Roadside drug tests from tonight.

My name is URL

Apparently there are products available which claim to 'mask' the metabolites that testing would be looking for.

Anyone know of the legality of such things? Might be worth having a pack of gum in the car and chewing one if you see a checkpoint ahead. They say they work in 30 seconds and last up to 30 minutes.

http://thcclean.net/how-to-pass-a-mouth-swab-drug-test/

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

jonnycivic wrote: »

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.

Person A should not be on the road at 8am if he/she hammered back 8 pints the night before and didn't stop drinking until 12. I know they say leave an hour for each pint but that's not reliable for everyone. For example, it takes me longer to break down vodka for some reason so I'd probably be worst for wear at 8am as I'd have been at 1.

Person B - it depends. If it's completely out of his system and isn't impairing his senses, I see no reason why he would lose his licence. If he's pounded back 7 joints and a line of Coke then he also has no business getting in his car.

Him and person A should pool together and get a taxi to wherever they're going

Really Interested

Ariella Sparse Rationalization wrote: »

What about codeine in like say Solpadeine? Would that show up?

https://www.google.ie/amp/amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html

Has been the law for ages.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Also is there any truth to orange juice throwing the results of a drugs test

osarusan

OSI wrote: »

It is a blood concentration above which studies have shown impair a persons ability to drive.

So to go back to my original question, if you test positive for the presence of an illegal drug, but under the relevant limit which would indicate impairment, the police will just let you go?

c6ysaphjvqw41k

This post has been deleted.

Tigger

osarusan wrote: »

So to go back to my original question, if you test positive for the presence of an illegal drug, but under the relevant limit which would indicate impairment, the police will just let you go?

Well they will know you like the narcotic so they will probably just search you

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

osarusan wrote: »

So to go back to my original question, if you test positive for the presence of an illegal drug, but under the relevant limit which would indicate impairment, the police will just let you go?

My understanding is it's not a crime to take an illegal drug but it is a crime to be in possession. So I don't think they can do you for having traces of heroin in your system even if you fall short of what's over the limit

Really Interested

osarusan wrote: »

So to go back to my original question, if you test positive for the presence of an illegal drug, but under the relevant limit which would indicate impairment, the police will just let you go?

Depends if the Garda believes he can prove impairment then he may Summons for that offence as he can show presence of intoxicant and impaired driving. If the Garda does not believe he can prove impairment then no Summons.

diomed

They should test this politician first (or the headline writer).
Was the pole looking for swans?
http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/home/231256/councillor-condemns-dangerous-erections.html

ScumLord

jonnycivic wrote: »

If you were a regular heavy smoker then yes it could stay there for days at least, not sure about months but it is a good bit longer than the 12 hours.

That doesn't really make sense, I thought that statistic related to one of the other chemicals in cannabis, the one they used to test for. If THC was stored in your fat cells and slowly released it would be great value for money because you'd be stoned for weeks.

Jayop wrote: »

It's very important that tests for driving under the influence of drugs (worse imo than alcohol)

The other drugs are no worse than alcohol. They all impair, stimulants make you drive too fast, depressants dull your reactions.

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.

But that's not what he said, he said that if you smoke regularly you shouldn't be able to drive. Someone having one joint in the evening is a regular user.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

ScumLord wrote: »

That doesn't really make sense, I thought that statistic related to one of the other chemicals in cannabis, the one they used to test for. If THC was stored in your fat cells and slowly released it would be great value for money because you'd be stoned for weeks.

The other drugs are no worse than alcohol. They all impair, stimulants make you drive too fast, depressants dull your reactions.

But that's not what he said, he said that if you smoke regularly you shouldn't be able to drive. Someone having one joint in the evening is a regular user.

To me a regular heavy user would be someone who'd smoke it first thing, have a joint in the middle of the day while going about their regular day to day business, having a joint in the evenings after dinner watching eastenders then getting into the car and driving to the shop

RollieFingers

LexieOnRale wrote: »

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

Just beacuse cannabis is still in your system doesn't mean that you are still "under the influence" or stoned at the time.

Kimbot

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Person A should not be on the road at 8am if he/she hammered back 8 pints the night before and didn't stop drinking until 12. I know they say leave an hour for each pint but that's not reliable for everyone. For example, it takes me longer to break down vodka for some reason so I'd probably be worst for wear at 8am as I'd have been at 1.

Person B - it depends. If it's completely out of his system and isn't impairing his senses, I see no reason why he would lose his licence. If he's pounded back 7 joints and a line of Coke then he also has no business getting in his car.

Him and person A should pool together and get a taxi to wherever they're going

Lexie, you spun it your own way here. I said if person B had 1 joint, not 7 and some coke.

osarusan

RollieFingers wrote: »

Just beacuse cannabis is still in your system doesn't mean that you are still "under the influence" or stoned at the time.

And that's why the limit is being set at a level at which/beyond which the person is 'under the influence', surely?

Same with alcohol - mere presence of alcohol doesn't mean you are under the influence, but there is a limit beyond which you will be deemed to be under the influence.

Kimbot

LexieOnRale wrote: »

To me a regular heavy user would be someone who'd smoke it first thing, have a joint in the middle of the day while going about their regular day to day business, having a joint in the evenings after dinner watching eastenders then getting into the car and driving to the shop

Plenty of regular heavy users in society today, normally they would be called heavy smokers because they smoke alot of the drug quantity wise. It doesnt mean they smoke it all day every day, they could still only smoke in the evenings when they are home from work etc.

Really Interested

jonnycivic wrote: »

Plenty of regular heavy users in society today, normally they would be called heavy smokers because they smoke alot of the drug quantity wise. It doesnt mean they smoke it all day every day, they could still only smoke in the evenings when they are home from work etc.

And what makes them different from a heavy Drink user, if you are either and do not leave enough time after use you risk being in excess of the legal limits if you drive.

ScumLord

LexieOnRale wrote: »

To me a regular heavy user would be someone who'd smoke it first thing, have a joint in the middle of the day while going about their regular day to day business, having a joint in the evenings after dinner watching eastenders then getting into the car and driving to the shop

OK, but there are different types of spliffs. One person might spare it in each spliff but have many. Another could load one spliff up with what the other guy was smoking in a day. For the most part we in Europe don't seem to smoke half as much as Americans do. It's not like with alcohol where you can quantify what your taking. Someone could buy weed that's 3 times stronger than what they got the last time.

I think the punishment of 1 year ban is very harsh for a new thing being introduced where we don't know how it will work, if it will work and the people being tested don't know themselves how much they've taken or if they are over the limit. They went gently gently when it came to alcohol, gave advice, media campaigns and a broadsword on the illegal drugs, because, **** those people. The first ad I heard about this was today, they're going to catch thousands of people on the hop and take their licenses off them.

droidus

A couple of points.

Pascal Donohue has stated that a sober weed smoker will be arrested and banned under this test:

"So we're going to have three different drugs - there will be cannabis, there will be heroin and then there will be cocaine, and there will be a different limit per drug.

"They are laid out in an early schedule of the Bill - for cocaine it's 10 nanograms per millilitre - for heroin it's five nanograms per millilitre of blood."

When it was pointed out that traces of cannabis can stay in the body for a week, the Minister was asked if cannabis users who were "completely sober" at the time of the test could be prosecuted.

"Yes", he said.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/completely-sober-drivers-who-smoked-cannabis-in-last-week-could-be-prosecuted-under-new-laws-711538.html

The literature of the company that manufactures the tests admits that non-impaired drivers will test positive. 85% detection at 8 hours, 50% at 21 hours, frequent users have a chance of being tested positive at 30 hours.

Fourteen chronic, frequent and 10 occasional cannabis smokers spent the night before smoking on the clinical unit to ensure that participants were not intoxicated at the time of smoking.... ...Median (range) last detection times with the DrugTest 5000 were 12 hours (4-24) and 21 hours (1->30) for occasional and frequent smokers, respectively (p=0.12, >30 assigned as 30 hours)...

...Evaluation the on-site Draeger DrugTest 5000 in occasional and chronic frequent smokers following controlled cannabis smoking oral fluid specimens were still positive at 30 hours, but had up to 5 negative oral fluid specimens prior to 30 hours....

http://www.icadtsinternational.com/files/documents/2013_058.pdf

So, essentially, if you smoke weed frequently or even occasionally and you have a joint, there is a significant chance you could be fined, convicted and banned for 4 years even if you are not impaired or intoxicated if you are tested between 12 & 30 hours of smoking, and both the government and the testing company are aware of this.

On a side note, I would never recommended anyone get behind the wheel whilst under the influence of any substance, but the evidence regarding impairment and cannabis use is... unclear to say the least. As far as I am aware there are no conclusive studies.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It's not at all harsh, if you don't know the strength/quantity you're ingesting you're being reckless by driving when you've no idea how it's affected you

Really Interested

ScumLord wrote: »

OK, but there are different types of spliffs. One person might spare it in each spliff but have many. Another could load one spliff up with what the other guy was smoking in a day. For the most part we in Europe don't seem to smoke half as much as Americans do. It's not like with alcohol where you can quantify what your taking. Someone could buy weed that's 3 times stronger than what they got the last time.

I think the punishment of 1 year ban is very harsh for a new thing being introduced where we don't know how it will work, if it will work and the people being tested don't know themselves how much they've taken or if they are over the limit. They went gently gently when it came to alcohol, gave advice, media campaigns and a broadsword on the illegal drugs, because, **** those people. The first ad I heard about this was today, they're going to catch thousands of people on the hop and take their licenses off them.

A person who has a strong cocktail can get a ban so what.

Really Interested

droidus wrote: »

A couple of points. Pascal Donohue has stated that a sober weed smoker will be arrested and banned under this test:



The literature of the company that manufactures the tests admits that non-impaired drivers will test positive. 85% detection at 8 hours, 50% at 21 hours, frequent users have a chance of being tested positive at 30 hours.



So, essentially, if you smoke weed frequently or even occasionally and you have a joint, there is a significant chance you could be fined, convicted and banned for 4 years even if you are not impaired or intoxicated if you are tested between 12 & 30 hours of smoking, and both the government and the testing company are aware of this.

On a side note, I would never recommended anyone get behind the wheel whilst under the influence of any substance, but the evidence regarding impairment and cannabis use is... unclear to say the least. As far as I am aware there are no conclusive studies.

What you say about drugs has been the law for decades about Drink people have and are banned the next day with no evidence of impairment I assume you are against that law as well

ScumLord

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's not at all harsh, if you don't know the strength/quantity you're ingesting you're being reckless by driving when you've no idea how it's affected you

It's impossible to know exactly what strength cannabis is because of the law, a regular smoker would have some awareness through experience. This looks very much like it's going to be punishing cannabis users because they're cannabis users, not because they're driving dangerously.

Really Interested

ScumLord wrote: »

It's impossible to know exactly what strength cannabis is because of the law, a regular smoker would have some awareness through experience. This looks very much like it's going to be punishing cannabis users because they're cannabis users, not because they're driving dangerously.

In the same way the law has punished a person who Drinks and drives even the next day for being over a limit with no evidence of bad driving.

RollieFingers

osarusan wrote: »

And that's why the limit is being set at a level at which/beyond which the person is 'under the influence', surely?

Same with alcohol - mere presence of alcohol doesn't mean you are under the influence, but there is a limit beyond which you will be deemed to be under the influence.

Absolutely, my comment was in reply to the poster who stated that they "want to criminalise anyone who takes risks with other people's lives" in response to a poster saying they wanted to criminalise people who might have legally smoked a joint in Amsterdam the day previously, but are not "under the influence" at the time of the test.

Such ill-informed generalistaions are not helpful.

osarusan

ScumLord wrote: »

It's impossible to know exactly what strength cannabis is because of the law, a regular smoker would have some awareness through experience.

Also because while everybody's body might deal with alcohol differently, we at least know just how much alcohol is in the booze we actually drank (1 pint = X units), in a way that cannabis consumers can't know.

I can't see how the government can really raise awareness of that though, as there is no regulation of the industry in the first place.

irishproduce

jonnycivic wrote: »

What happens is you were in the USA or Amsterdam and smoked some herb legally and were pulled a day or two after your return and it found to be in your system?

The tests aren't set up to catch you for using drugs. You can use drugs to your hearts content as far as the state is concerned (I am exaggerating). The test is to check if there is drugs in your system because the policy is setup with the intention of keeping people who have drugs in their system off the road - in order to keep that road user and other road users (pedestrians, cyclists, runners, drivers etc) alive.
No one cares how you got in in your system, it is the results of having it in your system, and operating a vehicle that the testing is designed to discourage.

Like drinking booze, and Mr Healy Ray stating a few pints is grand, science doesn't really care about your perception, it is guided by evidence and tests. I think science has decided that on balance, you are less likely to kill someone if you have zero alcohol and zero drugs in your system (traces or otherwise)

For the record, I do not take drugs of any kind, sometimes I drink alcohol though - but never operate a vehicle after booze :-).

Kimbot

ScumLord wrote: »

It's impossible to know exactly what strength cannabis is because of the law, a regular smoker would have some awareness through experience. This looks very much like it's going to be punishing cannabis users because they're cannabis users, not because they're driving dangerously.

And wouldnt the charge have to be "Driving under the influence" as it is with drinking at the moment? If thats the case then how can they prosecute when your not "Under the infleunce".

Bejubby

srsly78 wrote: »

Well half a pint is 284ml

You want it in nano-ounces per pint?

How many puffs, lines, etc

ScumLord

osarusan wrote: »

Also because while everybody's body might deal with alcohol differently, we at least know just how much alcohol is in the booze we actually drank (1 pint = X units), in a way that cannabis consumers can't know.

I can't see how the government can really raise awareness of that though, as there is no regulation of the industry in the first place.

They could legalise it.

All these laws always seem to avoid the real reason for accidents on the roads, incompetent drivers. Better driving education and training would reduce accidents but they'd rather we figure it out for ourselves and if we don't die in the process punish us for not driving the way they want us to drive.

osarusan

RollieFingers wrote: »

Absolutely, my comment was in reply to the poster who stated that they "want to criminalise anyone who takes risks with other people's lives" in response to a poster saying they wanted to criminalise people who might have legally smoked a joint in Amsterdam the day previously, but are not "under the influence" at the time of the test.

I think the point they were making was that if they test over the limit (and the limit is valid) then they are taking risks with other people's lives by driving, regardless of whether the joint was legally smoked or not.

If they are under the limit, and therefore not 'under the influence', they aren't taking risks with other people's lives.

You'll have to take it up with that poster, but it wasn't the impression I got from her posts.

droidus

Really Interested wrote: »

What you say about drugs has been the law for decades about Drink people have and are banned the next day with no evidence of impairment I assume you are against that law as well

I never said I was for or against anything.

However.

With alcohol there is a body of literature and research, tested globally in numerous jurisdictions that have established a legal limit under which it is safe to drive.

In this case there has been no legal or safe limit established for cannabis.

Do you think it would be reasonable that someone who has a beer or a glass of wine 3 or 4 nights a week tests is banned for 4 years, fined and/or imprisoned for driving 30 hours after they had a single drink and are not impaired or intoxicated in any way?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

ScumLord wrote: »

It's impossible to know exactly what strength cannabis is because of the law, a regular smoker would have some awareness through experience. This looks very much like it's going to be punishing cannabis users because they're cannabis users, not because they're driving dangerously.

It's no secret I hate the drug but I've been stoned and on the occasions I've smoked it, I haven't been fit to drive. Like it or not, cannabis affects the body/mind and if you're not in control of your full faculties then don't get behind a wheel

Kimbot

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's no secret I hate the drug but I've been stoned and on the occasions I've smoked it, I haven't been fit to drive. Like it or not, cannabis affects the body/mind and if you're not in control of your full faculties then don't get behind a wheel

Thats all good and well, as I said I dont agree with anyone driving off their heads but as the above link points out. The fella that was over in the dam the day previous could still be convicted for what he done legally at the time even tho he is not currently under the influence, it seems like wildfire madness.

Even with all the scandals going on with the guards currently I really don't know how they are going to enforce this effectively.

droidus

OSI wrote: »

This is only relevant to the roadside oral test, not the blood test that will be required to produce a conviction. The level of THC in blood is very different and drops far quicker than what the oral test checks for.

This may be true, but the minister seems to think otherwise, and I have yet to find any specific information on legal limits for THC blood levels.

srsly78

droidus wrote: »

This may be true, but the minister seems to think otherwise, and I have yet to find any specific information on legal limits for THC blood levels.

It was posted a few pages back.

Really Interested

droidus wrote: »

I never said I was for or against anything.

However.

With alcohol there is a body of literature and research, tested globally in numerous jurisdictions that have established a legal limit under which it is safe to drive.

In this case there has been no legal or safe limit established for cannabis.

Do you think it would be reasonable that someone who has a beer or a glass of wine 3 or 4 nights a week tests is banned for 4 years, fined and/or imprisoned for driving 30 hours after they had a single drink and are not impaired or intoxicated in any way?

The evidence produced on this thread shows that a person can not be convicted under the legislation brought in in the 2016 act 30 hours after taking a joint. Can you point to any study that shows 30 hours a 3-4 night a week user will exceed the limit in blood?

please helpThank YOU

I Will Have to Stop Taking The Coke -Cola.

ScumLord

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's no secret I hate the drug but I've been stoned and on the occasions I've smoked it, I haven't been fit to drive. Like it or not, cannabis affects the body/mind and if you're not in control of your full faculties then don't get behind a wheel

I have no problem with laws against driving under the influence. This law isn't that, it's a law against people that use cannabis to prevent them from driving cars. This seems like someone who enjoys using cannabis, or uses it for medical reasons can't drive a car for up to 10 days afterwards without running the risk of being banned for a year. It's an attack on using cannabis.

Really Interested

srsly78 wrote: »

It was posted a few pages back.

It's weird I bet only a hand full of posters have read the Act and the studies that have been posted about blood tests.

osarusan

jonnycivic wrote: »

The fella that was over in the dam the day previous could still be convicted for what he done legally at the time even tho he is not currently under the influence, it seems like wildfire madness.

I don't really understand what you mean by 'not currently under the influence'.

With alcohol, the rationale is: if alcohol is present in your blood to the level of X, you are therefore under the influence of alcohol and your ability to drive is impaired.

With cannabis, is it not the same rationale - that the limit is set at a level at/beyond which the person is going to be under the influence of the drug and impaired by it?

So you could only get prosecuted if you are 'under the influence'?

Kimbot

osarusan wrote: »

I don't really understand what you mean by 'not currently under the influence'.

With alcohol, the rationale is: if alcohol is present in your blood to the level of X, you are therefore under the influence of alcohol and your ability to drive is impaired.

With cannabis, is it not the same rationale - that the limit is set at a level at/beyond which the person is going to be under the influence of the drug and impaired by it?

So you could only get prosecuted if you are 'under the influence'?

When your under the influence your stoned.... plain and simple your stoned, no fit state to drive. But you go to sleep for 8 hours wake up 110% refreshed and normal but yet because there is traces of a drug in your system your now in trouble. My main gripe with this is that is going to effect people who used the drug legally in another country etc but get punished here for it. It makes no sense.

droidus

Really Interested wrote: »

The evidence produced on this thread shows that a person can not be convicted under the legislation brought in in the 2016 act 30 hours after taking a joint. Can you point to any study that shows 30 hours a 3-4 night a week user will exceed the limit in blood?

Yes, yes I can. Frequent users testing positive for blood up to a week after smoking.

Nine chronic users (36%) had no measurable THC during 7 days of cannabis abstinence; 16 had at least one positive THC > or =0.25 ng/ml, but not necessarily on the first day. On day 7, 6 full days after entering the unit, six participants still displayed detectable THC concentrations [mean +/- standard deviation (SD), 0.3 +/- 0.7 ng/ml] and all 25 had measurable carboxy-metabolite (6.2 +/- 8.8 ng/ml). The highest observed THC concentrations on admission (day 1) and day 7 were 7.0 and 3.0 ng/ml, respectively. Interestingly, five participants, all female, had THC-positive whole blood specimens over all 7 days. Body mass index did not correlate with time until the last THC-positive specimen (n = 16; r = -0.2; P = 0.445).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19804462

That means a lab test would only find a trace amount of THC in the blood of occasional smokers after a few hours. "You could have smoked a good amount, just waited two hours, still be pretty intoxicated and yet pass the drug test [for driving]," says Haney.

And if you eat the weed instead of smoking it, Haney says, your blood never carries that much THC. "With oral THC, it takes several hours for [blood THC] to peak, but it remains very low compared to the smoked route, even though they're very high. It's a hundredfold difference," she says.

But daily users are different. Huestis says that heavy smokers build up so much THC in their body fat that it could continue leaching out for weeks after they last smoked. These chronic, frequent users will also experience a rapid loss of THC from their blood after smoking, but they will also have a constant, moderate level of blood THC even when they're not high, Huestis says.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/09/466147956/why-its-so-hard-to-make-a-solid-test-for-driving-while-stoned

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

jonnycivic wrote: »

When your under the influence your stoned.... plain and simple your stoned, no fit state to drive. But you go to sleep for 8 hours wake up 110% refreshed and normal but yet because there is traces of a drug in your system your now in trouble. My main gripe with this is that is going to effect people who used the drug legally in another country etc but get punished here for it. It makes no sense.

They're not singling out cannabis. If you're stopped the next day feeling fine and there's traces of alcohol in your system, it's punishable too. Why do you want weed to be treated differently

ScumLord

OSI wrote: »

But as I've pointed out previously, that is not going to happen. The level of THC in the blood usually drops below what is needed to convict a little over an hour after smoking a joint.

And they're definitely testing for just THC?

Kimbot

OSI wrote: »

See my post above. How is that going to happen?

See post above in relation to how long it can be detected in your system.

osarusan

jonnycivic wrote: »

When your under the influence your stoned.... plain and simple your stoned, no fit state to drive. But you go to sleep for 8 hours wake up 110% refreshed and normal but yet because there is traces of a drug in your system your now in trouble.

Again, how do you know that you are not under the influence of it, even 8 hours later, despite feeling 110% refreshed and normal? Plenty of people say the same thing about alcohol.

jonnycivic wrote: »

My main gripe with this is that is going to effect people who used the drug legally in another country etc but get punished here for it. It makes no sense.

This seems to me to be a really really weak argument - if you are under the influence, then you are under the influence, regardless of when, where, or how much you took of whatever made you under the influence.


My main question is whether the limit set is a valid indicator that a person found to be over that limit will indeed be impaired, or whether it's invalid and is going to produce false positives for people who are not in any way impaired. If that is the case, it should absolutely be revisited.

Conversely, if it proves that it is a valid test, then the arguments about where, when, and how much was consumed, should be irrelevant.

srsly78

To make it clear for everyone (it's the carboxy metabolite limit that is the problem, not the THC itself):
The law says - 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis) limit 5ng/ml.
The study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19804462
1 week after smoking -> all 25 had measurable carboxy-metabolite (6.2 +/- 8.8 ng/ml)

The limit is way too low and will trigger loads of false positives (positive for person that is not impaired).

Really Interested

jonnycivic wrote: »

When your under the influence your stoned.... plain and simple your stoned, no fit state to drive. But you go to sleep for 8 hours wake up 110% refreshed and normal but yet because there is traces of a drug in your system your now in trouble. My main gripe with this is that is going to effect people who used the drug legally in another country etc but get punished here for it. It makes no sense.

Traces of the drug will not lead to conviction under the new law it has to be in excess of 5ug/l which according to study posted on this thread you will not exceed 8 hours after smoking.

I really think people have not read the act or the evidence produced or are just ignoring it because they want to moan.

To put is simply smoke a 10 pm a joint then at 8 am drive according to my understanding of studies I have seen the person would not exceed 5ng/l in blood they would fail the saliva test but more than likely pass blood test.

Kimbot

LexieOnRale wrote: »

They're not singling out cannabis. If you're stopped the next day feeling fine and there's traces of alcohol in your system, it's punishable too. Why do you want weed to be treated differently

I never said I WANT it to be treated any different, stop putting words in my mouth because its not the first time in the thread youve done that now. I asked a simple question...... Fella goes and tried weed abroad where it is 100% legal, comes home and yet he can be prosecuted even tho he is "sober" and was 100% law abiding.
Your hatred for the drug really is shining through.