Drugalyser "zero tolerance for some drugs"

[Ceres]

presumably they would just be used to determine if you're worth taking down to the police station for a blood test....?

 

[Ceres]

A particularly horrific traffic-jam-hotspot on the outskirts of Manchester used to feature the words "BRING BACK THE HORSE" scrawled in full view of any unfortunate driver who happened to be passing through there during rush hour.

They had a point. Though were he with us now, Christopher Reeve may argue that the noble steed is not an entirely safe way to get about town.

no sound system either. And less than ideal for picking up hookers.

 

[Mailmonkey]

I'd be fucked if I ever got stopped.

I've only been breathalysed once in my life, earlier this year after my first ever serious collision (I went near enough head on into an ambulance as i lost it on a bend), which was incidentally after about 48 hours with not smoking weed....i normally smoke weed all day every day, and have never had a crash.

ceres makes a good point. If you give the police no reason to stop you (drive sensibly, safely, have all your paperwork legal, car in roadworthy state) you won't get breathalysed.

 

[Treacle]

The comments are interesting. They are nearly all against this scheme, and even have all positive ratings... Are Daily Mail readers slowly waking up, or is it just people like us reading the online stuff?

 

[ponch]

Most tests actually look for metabolites rather than the drug it's self as you can get a positive for a much longer time don't they? it will be interesting to see whether non active metabolites will be classed as a fail or not.

I'm not sure whos going to be carrying out these tests anyway, its not like the government are handing out extra resource to the OB to do this kind of thing. I cant see road blocks etc being set up to catch people out. Probably just a more accurate test than the stupid count to 10 roadside shit they do at the moment to catch out buzznuts.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

So where's the fuckin 'zero tolerance' on drink driving then to 'level the fuckin playing field' eh? Drug driving (including legally prescribed and OTC medication) currently kills around 200 people per year according to Saturday's Daily Mirror - I believe this is still far less than the annual drink driving fatalities, not to mention texting whilst driving, though I'm having difficulty finding reliable statistics for any of these. This appears to be another 'unworkable in practice' situation, though I'm just glad I haven't got a car anymore.

Furthermore, driving on too little sleep can be much more dangerous than driving on cannabis (and many other substances), so how are we going to legislate for that? The old system of having to show that the driving ability has been 'impaired' through the use of drugs was much more logical. That's why we have a 'safe' driving limit in this country, as that is the amount where it is considered that driving is not sufficiently impaired after drinking a pint or two. Also, it appears that anyone convicted under this new proposal will automatically receive a criminal record. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even getting banned through drunk driving isn't considered a criminal offence (yet) is it?

I am getting increasingly fuckin sick of this country and its nanny bastard state. Next you won't even be able to walk anywhere if you've got any substances in your system.

Just noticed, the list of 'zero tolerance' substances includes methamphetamine. What about plain old sulphate? Does that mean we've got licence to drive completely off our tits on phet as long as it ain't methylated? And where's the benzos, and the 'Z' drugs? Jeeeezus Christ!!!

 

[Treacle]

This test will apparently look for THC, in the case of cannabis. The coke one will look for coke, and its main metabolite benzoylecgonine, which hangs around longer, but you are allowed 5 times as much of it in your saliva. It all sounds a bit shaky, and I'm unsure if it will get passed. The ACMD will surely have something to say about it, but I'm sure they'll be ignored, as per usual.

Just noticed, the list of 'zero tolerance' substances includes methamphetamine. What about plain old sulphate? Does that mean we've got licence to drive completely off our tits on phet as long as it ain't methylated? And where's the benzos, and the 'Z' drugs? Jeeeezus Christ!!!

The article actually covers this. Amphetamines are medicines, so they don't know what to do, in the case of those.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

This test will apparently look for THC, in the case of cannabis. The coke one will look for coke, and its main metabolite benzoylecgonine, which hangs around longer, but you are allowed 5 times as much of it in your saliva. It all sounds a bit shaky, and I'm unsure if it will get passed. The ACMD will surely have something to say about it, but I'm sure they'll be ignored, as per usual.


The article actually covers this. Amphetamines are medicines, so they don't know what to do, in the case of those.

Street speed isn't a 'medicine' by any stretch of the imagination. Also, methamphetamine is a perfectly legit pharmaceutical medication in some formulations. So where do they make the distinction between the two?

 

[gayorstraight]

They'll probably ask the person to produce a prescription or letter from the Dr. If it's dangerous for the person to drive without their medication I can't see how they can be prosecuted for taking it.

Bottom line is - driving on a recreational substance is irresponsible and really really selfish

 

[Myshkin]

Also, methamphetamine is a perfectly legit pharmaceutical medication in some formulations.

Not any longer in the UK, unless I'm mistaken.

 

[gayorstraight]

Not any longer in the UK, unless I'm mistaken.

Yeah isn't it dexamphetamine?

 

[Myshkin]

Yeah isn't it dexamphetamine?

Dexamphetamine's still available, yeah. Not that it's very widely prescribed.

Which is a crying shame if it's your drug of choice and you're looking for illicit supplies. Not that I'd ever consider such subterfuge.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Bottom line is - driving on a recreational substance is irresponsible and really really selfish

Yeh, but who hasn't done it? Who hasn't fiddled with their radio whilst driving? Who hasn't driven after a bad nights sleep, or when suffering from a heavy cold or other illness? What woman hasn't checked her hair or lippy in the mirror whilst driving? Who hasn't had their attention diverted by a passenger by talking shite whilst driving? I personally would defend smoking on cannabis and amphetamine. I couldn't really defend driving on benzos or heroin (even though I have), and definitely would totally condemn driving on alcohol. All substances are different - this is just another battle in the WOD (and another way of making money for the government in prosecutions). Soon, there will be nobody left on the roads - which, tbh, would be a bloody good thing in my opinion - but we've gotta draw the line somewhere..

 

[Myshkin]

Soon, there will be nobody left on the roads

A little extreme, maybe?

I personally would defend smoking on cannabis and amphetamine. I couldn't really defend driving on benzos or heroin (even though I have), and definitely would totally condemn driving on alcohol.

How about somebody driving on amphetamines at the tail end of a four-day binge?

How about your mate who whiteys after two tokes getting into the car after a spliff?

I've no doubt there are some individuals who drive 'safely' or even 'better' under the influence of their drug of choice, but the nature of intoxication is so subjective that, in your own words, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Unfortunately we druggies are on the receiving end again, but it's not that hard to live a lifestyle that doesn't involve driving when you're fucked, y'know?

 

[Mental Kenny]

Thanks fuck there's somebody who sees the issue in a rational way instead of a black and white generalization. Thought I'd landed on the Daily Mail comment section the past two pages.

Agree with everything you say FUBAR, I personally feel I drive better on low dose amphetamine(and 4-FA and similar), than I do while sober.

A GPS navigator probably endangeres your driving more than half a dozen spliffs.

 

[gayorstraight]

Dexamphetamine's still available, yeah. Not that it's very widely prescribed.

Which is a crying shame if it's your drug of choice and you're looking for illicit supplies. Not that I'd ever consider such subterfuge.

Not widely available yet my mother and boyfriend are both prescribed it for Narcolepsy and ADHD respectively. I don't care for speed though unfortunately

 

[gayorstraight]

A GPS navigator probably endangeres your driving more than half a dozen spliffs.

Biggest load of bollocks written yet!

If you get run down by a stoned driver I'm sure your opinion would change. It seems you're just pissed off because you like driving on alcohol and drugs

 

[Myshkin]

Not widely available yet my mother and boyfriend are both prescribed it for Narcolepsy and ADHD respectively. I don't care for speed though unfortunately

Keep your mother and your boyfriend out of my sight then, eh?

That's good advice in general actually.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

A GPS navigator probably endangeres your driving more than half a dozen spliffs.

Well said that man!! The number of idiots I've seen fiddling with their bloody satnavs instead of looking at the road is unbelievable. Whereas EVERYONE I know who drives after a few spliffs stays well within the speed limits and never take their eyes off the road for a second (except while skinning up of course ) Yes, reaction times are slower, but so are the speeds driven at..

 

[gayorstraight]

Yeh, but who hasn't done it?

So you're agreeing that it's irresponsible but it's ok because everyone does it!? Great argument 8)

Plus people can get done for 'checking lippy' etc because it's illegal to drive without due care and attention

^ then EVERYONE you know deserves to have points on their licence. And since when did slower driving = good driving? If anything it's dangerous to not match the general speed of other traffic in most instances