How are they going to detect lsd in saliva At those concentrations?
In short, they can't - yet.
Currently, the only equipment that has been approved for use in England and Wales is only capable of detecting Cannabis/Delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol and Cocaine. Thus the other 10 drugs in the tables are only enforced by legal theory, not legal practice. The government took the decision to outlaw them through this opportunity, and then focus on creating the technology to enforce the law in practice so that one day, it will be possible to enforce.
I havent seen the details of these tests, are they prosecuting purely based on the road side test or, like booze is it just an indicator ?
There's been confusion over this and claims made about the equipment which are not true, which is why some police forces are choosing not to enforce the new law.
As it stands today, the road side saliva tests have not been deemed reliable enough to be used in evidence for prosecution. They have only been deemed reliable enough to indicate the presence of a drug, in which case, the person will be detained for a blood test and the results will be sent off for analysis and it is these results that will be used as evidence if a prosecution was to go ahead.
However, as aforementioned, some forces (Greater Manchester Police) have decided not to enforce the law because they do not believe that the road-side equipment currently available is up to scratch. They think too much money will be wasted on training/equipment and failed prosecutions, due to the sub-standard technology currently available providing false negatives.
Also note, that currently, the road side test equipment can only give an indication for a driver being under the influence of either Cocaine or Cannabis. All the other drugs are yet undetectable using current roadside equipment in the UK.
Looking pretty grim for driving when this comes in. Can't use cocaine for about 3 days before you drive, 3-5 days for E, 2 days for LSD or it will be detected by this stupid fucking drugalyser and you will be banned from driving - even if you had the drug 5 days ago.
I don't believe that to be the case. IIRC, 38/39 of the independent advisors who were consulted agreed that the levels set were low enough for it to be detected, but high enough for it to have the user 'under the influence whilst driving'. It is believed that at the levels set, the driver would be considered to be 'under the influence' of the drug at the time of driving, not merely having taken it 24-48 hours prior to being in control of the vehicle.
Where do legals fit in though? They can't possibly set realistic limits for all quadrillion RCs surely? Does a particular substance have to be specified before it becomes an offence to drive on it? They is opening a can of worms here I'll tell ye!
Parliament would have to schedule the legal high under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) before they can be considered under the new section 5 law. Therefore it's possible for somebody to be charged with the new section 5 law if they are found to be over the proscribed limit of Diazepam if it impairs their driving. However, because the law does not stretch beyond the specific drugs listed, the police would have to rely on charging the person under the old section 4 law for all RCs/Legal High's. So there's no change there.
Looking pretty grim for driving when this comes in. Can't use cocaine for about 3 days before you drive, 3-5 days for E, 2 days for LSD or it will be detected by this stupid fucking drugalyser and you will be banned from driving - even if you had the drug 5 days ago.
isnt it ironic - some of the worst occasions where ive been the most unfit to drive is when ive been rattling - 48 hours into a serious cluck my eyes go so fucked it looks like im tripping out. plus because im just hypnotised on getting to the heroin asap im speeding, rolling fags, phoning dealers, anything but concentrating on my driving. once im mashed i slow right down, becoming a defensive conscientious user of the road. Bit bakcwards i suppose, but the savagest of opiate rattles can go toe to toe with alot of active drugs for sheer trip out madness
This was topic also debated during the consultation - though not in this context. It was proposed that Amphetamine be put on the list too, however, there was great fear from the pharmacists in particular that this would discourage those who've been prescribed it for ADD/ADHD/Narcolepsy from taking the drug. In their eyes, they deemed somebody with such conditions to NOT be taking the drug to be an equal danger on the road to somebody else who was taking the drug.
The dosage of Amphetamine couldn't be agreed upon by the deadline, so it has been excluded from the new legislation on the 2nd March until advisors can agree on a limit. However, I'm not too sure why they deemed Amphetamine to be different to those who rely on Benzodiazepines or Opiates. I've done extensive reading on the topic and as of yet, I can't find an answer. The only thing I can say is that Morphine and Methadone were the only opiates included, because they were worried about those two drugs giving false negatives from Heroin testing. That's why no other opiates have been included. They were never intended to be included, but those two were 'sacrificed' because of false negative worries.
As for the Benzodiazpines, I can't find the rationale behind listing them 6 in particular (Clonazepam, Diazepam, Flunitrazepam, Lorazepam, Oxazepam and Temazepam), but excluding others, such as Alprazolam, Bromazepam, Midazolam, Triazolam and Nitrazepam. Zopiclone, Eszopiclone and Zolpidem have also been excluded. Again, I can find no information on why the 6 specific Benzodiazepines were included into the legislation, and the others I've mentioned were not.
Its the cannabis one that's the killer.... All smokers know that cannabis can be detected for up to several weeks, without still being active.
The limits are set so low on this that you're going to fail the blood test if you've had a joint in the last month.
That's not strictly true. This issue was a heated topic of debate between many scientists when it was proposed that drug testing from urine would be used as evidence. The equipment used for saliva tests will only be able to detect traces of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol within the last ~8 hours. If a road-side test shows a positive indication, the driver will then be detained and taken to a police station to have bloods drawn and sent off for analysis, as only blood, not urine, will be able to determine whether or not the driver was 'under the influence' of the drug at the time in which they were driving. This process was preferred because many scientific advisors indicated that the proposed crime is to be driving whilst under the influence of drugs, and only blood or saliva tests could prove that this was the case. Urine tests could only indicate that the driver may have used Cannabis within the last 3 weeks, but were not necessarily under the influence of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol at the time of driving or being in control of a motor vehicle.
It is widely acknowledged that there is currently no Parliamentary statute, EU Directive, or common law ruling that outlaws being under the influence of a controlled substance such as Cannabis. This law will only introduce the crime of being under the influence of a controlled substance whilst driving/or being in charge of a vehicle. Thus, when the first prosecution comes, the defence team will undoubtedly question the validity of the tests and argue that whilst their client tested positive for Cannabis in their system, they were not necessarily under the influence of it whilst driving/or being in charge of a vehicle. This is common place with the current Section 4 prosecutions and has proven hard to find beyond reasonable doubt, which is why convictions are so low. There really is no way around it other than to establish that the driver was actually not under the influence at the time the crime was committed. It'll be very tough and almost a no hoper, but as I say, it's the only way.
equally stupid I'd say..
