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

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

Drugalyser "zero tolerance for some drugs"

oh, no ... sorry, thought your edit meant you knew what I was asking questions for.

To clarify, I wanted to know whether you were being accurate when you said you never drove when you've taken dex.
 
See the zero tolerance stuff, I already pointed out that it's not fucking zero tolerance, they allow trace quantities of all the drugs they're planning to test for.

I think it is lower tolerance than 2 units of alcohol, though.
 
Marmalade said:
It's nothing to do with pints. It's not measured by how many pints you've had.
Click to expand...
My point was that you're going to ask for a pint at the bar, not "I'll have 80 millilitres of alcohol per 100 millilitres of my blood please barman"
 
And my point was you shouldn't assume anything from the fact that you've just asked for a pint at the bar.

And re your other question, i was going to ask you some other ones once you'd asked that one, but I decided to just trust that it was the case instead
 
gayorstraight said:
Yes you're allowed 2 units I believe which is roughly 1 pint.

My point is that you're allowed that 2 units as a buffer because other things can give a false positive reading, such as mouthwash. Otherwise it was be zero tolerance


Edit.



http://www.drivemycarhome.co.uk/drink-driving-facts/
Click to expand...


Your source is a company which makes its profits by driving home drinkers' cars. Not exactly impartial.

There was a government-commissioned report published in 2010 which recommended a reduction of the BAC threshold to 50mg/100ml. From the report:

Reference is often made to a “zero” BAC limit. However, the Review has considered the practical minimum BAC limit to be 20 mg/100 ml and not
0 mg/100 ml. This is because certain common substances such as cough syrups and mouthwashes may contain alcohol and there is also a theoretical possibility of natural alcohol production from bacteria in the gut. (This 20mg/100 ml limit will also permit the consumption of a small amount of alcohol as part of a religious function.)
Click to expand...

So no, 80mg is not a buffer against mouthwash. If that was the reason, 20mg would be more than enough. Some people have suggested it might have something to do with the alcohol industry lobbying to protect their profits.

Apparently 50mg is the level that impairment becomes significant.
 
knock said:
Your source is a company which makes its profits by driving home drinkers' cars. Not exactly impartial.

There was a government-commissioned report published in 2010 which recommended a reduction of the BAC threshold to 50mg/100ml. From the report:



So no, 80mg is not a buffer against mouthwash. If that was the reason, 20mg would be more than enough. Some people have suggested it might have something to do with the alcohol industry lobbying to protect their profits.

Apparently 50mg is the level that impairment becomes measurable.
Click to expand...

I was merely trying to understand why there was no zero tolerance for alcohol and I thought this summed it up.

Even without drinking, some alcohol can be present in the body from other sources, such as when produced by the fermentation processes in the digestion of certain foods, or as an ingredient in mouth wash. This means that a zero limit isn’t practical.
Click to expand...

I don't care what the buffer is just as long as people don't get done for having fermenting fruit or mouthwash in their system
 
gayorstraight said:
I was merely trying to understand why there was no zero tolerance for alcohol and I thought this summed it up.



I don't care what the buffer is just as long as people don't get done for having fermenting fruit or mouthwash in their system
Click to expand...

My point isn't that the buffer is this or that, but that it is not a buffer.

Well, maybe a buffer for certain bank accounts. Not a buffer for "accidental" consumption of ethanol.
 
knock said:
My point isn't that the buffer is this or that, but that it is not a buffer.

Well, maybe a buffer for certain bank accounts.
Click to expand...
Fine whatever, then admit that I don't know what you're point is.

That it should be as proportionately as low as the drug blood levels allowed? If so, I agree with you

The bigger issue is that people think it's fine to drive with drugs in their system
 
gayorstraight said:
Fine whatever, then admit that I don't know what you're point is.

That it should be as proportionately as low as the drug blood levels allowed?

The bigger issue is that people think it's fine to drive with drugs in their system
Click to expand...

People think it's fine to drive with drink in their system.

My point is that this law unfairly targets users of some drugs while ignoring users of another drug. The distinguishing feature is the one drug has a legally recognised industry with a powerful lobby while the rest of the drugs do not. It's about money, not road safety. :)
 
knock said:
People think it's fine to drive with drink in their system.

My point is that this law unfairly targets users of some drugs while ignoring users of another drug. The distinguishing feature is the one drug has a legally recognised industry with a powerful lobby while the rest of the drugs do not. It's about money, not road safety. :)
Click to expand...

People do think it's fine to drive with alcohol in their system and they're dickheads too.

It may also be about money but making it illegal to drink/drug drive is no bad thing
 
gayorstraight said:
So age = better drivers? Don't think so.
Click to expand...

On the whole yeah - that's what all the evidence from the insurance companies shows.

Anecdotal but whenever you see someone overtaking like a silly bastard it's usually an 18 year old with a baseball cap on.
 
Ismene said:
On the whole yeah - that's what all the evidence from the insurance companies shows.

Anecdotal but whenever you see someone overtaking like a silly bastard it's usually an 18 year old with a baseball cap on.
Click to expand...

It's not anecdotal Ismene I've provided a whole load of stats to show why it makes far more sense to ban under 25's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top