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

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

"Drug driving - it's a car crash" says Prof Nutt

I

Ismene

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
13,158
Under government proposals, if a microgram of THC (from cannabis) can be found in a pint and a bit of his blood, (enough to be sure he hasn't simply walked too slowly past a cannabis smoker), then he is guilty of driving drugged. Whether Rob is illegally in possession of cannabis, actually intoxicated, or in any way a danger, will be considered immaterial. The government will ignore the recommendations of the expert panel it commissioned and take a "zero-tolerance approach" to drivers whose bodies contain definitive traces of any one of a blacklist of eight controlled drugs including cocaine, ecstasy and LSD. I have challenged government priorities before by referring to the risks that cats pose. While LSD has never been detected in a driver involved in a crash, unrestrained cats in a motor vehicle have distracted drivers and resulted in collisions. Yet it remains legal to drive with a free-roaming feline friend on board.

Rather than a consistent "risk-based" approach to drivers using drugs, the government would prefer to use the Road Traffic Act to get tough on people who test positive for an arbitrary selection of the wrong drugs, and in doing so send a clear message to everyone about the unacceptability of drug use. Well, some drug use. It thinks the "risk-based approach" – as recommended by its scientific advisers – is fine for alcohol, sleeping pills, morphine, just not for eight other controlled drugs. This is, they say, to avoid sending "mixed messages".


Sending messages isn't really what the Road Traffic Act is supposed to be for. Moreover, there is a plethora of evidence that tough drug laws have no clear effect on levels of drug use. Disproportionate toughness will not prevent car wrecks, but lives and careers will be wrecked through criminalisation. In US states where medical cannabis has been legalised, there are fewer deaths on the road.

The Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs has urged government to reconsider and accept the risk-based approach recommended by the expert panel led by academic Kim Wolff which advised the government. If you think your MP should support a rational and fair policy towards drug driving as proposed by the experts, rather than the zero tolerance, irrational approach being pushed by the government, it is not too late to let them know.

By being tough on cannabis-smoking Rob but soft on half-drunk Paul, the government's new laws could actually promote traffic accidents by encouraging Rob to swap a joint for a pint. Drivers with alcohol in their blood cause fatal crashes at more than 10 times the rate of those with cannabis in theirs.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/27/drug-driving-alcohol-policy-pubs-motorway
 
Drivers with alcohol in their blood cause fatal crashes at more than 10 times the rate of those with cannabis in theirs.
Click to expand...

Drivers with alcohol in their blood cause fatal crashes at more than 10 times the rate of those with cannabis in theirs.
Click to expand...

Drivers with alcohol in their blood cause fatal crashes at more than 10 times the rate of those with cannabis in theirs.
Click to expand...

...
 
Don't drive with either in your system then. For fucks sake people, is it that hard NOT to drive for a few hours when you're intoxicated?

I like David Nutt but over the last couple of years he's seemingly been on a mission to abdicate the harm and effect of any drug going, when he'd be far better pushing the mantra that yes, drugs do effect people and yes, drugs do cause some harm, but we can maximise user and public health by acceptance, unbiased teaching and guidance.

The more Nutt comes out into the press lately the more he isolates me. As a prominent member of the decriminalisation/legalisation body, he needs to fucking think about what he is saying sometimes.
 
I want to smoke weed. And I want to drive cars.

Not at the same time, but this would make it impossible to do both. So pick one :!

I could be unfortunate enough to have RTC where lives are lost while stone cold sober and my family have to live with the reported and documented 'shame' of me being a drug driver.

They know what they're doing, the sneaky fuckers.
 
badandwicked said:
I could be unfortunate enough to have RTC where lives are lost while stone cold sober and my family have to live with the reported and documented 'shame' of me being a drug driver.
Click to expand...

This is a terrible proposed law, I sincerely hope that it doesn't make it onto the books.

But do you really think you might be involved in a fatal RTC?

Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I honestly think my driving habits are such that it's very unlikely it would happen to me. On the other hand I occasionally see driving on the roads that makes me think the driver is a serious risk. One of things I do that makes me think I'm not going to be in a serious accident is move out of the way from such people :D Oh, and I'm well aware that if I became complacent then the probabilities would adjust accordingly! I don't think I've become complacent yet. I tend to drive much more carefully nowadays than when I was 20, though.

For instance, people who overtake on single carriageways with bends or blind summits/dips where there is a risk they will not see a vehicle coming in the opposite direction. I only overtake on such roads if absolutely sure there is time for me to pass the vehicle in front of me. Some people quite obviously roll the dice, and when I see it, I slow right down to make space between me and the moron with the deathwish.

Other things I do are habits I picked up when I learnt to ride a motorbike, like double checking mirrors before manoeuvering and actually watching out for upcoming T-junctions before overtaking.

I've had a few car accidents, but none in the last 20 years where more than license plate was scratched :D all at low speed, all because I was I distracted/bored....

I'm aware that there are some sorts of accident where I really don't have any choice in the matter, but I think it's quite a small proportion.

Anyway, they are cunts and it is a shit (proposed) law. If I was a marijuana smoker, however, I wouldn't let it bother me. I haven't been tested for drink or drugs in 23 years of driving, and I don't expect to be in future. But I'm sure some of you are at greater risk. Location matters too, no doubt.
 
Last edited:
knock said:
For instance, people who overtake on single carriageways with bends or blind summits/dips where there is a risk they will not see a vehicle coming in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

I was a passenger in a car approaching the brow of a hill when a car came firing towards us on our side of the road resulting in a high speed full on collision. No loss of lives somehow but lots life changing of internal & head injuries and broken bones. The elderly driver was changing a tape. It happens. If the driver of my (innocent) car had had a spliff a week previously, that would have been reported.

Fun fact - I was the only person in the two cars without a seatbelt on, (rear seat) and I was the only person unscathed except for a few cuts and bruises.
 
Seems like a pretty simple plan to me.

Bring this law in, catch a load of people driving who'd had a joint earlier in the week, bring out the stats saying "We've caught X amount of stoned drivers, these people are a menace on the roads, how can you possibly expect us to legalise this killer drug?"
 
The cops will love it - it's going to send their "crime detection" figures through the roof. And for no more work than pulling someone over in a car. Cushty. Beats catching burglars on cold rainy nights.
 
Arguably stimulants make you a better, safer driver, as obviously your reaction times and thought processes are all speeded up and your mind is sharper and clearer. The counter argument is that they could make you reckless, arrogant, and basically make poor judgement calls that could proove fatal. Its not a clear cut issue by any means. Thats just stimulants.

What about the heroin addict whos habit just makes him feel normal. He'd be a far worse driver without his heroin, if he was driving suffering from the lack of his maintenance drug.
 
mydrugbuddy said:
Arguably stimulants make you a better, safer driver, as obviously your reaction times and thought processes are all speeded up and your mind is sharper and clearer. The counter argument is that they could make you reckless, arrogant, and basically make poor judgement calls that could proove fatal. Its not a clear cut issue by any means. Thats just stimulants.

What about the heroin addict whos habit just makes him feel normal. He'd be a far worse driver without his heroin, if he was driving suffering from the lack of his maintenance drug.
Click to expand...

Excellent post MDB.

I have a thing about your second point because I experienced it directly in a mate, who was an H addict, long long term, and ran his own home removal business. Junkie with the biggest Protestant work ethic I've ever seen. Ran his business well, obviously needed maintenance doses as you say. I wouldn't have got in the van with him if he HADN'T had his fix.

Ben :)
 
mydrugbuddy said:
What about the heroin addict whos habit just makes him feel normal. He'd be a far worse driver without his heroin, if he was driving suffering from the lack of his maintenance drug.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't need a maintenance drug if he wasn't addicted to something illegal. Although I get what you're saying I don't think "Smackheads are better drivers if they're not in withdrawal" is really a productive argument.

The argument is simple enough. You will fail these tests even when not "under the influence" if you have, in the previous few days, used certain substances. That's wrong. You should only fail if the drug has some effect on you at that moment.
 
parttime crackhead said:
I don't think "Smackheads are better drivers if they're not in withdrawal" is really a productive argument.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why it's not a productive argument, given that it is true. There is probably a more complex argument to be had, perhaps along the lines that heroin addicts are at risk of reducing their driving ability if they overshoot their dose.

But more generally all drivers vary in their ability to drive from time to time according to circumstance, and we have no generally applicable test for fitness to drive. Such a thing would be very useful. But given the moral position our (dominant) culture holds about drugs, that culture is incapable of holding anything but the most crude and blinkered debate about the topic. And indeed about all kinds of topics. And thus we get crude and blinkered decisions about socially acceptable standards of behaviour (in the form of bourgeois laws).
 
Last edited:
Talking of car safety...I read some research that said making cars safer doesn't make much difference because people drive more dangerously. They said the best way to promote safe driving would be to have a foot long steel spike sticking out the center of the steering wheel.

Perhaps people who are slightly high would be safer because they were consciously taking extra care.
 
I wonder how many accidents are caused by people on their phones vs people who are drunk. Most regular drinkers will not be bouncing off kerbs going 100 mph after a pint at lunchtime / a glass of wine with their tea. I often wonder why regular drinkers have the 'one drink' as physically you cant feel it - socially your friends couldn't care but its sort of automatic?
 
ages ago I smoked weed over the weekend, then got pulled and the cops said i look stoned, etc, thank fuck they didnt test me, came very close to it. despite being sober
 
ColtDan said:
ages ago I smoked weed over the weekend, then got pulled and the cops said i look stoned, etc, thank fuck they didnt test me, came very close to it. despite being sober
Click to expand...

Why did you get pulled, Dan?

The only times I've been stopped by the police are when I've been speeding... :|
 
Too small square front number plate, 2 bald tyres, no seatbelt. been caught twice with no seatbelt, fined once, let off once. surprised they let me off with the tyres. then matey looked at my eyes and asked me if id taken anything, cos my eyes were squinty. surprised i havent been stopped for speeding, i speed everywhere. speed limits are bollocks, driving ability is what matters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top