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

Roadside drug tests from tonight.

13567…14

Comments

  • #62
    srsly78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Well that's it, isn't it?
    You'll have people horrified you can't inhale an 8 ball and get into your car in comfort, but I don't want to be killed by someone off his tits just because he feels it's his right to take illegal drugs and drive a car.

    Noone has a problem with that. But you also want to criminalise people that went to amsterdam last week, which is idiotic.


  • #63
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Is this aimed at road safety and DUI or just consumption full stop?

    I mean, alcohol is legal, so if you test positive for alcohol but are under a certain limit, you are not impaired while driving, and so you have not committed any crime.

    But drugs like cocaine and heroin are illegal full stop, so while the level present might not be any impairment to driving, any amount present would indicate an illegal drug had been taken (or would it...poppy seeds etc).

    It's under a Road Traffic Act which makes me think it's related to DUI, but are police going to simply let a driver go who tests positive for an illegal substance, but not at a level that causes them to be impaired while driving?


  • #64
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    jonnycivic wrote: »
    Another thing to note is that the traces they swab inside your mouth for cannibas, what happens if your sitting on a bus and some clown is smoking a joint, your inhaling their secondhand smoke and traces of the drug are surely to have seeped into your system??

    You may prove positive (depends on test) but without the blood test then no conviction possible.


  • #65
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    Allinall wrote: »
    If you're a regular heavy smoker, then you probably shouldn't be driving anyway .

    Why not?? A regular heavy smoker could be someone that has 2/3 joints in the evening after work but not drive until the next morning. They effects of the drug would be gone then so there is no reason they shouldnt be driving :confused:


  • #66
    srsly78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    are police going to simply let a driver go who tests positive for an illegal substance, but not at a level that causes them to be impaired while driving?

    Yes they are - because having illegal drugs in your blood is not a crime.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    srsly78 wrote: »
    Noone has a problem with that. But you also want to criminalise people that went to amsterdam last week, which is idiotic.

    I want to criminalise anyone who takes risks with other people's lives.


  • #68
    srsly78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    I want to criminalise anyone who takes risks with other people's lives.

    So you want to ban driving now? That's a bit much surely.


  • #69
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    osarusan wrote: »
    Is this aimed at road safety and DUI or just consumption full stop?

    I mean, alcohol is legal, so if you test positive for alcohol but are under a certain limit, you are not impaired while driving, and so you have not committed any crime.

    But drugs like cocaine and heroin are illegal full stop, so while the level present might not be any impairment to driving, any amount present would indicate an illegal drug had been taken (or would it...poppy seeds etc).

    It's under a Road Traffic Act which makes me think it's related to DUI, but are police going to simply let a driver go who tests positive for an illegal substance, but not at a level that causes them to be impaired while driving?

    Impairment remains as a possible conviction as it has with Drink for years. What has changed is if no evidence of impairment but the blood sample exceeds set limits then possiblec onviction.


  • #70
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    I want to criminalise anyone who takes risks with other people's lives.

    So they guy who went on a stags to a place where the Drug was legal but is not under the effects of that drug while driving yet its detected in his system should be criminalised??? Ah come on out of that.


  • #71
    srsly78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    OSI wrote: »
    This suggests that THC levels in blood would fall to near legal levels shortly after an hour after inhaling a joint:

    http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#blood

    So the suggestion that lads are going to get done a week after returning from Amsterdam are hyperbolic bull****.

    You may be right, but there are other ways to test as well. Hair tests have been problematic in this regard.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    jonnycivic wrote: »
    Another thing to note is that the traces they swab inside your mouth for cannibas, what happens if your sitting on a bus and some clown is smoking a joint, your inhaling their secondhand smoke and traces of the drug are surely to have seeped into your system??

    You'd likely fail the roadside swab but pass a blood or urine test.


  • #73
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    OSI wrote: »
    This suggests that THC levels in blood would fall to near legal levels shortly after an hour after inhaling a joint:

    http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#blood

    So the suggestion that lads are going to get done a week after returning from Amsterdam are hyperbolic bull****.

    That is what all research I have done in past week seems to say. I have yet to find any study that shows rare or non use can lead to reading greater than 5ng/l


  • #74
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Really Interested wrote: »
    Impairment remains as a possible conviction as it has with Drink for years. What has changed is if no evidence of impairment but the blood sample exceeds set limits then possiblec onviction.

    Conviction for what?


  • #75
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    osarusan wrote: »
    Conviction for what?

    A breach of section 4 or 5 of the road traffic act 2010 as amended so in broad terms intoxicated driving. Expect a ban and a fine for a first offence.


  • #76
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    srsly78 wrote: »
    So you want to ban driving now? That's a bit much surely.
    Stop being so melodramatic.
    Cokeheads, junkies -- on drugs -- have no place behind the wheel of a car.
    Someone stoned has no place behind the wheel of a car. Someone who'll get up and smoke a joint before work should not be driving to work.

    I'm on prescription meds occasionally that impair driving. If I take diazipam or OxyContin I don't get into my car. Why is it different for any other drugs?


  • #77
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    OSI wrote: »
    This suggests that THC levels in blood would fall to near legal levels shortly after an hour after inhaling a joint:

    http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#blood

    So the suggestion that lads are going to get done a week after returning from Amsterdam are hyperbolic bull****.

    No one is suggesting that is the case they're saying they didn't know if it would be because as usual in this country information is guarded carefully as if it's a precious commodity that us plebs shouldn't have.


  • #78
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    jonnycivic wrote: »
    So they guy who went on a stags to a place where the Drug was legal but is not under the effects of that drug while driving yet its detected in his system should be criminalised??? Ah come on out of that.
    Whether it's legal or illegal if you're still under the influence you've no place on the road.


  • #79
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Would codeine show???

    Codeine metabolises into morpheine not cocaine
    It'll show for morpheine but I'd assume you'd need to have taken a lot of otc pills for it to be an issue


  • #80
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Stop being so melodramatic.
    Cokeheads, junkies -- on drugs -- have no place behind the wheel of a car.
    Someone stoned has no place behind the wheel of a car. Someone who'll get up and smoke a joint before work should not be driving to work.

    I'm on prescription meds occasionally that impair driving. If I take diazipam or OxyContin I don't get into my car. Why is it different for any other drugs?

    Everyone agrees with that I think. The point is that should you have a joint at 9 or 10 at night, go to bed have a full night's sleep and get up to drive to work are you over the limit. That information is important.


  • #81
    srsly78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Stop being so melodramatic.
    Cokeheads, junkies -- on drugs -- have no place behind the wheel of a car.
    Someone stoned has no place behind the wheel of a car. Someone who'll get up and smoke a joint before work should not be driving to work.

    I'm on prescription meds occasionally that impair driving. If I take diazipam or OxyContin I don't get into my car. Why is it different for any other drugs?

    You are the one arguing for different treatment. If someone smokes the day before, they should be fine to drive the next day - but you seem to want them off the road permanently.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Jayop wrote: »
    No one is suggesting that is the case they're saying they didn't know if it would be because as usual in this country information is guarded carefully as if it's a precious commodity that us plebs shouldn't have.

    The legislation has been available some the bill at least last year. Online studies seem to say it would be difficult if not impossibleto exceed the limits from passive smoking low use.


  • #83
    The Pheasant2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭The Pheasant2


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    I want to criminalise anyone who takes risks with other people's lives.

    And what about the fella who has a joint Friday night out on the town - they aren't taking risks with other people's lives by driving the next day...are you saying they deserve to be dragged in for drug driving and face a 5K fine, 4 years driving ban and up to 6 months jail time?

    Absurd.


  • #84
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Really Interested wrote: »
    The legislation has been available some the bill at least last year. Online studies seem to say it would be difficult if not impossibleto exceed the limits from passive smoking low use.

    But people shouldn't have to go searching for research that they don't know is accurate. They should be given this information from the government in clear concise form.


  • #85
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    srsly78 wrote: »
    You are the one arguing for different treatment. If someone smokes the day before, they should be fine to drive the next day - but you seem to want them off the road permanently.
    No, if they smoke on occasion, and are not driving under the influence then I don't see why they would lose their licence. That would be similar to calling for someone to lose their licence on Wednesday for drinking a bottle of wine on Friday night.


  • #86
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Really Interested wrote: »
    A breach of section 4 or 5 of the road traffic act 2010 as amended so in broad terms intoxicated driving. Expect a ban and a fine for a first offence.

    i don't understand that post in relation to this earlier one:
    What has changed is if no evidence of impairment but the blood sample exceeds set limits then possiblec onviction.

    So the limit set does relate to being impaired while driving?


  • #87
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Jayop wrote: »
    Everyone agrees with that I think. The point is that should you have a joint at 9 or 10 at night, go to bed have a full night's sleep and get up to drive to work are you over the limit. That information is important.

    The information as with Drink depends on the person the amount how regular. This is the way it has been for Drink for years so why an issue now.

    I remember a few years ago a friend of mine and myself had loads to drink. I had a pocket drink test machine for hours after I was according to the test under the limit my friend was above.

    My rule for Drink I do not drive next day after a session.


  • #88
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Whether it's legal or illegal if you're still under the influence you've no place on the road.

    Right have a look at this:

    Person A goes out on the town tonight and has 8 beers. Goes to bed at 12 tonight and wakes up and hops into their car at 8am to go to work the next morning, are they ok to drive now?

    Person B goes out on the town tonight, doesnt drink but has a joint for his troubles, goes home and into bed for 12 and get up and hops into their car at 8am to go to work, are they ok to drive now?

    In 1 case you dont want a person penalised but in the other you want them off the road.


  • #89
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,930 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Does anyone know what the roadside test consists of or how it is carried out?


  • #90
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    osarusan wrote: »
    i don't understand that post in relation to this earlier one:


    So the limit set does relate to being impaired while driving?

    No as it does not for Drink

    "Subject to subsection (1B), a person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while there is present in his or her body a quantity of a drug specified in column (2) of the Schedule such that, within 3 hours after so driving or attempting to drive, the concentration of that drug in his or her blood is equal to or greater than the concentration specified in column (3) at the same reference number."

    No use of the word impairment it's an offence to drive if reading exceeds limit


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Does anyone know what the roadside test consists of or how it is carried out?

    A sobriety test (like the drink driving one, walk the line etc) and a mouth swab test i believe.


Advertisement