Should stoned driving be legal?

[Gilly]

Are people really this dense or desperate to prove non-existent points?

They may be that dense due to smoking, but I think it's more desperation for at least some of them.

 

[mattyfez]

I think the majority of people here are in agreement that driving while stoned should be illegal.

The point some people are trying to make is that they have concerns about how the police will be able to detect the difference between being someone stoned and someone who had a smoke some time ago who is flagged as having it in their system whilst not being under the influence. If they have a reliable way of doing this then I'm not sure anyone can argue against it being illegal, but i'm not sure if that has been confirmed here or not (apologies if this has already been properly addressed and I have missed it). It could be detectable in someone who had not smoked it illegally (e.g. they were out of the country at the time they had a smoke - yes I know it's a stretch but it could happen and some people seem to have an issue with the illegality side of it as much as they do with someone having been under the influence).

Indeed, it remains detectable for weeks even months after consumption, long after any intoxication has worn off.. this is the key point of the argument which pretty much everyone seems to be ignoring.

Good point but being as it is illegal to smoke it anyway I suspect that consideration is not going to impact the governments decision making on this...the line has been drawn at zero tolerance, regardless of the immediate impairment, if you test positive then you have taken an illegal substance is probably where they are going.

This would pose some legal issues though I believe, you can be arrested for possession, and arrested for driving under the influence.

Possession is out as once consumed it's not classed as such once consumed, this has always been the precedence.

With driving under the influence, well if you're not under the influence I can't see how that would stand up.

I'm not sure the act of consuming a controlled drug is in itself illegal, it's the possession - but let's say for a theoretical argument you could loose your licence for breaking a law same days or weeks before driving a car, a law which has no bearing on your ability to drive safely, it could be possession of cannabis, but what's to stop it being any law, I don't know, Stealing a loaf of bread from Tesco.

Sounds extreme but legally there would be no difference that I can see. Not very just.

Looking at the 'under the influence' angle, Bill could drink 5 pints on Friday and safely get breathalysed Monday morning and not have to worry, where as Ted who smoked two joints on Friday would lose his licence on Monday. Not very just either - I think such a conviction would be wide open to challenge.

The thing with cannabis is that it metabolises very differently to a lot of recreational drugs, both legal and illegal so the simple presence of THC and/or it's metabolites cannot be compared apples to apples.

I can't see how it would work legally, if your not in possession and not under the influence, what crime has been committed exactly?

 

[BuffetSlayer]

That could argued about anything though. Being angry, upset, morning you versus night you etc....

If you didn't drive every time you were experiencing something that can affect your ability you'd never drive.

The concensus is that you should refrain from driving, where possible, if you are tired, angry, upset etc etc.

The problem is that no matter how mad/upset you get, you won't ever come close to the mind altering properties of drugs and alcohol. The only caveat to that is if you have a psychological problem.

Likewise it has to be accepted that whilst a couple of 'joints' may not impair your functions too harshly, what about mine? What about the 17yr old who has never done drugs before? So if we allow it, where do we draw the line and how do we define if it has impaired someone? qLikewise, evidence clearly shows that regular users of Cannabis have stored THC in their body that is released if they abstain. Additionally, there are different strengths of Cannabis, different forms and different ways of using it. All of which have variable effects on the user.

The grey area that it would create is phenomenal, but let us be frank - if you were involved in an incident that was investigated and you were found to have THC in your system, who is the law going to side with? Sure, you can argue you were not under the effects of the THC at the time because it was from yesterday. But you cannot prove that, and the prevailing evidence that you were involved in an incident in the first place whilst having illicit substances in your system would give probable cause. That is likely going to trump any arguments you could table to try and prove your innocence. I am not saying it is particularly fair, but that is just the way it is. At the end of the day, whichever way you try and cut it, you are doing wrong by using Cannabis and driving. Whether you feel that is the case or not is simply irrelevant, the evidence throughout Europe is that using Cannabis and driving increases your chances of being in an accident. If anything the law should be more strict and it should be easier to prosecute suspected drug drivers.

The same thing goes for drink driving. Some have far more tolerance for alcohol than others, but a line has to be drawn. I can happily drink pints and feel OK, but if I drink spirits it knocks me for 6. Likewise it would send out mixed messages to maintain the illegal status of Cannabis yet allow drug driving whilst under the influence of it. It is simply a silly notion. So what it boils down to, as these discussions mostly do, is that you feel Cannabis should be legal (am I right?). Well it isn't and it probably never will be.

Cannabis is illegal, so I see absolutely no reason why it should be allowed to be used before/during driving (The clutching at straws distinctions between possession and use that I read earlier on really are scraping the barrel to give credence to a pro-Cannabis viewpoint). If you are caught out because of a testing method that is hit an miss, there is a lesson there isn't there? Don't use Cannabis in the first place.

If it were legal to use, you may have a valid grievance. But it isn't and you are already in the wrong by using it (in a purely legal sense) so the book will be thrown at you should you be involved in an incident just the same as it is with all of those drivers with alcohol in their blood the day after drinking.

The subject would have to be looked at again if it were legal to use Cannabis, but the Netherlands adopt a similar system to ours. If they suspect your driving is impaired, or you are involved in an incident - you are likely to be tested and this can result in anything from suspension of your licence to imprisonment if the results go against you.

As such it seems mostly prudent to ensure a person avoids using Cannabis if they are going to go anywhere near a car. If a person feels that Cannabis is more important to them than their mobility, by all means they should continue to use it to their hearts content. If, however, they choose to use Cannabis and drive then they are making a conscious decision to break the law (Technically twice) and will have to deal with the consequences if they get caught out.

It really isn't rocket science. It is the reason, for example, that I do not drink when I know I have to drive. It is not worth the risk to myself or other people, let alone my licence.

In the case of Cannabis, in the abscence of a reliable roadside detection method - sense would dictate a zero tolerance policy (Cannabis is illegal after all)

I found this an interesting read https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/167971/drug-driving-expert-panel-report.pdf

Pages 59-72 if anyone fancies a read.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I think older people (70+) are a bigger threat to road safety than cannabis smokers.

 

[CosmicClown]

Wow, you are clearly nuts.



Frightening, isn't it.

Why is he 'Clearly nuts'?

I've seen you throughout this thread throwing ad-hominem attacks, none of your points hold any weight whatsoever and as soon as a good point is made in rebuttal to whatever tripe your spewing your response is to label people them as nuts.

You are the only one showing signs of being nuts here.

 

[mattyfez]

Likewise it has to be accepted that whilst a couple of 'joints' may not impair your functions too harshly, what about mine? What about the 17yr old who has never done drugs before? So if we allow it, where do we draw the line and how do we define if it has impaired someone?

Good question.

Likewise, evidence clearly shows that regular users of Cannabis have stored THC in their body that is released if they abstain. Additionally, there are different strengths of Cannabis, different forms and different ways of using it. All of which have variable effects on the user.

It's not released at all in a psychoactive way, as a waste product/metabolite through urine possibly but I'm sure that's not what you meant. Some metabolites remain in the fat cells (and others) and are detectable long after the drugs affects have worn off.

The grey area that it would create is phenomenal, but let us be frank - if you were involved in an incident that was investigated and you were found to have THC in your system, who is the law going to side with? Sure, you can argue you were not under the effects of the THC at the time because it was from yesterday. But you cannot prove that,

How would it be proven you were unless a better testing method is established?

The same thing goes for drink driving. Some have far more tolerance for alcohol than others, but a line has to be drawn. I can happily drink pints and feel OK, but if I drink spirits it knocks me for 6. Likewise it would send out mixed messages to maintain the illegal status of Cannabis yet allow drug driving whilst under the influence of it. It is simply a silly notion. So what it boils down to, as these discussions mostly do, is that you feel Cannabis should be legal (am I right?). Well it isn't and it probably never will be.

I'm not arguing about it's legal status, I'm arguing about how it's decided that someone is unfit to drive. It sounds like you are arguing that doing anything illegal, no matter how long ago, means that you are unfit to drive, an interesting perspective.

Cannabis is illegal, so I see absolutely no reason why it should be allowed to be used before/during driving (The clutching at straws distinctions between possession and use that I read earlier on really are scraping the barrel to give credence to a pro-Cannabis viewpoint). If you are caught out because of a testing method that is hit an miss, there is a lesson there isn't there? Don't use Cannabis in the first place.

I certainly agree you shouldn't be driving under the influence.

If it were legal to use, you may have a valid grievance. But it isn't and you are already in the wrong by using it (in a purely legal sense) so the book will be thrown at you should you be involved in an incident just the same as it is with all of those drivers with alcohol in their blood the day after drinking.

You need to think in legal terms, THC or its metabolites can remain in the blood for much longer than a day, and in other cells much longer, do you then get prosecuted for possession of a drug two weeks ago or do you get prosecuted for driving under the influence despite you taking it two weeks ago?

As such it seems mostly prudent to ensure a person avoids using Cannabis if they are going to go anywhere near a car.

For how long should they avoid driving, a day, a week, a month, forever?

If a person feels that Cannabis is more important to them than their mobility, by all means they should continue to use it to their hearts content. If, however, they choose to use Cannabis and drive then they are making a conscious decision to break the law (Technically twice) and will have to deal with the consequences if they get caught out.

For which crime, being under the influence whilst driving, or being in possession, or both?

It really isn't rocket science. It is the reason, for example, that I do not drink when I know I have to drive. It is not worth the risk to myself or other people, let alone my licence.

How long do you not drink for, a day, a week, a month? EDIT based on that rationale, if alcohol were able to be traced weeks after consumption, you'd be fine with that being classed as unfit to drive?

In the case of Cannabis, in the abscence of a reliable roadside detection method - sense would dictate a zero tolerance policy (Cannabis is illegal after all)

So guilty until proven innocent then? we are back full circle, are they under the influence or not?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I think older people (70+) are a bigger threat to road safety than cannabis smokers.

Absolutely. It's nice that we can agree on something, Groen

 

[Gilly]

So guilty until proven innocent then? we are back full circle, are they under the influence or not?

Guilty of what? Innocent of what?

As I read it, if THC is in your system we cannot be sure whether you would be under the influence of it or not. That is not a guilty until proven innocent, that is a guilty for having an illegal substance in your system that may hinder your driving abilities.

That's where the zero tolerance comes in. If we cannot be sure, come down on the side of assuming you are under the influence of it. If you don't want to be in that position, don't knowingly have it in your system at all.

Seems fair to me in lieu of a more reliable roadside test, unless you are advocating those being under the influence being allowed to get away with it in order to protect those that may or may not be under the influence of an illegal substance?

 

[mattyfez]

Guilty of what? Innocent of what?

Driving under the influence.

As I read it, if THC is in your system we cannot be sure whether you would be under the influence of it or not. That is not a guilty until proven innocent, that is a guilty for having an illegal substance in your system

Which is what offence sorry? Think we'll need to create a new one for that.

that may hinder your driving abilities.

Yes, that troublesome word; may.

That's where the zero tolerance comes in. If we cannot be sure, come down on the side of assuming you are under the influence of it. If you don't want to be in that position, don't knowingly have it in your system at all.

Another troublesome word, assuming, neither of which hold much legal weight.

Seems fair to me in lieu of a more reliable roadside test, unless you are advocating those being under the influence being allowed to get away with it in order to protect those that may or may not be under the influence of an illegal substance?

I've clearly stated I'm not in favour of people driving under the influence.
I hope I've also been clear in saying that there's no clear way to tell in the case of cannabis, and that it's wrong to prosecute someone on the basis of an assumption for any offence. To allow such a practice would massive ramifications for the whole legal system.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Good question.

And a very valid one, particularly given the difficulties with guidance and enforcement.

It's not released at all, some metabolites remain in the fat cells (and others) and are detectable long after the drugs affects have worn off.

The report I cited above disagrees with you I am afraid, read page 64.

How would it be proven you were unless a better testing method is established?

By virtue of the fact collective evidence shows that being under the influence of THC impairs driving and you were involved in an accident that appears to be your fault. Rightly or wrongly, there would be serious doubt cast on you as an individual (IE drug user) and as a driver (THC in your system). But again the Police have discretion.

I'm not arguing about it's legal status, I'm arguing about how it's decided that someone is unfit to drive. It sounds like you are arguing that doing anything illegal, no matter how long ago, means that you are unfit to drive, an interesting perspective.

Not at all. But doing something illegal has consequences that reach far after the fact, does it not? In this instance it means you could be pulled for THC in your system 28 days after the fact. You are a well informed fellow, therefore you know that when using Cannabis. So what is at fault, the testing per se, or your mindset?

Clearly that does not mean you are necessarily unfit to drive, but the Police have discretion for a reason and would have only pulled you if they suspect something is amiss. Or, they may test you at the roadside of an incident.

I certainly agree you shouldn't be driving under the influence.

Back to that grey area again though, aren't we?

You need to think in legal terms, THC or its metabolites can remain in the blood for much longer than a day, and in other cells much longer, do you then get prosecuted for possession of a drug two weeks ago or do you get prosecuted for driving under the influence despite you taking it two weeks ago?

In legal terms, I don't have to worry about it because I do not use it. For people who do, the legal wranglings are an inherent risk of their chosen activity. It boils down to having blood tests at police stations as soon as possible after the person is pulled over. In the majority of cases drivers don't just get pulled for nothing. They get pulled because the Police have probable cause. I have been pulled over once in my life, after nearly 20yrs of driving. I was in the wrong for speeding and the officer used his discretion.

But it is a huge cost to put on the Police to cater for people using a substance which is illegal. The question is, why should they bear that cost to make to make the life of a drug user more fair? (bearing in mind they won't have been pulled over for no reason).

For how long should they avoid driving, a day, a week, a month, forever?

I believe it stays in your system for around 28 days. Don't like it? Don't use it However, the saliva testing method recently approved is more reasonable. Given the information I have read about THC, 12-24hrs would be more reasonable, and very much in line with alcohol use.

For which crime, being under the influence whilst driving, or being in possession, or both?

Generally a regular Cannabis user will always have Cannabis on them. If they are using it and driving at the same time, I guess both (Possession and driving under the influence). But again the Police have discretion for a reason, so a kerb side warning for possession may be used if they suspect no driver impairment.

How long do you not drink for, a day, a week, a month?

I refrain from driving for a period long enough for the alcohol to be out of my system. That varies by the amount I have consumed. A couple of pints on a saturday night and I will drive Sunday morning. Ten pints on Saturday night and I won't touch the car until Monday. I also have my own brathaliser, and whilst they are not perfect they do certainly help. For someone like me who needs to drive to make a living, I generally don't drink in the week at all.

So guilty until proven innocent then? we are back full circle, are they under the influence or not?

No not at all. It is more a point of why should we be making concessions for people who are using illegal substances? My point was, the government should use a zero tolerance method (I believe this should stand for alcohol too by the way) because of the doubt cast by current testing methods and the difficulty proving impairment by substances science shows do cause it!

But it means that blood tests are needed ASAP. Not a practical or easy call for a Police officer to make. As such the roadside test will give the Police enough cause to take you for a blood test, and that test will be far more accurate. Certainly there is the grey area in proving impairment, and it is likely there will be an amount of THC by volume of blood that constitues impairment. Other EU countries do it in that way, so it seems likely we will follow suit.

But if you are a perfectly competent and safe driver, the chances are you won't ever be pulled over. If you do get pulled, the chances are it is for a good reason, and if you have been using Cannabis - I guess that is just your tough luck!

 

[Gilly]

Driving under the influence.

Is that a semantic argument? If you are pulled having had a drink you may well be perfectly sober and not inhibited at all by the alcohol but if your levels are wrong you are still breaking the law. There is an assumption in place for drink driving that anyone over the legal limit is under the influence.

Which is what offence sorry? Think we'll need to create a new one for that.

We already have one. Driving whilst unfit to do so is an offence.

Yes, that troublesome word; may.

It is not troublesome for me, and I regret that it is troublesome for you, but that doesn't mean it loses it's relevance.

Another troublesome word, assuming, neither of which hold much legal weight.

The assumption that an individual is not capable of driving safely once over the legal alcohol limit is fairly well known. Why should this be different?

I've clearly stated I'm not in favour of people driving under the influence.
I hope I've also been clear in saying that there's no clear way to tell in the case of cannabis, and that it's wrong to prosecute someone on the basis of an assumption for any offence. To allow such a practice would massive ramifications for the whole legal system.

You have clearly stated that you are against driving whilst knowingly under the influence, or we'd be having a very different conversation, but that's not my issue here. Firstly, the judgement of a substance user is not something I value highly, certainly not whilst it is in their system. Someone with it there still could be under the influence.

I disagree that it is wrong to prosecute someone on the basis of an assumption when that assumption is based on clear fact. To come back to the drink driving statutes:

In England and Wales, the alcohol limit for drivers is 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath or 107 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of urine. In most other European countries, the limit is less, usually 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood (3).

It is assumed that these limits significantly inhibit driving capability. The Drink Aware website states:

There is no fool-proof way of drinking and staying under the limit. The amount of alcohol you would need to drink to be considered over the driving limit varies from person to person. It depends on: (6)

your weight
your gender (men tend to process alcohol faster than women)
your metabolism
the type and amount you're drinking
your current stress levels
whether you've eaten recently
age (younger people tend to process alcohol more slowly)

Even small amounts of alcohol can affect your ability to drive so the only safe advice is to avoid any alcohol if you are driving.

In line with this we can also safely state that there is no fool-proof way to smoke cannabis and be a safe and conscientious driver. If it is in your system it may inhibit your ability to drive, and therefore you are guilty.

I'm sorry this doesn't sit right with your views, but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[mattyfez]

Ok let me put this a different way, what is right about a safe driving limit for one substance and zero tolerance for another in the context of driving under the influence/being unfit to drive?

I'm sorry this doesn't sit right with your views, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Gilly]

Ok let me put this a different way, what is right about a safe driving limit for one substance and zero tolerance for another in the context of driving under the influence/being unfit to drive?

A safe driving limit for a legal substance on the one hand, and a zero tolerance for an illegal substance on the other?

Why should we legislate for an illegal substance?

There's also the testing element. The alcohol levels I pasted above have been tested and tested over and over until they are as reliable as they are going to be. Are we in the same position for THC?

 

[The Dread Pirate]

Oh man, I'm so high right now, I have no idea whas going on

 

[mattyfez]

I don't see why we shouldn't legislate for cannabis given its obvious prevalence, to blindly convict people who have been anywhere near it and a car would be unjust (see my reasoning for this above).

We are not in the same position for THC I agree hence a blanket conviction for driving with any trace found would be a miscarriage of justice.

As I have suggested, a person could smoke a joint and subsequently loose their licence by driving two or three weeks later, despite being perfectly fit to drive.

I can't see how anyone can think that's a sensible or logical way of dealing with things.

 

[Gilly]

I don't see why we shouldn't legislate for cannabis given its obvious prevalence, to blindly convict people who have been anywhere near it and a car would be unjust (see my reasoning for this above).

We are not in the same position for THC I agree hence a blanket conviction for driving with any trace found would be a miscarriage of justice.

As I have suggested, a person could smoke a joint and subsequently loose their licence by driving two or three weeks later, despite being perfectly fit to drive.

I can't see how anyone can think that's a sensible or logical way of dealing with things.

You think we should legislate for one specific illegal substance? Why? Why not all of them? Why not zero tolerance? Which is going to cost the taxpayer most?

We are not in the same position for THC so either we take a carte blanche anything goes approach or we have zero tolerance. There's no middle ground, so you either advocate allowing stoners to drive whilst stoned or you don't.

I come down on the don't side of the fence. You say you don't like the thought of people driving whilst stoned but are seemingly not prepared to deal with it.

 

[mattyfez]

You think we should legislate for one specific illegal substance? Why? Why not all of them? Why not zero tolerance? Which is going to cost the taxpayer most?

We are not in the same position for THC so either we take a carte blanche anything goes approach or we have zero tolerance. There's no middle ground, so you either advocate allowing stoners to drive whilst stoned or you don't.

I come down on the don't side of the fence. You say you don't like the thought of people driving whilst stoned but are seemingly not prepared to deal with it.

Errm, I do not advocate people driving whilst stoned, that should be abundantly clear by now, I just don't sit on the same side of the fence.

Seemingly not prepared to deal with it?, hmm, I think it does need to be dealt with, in a fair manner which would have the prerequisites of not punishing people who are not guilty.

A more definitive way of testing is what's required here.

 

[do_ron_ron]

On March 2nd, new legislation will come into effect giving police new powers and new limits in regard to 'drug driving', the Government state "one smoke of cannabis will put you over the limit".

Great right? Well maybe not. According to this report, consuming the old May Jane has no effect on driving skills...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-safer-than-drunk-ones-new-federal-data-show/

So is it really 'fair' that someone who's smoked a joint can get a 12 month ban and £5,000 fine when someone who's taken painkillers will likely face no criminal charges despite science showing the latter is more likely to result in an accident?

I cannot believe you consider this a serious question. The users mind and vision are impaired and they are driving a 1-2 Tonnes vehicle. Get real.

To me this seems like double enforcement, rather than sensible precaution. They aren't punishing you based on the evidence, but because weed is illegal and therefore if they can't catch you smoking it they want another way to screw you over.

 

[Gilly]

Errm, I do not advocate people driving whilst stoned, that should be abundantly clear by now, I just don't sit on the same side of the fence.

Seemingly not prepared to deal with it?, hmm, I think it does need to be dealt with, in a fair manner which would have the prerequisites of not punishing people who are not guilty.

A more definitive way of testing is what's required here.

That's the problem though, we currently don't have a more definitive means of testing so there are two options. Allow stoned driving or don't. Don't means punishing anyone found to have THC in them.

Erring on the side of caution so at to protect innocent road users is paramount.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

As I have suggested, a person could smoke a joint and subsequently loose their licence by driving two or three weeks later, despite being perfectly fit to drive.

I can't see how anyone can think that's a sensible or logical way of dealing with things.

Unlikely. They will be tested at the roadside, then taken for a blood test if THC is detected in their saliva / breath. From that point on it will quickly be ascertained if the THC in their blood is in excess of the legal limit. For example in Norway the impairment limit 1.3 μg/L of THC in blood.

We have a blood/breath limit for alcohol, even though it effects people differently and someone may not technically be impaired whilst in excess of that limit. For example, those driving in a morning after drinking the night before. They still get prosecuted, so it isn't like Cannabis users are going to be treated unfairly.

So to try and argue that Alcohol users are afforded some kind of special treatment is simply not true. If you blow over that limit, you get done for drink driving. Simple as that. You don't even have to be caught driving badly. If a copper pulls you after observing you leaving a pub and getting into your car and driving off he has probable cause to pull you over. If you blow too high, you are prosecuted.

The same system would be used for Cannabis. There is talk of the limit in England and Wales being 5μg/L, which is somewhat lenient compared to our EU counterparts.

Science and rafts of meta analysis decide when a typical person will become impaired, not how you personally feel. Sorry if that is a problem for you, but that's just the way it is.

The trouble with many Cannabis users is they smoke it like regular cigarettes. Unlike alcohol, which is a recreational drug used at key points in the day (normally), Cannabis users will be smoking joints all day long. Perhaps refraining from doing so will help you keep your licence? For example only smoking a couple of joints at the weekend as a treat, like I only have a few drinks?

I have to modify my lifestyle because I need to drive, and I know it is easy to lose your licence. I see no reason why I should have to do so, and a Cannabis user not - particularly when I am not using anything illegal and both substances are scientifically proven to impair your mental capacity.