UK: Drug-driving test equipment to be trialled

7zark7

7zark7

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,559
Location
UK
[size=+1]Drug-driving test equipment to be trialled[/size]
By Richard Scott
Transport correspondent, BBC News

Excerpt:
The government is planning trials of equipment to test if drivers are under the influence of drugs.

The move could lead to a roll-out of the technology across all police forces in England, Scotland and Wales within two years.

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10887858
 
As I have highlighted over the years on BL, this kind of law is unworkable as it has way too many variables and unknowns to be fair and legally enforceable.

The initial sentence above is, for a start, bollocks. How can a piece of equipment tell if someone is under the influence of drugs?


The current drink drive laws, and the figures behind them, indicate that you can increase your chances of having an accident up to five times before it becomes illegal. So, it is not illegal to have your driving slightly impaired - but there is already a law that means it's an offence to drive while unfit through drink or drugs. To be able to put this into practice, they would need to test every single drug and see at what blood/drug level was required to be considered unfit to drive. Impossible.

The zero-tolerance idea is also unrealistic as it is not only at odds with the current drink-drive (ie: alcohol) laws, you will criminalise a lot of people who are on medication. I can't see any mention of whether the police will just be targeting illegal drug-drivers… although it does mention cannabis and cocaine. Not sure how cocaine would impair your driving sufficiently enough for you to be considered unfit…

I think we all know this in nothing about safety and more about control and victimisation…
 
7zark7 said:
As I have highlighted over the years on BL, this kind of law is unworkable as it has way too many variables and unknowns to be fair and legally enforceable.

The initial sentence above is, for a start, bollocks. How can a piece of equipment tell if someone is under the influence of drugs?


The current drink drive laws, and the figures behind them, indicate that you can increase your chances of having an accident up to five times before it becomes illegal. So, it is not illegal to have your driving slightly impaired - but there is already a law that means it's an offence to drive while unfit through drink or drugs. To be able to put this into practice, they would need to test every single drug and see at what blood/drug level was required to be considered unfit to drive. Impossible.

The zero-tolerance idea is also unrealistic as it is not only at odds with the current drink-drive (ie: alcohol) laws, you will criminalise a lot of people who are on medication. I can't see any mention of whether the police will just be targeting illegal drug-drivers… although it does mention cannabis and cocaine. Not sure how cocaine would impair your driving sufficiently enough for you to be considered unfit…

I think we all know this in nothing about safety and more about control and victimisation…
Click to expand...

Eloquently put, you've said everything and more I would have done.
 
alphabetalactone said:
I think it's a good idea, you shouldn't be driving under the influence of anything.
Click to expand...

The reason the law is the way it is, is because in the UK we don't have illegal drugs, merely controlled substances. The act of consuming a drug isn't illegal, it's merely our property rights which have been stripped.

Because of this, there can be no law against being under the influence of a certain drug. The law was drafted as such, because compounds like Insulin are controlled substances.

This way, if a diabetic goes hypo whilst he's driving due to his own negligence, he can be prosecuted, but a policeman can't pull someone over and arrest them for driving whilst under the influence of insulin, if there was nothing wrong with their driving.

Aside from all that, you seem to have completely overlooked the most obvious one here - THC (or trace detectable amounts) stays in your system for up to 28 days. That means, I can smoke a joint today, and if this legislation comes into play with a zero tolerance policy (very possible with a new Conservative government), any time I'm stopped in the next 4 weeks whilst driving, I can be piss tested and potentially lose my license.

How is that fair? How is that helping anyone? I smoke a joint, 3 weeks later I'm arrested and lose my driving license, and also my job. I'm left with a criminal record, no job, I'd probably end up on job seekers allowance, the police would have to be paid for their time and all the paper work they'd have to fill in, as well as my solicitor and all the legal staff involved in my sentencing.

Basically, a victimless crime ends up costing the government many many thousands of pounds, costing me my job, and costing society at large another chunk of their civil liberties.

Cornishman said:
^^^ Same here.


They need to clampdown on people with caffeine in their system too.
Click to expand...

Saying people shouldn't be driving on anything is ridiculous and unworkable. What if I were to take my asthma inhaler whilst driving? Should a recovering opiate addict on methadone not be allowed to drive?

As for clamping down on caffeine, sure I can see it to an extent if you're railing 150mg lines of caffeine, but where do you draw the line? Is 1 morning espresso ok? What about 3? Is a can of coke ok?

If we're to take a zero tolerance approach, does that mean that you're also not allowed to eat chocolate whilst driving, since that contains caffeine, amongst other drugs (theobromine and phenethylamine)?

What about anything with processed sugars in them? Are we allowed to consume those? Saying you shouldn't be driving on anything is quite frankly a ridiculous unworkable suggestion.

The whole notion of restricting things is ridiculous. Sure, if you're drunk or stoned or whatever and you crash and kill someone, you should be prepared to do time and accept that in this society actions have consequences, but if you don't crash, you get home safely without injuring anyone, your "crime" has had NO VICTIM and hence shouldn't really be a crime.
 
I'll restate my previous argument on this:

  1. As is his routine, John smokes 3 grams of weed on a Thursday afternoon. He then goes for a drive on Friday morning, gets pulled over and tests positive for THC. He loses his driving privilege.
  2. As is her routine, Christina takes a prescribed THC pill on a Thursday afternoon. She then goes for a drive on Friday morning, gets pulled over and tests positive for THC. She does not lose her driving privilege.

What action would a drugged driving law be punishing, then? It would be a sumptuary law disguised as a public-safety initiative.
 
The drugged driving laws are a mess. Thankfully, my lawyer took care of my case surrounding it...

I was accused of driving under the influence of pot (which is somewhat funny, because we were on the way home from picking it up). Based on the officers "training" I was cuffed and put in the back seat right away. I had been in similar situations at least a handful of times before (pulled over on the way there or back from picking something up) and thought I would be out of there in no time... man was I wrong.

Once the UK, Canada, and U.S. all have sold laws surrounding the drugged driving. Expect many other countries to fall suit.
 
HerrSchnaufer said:
As for clamping down on caffeine, sure I can see it to an extent if you're railing 150mg lines of caffeine, but where do you draw the line? Is 1 morning espresso ok? What about 3? Is a can of coke ok?
Click to expand...

I think Cornishman was taking the piss slightly… :)
 
Roadside drug driving testing has been common place here in Australia for quite some time now and seems to be somewhat effective. A swab is taken from inside your mouth and tested. Apperently you should only test positive if your currently under the influence because the test is looking for people who are high, not just registering. The tests are ment to give a passive pot smoker the all clear for instance.

Its important when decideing why these laws are unworkable to look upon countries that already have them in place. They seem to be working fine over here.
 
static_mind said:
Roadside drug driving testing has been common place here in Australia for quite some time now and seems to be somewhat effective. A swab is taken from inside your mouth and tested. Apperently you should only test positive if your currently under the influence because the test is looking for people who are high, not just registering. The tests are ment to give a passive pot smoker the all clear for instance.

Its important when decideing why these laws are unworkable to look upon countries that already have them in place. They seem to be working fine over here.
Click to expand...

But how can anything test whether you're "high" or not? It's ridiculous. All that means is they set the acceptable limit slightly higher than the threshold dose and bust everyone that's over. There's not some magical science behind telling whether someone's "high" or not, it's simply down to saying "You have X amount of X in your system, this constitutes being "high"".

This doesn't necessarily mean that drug drivers are being taken off the roads and sensible innocents drive on, because of something we're all doubtless familiar with - tolerance.

I'd like to think I can drive safely after a relatively large amount of cannabis consumption, largely because I've been doing both every day for the last 4 years. However, you give just a small spliff to someone that's either not smoked for years, or has never smoked, and they're certainly not AS safe, if their driving can be considered safe at all.

Of course the same applies to other drugs - opiates in particular.

There is very little problem here for the very occasional recreational drug user, but as has been mentioned earlier, this is a sumptuary law so it's really not targeting the occasional dabbler.

The trouble is, those of us who have legitimate concerns (I drive 50k/year, this legislation could very easily lose me my job) can't voice or express our concerns because A) We're no good criminal druggies, and B) We're irresponsible and deserve to be in jail for taking "dangerous drugs" whilst driving and jeopardising the lives of others. The second you disagree with this policy, you run the risk of being branded a "drug driver". It's the old "If you don't support prohibition, you're obviously a druggy" argument.

Media hysteria, public opinion and propaganda will be what helps this law get through, and there's very little the rest of us can do.
 
static_mind said:
Roadside drug driving testing has been common place here in Australia for quite some time now and seems to be somewhat effective . . .
Click to expand...

I'll just jot down a couple of questions that come to mind in case any Australian knows the answer (don't feel like trawling Google on a Sunday morning):

What are the threshold (cutoff) values for each substance tested? Are these values significantly higher than, say, a pre-employment drug test's? What accommodations are in place for users of prescription THC? Prescription amphetamine? Prescription opiates? Prescription methadone? Prescription oxycodone? Prescription methamphetamine? Prescription benzodiazepines? Prescription barbiturates?

What is the standard legal defense against false positives in this particular test (I imagine there must be a whole battalion of lawyers hunkering in the Opera House who can comment on this)? What accommodations are made for fat-soluble or highly-protein-bound substances whose individual elimination times may be prolonged and vary greatly from person to person? Are concomitant meds recorded so that test results can be adjusted for enzymatic idiosyncrasies (for instance if someone is on a strong inhibitor or inducer of the cytochromes)? Are accommodations made for metabolically-compromised individuals?

What if I am a mutant and have a special gland that produces cocaine?

Plus a lot of other questions that can't be asked on Bluelight cuz they directly involve drug testing...
 
Some drugs I think you shouldn't drive on. Alcohol, Benzos and in most cases, Opiates. However I see no reason for a high person to be deemed not fit to drive. Stimulant users are probably more alert too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top