quilp Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Local media were very quiet about this... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 9 minutes ago, quilp said: Local media were very quiet about this... so if you're on medical cannabis all the things that make you unsafe to drive on non medical cannabis suddenly don't matter ??? it seems like the legality of drug use is what decides whether you're fit to drive with X amount of whatever happy pill is in your system. ???? thats got to be bullshit if ever there was. Edited March 29 by WTF 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 8 minutes ago, quilp said: Local media were very quiet about this... Surely driving while impaired is still an offence, regardless of the source of whatever drug. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 16 minutes ago, Sheldon said: Surely driving while impaired is still an offence, regardless of the source of whatever drug. But those prosecuted in the last 15 months (well over 100) haven't been done for driving while impaired. They've been done for having more than the required level of a particular drug in their bloodstream, whether that level had any effect on them (or anyone else) or not. In the past a doctor was required to certify impairment, now it seems a doctor's prescription proves they couldn't have been. It doesn't make much sense, but virtue-signalling laws rarely do. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 25 minutes ago, WTF said: so if you're on medical cannabis all the things that make you unsafe to drive on non medical cannabis suddenly don't matter ??? it seems like the legality of drug use is what decides whether you're fit to drive with X amount of whatever happy pill is in your system. ???? thats got to be bullshit if ever there was. This is the problem with the current law. A regular user can have quite a high level in their system but have zero driving impairment, the fact we have removed the impairment factor in all cases but this one is very telling. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 46 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: required If only. prescribed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) The good old USA generally have to fail a sobriety test before they take a sample ie walk the line,touch your nose, follow the pen (with the eyes, not like throw it and bring it back) even if they smell it on you. Same for drugs Edited March 30 by Dirty Buggane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 51 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said: The good old USA generally have to fail a sobriety test before they take a sample ie walk the line,touch your nose, follow the pen (with the eyes, not like throw it and bring it back) even if they smell it on you. Same for drugs That’s not correct. However it’s a state thing, rather than federal thing. In the USA most states have both roadside alcohol testing and breathalyser/intoximeter and blood testing. Anyone driving over 0.8 ( our 80ug ) is deemed to be driving illegally. However, blow a 0.7 and fail a field sobriety test and you’re impaired and still convicted. 19 states have drug drive laws where driving with a measurable amount of drugs above a specified limit deems you unfit to drive by impairment. Just like here. All the other states conduct field sobriety/intoxication tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 3 minutes ago, John Wright said: That’s not correct. However it’s a state thing, rather than federal thing. In the USA most states have both roadside alcohol testing and breathalyser/intoximeter and blood testing. Anyone driving over 0.8 ( our 80ug ) is deemed to be driving illegally. However, blow a 0.7 and fail a field sobriety test and you’re impaired and still convicted. John, does the current law allow a 2 microgram limit in the blood if the driver has a prescription? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 14 minutes ago, cissolt said: John, does the current law allow a 2 microgram limit in the blood if the driver has a prescription? There’s a defence with low level, but positive, readings, if you have a prescription and you are using the drug in accordance with the prescription and any medical advice you have been given ( including the drug information leaflet in the box which almost always warns about driving and operating heavy machinery ) unless your driving was impaired. so a high reading will probably mean not using as prescribed, a prescription months old indicates not using in accordance, crossing white lines, accident, weaving, sudden braking, no lights ( in dark ) also indicate impairment and negates. Ive come across all of those, and there have been defences run and lost on high readings and 6 month old prescriptions. My biggest worry, and the right case hasn’t yet come along, is that the stop has to be “just cause” fair and reasonable, not just random. Most cases I see start with the disclosure that the arresting officers ( who are frequently in a parked or travelling car ) smelled a strong scent of cannabis emanating from the arrested persons car as it drove past. I not only have my doubts, but it’s against College of Policing guidelines/training to claim smelled cannabis as a stop vehicle justification. If the stop is illegal the evidence gathered may be tainted and not useable. https://www.college.police.uk/app/stop-and-search 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 23 hours ago, John Wright said: My biggest worry, and the right case hasn’t yet come along, is that the stop has to be “just cause” fair and reasonable, not just random. Most cases I see start with the disclosure that the arresting officers ( who are frequently in a parked or travelling car ) smelled a strong scent of cannabis emanating from the arrested persons car as it drove past. I not only have my doubts, but it’s against College of Policing guidelines/training to claim smelled cannabis as a stop vehicle justification. Are you sure? I've seen a few cases where a car has been stopped and then found to be smelling of cannabis. And one TT in one of those inevitable traffic queues, a guy decided to while away the wait with a joint and wound his window down when police walked by. But I've never heard of a car being stopped because it drove by and cannabis was smelt by stationary police. It can happen of course, I s'pose. Edited March 31 by Barlow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 5 minutes ago, Barlow said: Are you sure? I've seen a few cases where a car has been stopped and then found to be smelling of cannabis. And one TT in one of those inevitable traffic queues, a guy decided to while away the wait with a joint and wound his window down when police walked by. But I've never heard of a car being stopped because it drove by and cannabis was smelt by stationary police. It can happen of course, I s'pose. Yes. Those cases happen. The majority where I’ve had disclosure are as I outline. one was “sensed” by a police officer on a motorbike, presumably wearing a crash helmet as mandated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Perhaps before we call for some drug taking changes, we should call for a reform of the Drug Driving instances? It does seem to be out of kilter with the Drink Driving equivalents? The fines 'seem' to heavier than drink charges, the evidence and research into drug impairment is up for debate. Why are drug driving stops / convictions more severe? Is it ''because we can''? Because it's a new law that the Police have to seen to pursue? There should probably be more research into this? As an aside, the American 'sobriety' tests, especially when carried out in full public view, could probab;y be challenged under Human Rights leg. over here??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 36 minutes ago, John Wright said: Yes. Those cases happen. The majority where I’ve had disclosure are as I outline. one was “sensed” by a police officer on a motorbike, presumably wearing a crash helmet as mandated. Well it is not impossible. On a motorbike there is little doubt that your senses can be heightened. I remember being taught that if you suddenly smell say, new mown grass there is a possibility of a tractor round the next corner. When I gave up smoking I could often smell smoke from the car in front, even with a full face helmet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Do people not realise how potent cannabis is? 100% you can smell it from passing cars. Just yesterday I was walking down Christian Road and a car drove past me and I smelt cannabis coming from it. Not a car but was in the co op a few weeks back bloke and his mate came in utterly reeking if weed. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.