Three times over the legal limit for cocaine?!

SexyGreyFox said:
Well like they admit on these Traffic Cop series 'The last time was 5 days ago'.
There must be research though that proves how such a 'low amount' is still dangerous.
Click to expand...
The limits aren't based on impairment...zero tolerance approach for illegal drugs.... impairment/risk based limits for prescription drugs (that are also used/abused for recreational purposes)
From the gov website link....

a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
a road safety risk based approach to 8 drugs most associated with medical uses
 
Last edited:
Malevolence said:
Even if you don't do it yourself, merely sitting in a room where somebody is smoking weed can see you losing your licence and getting a hefty fine.
Click to expand...
i am imagining a QI alarm going off right now. Have your read this from a reputable source or is it a hypothetical jumped on as fact by some gutter press like the daily mail?

in reality unless you have been sitting next to cheech and chong in their weed van I highly doubt you would have enough THC in your system to get a ban just from being in a room with somone smoking a joint.

this is why however there ARE tolerences for tiny amounts in your system, and goes back to the "legal limit" for an illegal drug in the OP
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
i am imagining a QI alarm going off right now. Have your read this from a reputable source or is it a hypothetical jumped on as fact by some gutter press like the daily mail?

in reality unless you have been sitting next to cheech and chong in their weed van I highly doubt you would have enough THC in your system to get a ban just from being in a room with somone smoking a joint.

this is why however there ARE tolerences for tiny amounts in your system, and goes back to the "legal limit" for an illegal drug in the OP
Click to expand...
From a mate. He's been a cop for about 20 years, half of that on traffic.
 
Last edited:
Malevolence said:
From a mate. He's been a cop for about 20 years, half of that on traffic.
Click to expand...

I think he is confusing a defence I've seen put forward with reality. What evidence I have seen (and it's admittedly now a decade out of date) is that passive cannabis smoking is not really A Thing. But that doesn't stop the "my two passengers were smoking it so I must have been positive from that" defence. I have no idea if it has ever worked though.

To answer a couple of other points:

1) The legal limits are based on two factors. Where a drug can be prescribed (like diazepam) the limit is based on impairment. Where the drug is not prescribed (like cocaine) the limit is based on reliable detection. Thus three times over the legal limit would not be even a slight buzz.

2) Poppy seeds put you over the limit for morphine, not heroin. Some urine tests cannot tell the difference, but you can't be convicted on a urine test. The sample goes off for proper analysis and an LC-MSMS has no trouble telling the difference.
 
Last edited:
VincentHanna said:
Cocaine is a class A drug. How can there be a "legal limit" that you can be over? Very confused.
Click to expand...

Probably they are actually testing for benzoylecgonine - a metabolite produced by the body when breaking down cocaine - rather than cocaine itself. Also, aren't the laws you can be charged under based on possession rather than "having taken" a drug so I'm not sure what they could have charged him with.

An interesting thing I found while looking this up:

When the government was considering setting the cocaine drug driving limit, it enlisted a panel of advisers ranging from specialists in pharmacokinetics (the science of what the body does to a drug), pharmacology and psychopharmacology, forensic toxicology, misuse of drugs, clinical practice, mental health, addiction science and transport safety. After considering all of the options, and the evidence relating to the point at which a user would become at risk of a road traffic accident or impaired driving, the recommended cocaine limit for driving that they came to was 80 micrograms of cocaine per litre of blood and 500 micrograms of benzoylecgonine per litre of blood; much higher than the limits that are in place today. The actual limits are set at only 10mg for cocaine and 50mg for the metabolite.​

So, in fact, his shocking three times over is probably below the level at which it would have substantially impaired his ability.
 
Roar87 said:

Cocaine | National Institute on Drug Abuse

Learn more about the health effects of cocaine, a stimulant drug made from the leaves of the coca plant.
nida.nih.gov nida.nih.gov

It is literally a stimulant, are you ok?
Click to expand...

Both act very differently on the body, especially in terms of the dopamine hit.
Plus from what i remember, and i'm sure there's proper medical terminology for this, your body can 'regulate' caffeine and it's effects to some degree, whereas it can't with cocaine which is why it's tends to be a lot more addictive.
 
Apart from the joke sentence this is why you should never stop right behind a HGV because it will end in tears. Always try and maintain a good distance as if you are hit at least you have a chance at being punted off to the side or slowing down the impact. Stopping right behind you just end up like a crushed coke can.

Unfortunately there are many inconsiderate people on the roads that wouldn't think twice about their actions taking someone's life. Better off driving defensively always. Always leave a gap.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
Probably they are actually testing for benzoylecgonine - a metabolite produced by the body when breaking down cocaine - rather than cocaine itself. Also, aren't the laws you can be charged under based on possession rather than "having taken" a drug so I'm not sure what they could have charged him with.
Click to expand...

Actually the test is for both cocaine and benzoylecgonine. The ratio of the two also gives a slight clue as to how recently the drug was taken. And no, you can't be charged with possession if the drug is inside your blood and/or urine, if that's what you were suggesting. It's section 4 or section 5A of the RTA if you were driving, and a stern talking to if you weren't and have no powder etc on your person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom