• Terpenetime
    135
    What are the consequences of being caught with cannabis in your bloodstream in your jurisdiction?

    From 2nd March 2015 the law on drug driving in the UK changed. The old offence of driving whilst unfit through drugs remains in place but is now rarely used as the old offence requires there to be proof of driver impairment.

    The new offence of drug driving means it is now illegal to drive if you have more than 2µg/L (0.002mg per litre) of delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol (cannabis) in your blood even if your driving is not impaired. As a comparison the legal limit for driving under the influence of alcohol is 800mg per litre of blood. This has seen a surge in arrests and convictions of many motorists who arguably posed absolutely no threat to others.

    The Consequences:

    * Mandatory minimum penalty of 12-month disqualification and a fine of 1.5 weeks’ net wages;
    * For repeat offenders, a mandatory minimum penalty of 36-month disqualification along with a fine of 1.5 weeks’ net wages;
    * Your driving licence will be endorsed for 11 years for drug driving;
    * Possible prison sentence in high reading or repeat offender cases;
    * Criminal record;
    * Possible professional consequences such as loss of job/licence to practice;
    * Significant insurance increases;
    * Restrictions on foreign travel; and
    * Reputational damage.

    Unlike drink driving, there are no sentencing guidelines for drug driving setting out the penalty range for a specific drug reading. A pattern has emerged within the courts to take the drink drive guidelines as a template of what sentence to impose in drug driving, which is completely perverse and unfair.

    Some courts have been known to take the view that if you are twice over the drug driving limit then a sentence should be imposed as if you were twice over the drink driving limit. This causes great concern as the legal limit for illegal drugs has been set at a zero tolerance approach unlike drink driving. If a defendant’s drug reading is double the cannabis limit their driving is still unlikely to be impaired, unlike if someone’s alcohol reading is double the drink driving limit, yet they could still be facing a disqualification period of nearly 2 years.

    The new drug driving law does not take into consideration your quality of driving – if you are over the prescribed limit you will be prosecuted.
  • Jack Jackson
    20
    Those hard limits on blood tests are ridiculous. They have no relationship to impairment.

    The people tested in this article started the test, before smoking, with 90ng/ml. Even after smoking so much more than I would ever consider safe to consume and drive their driving was not impacted as much as I would have expected. Also interesting to note is their blood levels did not change much.

    No one should drive impaired but there is no hard and fast limit to know that. I hope places figure this out and find a better way to keep impaired drivers off the road.

    https://www.boston25news.com/news/marijuana-mile-driving-test-highlights-challenges-for-mass-lawmakers/491580705
  • EconMan
    4.1k


    Fascinating. What country is this from?

    In the USA, most states, counties, and localities primarily give breath-tests rather than blood-tests, BUT you have the right to refuse any such test, even the infamous and bullshit "field sobriety test" which anyone can be made to fail if desired by the cop. Again, in most jurisdictions, driving is considered a "privilege" and not a "right" so *if* you refuse to piss or release blood, the State can choose to revoke your drivers license. But in most all jurisdictions you're entitled to a hearing before a judge, and about 50% of the time the cop doesn't show up to the hearing, meaning that the citizen wins by default judgement.

    Alcohol is very clean and easy with regards to RECENT USE detection with standardized metrics (blood-alcohol level) readily comparable. MJ is NOT easy to detect in real time. An MJ virgin for instance, can literally get really high right before their piss and nothing will trigger signals. A heavy user could be clean for 24 hours and be stone sober and piss negative.

    It has always been this way. The cops rely on naive stupid citizens who will tell the truth about their consumption. Well sort of the truth. If you're going to lie, go the whole ten yards and lie well.
    "Sir, you seemed to be weaving on the road and you ran a stop sign..."
    "Oh, I'm so sorry officer, my prescription medications kicked in"
    You just fucked yourself. :gasp:

    If that wasn't said, they would have no probable cause to charge with any form of "driving while intoxicated". I see this so often in legal transcripts in my expert-witness work here. A person admits to having *A* drink/pill/hit which opens up Pandora's box of probable cause, and would have been so much better off to have lied hard.
    I don't care if a massive amount was consumed an hour ago and you smell like it, the correct response is "No, officer, I haven't had anything to drink/swallow/smoke" and then unless you're just too fucked up to carry it off, utilize a truly awesome right -- the right to STFU. :100:

    In my personal and professional experience, almost all convictions in this regard are self incrimination.

    My daughter got arrested a couple years ago at 3am for being an idiot -- driving drunk. Really drunk. Drove her new car into a telephone relay station box that then caught on fire, destroyed the car and the box, knocking out the phone and internet service for the entire neighborhood. She phoned me trashed out of her mind.

    Daddy, I had a wreck and I'm drunk. The car is burning. slurring words
    OMG are you injured?
    No, I don't think so.
    What happened. Where are you?
    I don't know dad.
    Are the cops there? Are you being arrested?
    Not yet, I don't think so... no cops but there is a crowd.
    Ok. Listen to me (raising my voice). Do you have an alcohol with you or in your purse?
    Huh? No? Why?... (more slurred words)
    I want you to ask a stranger to give you a drink... NOW!! you're freaking out and need a drink to relax. Please do this NOW! Politely refuse to answer any questions. Later, if they want you to take a test, cooperate.

    She did as I asked. They gave her the test, charged her, and jailed her. A week later all charges were dropped except a token "public intoxication" charge which is not part of a driving record, does not affect insurance, etc. The prosecution knew he could not prove she was "drunk while driving" only that she was drunk by the time the cops arrived. Even the PI charge was dropped when the cop did not show to to trial.

    She did not get off totally free though because she is STILL paying me $250/mth to reimburse me for a rather hefty legal bill. Counting the differential between what what the insurance paid and the replacement value of her car, she (I) was out about $15,000. She still has a couple years of payments to me. Serves her right. To her credit, she has not missed one. I made her sign a contract, so if she does, I'll sue her.

    So back to driving and MJ, at least in the states. The primary piece of evidentiary "probable cause" is our own statements. So lie and don't do it half-ass. The cops are not your friend or therapist. You did not have a pill/gummy/hit/toke/etc at all. Not only did you not have "only one", you didn't have "even one".
  • UbarDog
    1.5k
    From 2nd March 2015 the law on drug driving in the UK changed.Terpenetime

    I made her sign a contract, so if she does, I'll sue her.EconMan

    OMFG I love this :D !!! Tough love

    I have seen so many live ruined by alcohol, Lost 2 Friends and another on his way out. It infuriates me the comparisons made over here. Drinking a bottle of vodka and Driving and smokeing a joint 2 days ago and driving is the EXCALLY the same in the eye's of the law over here . If blood tested , Which is what they do at the staion.
  • Stants
    116
    @Terpenetime any idea what tests they are using now ?
    I was watching something on tv the other night, police interceptors/cops/Britain's worst crims or something similar they pulled two lads over due to the smell, driver admitted to smoking 2 hours ago they tested him, with what looked like a saliva test and it came back negative so he was allowed to go,

    Passenger was nicked for possession with intent to supply as was all bagged up,

    Would be interesting to get hold of the test kit they use and self assess,
  • EconMan
    4.1k


    Preach it brother UbarDog. :100:
    Yes!
    I drink a little -- a hard limit of two drinks, no exceptions.
    Most of my life blunders -- stupid things said and done -- are from drinking. My most shameful moments, where I was unnecessarily mean, borish, obnoxious, and an all-out asshole, are highly correlated with being too drunk. I've often thought had I not got into weed, I would have become an alcoholic. I was REALLY lucky. All the drunk driving I did in my twenties I never killed or hurt anyone.

    I can take a 1g dab and function better than with a six-pack of beer.

    As a parent it is why, although I did not encourage weed use, I did not discourage it. I did not lie to them about my usage and would just say, "Daddy going to go smoke now..." They understood it was illegal and not to talk about it in school.

    Life is odd though. We rarely get the outcome with regards to other people's behavior we try to control into existence. My oldest daughter today still likes to drink too much (but ubers now), and consumes very little weed. sigh
    I also have four step-children but am no longer living with their mother and haven't for years. But I love them and still view them as my kids (as they call me "dad") and I am still very involved with their lives, actually much more so than their mother, who is simply one of those women who should never have had children. Regardless, only one of them drinks so that makes me feel a little better. :nerd:
  • tripertronic
    261
    The moth..fuc..ers raided my home on sunday 10 in the morning. Sleeping naked in my bed...my girl besides me...BECAUSE OF SMELL!!!!! Imaging waking up in your bed and a squad team stands in front of you. Me and my girl have really good jobs and paying a lot of taxes. But this fuckers really raided me. Bitch ass movement
  • bulllee
    192
    Most of my life blunders -- stupid things said and done -- are from drinking. My most shameful moments, where I was unnecessarily mean, borish, obnoxious, and an all-out asshole, are highly correlated with being too drunk. I've often thought had I not got into weed, I would have become an alcoholic. I was REALLY lucky. All the drunk driving I did in my twenties I never killed or hurt anyone.EconMan

    I feel like I just read my autobiography.I am in my 60's, and I know it sounds like a cliche but I just wonder how I survived back then. Now I'm 15 years sober no alcohol, no fentanyl, no opioids, just weed and dabs. Weed saved my life from years of addiction and pain. Still have some pain, I just don't care. :rofl:
  • Baron23
    9.6k
    Where the fuck was this? USA? Did they have a search warrant? What was the result?
  • Tyedyesamuraiguy
    2.1k
    and about 50% of the time the cop doesn't show up to the hearing, meaning that the citizen wins by default judgementEconMan
    I love when the cops know they fucked up and dont even wanna show their face!!!

    My wife and i had an incident similar to your daughter but no crash that time...
    When the cops showed up neither of us were driving the car (i was chilling in the passenger seat and we were ln the road though)! Lol it was kind of a domestic call too so there was an arrest based on that which was also dropped because there was really no issue but a little more bullshit to fight that... Bottom line is noone got a dui or a any kind of record!! Complete and utter "ricky" situation

    I also would like to add after all of that i do not condone driving under the influence it is foolish reckless and more words lol. I had to learn things the hard way and i wanna save some trouble. Ot is a dumb idea no matter what. Surround your self with good times and even better people!! :victory:
  • EconMan
    4.1k


    Yeah, by smell only? Sounds specious ?
  • tripertronic
    261
    no, austria. Yes, warrant. Result was physical stress. They found almost nothing. The hole action was illegal. In our country you can't raid somebody because of bad smell. No matter what smell. And the amount was too low. The.fuckers paid the chrashed door. And I didn't do anything. Because its better not to fight them, I want to live in peace in my future. Because its still illegal here.
  • Baron23
    9.6k
    Wow....thanks for the reply.
  • Terpenetime
    135
    @EconMan an extremely interesting, informative and amusing post, thank you. :clap: I’m in the UK.

    @Stants They use so-called drugalysers to check for cocaine and cannabis after swabbing a suspect's mouth. Even drivers that pass the roadside check can be arrested if the police suspect that their driving is impaired by drugs. At the station they’ll carry out a blood test to determine one way or the other.

    There are plenty of UK websites selling drug test kits but I’m unsure of their veracity.

    @tripertronic I feel for you, that must have been a horrible experience and for what purpose?

    @EconMan very interesting article, thank you :clap:
  • Tyedyesamuraiguy
    2.1k
    even in canada we still fear the federalies..
  • Stants
    116

    Fair enough, luckily I've not been stopped in a very long time & have grown up enough now to not be driving round blazing away or be under the influence, but I reckon if they blood tested you I'd never be clean what ever time of the day,
  • EconMan
    4.1k
    no, austria. Yes, warrant. Result was physical stress. They found almost nothing. The hole action was illegal. In our country you can't raid somebody because of bad smell.tripertronic

    Wow. Glad it turned out with minimized trouble to you, but yes, that would stress the fuck out of me.
    Austria, at least today, is not a police state.... I think some Austrian bureaucrat somewhere perhaps made an error.

    One problem in the USA, is we have 51 sets of Law and 1000's of sets of "law enforcement". "Small town sheriffs" often for political reasons like to violate constitutional protections because it is popular with local knuckle-draggers who vote.

    Re tests. Remember it is not the test, but the testing system that works. In the states most jurisdictions use breath tests for alcohol. MJ is much more problematic. There simply is no rational correlation of "thc blood level" to general levels of impairment. If you have a .15 alcohol blood level you're drunk weather you are 5' 80 pounds or 6'6" and 300 pounds.
    But THC is so very different than alcohol. First, there is no "strong detection" of it outside a blood test. The actual math of it is like dip-switches.... "if indicators A, B, D, but not C are on AND E, F, & G are off" then there is a 99.5% chance the "positive" result is not a false-positive. I've literally destroyed dozens of urinalysis claims on the stand and in briefs. They have to be administered perfectly before their prediction metrics hold water. So if you attack the test, you attack the result.

    It is totally possible to consume like a fiend and piss negative. It is also possible to piss positive and have never consumed in your life. Remember, there is no direct confirmation of THC use by urine. It uses indirect indicators.
    Let's say we want to detect "overweight people" using only their travel data. Let's see. Who went to the Gym this week... scratch them (erroneously) they likely won't be fat? You might be tempted to look at buffet visits but lots of skinny people eat at buffets too. So if Gym=true and Buffet=false then they are overweight. Obviously wrong, but if it is right on average then it is an indicator.

    ONLY a well-performed blood test will truly provide strong evidence. But did I say how different THC was from alcohol? "Indicatorable" THC begins to dissipate from the blood in general almost immediately, so from a driving-while-high law-enforcement perspective, unless they have a field blood test specialist nearby (cops can NOT give blood tests) by the time they get you to the station most the THC has been removed from the blood and has taken residence in your fat cells and most delightfully, your brain cells. Again, unlike alcohol, impairment happens entirely at the brain.
    So for government to really make a scientific case against someone who was arrested a few hours ago, they would have to drill into their brain and take a tissue sample.

    Regardless, in my expert testimonies, I've never lost a case yet, so knock on wood. At a minimum, a retest was at least ordered and by that time we either got them clean or armed with freeze-dried urine (and a fake battery-powered strap-on warm peeing penis - for a woman we put the urine in a balloon which she inserts into her vagina to keep it warm and body temp). Whatever, they get their job/life back and that makes me happy. "Sticking it to the man" always makes me happy.

    If you live in a legal state and you're a stoner and not a drunk, it's a good time to be alive. :nerd:
    At least for now, with weed it's mostly the honor system. In the USA, simply do NOT admit to having consumed anything. You're NOT GUILTY (in the USA) until you are proved guilty.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment