Drug driving blood test

Potential-Monke

baalad wrote: »

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.

Not going to lie, I can't remember, but I believe it's something along the lines of has to be done within 3 hours of arrest or something like that. Also, again, I'd double check with another solicitor, I can't see how you can be done for the higher fine without even seeing the evidence. The adjournment wouldn't affect judgment, only the plea. Putting it back once to get the evidence shouldn't have an impact on the outcome if there's no plea of not-guilty. Just get it checked with someone else, there's a whole load that could be wrong in the Gary Doyle order which would then give the solicitor the information to make a better decision about pleading guilty or not-guilty and fighting it. Just my 2 cents.

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.

The only legal difference between alcohol and cannabis are 2 letters, "il". It only takes a pen stroke to change it. The reason there's a limit at all is because if they had a zero tolerance approach to drugs, they'd have to do the same for drink, and that's a sacred cow so won't happen, or at least I can't see it happening with the current government.

As for it being in the system at all, just say you went on holidays to Spain, where it's not illegal per se. You smoke some, few days later you come home. That could very well still be in your system, and you could get done for drug driving days after the fact. You might have drank 20 litres of vodka inbetween, but that leaves the system super quick in comparison.

Regardless, it's soon going to become legal, I've no doubt in my mind as soon as the right person with power realises just how much money can be made from it. As baalad said, it's horrible to be done for 1ng over the very small as it is limit. Once it's legal, the law will have to change, and the only change it needs is evidence of impaired driving.

baalad

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Not going to lie, I can't remember, but I believe it's something along the lines of has to be done within 3 hours of arrest or something like that. Also, again, I'd double check with another solicitor, I can't see how you can be done for the higher fine without even seeing the evidence. The adjournment wouldn't affect judgment, only the plea. Putting it back once to get the evidence shouldn't have an impact on the outcome if there's no plea of not-guilty. Just get it checked with someone else, there's a whole load that could be wrong in the Gary Doyle order which would then give the solicitor the information to make a better decision about pleading guilty or not-guilty and fighting it. Just my 2 cents.



The only legal difference between alcohol and cannabis are 2 letters, "il". It only takes a pen stroke to change it. The reason there's a limit at all is because if they had a zero tolerance approach to drugs, they'd have to do the same for drink, and that's a sacred cow so won't happen, or at least I can't see it happening with the current government.

As for it being in the system at all, just say you went on holidays to Spain, where it's not illegal per se. You smoke some, few days later you come home. That could very well still be in your system, and you could get done for drug driving days after the fact. You might have drank 20 litres of vodka inbetween, but that leaves the system super quick in comparison.

Regardless, it's soon going to become legal, I've no doubt in my mind as soon as the right person with power realises just how much money can be made from it. As baalad said, it's horrible to be done for 1ng over the very small as it is limit. Once it's legal, the law will have to change, and the only change it needs is evidence of impaired driving.

I think myself its only a matter of time before they legalise it. But will that change the drug driving legislation? I am not so sure.

I know that the law is the law and the results say iam over the limit and its that simple but nobody can tell me that i deserve a 12 month ban minimum, A fine, Possibly lose my job, Criminal conviction that causes other difficulties for me also let alone the possibility of it making the headlines in the paper as "drug driving" and neighbours and family jumping to conclusions that i need help and im an addict. God knows what they will think. And all because iam over the limit by 1 nanogram with zero evidence suggesting i was impaired.

I could smoke heroin and crash my car and would likely receive the same punishment! There needs to be common sense. If i did not smoke the day before then my blood reading may have been lower possibly.

Again i accept nobody is to blame but myself but it the punishment is severe. I have spoke to people about it who don't smoke cannabis and never would and even they cannot believe the consequences.

I was naive to some extent too because i had no idea what the consequences were myself. I have never been in trouble before so i was genuinely clueless. I knew of course that it was illegal but never knew it served a 12 month mandatory ban nor the other consequences it comes with. I thought a first offence would be a fine and slap on the wrist unless you were actually proven to be impaired and a danger. Wish i knew at the time what i know now

Peregrinus

Potential-Monke wrote: »

. . . Regardless, it's soon going to become legal, I've no doubt in my mind as soon as the right person with power realises just how much money can be made from it. As baalad said, it's horrible to be done for 1ng over the very small as it is limit. Once it's legal, the law will have to change, and the only change it needs is evidence of impaired driving.

I doubt this. Alcohol has always been legal, but we still have a drink-driving offence that doesn't require any impaired driving, and there seems to be no pressure to change that - if anything, the movement has been in the other direction.

baalad

Contacting another solicitor is difficult. The response they all give me is "Make an appointment for a consultation and bring your summons with you"

But i already gave my summons to a solicitor and if they know that then they have no interest in offering advice because they know someone else has the job!

baalad

Peregrinus wrote: »

I doubt this. Alcohol has always been legal, but we still have a drink-driving offence that doesn't require any impaired driving, and there seems to be no pressure to change that - if anything, the movement has been in the other direction.

I think people feel stronger about alcohol convictions because theres no denying that alcohol does impair driving and the majority of people do not just have one drink and leave it at that where as cannabis is a different substance and its used differently. Its the stereotypical dopes that smoke cannabis to get **** faced that give it a bad name.

I have seized smoking it because of the hassle but at the time i would literally smoke a joint before bed most nights. Maybe 2 on weekends but it was not about getting off my face. It was literally just a substance that would calm my mind. Help me sleep better etc I never ever felt "holy ****, i better not get behind the wheel" whereas with alcohol i would know that i was not fit to drive.

I do not like talking about the fact that i have anxiety and experience depression. I wish i didn't. My mom suffered her whole life with it also and i would describe her as having extremely off the scale anxiety / panic disorder so i find it hard to accept that i could be anything like her to be honest but the fact is i do suffer with it. And the only thing that ever helped me without nasty side effects was cannabis. I have witnessed my mom being given medication and then it being changed because it does not work or it causes side effects etc and this would go on and on. It was just guess work. Here try this drug. Not working? Try this one? Not working? Lets up the dosage! Its a road i do not want to go down and sadly i may have to because i can no longer take the risks associated with smoking cannabis!

Peregrinus

baalad wrote: »

I have seized smoking it because of the hassle but at the time i would literally smoke a joint before bed most nights. Maybe 2 on weekends but it was not about getting off my face. It was literally just a substance that would calm my mind. Help me sleep better etc I never ever felt "holy ****, i better not get behind the wheel" whereas with alcohol i would know that i was not fit to drive.

See, that's the thing. A lot of people don't drink to get sh1tfaced, and reckon that after just one or two they are safe to drive when, in fact, their driving is measurably impaired - not as much as when they are drunk enough to know it themselves, but enough to make a difference nevertheless.

baalad wrote: »

I do not like talking about the fact that i have anxiety and experience depression. I wish i didn't. My mom suffered her whole life with it also and i would describe her as having extremely off the scale anxiety / panic disorder so i find it hard to accept that i could be anything like her to be honest but the fact is i do suffer with it. And the only thing that ever helped me without nasty side effects was cannabis. I have witnessed my mom being given medication and then it being changed because it does not work or it causes side effects etc and this would go on and on. It was just guess work. Here try this drug. Not working? Try this one? Not working? Lets up the dosage! Its a road i do not want to go down and sadly i may have to because i can no longer take the risks associated with smoking cannabis!

Believe me, you have my sincere sympathy. But medicinal drug therapies of one kind or another and other medical treatments which are inconsistent with driving are pretty common. Cannabis could have legitimate and valuable therapeutic benefits; that's wholly unconnected with the question of whether it impairs driving ability. If cannabis has benefits for you, then it may be that the risk that you can no longer are not the risks associated with smoking cannabis, but the risks associated with driving when you have smoked cannabis.

I think what matters here is not "Does Balaad have a 'good' reason for using cannabis, or is he a recreational user?" The answer to that question tells us nothing at all about whether cannabis use affects his driving ability. And - no offence - "Does Balaad feel that his driving ability is impaired?" is also not a useful question to ask. And - recognising that there isn't going to be one law for Balaad and one for everyone else - questions about Balaad's objective driving ability (as opposed to what he thinks it is) are also not terribly relevant.

The blood alcohol laws are based on research about the effect of alcohol on driving skills generally - specifically, what level of blood/alcohol is associated with impairment in the skills that are used in driving? I think blood cannabis laws need to be based on similar research. I haven't looked into this in any great detail, but my impression is that there simply hasn't been the same amount of research conducted into blood cannabis effects as there has into blood alcohol effects and, if so, that is where the effort needs to be concentrated. Perhaps 6µg is a level that generally wouldn't affect driving skills? I'm not sure if we know the answer to that.

baalad

Peregrinus wrote: »

See, that's the thing. A lot of people don't drink to get sh1tfaced, and reckon that after just one or two they are safe to drive when, in fact, their driving is measurably impaired - not as much as when they are drunk enough to know it themselves, but enough to make a difference nevertheless.


Believe me, you have my sincere sympathy. But medicinal drug therapies of one kind or another and other medical treatments which are inconsistent with driving are pretty common. Cannabis could have legitimate and valuable therapeutic benefits; that's wholly unconnected with the question of whether it impairs driving ability. If cannabis has benefits for you, then it may be that the risk that you can no longer are not the risks associated with smoking cannabis, but the risks associated with driving when you have smoked cannabis.

I think what matters here is not "Does Balaad have a 'good' reason for using cannabis, or is he a recreational user?" The answer to that question tells us nothing at all about whether cannabis use affects his driving ability. And - no offence - "Does Balaad feel that his driving ability is impaired?" is also not a useful question to ask. And - recognising that there isn't going to be one law for Balaad and one for everyone else - questions about Balaad's objective driving ability (as opposed to what he thinks it is) are also not terribly relevant.

The blood alcohol laws are based on research about the effect of alcohol on driving skills generally - specifically, what level of blood/alcohol is associated with impairment in the skills that are used in driving? I think blood cannabis laws need to be based on similar research. I haven't looked into this in any great detail, but my impression is that there simply hasn't been the same amount of research conducted into blood cannabis effects as there has into blood alcohol effects and, if so, that is where the effort needs to be concentrated. Perhaps 6µg is a level that generally wouldn't affect driving skills? I'm not sure if we know the answer to that.

Totally understand what you are saying. I think in truth we would probably all accept that if we drank lets say 5/6 pints that we should not be going near a car to drive and likewise if we smoke cannabis to the point of being "stoned out of it" for want of a better phrase, then we again, should not be getting behind the wheel!

I'ts the limit they have set that is the issue. It would make more sense to have it set at zero so there can be no argument what so ever. I feel as though the law is telling me that i would have been fine if i didn't take the last drag of the joint for instance but because i took that last drag its tough luck.

I may as well of smoked my brains out and had a blood reading of 100 nanograms because the consequences would likely be the same!

I remember years ago my father would always order a 'shandy' if he knew he was driving. This was common enough practice from responsible drivers as far as i know back in the day! He would never have a second or 3rd. He always told me that he was safe to have a shandy but could not have any more then that.

With cannabis nobody knows what they can or cannot smoke so having a limit at all is pointless. I could smoke a joint one night and potentially be under the limit and the following night smoke a different strain and be over the limit despite waiting the same duration of time before driving. There is no way to know the TCH concentration so it is impossible to responsible unless you simply do not smoke at all because if its advised to wait 12 - 24 hours to drive then you basically can never smoke without taken a risk. The limit should either be zero or else an impairment test should be carried out to prove that you consumed enough to cause impairment!

Potential-Monke

Potential-Monke wrote: »

The only legal difference between alcohol and cannabis are 2 letters, "il". It only takes a pen stroke to change it

I don't understand that argument. The same pen strokes make it legal to rape you.

The reason there's a limit at all is because if they had a zero tolerance approach to drugs, they'd have to do the same for drink

No, the point I was making was: one of them is legal, and the other is not. So they can be treated differently. They don't have to do the 'same' for alcohol as alcohol is widely, legally, available.

As for it being in the system at all, just say you went on holidays to Spain, where it's not illegal per se. You smoke some, few days later you come home. That could very well still be in your system, and you could get done for drug driving days after the fact. You might have drank 20 litres of vodka inbetween, but that leaves the system super quick in comparison.

But if it's in your system, you wouldn't be taking the chance with driving, as if you're driving, you're an adult and would know the rules and how it works. I'm not saying that would make it any more or less fair, but if the rules were in place, then that's that. You could contest them, but you'd be aware getting into a car, after being in spain, that in Ireland you could find yourself in trouble.

Regardless, it's soon going to become legal, I've no doubt in my mind as soon as the right person with power realises just how much money can be made from it. As baalad said, it's horrible to be done for 1ng over the very small as it is limit. Once it's legal, the law will have to change, and the only change it needs is evidence of impaired driving.

I know it's all down to personal opinion, i realise, but I don't think you're correct. There are too many moves against it in the Irish government's general attitude/approach to this kind of thing. Trying to put minimum unit pricing on alcohol and painting it as the devil, banning smoking indoors and in hospital, school, etc. grounds - there's no way the same mindset of government would make cannabis legal (unless as a medicinal thing in a very tight, extremely limited number of cases).

(which is a good thing in my opinion).

Sierra Oscar

baalad wrote: »

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.

It depends on the exact offence that you are being summonsed for. If you are being prosecuted for an offence under Section 4(1A), which most people would be for drug driving cases, then the prosecution need to be able to show that the concentration of drug in your blood was over the prescribed limit within 3 hours of driving.

In practice this means that the blood specimen has to have been obtained within 3 hours of arrest.

However if you are being prosecuted under Section 4(1) then the 3 hour timeframe doesn't apply. The prosecution just need to show that you were under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent that you were unable to have proper control of the vehicle. They will be able to show that you had an intoxicant in your body at the time of driving, but this must be accompanied by strong evidence that your driving was impaired at the time of the alleged offence. I think it would be unusual if the prosecution went down this route, although if there was an issue with obtaining the sample within 3 hours then this is the route they could go down.

As you can see, there are plenty of variables when it comes to intoxicated driving cases. It's why you really should get full disclosure from the prosecution to see what is actually supporting the case against you.

The timeline of arrest to taking of sample, assuming you are being prosecuted under Section 4(1A), is important and disclosure is the only way you will know the facts for sure.

phildub

baalad wrote: »

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.

Did they provide you with a sample to get independently tested?

baalad

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It depends on the exact offence that you are being summonsed for. If you are being prosecuted for an offence under Section 4(1A), which most people would be for drug driving cases, then the prosecution need to be able to show that the concentration of drug in your blood was over the prescribed limit within 3 hours of driving.

In practice this means that the blood specimen has to have been obtained within 3 hours of arrest.

However if you are being prosecuted under Section 4(1) then the 3 hour timeframe doesn't apply. The prosecution just need to show that you were under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent that you were unable to have proper control of the vehicle. They will be able to show that you had an intoxicant in your body at the time of driving, but this must be accompanied by strong evidence that your driving was impaired at the time of the alleged offence. I think it would be unusual if the prosecution went down this route, although if there was an issue with obtaining the sample within 3 hours then this is the route they could go down.

As you can see, there are plenty of variables when it comes to intoxicated driving cases. It's why you really should get full disclosure from the prosecution to see what is actually supporting the case against you.

The timeline of arrest to taking of sample, assuming you are being prosecuted under Section 4(1A), is important and disclosure is the only way you will know the facts for sure.

I would imagine the guards know what they are doing to be honest, and i have no idea what section iam being prosecuted under.

I just remember the guard saying to me "tonight might be your lucky night because i can only hold you for 3 hours" At that time i had no idea if that mean from the time of arrest or the time of arriving at the station etc but i remember thinking 15 more minutes and i am out the door if what he is saying is true and then the doctor arrived of course. I was certainly held for more then 3 hours from the time of arrest to the time of release but in terms of the time frame between arrest and the bloods being taken i am not so sure although its certainly very close to the 3 hour mark i believe.

Initially the doctor could not get blood from me and the guard was looking for someone to explain this. It appeared to me that he was under the impression that the 3 hours were up and they could not hold me any longer and he was seeking clarification as to let me go or not but seconds later my arm twitched and out came the blood.

I don't necessarily think i have any defense here but it was the first thing of interest for sure when brought up with my solicitor!

baalad

phildub wrote: »

Did they provide you with a sample to get independently tested?

When the blood was taken, i re call one of the guards then saying something along the lines of "Theres two samples taken if you want to hold on to one of them for your own record' I should have been a bit more clued in perhaps but i perceived it as if he was jokingly saying "you can have the second one as a souvenir" It was not explained clearly that i could get one tested myself. In fact i was unaware that was even possible until it was brought up earlier in this thread. It's not something my solicitor even mentioned although i don't see how me having a second sample tested independently would change anything!

baalad

Probably irrelevant but just for the record. It was a strange experience. At the time of arrest the guard was the typical smart guard that was smug about catching me and i was expecting a hard time from them back at the station but ironically the more he chatted to me the more he came out of his role as guard and began to just chat to me man to man and he came across in the end as genuinely sympathetic!

I also "knew" one of the guards in the station (A friend of mine is involved in the pub/nightclub scene and would be good friends with him) I wouldn't know him well by any means and he wouldn't know me as such but he did recognise me and say hello and he mentioned my friend and if we were out together in recent times etc

From there on everything became very casual. There were 3 or 4 guards standing in the room / at the door having a bit of banter and chatting to me and to the other guards and one of them joked at one point that i was positive for heroin. Others were talking about cannabis as if they had smoked it themselves before.

At one point i told the guard that arrested me that i appreciated him not being to tough on me or something along those lines and he replied saying that i seemed like a good guy and that i should have parked the car and got out and run because he would not have come after me and that he would rather not be stuck in the station at all hours having to fill out paper work because his shift was supposed to finish at 2am i believe.

On a separate note, Im just thinking to myself here regarding the 3 hour thing, the second blood sample etc How would a defendant prove this? For instance let's say i was held for 4 hours. How would i prove that? Or if i was not offered a sample? Surely they can easily lie using a stroke of a pen. If its your word against theirs then your screwed surely

Sierra Oscar

baalad wrote: »

I would imagine the guards know what they are doing to be honest, and i have no idea what section iam being prosecuted under.

You'd be surprised to be honest. Not all Gardaí are experts on the law and plenty of prosecutions are struck out due to technical matters. It makes little odds to the prosecuting Garda at the end of the day.

baalad wrote: »

On a separate note, Im just thinking to myself here regarding the 3 hour thing, the second blood sample etc How would a defendant prove this? For instance let's say i was held for 4 hours. How would i prove that? Or if i was not offered a sample? Surely they can easily lie using a stroke of a pen. If its your word against theirs then your screwed surely

All of the information, including the time the sample was taken and so on, will be documented in the Custody Record. Furthermore, the doctor that obtained the sample will note the time it was taken in their statement. The Garda will probably also have recorded the time in his official notebook. All of this information can be provided to your solicitor following a request for disclosure.

Rubberchikken

If only the laws drawn up were more clear and consistent.
Driving with alcohol and or illegal drugs in your system should be illegal. Full stop.
There should be no inconsistency. There should be no room for doubt.

Adults make the decision to smoke/drink and then drive.
The punishment should be severe and handed out clearly so as to discourage selfish unforgiving behaviour.

As you can tell I've no sympathy or time for those who take illegal drugs. Not much more for those who drink.
And absolutely no sympathy whatsoever fir anyone who drive a vehicle of any kind under the influence. There's no excuse.

ohnonotgmail

Rubberchikken wrote: »

If only the laws drawn up were more clear and consistent.
Driving with alcohol and or illegal drugs in your system should be illegal. Full stop.
There should be no inconsistency. There should be no room for doubt.

Adults make the decision to smoke/drink and then drive.
The punishment should be severe and handed out clearly so as to discourage selfish unforgiving behaviour.

As you can tell I've no sympathy or time for those who take illegal drugs. Not much more for those who drink.
And absolutely no sympathy whatsoever fir anyone who drive a vehicle of any kind under the influence. There's no excuse.

what is unclear and inconsistent about the current legislation?

Rubberchikken

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Adults make the decision to smoke/drink and then drive.
The punishment should be severe and handed out clearly so as to discourage selfish unforgiving behaviour.

As you can tell I've no sympathy or time for those who take illegal drugs. Not much more for those who drink.
And absolutely no sympathy whatsoever fir anyone who drive a vehicle of any kind under the influence. There's no excuse.

But the real inconsistency here is to do with the definition of "under the influence". Why do you have more sympathy for a drink driver than for a drug driver?

Would your attitude change if they introduced a law where alcohol was not allowed up to 2 or 3 days prior to Driving? Would you support the testing and banning of people with alcohol 'in their system' from the weekend if they're stopped on a Tuesday morning? What about Friday morning? Or in three weeks' time? Because that's effectively the situation with regards to cannabis. Imagine the uproar if drinkers were effectively banned from driving forever?

BuzzMcdonnell

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But the real inconsistency here is to do with the definition of "under the influence". Why do you have more sympathy for a drink driver than for a drug driver?

Would your attitude change if they introduced a law where alcohol was not allowed up to 2 or 3 days prior to Driving? Would you support the testing and banning of people with alcohol 'in their system' from the weekend if they're stopped on a Tuesday morning? What about Friday morning? Or in three weeks' time? Because that's effectively the situation with regards to cannabis. Imagine the uproar if drinkers were effectively banned from driving forever?

But the difference is drink leaves your system in a matter of hours while cannabis does not so you’re argument doesn’t make much sense.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to argue for the sake of it, I just don’t think anybody should be allowed operate a vehicle with cannabis in their system purely because it’s inconvenient for them that it’s in their system for days.

baalad

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

You'd be surprised to be honest. Not all Gardaí are experts on the law and plenty of prosecutions are struck out due to technical matters. It makes little odds to the prosecuting Garda at the end of the day.



All of the information, including the time the sample was taken and so on, will be documented in the Custody Record. Furthermore, the doctor that obtained the sample will note the time it was taken in their statement. The Garda will probably also have recorded the time in his official notebook. All of this information can be provided to your solicitor following a request for disclosure.

It would be interesting to see the times alright. Because on my blood results paperwork the times stated is 2:12am but that was the time the Doctor arrived NOT took blood. The doctor had trouble taken blood and it was maybe 5 minutes later when the actual blood was taken. Might not seem relevant buut given the time of arrest and the whole 3 hour rule thing. I believe i was very very close to the 3 hour mark when my blood was taken. Because i was for sure held for more then 3 hours from the point of arrest to the point of release

baalad

Rubberchikken wrote: »

If only the laws drawn up were more clear and consistent.
Driving with alcohol and or illegal drugs in your system should be illegal. Full stop.
There should be no inconsistency. There should be no room for doubt.

Adults make the decision to smoke/drink and then drive.
The punishment should be severe and handed out clearly so as to discourage selfish unforgiving behaviour.

As you can tell I've no sympathy or time for those who take illegal drugs. Not much more for those who drink.
And absolutely no sympathy whatsoever fir anyone who drive a vehicle of any kind under the influence. There's no excuse.

Im not going to argue with you. Just because im in this situation does not mean i condone it or think its ok.

Nobody should drive under the influence. 100%

However. Not every case is the same and its not fair for everyone to be punished the same. At least not under current legislation.

If the limit was zero well then fair enough but its not fair to fine lad, put him off the road for 12 months, give him a criminal conviction and ruin his life to some extent all because he made a mistake and was over the limit by 1 nanogram of a substance that causes much milder impairment then other substances that carry the exact same punishment!

A second person could be 10 times more over the limit and maybe even crash the car and he still ends up getting the same punishment as the guy thats 1 nanogram over. Its harsh. I know its the law and ye have nobody to blame but yourself but thats harsh and i do not care what anyone says.

Its well documented that the cannabis limit is extremely low at 5ng. I know the line must be drawn somewhere but you cannot possibly tell somebody they are impaired at 6ng but fine to drive at 5ng. We are talking 1 billionth of a gram here.

They should have set the limit at zero

baalad

Deleted User wrote: »

But the real inconsistency here is to do with the definition of "under the influence". Why do you have more sympathy for a drink driver than for a drug driver?

Would your attitude change if they introduced a law where alcohol was not allowed up to 2 or 3 days prior to Driving? Would you support the testing and banning of people with alcohol 'in their system' from the weekend if they're stopped on a Tuesday morning? What about Friday morning? Or in three weeks' time? Because that's effectively the situation with regards to cannabis. Imagine the uproar if drinkers were effectively banned from driving forever?

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

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

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

BuzzMcdonnell

BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »

But the difference is drink leaves your system in a matter of hours while cannabis does not so you’re argument doesn’t make much sense.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to argue for the sake of it, I just don’t think anybody should be allowed operate a vehicle with cannabis in their system purely because it’s inconvenient for them that it’s in their system for days.

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

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

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


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

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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


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

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

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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

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

Source: Link

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

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

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Source: Link



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

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

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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

Pkiernan

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

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Pkiernan

Pkiernan wrote: »

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

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

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

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

blackbox

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

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

baalad

blackbox wrote: »

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

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

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

BuzzMcdonnell

baalad wrote: »

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

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

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

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

baalad

BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

BuzzMcdonnell

baalad wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Rubberchikken

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

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

baalad

BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

BuzzMcdonnell

Rubberchikken wrote: »

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

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

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

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

myfreespirit

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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


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


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


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

ohnonotgmail

myfreespirit wrote: »

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


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


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


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

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

baalad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witcher

No, stop trying to weasel out of it.

baalad

Witcher wrote: »

No, stop trying to weasel out of it.

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

Witcher

baalad wrote: »

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

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

ohnonotgmail

baalad wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

baalad

Witcher wrote: »

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

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

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

baalad

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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

I understand its not a defence however

BuzzMcdonnell

baalad wrote: »

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

I understand its not a defence however

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

myfreespirit

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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

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

Or am I missing something?

ohnonotgmail

myfreespirit wrote: »

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

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

Or am I missing something?

no, that is the procedure.