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


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

UK Driving Drug Test....

Yes mate I saw it thanks. What I'm wondering though is whether a duty doctor down at the cop shop has the authority or experience to resort to the jugular, femoral or similar for routine blood testing, or whether it would necessitate a trip to hospital. Any ideas? Not that I intend deliberately flounting these drug driving laws, but I'd like to know what to expect if the worst happens...

I'm 99.9% certain they would send you to hospital for external jugular blood to be drawn and even the hospital wouldn't attempt to take a blood samples from your femoral vein..

You could maybe PM pdj555... He would know I imagine.
 
I'm 99.9% certain they would send you to hospital for external jugular blood to be drawn and even the hospital wouldn't attempt to take a blood samples from your femoral vein..

Ah, I presumed the femoral would be the first option, simply because if they fuck up there, at least yer head doesn't drop off :) so the jugular is always the next option if the usual suspects have collapsed? Are you also saying that professionals consider sticking a needle in your femoral as simply too dangerous? Wow, glad I never graduated to there. Worryingly, I've known people that have started their smack career with groin injections because 'no one can see your trackmarks'.
 
With the external jugular there is a slight risk of nicking the carotid artery but anyone who knows what they are doing shouldn't. With the femoral vein however, it's proximity to both the femoral nerve and femoral artery (extreme proximity in that they are sort of intertwined) makes is far more risky.

There are some other risks to cannulating the external jugular such as a possible haematoma and perfusion issues but someone trained in the process should be ok to do it (which is why they make us sit these exams from time to times just to make sure our clinical skills are up to date).

I wish pdj555 was here as he probably knows a lot more than me on the subject.
 
'Just' 10ml ? Not much chance of that......

Haha yeah... the 'only' part was relative to the amount of blood in your body ;)

I've been on a mild dose of beta-blockers (80mg Propranolol) before, and needed bloods taken whilst I was in hospital and nobody could draw any blood because it caused my blood pressure was to go too low. Several staff could hit several sites but nothing would ever come out. And I'm a young, fit and healthy male who's never used needles, so I can only imagine how hard it may be to draw blood from someone who's been injecting for a while.



Steering back on topic. If the on-call doctor fails to draw blood after several attempts and finally renders it futile, then the police have four main options:

1) If you only look a tad squiffy and are no real cause of concern to them, they can detain you for up to 24h and then just release you without charge.

2) If you look moderately squiffy and are a cause of concern to them, but they don't think that marching you to hospital will be worthwhile, then they may change the Section 5 charge (Driving Under the Influence) to a Section 4 charge (Dangerous Driving). Their only headache in doing that, is that S.4 (Dangerous Driving) will be harder to prove because they will not have any evidence available to indicate that you were driving dangerously due to being intoxicated by drink/drugs, so they'll have to resort to other evidence that may not prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were driving dangerously.

3) If you look moderately squiffy and are a cause of concern to them, but they don't think that marching you to hospital will be worthwhile, and they also don't think that they have sufficient alternative evidence to charge you with S.4 (Dangerous Driving) instead of S.5 (Driving Under the Influence), then they may reduce the original Section 5 (Driving Under the Influence) charge to a lesser Section 3 charge of Careless Driving (aka Driving Without Due Care & Attention), because it carries a much lower burden of proof than S.4 (Dangerous Driving). The difference being that for a successful S.4 (Dangerous Driving) conviction, they would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that (1) 'your driving fell far below the standard that could be expected of a competent and careful driver', and that (2) 'such driving was obviously dangerous to a competent and careful driver.' However, with the lesser S.3 (Careless Driving) charge, the lower burden of proof means they only have to demonstrate that (1) 'your driving fell below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.'

4) If you look highly squiffy and are a real cause of concern to them, then they will in fact march you to hospital in the hope that the better facilities and more specialised staff on duty will provide them with a better chance of obtaining bloods for evidence, which also gives the police the opportunity to have the hospital provide you with any relevant medical attention if necessary.
 
Just thought I'd share some points of interest that I noted whilst reading through the legislation today:


1) There is currently no offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) of having a controlled drug in your body. The new law effectively creates this as a strict liability offence, when in control of a vehicle.

2) There are already claims that this law will be discriminatory under S.19 of the Equality Act (2010) as it will incite indirect discrimination towards young, black, males. Young (Age under Section 5), Black (Race under Section 9) and Males (Sex under Section 11) being three separate characteristics protected from unlawful discrimination by the Equality Act (2010).

3) Similar claims are emerging that it may breach Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides UK Citizens the right to privacy.

4) 52% of parties consulted by the Government didn’t support the legislation and voted for alternative rules.

5) The British Medical Association; The Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs; and The Secretary of State for Transport’s Honorary Medical Advisory Panel for Alcohol, Drugs and Substance Misuse all voted against the proposed legislation.

6) Weirdly, the law will now effectively provide legal thresholds for illegal drugs, for drivers.

7) Whilst 12 drugs have been listed, current road-side equipment can only detect Cocaine and Cannabis. The other 10 drugs are currently undetectable by saliva tests.

8 ) Several police forces (such as Greater Manchester Police) are not imposing the law because they believe that it will be too costly to enforce with the current level of certified technology and the additional administrative work involved.

9) The current drugs and limits will only be in force for 12 months (until March ’16) unless an independent private company that has been appointed to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the legislation advises them to extend it, or create new primary legislation to enforce the law permanently.

10) If convicted, the offence will remain on your license for up to 11 years. You will also receive an automatic driving ban for a minimum of 12 months as well as the possibility of being sent to the clink for 12 months and a maximum fine of £5,000.

11) There will be no rehabilitation scheme for convicted drug drivers, like there currently is for convicted drink drivers.

12) If a person (likely female) is date-drugged with one of the Benzo's such as Rohypnol (Flunitrazepam) and drives to the police station to report it the next day, then if caught doing so, they are liable to be convicted under the new Section 5 law because it's almost certain that they will not hold a valid prescription for Flunitrazepam. However, if they are drugged with one of the many Benzo's not listed, such as: Alprazolam, Bromazepam, Delorazepam, Midazolam, Nitrazepam, or Triazolam, then they can't be charged under S.5. That also extends to the exclusion of Z-drugs such as Zaleplon, Zolpidem and Zopiclone.

13) If a driver is stopped and the police have concerns that the driver is under the influence of drink or drugs, they will initially ask them to take a breathalyser test to determine the driver's blood-alcohol levels. If this test proves negative, the officer will then ask the driver to take a saliva test to determine the driver's saliva-drug levels. However, if the driver blows positive on the alcohol test, the officer will then arrest and detain them under Section 5 (driving under the influence of alcohol above the proscribed limit). However, officer will not then carry out a saliva-drug test due the costs involved and reliability of evidence. They will instead rely solely on the evidence obtained for a drink-driving conviction.
 
Last edited:
if a driver is stopped and the police have concerns that the driver is under the influence of drink or drugs, they will initially ask them to take a breathalyser test to determine the driver's blood-alcohol levels. If this test proves negative, the officer will then ask the driver to take a saliva test to determine the driver's saliva-drug levels.

That's how it works here. It is actually easier to have at least one beer under your belt as this won't provoke suspicion provided you are under the BAC limit
 
I watch road wars and that crap regularly, one time some lad was blazing in his car and they did a sobriety test on him? Had a card with different sized black dots that relates to how dilated your pupils are. Apparently it was clear to see he was under the influence because of the size of his pupils despite it being dark!
They also did that Yankee style say the alphabet backwards, stand on one leg blah blah blah!
So what if your dyslexic? I can't say the alphabet backwards anyway, stand one one leg? I'm missing toes I struggle to get up off the sofa without falling over...
What happens then?
 
I watch road wars and that crap regularly, one time some lad was blazing in his car and they did a sobriety test on him? Had a card with different sized black dots that relates to how dilated your pupils are. Apparently it was clear to see he was under the influence because of the size of his pupils despite it being dark!
They also did that Yankee style say the alphabet backwards, stand on one leg blah blah blah!
So what if your dyslexic? I can't say the alphabet backwards anyway, stand one one leg? I'm missing toes I struggle to get up off the sofa without falling over...
What happens then?

Haha. I once insisted on being given a sobriety test by the wpc that found me crashed out in the road between two parked cars at 10am in a phenazepam and vodka induced coma. At first she was concerned for my health, but that concern quickly turned to bemusement as I insisted that I perform a USA style sobriety test, just to prove I was only having a nap and was not actually an alcoholic drug addict. I'm sure she wasn't convinced, but humoured me anyway. After proving I was sober, she let me on my way - only to find me unconscious on the pavement several hours later having been run over by a cyclist!
 
Last edited:
^^ Fucking hell FUBAR!!....

What you like mate!!... Just as well it was a cyclist and not a HGV driver!!

:) <3 :)

True, but the cyclist was on the pavement pedalling at full tilt round a blind corner, so it could have happened even if I wasn't off me tits. Sent me flying backwards and smacked my head on the wall. I now know where the phrase 'seeing stars' comes from. The wpc took me to A&E to have the nasty cut on my head sorted, but as soon as she went I buggered off (it was packed and I wanted some sleep), only to have her turn up at my house gone midnight to take me back to A&E. Bless her, she was sound - and very patient...
 
Last edited:
You either change your habits or someone is the designated driver. If you have a couple of spliffs the night before, you wait until lunchtime the next day. .

Can't see the spliff being out of your system by then - perhaps 3-5 days later.
 
Can't see the spliff being out of your system by then - perhaps 3-5 days later.
I can assure you the saliva tests are only worried about 6-8 hours.

This is true for Cannabis in your urine, but as One Thousand Words says, not for saliva (or blood).

It was for this exact reason that urine test were ruled-out for consideration in the use of drug-drive testing.
 
Anyone found the official drugalyser detection times? Whenever I try and look up the official drugalyser site it says "website suspended".
 
I read it was 14h for cannabis, not sure about cocaine.

The BBC say 36 hours here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31683571

David Taylor, professor of psychopharmacology at Kings College, London and a member of the Department of Transport's advisory panel on drug driving, said the rules would work as a much stronger deterrent and make prosecutions much easier.
Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme he said: "It's a zero-tolerance approach."
He said any exposure would render people over the limit and would leave them over the limit for up to 36 hours.
 
Top