• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Acquittal of man caught drug-driving nine days after smoking cannabis throws NSW drug

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
Acquittal of man caught drug-driving nine days after smoking cannabis throws NSW drug laws into doubt

New South Wales's roadside drug testing laws have been thrown into doubt after a magistrate acquitted a man who tested positive for cannabis he had smoked nine days before he was pulled over.

Key points:
Man waited nine days after smoking cannabis before he got behind the wheel
THC was detected in his saliva and he was charged
He had earlier been told by police to wait at least a week before driving
The Greens say the judgement leaves the drug testing laws in disarray

Lismore magistrate David Heilpern yesterday found Joseph Ross Carrall not guilty of driving with an illicit drug in his blood because he mistakenly believed that he would no longer test positive to the drug.

Mr Carrall was pulled over for random drug tests in May and June last year.

When he was tested in May, he said the police officer told him he should wait at least a week after smoking cannabis before driving.

Mr Carrall said he relied on this advice when, in June, he waited nine days after smoking cannabis before he got behind the wheel.

When he was pulled over again, traces of THC were detected in his saliva and he was arrested and charged.

The arresting police officer told the court that "a line had been drawn" and that now you could be "a smoker and not drive, or a driver and not smoke" and that that was the "effect of the new laws".

Driver made 'honest' mistake thinking he could drive

But Mr Heilpern said when drug testing legislation was introduced in 2006 it was clear that "ministers had in mind that it would be drugs that were active and affect the skills that were the mischief".

"Clearly, in 2006, the technology was not nearly as advanced as it is now," Mr Heilpern said.

"Certainly it was not the aim of the ministers that if you consume cannabis [at all] you cannot drive [ever]."

Mr Heilpern said no-one was seriously contending that Mr Carrall was still affected by the drug.

He found Mr Carrall not guilty on the grounds that he had made an "honest and reasonable mistake of fact".

Mr Carrall pleaded guilty to the same offence, which he committed in May, and will sentenced on a date to be fixed.

Mr Carrall's lawyer, Steve Bolt, told the ABC that the law should be designed to improve roadside safety, not punish people for smoking cannabis.

"It's wrong, in my view, to be punishing people [by] taking their licences away when someone might have a had a smoke or two of cannabis a few days before driving a car," he said.

"It makes as much sense as taking someone's licence away for having a beer two or three days before driving a car.

"Unfortunately a lot of people would be at risk of falling foul of this legislation even though their experience of having used the drug would have had zero effect on their ability of driving a car safely."

Greens want drivers to be tested for impairment levels

NSW Greens MLC David Shoebridge said the judgement had thrown the Government's roadside drug testing campaign into disarray.

"This is significant because we've had case after case after coming before the courts, thousands of cases in NSW alone — where people have said 'I smoked a joint a day ago or a week ago and it couldn't have possibly impaired my driving and now you're going to take my licence away from me?'" Mr Shoebridge said.

"Up until now people have been thinking 48 hours or a week is safe to drive. They've been operating on that basis, thinking they are complying with the law but yet finding they can just randomly lose their licences at one of these roadside drug tests.

"This is giving ordinary people who are trying to comply with the law a chance to fight back and keep their licence."

Mr Shoebridge said legislation should be modelled on laws in the UK, where drivers are tested for their level of impairment.

He said he would be pushing for a parliamentary committee to examine the drug testing legislation.

The NSW Government said it had a zero-tolerance policy when it came to drug-driving.

A spokeswoman for NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay said roadside tests were followed up with lab tests and 97 per cent of tests matched.

She said the research they had indicated drugs were only detected in a person's saliva for 12 hours after being ingested.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...days-after-smoking-cannabis-acquitted/7133628
 
Don't drive until a week after using cannabis? Wtf, that's like 168 hours....

So I smoke a little weed and then I can't drive for 168 hours?

Yeah good fucking joke.
 
Why was the guy pulled over anyway? Was he showing signs of impaired driving or did they just decide to be dicks about it?

Another thing that bugs me is that their tests only look for illicit substances. What about someone who just popped their oxy and got behind the wheel, or someone who's wired as fuck from drinking coffee all day?

What defines impaired driving? Is it merely the presence of a substance in your blood or behaviors that actually betray how mind altered you are? They need to standardize that shit.
 
^ it's "random" testing (allegedly) - and no, impairment isn't usually considered, just detection of cannabis metabolites.

This case, however, sets a precedent that may present a challenge to the way these laws have been policed. Hopefully.
They're ridiculous.
 
uk laws do NOT test impairment, they test for small levels of the drug in you. levels that have not in any empirical RCT or meta analysis been show to impair motor co-ordination. just more made up shit to appease.

anyone with a tolerance will therefore be classed as impaired all the time

stop pretending we are doing anything different
 
UK system -

Police are now using roadside swab saliva tests for eight illegal drugs and prescription drugs such as Valium, before they are taken to a police station and asked to consent to a blood test.
The levels set by the government are generally EXTREMELY low – such as 2 micrograms of THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) per litre of blood.

The police are testing for the following illegal drugs – cannabis, cocaine, ketamine, LSD, methamphetamine, MDMA, heroin.

They are also looking for people abusing prescription drugs such as Valium and morphine, although the permitted levels for these are much higher, to take account of patients who use them on prescription.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colorado -

Marijuana and Driving
Q: How does marijuana affect my ability to drive?


A: You cannot judge your own level of impairment. Any amount of marijuana consumption puts you at risk of driving impaired.




Q: Is there a legal limit for marijuana impairment while operating a vehicle?


A: Colorado law specifies that drivers with five nanograms of active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in their whole blood can be prosecuted for driving under the influence (DUI). However, no matter the level of THC, law enforcement officers base arrests on observed impairment.




Q: What if I use marijuana medicinally?


A: If a substance has impaired your ability to operate a motor vehicle it is illegal for you to be driving, even if that substance is prescribed or legally acquired.




Q: Are there additional penalties for marijuana-impaired driving if there are children in the vehicle?


A: Additional charges for impaired drivers include child abuse if children are present in the vehicle.




Q: Is it legal to have marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia in the passenger cabin of the vehicle?


A: Colorado’s open container law makes it illegal to have marijuana in the passenger area of a vehicle if it is in an open container, container with a broken seal, or if there is evidence marijuana has been consumed. It is also illegal to consume marijuana on any public roadway.




Q: How can law enforcement determine if I am impaired by the use of marijuana?


A: Colorado Law Enforcement Officers are trained in the detection of impairment caused by drugs. Many Colorado Law Enforcement Officer have received advanced training in Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE). Across the state of Colorado law enforcement agencies have specially trained Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) on staff that can detect impairment from a variety of substances.




Q: What if I refuse to take a blood test to detect THC?


A: Colorado revokes driving privileges for any individual who fails to cooperate with the chemical testing process requested by an officer during the investigation of an alcohol or drug-related DUI arrest. Any driver who refuses to take a blood test will immediately be considered a high-risk driver. Consequences include: mandatory ignition interlock for two years, and level two alcohol education and therapy classes as specified by law. These penalties are administrative, and are applied regardless of a criminal conviction.




Q: How do marijuana-impaired violations differ between the Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles and Colorado courts?


A: Like any other substance, marijuana-impaired infractions result in administrative and criminal sanctions. Click here for more information.




Q: Are there stricter penalties for those individuals who are arrested driving under the influence of a combination of marijuana and alcohol or other drugs?


A: The penalties are the same regardless of the substance, or combination of substances. However, when combining substances, there is a greater degree of impairment. This significantly increases the chances of crashes, penalties and charges.
 
Why do they test for metabolites of cannabis?
The metabolites of non-psychoactive and can remain in your body for a long time, is there a particular reason they don't test specifically for THC or CBD?
 
Q: Are there additional penalties for marijuana-impaired driving if there are children in the vehicle?
A: Additional charges for impaired drivers include child abuse if children are present in the vehicle.

WTF is this shit?
They don't understand what child abuse is, obviously.
It's like "eye rape" isn't even worthy of the name "rape". But in this case, it's the law, and people can have their lives and families destroyed by this.
Some real fanatical idiots out there for this law to be vaild.
 
WTF is this shit?
They don't understand what child abuse is, obviously.
It's like "eye rape" isn't even worthy of the name "rape". But in this case, it's the law, and people can have their lives and families destroyed by this.
Some real fanatical idiots out there for this law to be vaild.

I understand their point though, impaired driving CAN be dangerous even with marijauan, I know I am an absolutely terrible and often dangerous driver when I drive stoned.
However abuse is certainly not the correct terminology nor would it be the correct or most fair legal route to take in these instances, I would say something along the lines of child endangerment is more fitting.
But there still remains serious problems and hypocrisies with these laws, the fact that alcohol has a legal limit but marijuana can get you convicted over a week after its consumption is ludicrous.
There is no scientific or even logical ground to stand on in supporting them, especially since implicit with the laws is the notion that marijuana effectively intoxicates you for up to a week.
They simply need better and more accurate testing measures, it seems against ones civil liberties to be convicted of an impaired driving offense when one was obviously not intoxicated.
 
I believe I've heard of this comprehensive and insanely protracted effort to hopelessly stem the tide of combining the consumption of a certain plant with the transference of kinetic into mechanical energy while seated on top of four wheels: "Reefer madness!" Harry Anslinger eat your heart out <3
 
Top