sees the evidence against me. As it stands my blood result is over the limit and that makes me guilty so there is nothing to fight. I remember asking him if he thought i would have a chance of putting together a reasonable defence and he more or less said that unfortunately once your over the limit you do not have a defence. You only hope is that the guards messed up on their end but the only way to investigate that is to adjourn the case and request evidence.

On the night in question , i was technically caught in a parking lot not at the actual checkpoint. Now i did indeed drive the car but what is to say someone else was driving the car and did a runner before they arrived or whats to say i only smoked in the parking lot ? How do they prove i was actually driving the car other then just saying they saw me? Or is that all they have to say??

No matter the outcome. I cannot wait to put this behind me. I have to say that the guard that night was a gentleman as soon as he realised i was a good guy and not your stereotypical stoner! He was almost apologetic and i leaving the station.

baalad · 20-12-2020 2:47am

Btw as an ex guard can you explain the 3 hour rule?? I was asked if i was held longer then 3 hours and i suspect i was just over the 3 hours.

For example if memory serves me right i was arrested at 11:10pm , arrived at the station at around 11:20 - 11:30pm and had bloods taken around 2:10am and was asked a few questions afterwards before being released at 2:25am

Obviously i cannot recall to the exact minute but the above is very very close to the time schedule.

They doctor actually had trouble getting blood from me when she arrived and the guard was looking to speak to someone above him about letting me go and of course it was at the moment my body decided, here have some blood ha

I think online i read that blood must be taken within 3 hours of arrest not 3 hours after you arrive at the station. Is this correct?

My solicitor says that as long as the doctor arrived even if it was on the 3hour mark that they would be granted more time. The way i see it they could easily alter the times anyhow.

20-12-2020 3:07am

amen wrote: »

Re the reading of 6.1ng and being only 1.1ng over the limit of 5ng. That 1.1ng puts you 22% over the limit. So while the absolute amount seems small as a percentage it’s relatively high.

As someone who doesn't smoke I may perhaps have an unconscious bias, but I can't understand why there would be any allowable limit whatsoever (whether you're impaired or not) for drug driving.

My reason for thinking this is simply that, the drug is illegal. Lawfully you shouldn't have it in your system or on your person in any capacity. I am surprised they don't also tack on some variant of a 'possession' charge as a further means of deterring people.

I can understand a legal limit on alcohol, as alcohol (whether you agree or not) can be legally obtained in Ireland.

baalad · 20-12-2020 3:27am

Deleted User wrote: »

As someone who doesn't smoke I may perhaps have an unconscious bias, but I can't understand why there would be any allowable limit whatsoever (whether you're impaired or not) for drug driving.

My reason for thinking this is simply that, the drug is illegal. Lawfully you shouldn't have it in your system or on your person in any capacity. I am surprised they don't also tack on some variant of a 'possession' charge as a further means of deterring people.

I can understand a legal limit on alcohol, as alcohol (whether you agree or not) can be legally obtained in Ireland.

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

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

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

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

Drug driving blood test

Comments