• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Drugalyser "zero tolerance for some drugs"

I

Ismene

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
13,158
Be interesting if they consider any detection of cannabis as illegal. Gonna be a lot of "I walked past a window where they were smoking it".

Motorists who abuse prescription drugs face jail under a crackdown that also imposes a ‘zero-tolerance’ limit on illegal substances such as cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy.

Thousands of potentially lethal drug-drivers face a 12-month ban, six months’ jail and up to a £5,000 fine under Britain’s first ever official drug-drive limits.

Prosecutions are to begin from next year using newly approved ‘drugalysers’, which will measure at the roadside whether limits have been exceeded.

Ministers said drivers with just a trace of illegal substance in their system face prosecution under the ‘zero tolerance’ crackdown.

A new offence – of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a specified controlled drug in the body – is being created within the Crime and Courts Bill, currently before Parliament. The Bill allows the Secretary of State for Transport to specify what the limit is for each controlled drug, including ‘zero’.

The latter would apply to eight controlled drugs: cannabis, MDMA (ecstasy), cocaine, ketamine (a strong sedative abused by clubbers), benzoylecgonine (a breakdown product of cocaine), methamphetamine, LSD, and 6-MAM (heroin and diamorphine).

Ministers will also set limits for eight controlled drugs ‘that have recognised and widespread medical uses’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-zero-tolerance-crackdown.html#ixzz2YWPxyVrb
 
surely with cannabis at least they will have to determine a sensible cut off point. is there any provision for an under actual influence/in system legal delineation?


is there any difference drawn between the drug classes? if you refuse the test, are you prosecuted as if you have taken class a?


i can see teething problems, somehow
 
foolsgold said:
posted this a few hours ago in media bloody stupid if you ask me . yes you should not drive while high but this is going just a little to far
Click to expand...

Uh, why?

If you want to drive, don't take a mind altering chemical, whether that be heroin, MDMA or alcohol.

I really don't understand people who get behind the wheel after doing so. It's incredibly selfish and it only takes the smallest of lowered reaction times between avoiding killing someone and not. The people who end up taking lives always thought "I can handle it" - don't be an arse. Get a bus, taxi or a hotel if you want to go somewhere and drink or take drugs. If none of those are an option then simply do not bother drinking or taking drugs. It is your responsibility to ensure you have maximum road attention when entering your vehicle for the safety of everyone else. Don't let arrogance be the cause of what could potentially be the worst choice you will ever make in your life.

I fully back ZT for driving, with the only exception for trace amounts of alcohol that have clearly been consumed through prescribed medication rather than a booze up.
 
^Look mate the thing is the tests don't discriminate between actually being under the influence and simply having drugs in your system.

That's the issue.

They do the same tests over here, let's say you drop 300 mgs of MDMA on friday night and smoke several spliffs, you then manage to sleep fine in the morning. On saturday night, almost 24 hours after you consumed the drugs, you are sober and get stopped and tested by the police. You will then be criminalized and face severe consequences even though you were not under the influence

MDMA, amphetamines and cannabis can be detectable for days.
 
I don't think that's a great example- I'm definitely still affected by MDMA 24 hours after taking it, isn't everyone? Obviously not still 'high' but at the very least slightly thick with diminished attention span, and I wouldn't drive feeling like that. I think that cannabis lingers in your body long after it ceases affecting judgement / coordination / attention etc though.
 
Where do you draw the line in the sand though?

You're trying to prevent the safety of others by succumbing to individual cases ("I can drive safely after X amount of time") which cannot be proven anyway. What's acceptable for one person may not be for the other so you can't apply a safe amount for a demographic of what, 20 million? And how do you know you're driving ability is 100% with drugs in your system? Who's monitored your driving when you've been sober for days against your driving ability 24 or 48 hours after drugs? What's to say it's just the presence (or lack) of drugs in your system that causes lower than optimal driving ability? What about the tiredness, hypoglycemia, dehydration or anything like that that comes with a night out on drugs or drink?

And why can't you take a bus or taxi somewhere? If you can afford to buy drugs and maintain a car then you can afford to not run the risk of being responsible for someones death because you wanted to avoid a slight inconvenience or you couldn't hold off taking drugs for one night.

My opinion is nothing neither pro or anti drugs. Just don't fucking drive after using them, why is it so difficult?
 
I don't smoke on the same day as driving. Lots of people would consider that overkill but fuck 'em, it's me who'll get the book thrown at them when some drunk fool leaps out of a hedge and under my wheels if I'm discovered to have an elevated blood level of this, that or the other.

How do you know your driving is 100% when you're thinking about fucking?
 
jancrow said:
How do you know your driving is 100% when you're thinking about fucking?
Click to expand...

The great Mark Manning once made an observation as to why poets don't drive, and that was of course one of the major hazards. I'm inclined to heed his advice, at least on that matter.
 
I'm not the thought police!

You can never guarantee 100% driving for a variety of reasons, but drugs and booze are proven to reduce reaction time and facilitate bad decision making and can be easily avoided by not partaking in them before driving in the first place.

This is a harm reduction website and driving after drugs should be discouraged. I think many of us on here want to see a regulated drug market in the future and things like backing ZT on driving would actually bring that end goal closer as it shows we can have an adult discussion on our vices and be responsible whilst under the influence of them.
 
you are under the influence of a drug in broad terms if it is in your system, wether it affects your ability to performm any given task or your ability to make jdugements about your ability to perform any given task is something else.
 
Doesn't cannabis stay in your body for weeks though? Yes, if I've smoked 3 spliffs then drove home then I should be prosecuted (although personally I don't find weed to affect my driving in the slightest), but if I smoked a few spliffs a couple of weeks ago I wouldn't be too happy being prosecuted
 
Aye as long as they don't do what they do in Australia, setting up road blocks and testing every driver on the road. In most of the UK the police seem to be fairly selective but I've been stopped for no reason at all in London. Is it cos I is a jock? Never tested me though, just wanted to know if I had insurance.
 
I agree that people should never drive 'under the influence' - fuck knows how you determine that!

Thing is, there are tonnes of reasons why people should be behind the wheel of a car and legislating against all of them is totally unachievable, like, what about hungry people or tired people for example.

No laws will stop dickhead drivers, but I could start somewhere and try.
 
Ceres said:
fuck it, I'm gonna learn to ride a horse. SToned.
Click to expand...

A particularly horrific traffic-jam-hotspot on the outskirts of Manchester used to feature the words "BRING BACK THE HORSE" scrawled in full view of any unfortunate driver who happened to be passing through there during rush hour.

They had a point. Though were he with us now, Christopher Reeve may argue that the noble steed is not an entirely safe way to get about town.
 
It says it's a saliva test. It basically means that you can have a few joints, the night before driving, then end up losing your license/getting sentenced. Saliva tests aren't even approved in a lot of countries, because they're not an accurate way of determining levels of certain things. Even other herbs, like thyme and rosemary, can end up causing a false positive for weed. I think this needs totally rethinking. Lots of innocent people will be criminalised, due to this, all to help prevent 49 deaths a year (what are the chances of catching 49 out of millions of drivers?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top