Drink, drugs and driving

[Jux]

In The Times today:

"People who drive after taking illegal drugs could be banned for a year and fined up to £5000 - even if there is no evidence that their driving was impaired." Yes someone has developed a roadside drug test, just need a sample of saliva.

Now, without the last clause, that would seem OK, bastard out of his head, driving like a maniac, yes of course, grab him and ban him and fine him. BUT his driving was fine, perfectly safe, sensible, not speeding (ha!), stops for little old ladies etc.

There is talk of allowing the police to perform random checks. That means stopping a car for no reason, breathalysing the driver (and presumably now doing the above roadside drug test as well).

I am wondering: does that mean that if you had a toke of cannabis a couple of weeks ago, you will then be up for the ban and fine? How fair is this? What about if you use it for pain relief?

To be honest, I know a few people who smoke the stuff and they are a lot safer on the road than people who drink.

Are we really in favour of random checks? Where will it stop? The next logical step is to stop people in the street, isn't it? How far is this going to go?

And if there is a limit to how much alcohol you are allowed to have in your body before you are considered unsafe to drive, should there be a measure of how much of any particular drug there is in your body before you are considered unsafe?

I just feel that our society is moving closer and closer to a police state. Big Gov is watching everything and wants to control everthing and very soon we will be being stalked by the thought police! Already neighbours are grassing up neighbours, next it'll be kids grassing up parents.

Maybe I'm just musing; but I really don't like the way this is going.

Nanny state > Police State > '1984'

I can't find it in me to defend driving under the influence of illegal drugs. Back in the day when I dabbled lightly, I was not safe to drive and would never have done so. I don't want anyone in charge of a huge and potentially lethal chunk of metal to have their judgement impaired.

They'll be lucky, there are simply not enough traffic police around to institute random checks.

It would be nice if they could police the shit driving on the road that owes nothing to drugs, quite frankly. Speed cameras don't pick up most forms of crap / dangerous/ aggressive driving.

I also can't get that excited about the thought of people being stopped in their cars. 3000 a year get killed on the roads and I tend to think that being stopped on a random basis when you are in total charge of a jolly big metal machine which can kill people if used wrongly, is really not that great an intrusion into my civil rights. If they were stopping pedestrians, then I'd be alarmed.

it'll be link the poll tax riots again if they do

there are tons of traffic police round here, i've been stopped randomly. my god round here the police would love it.

"To be honest, I know a few people who smoke the stuff and they are a lot safer on the road than people who drink"

Jux - how do you know this?

To be honest, I can't really understand why you're so defensive/aggressive about this. Surely anything that stops accidents being caused by people who have ingested drugs or alcohol has to be a good thing?

Having done my fair share of drugs in the past and I am all to glad of this development. when we were teenagers, the designated driver wouldn't drink but would smoke spliffs all night instead.

I know for a fact that when I was stoned my driving was worse.

If this law saves one persons life it would be worth it. 3,000 people die every year on the roads. If cars were a serial killer none of us would leave our houses.

I hate all this crying of 'nanny state' - 1984, fuck off, my Mum grew up in a communist state, and had four members of her family killed by the KGB. Now she hates all the cameras and ID cards, but is more than happy about strict driving policies.

noonki - Congratulations, you have an ex-Soviet mum. Sorry but no, that doesn't make you an authority on the subject.

Do come back when you calm down. If you can stop with the f-words, maybe we can have a conversation.

Cote - I apologise for swearing that was out of order of me. Just this subject is very raw for me as a friend of mine has been made a parapylgeic due to a drink driver.

I just think anything that reduces this isn't a bad thing. I think there should be an all out ban on drinking/drug taking and driving.

sorry but I hate the over use of nanny state.

To be frank, I think the state needs to do a bit more nannying where 3000 people per annum are killed on the roads.

It is absolutely shocking that we accept those deaths and get up in arms about nanny states when the state tries to do something about them.

i watched a programme the other day where a road specialist from sweden looked at our roads.

the design and lack of safety features (ie trees growing on the kerbside) leave alot to be desired.

this should be concentrated on more, rather than that driver who are penalised more and more.

you can still drink and drive in this country.

But 5 out of 6 accidents are not caused by drunk drivers.

And tbh drivers aren't penalised enough. I'm sure our roads could benefit from better design, but you can design as well as you like, if a driver is not paying attention or driving too fast, there will be accidents.

Most accidents are not caused by road design or mechanical failure. They are caused by driver error.

The problem with this proposed legislation is that while alcohol can only be detected in one's breath for some hours, drug metabolites will remain in one's system for days if not weeks. So police can stop people and check them for drugs, then punish them without any indication that their driving ability was impaired in any way. Even if the said drug was taken a week ago.

Putting aside the hysteria re "Ooh thousands dying on the road, bring on the police state", this is a totally ineffective measure that will needlessly punish people who were no danger on the road.

As those of us who have "dabbled" at one point will know, people under the influence of drugs are quite easy to spot. Shine a light at driver's eyes and see if they are hugely dilated, for example. If police can't tell by looking at the driver that he has taken drugs, then he has taken it too long ago to matter to his driving skills.

Someone driving under the influence of drugs may be safer than someone who is drunk, but they are not safer than someone who has done neither. People take drugs because they like the effect they have, i.e. they alter your behaviour to some degree. I don't know about the influence of drugs long after you have taken them, but, if they are still in your system, there is always the chance that they are still affecting your behaviour. And let's not forget that illegal drugs are illegal, so I don't think people can get all up in arms about being penalised for driving after having taken them.

"if they are still in your system, there is always the chance that they are still affecting your behaviour"

Err, no.

Tests detect metabolites, not the actual substance.

There is no way on earth that you will still feel the effects of a line of coke from a week ago, but its metabolites can be detected from your saliva.

Apparently you can detect traces of cannabis in urine/saliva (?) 6 months after using it. Don't know how true that is.

Well, the simple answer is not to take illegal drugs in the first place and then you don't have a problem - unless you drink.

You are digressing.

This thread is not about drinking alcohol or doing drugs in general. It is about the danger to others while driving under the influence of these substances, or not, as the case might be. The point is that police just won't know that by testing for metabolites that stay in bodily secretions for weeks.

I thought the OP's point was that the police can test even if there is no evidence of bad driving, so it's not really about the influence of the drugs, is it?

With regard to a police state, I would be more worried if they had the manpower and resources to carry out the powers they already have. Adding on more powers won't really make much of a difference, will it?

Well tbh I don't care. I'm not going to stand up for someone's right to take illegal, behaviour-altering drugs and then get behind the wheel of a car whether it's 24 hours later or six weeks later. If you choose to take illegal drugs, then you can't really complain if you get found out six weeks later, it's part of the deal of illegal behaviour - you might be found out, even when the immediate effects of the crime has worn off.

As for the "hysteria" about 3000 people a year dying on the road, tbh what we have in this country is nowhere near hysteria, it's total complacency. If you want to get away with murder, the best way is to knock your victim over with a car and then pretend it was an accident. Chances are you'll get no more than a fine. If legislation acts to build up more of a sense that when you get behind the wheel of a car, you may be held accountable for your actions while behind that wheel, then I'm all for it. We really need to change driving behaviour in this country, unless of course you think 3000 a year dying on the road is a reasonable state of affairs - I personally don't. If a few coke users get caught while not being particularly dangerous on the road, I can't really say I feel the urge to rush to the barricades to protect their right not to have their illegal behaviour found out.

Yes, and that is exactly the point!

There is no sense in banning people from driving because they did smoked a joint last month. It is insane.

As you said, there are limited police resources. Why on earth would anyone want to dedicate a sizable police force to test, fine, and ban people who are very probably no danger on the road?

Give a sign that you understand what I am talking about. I'm saying the same thing over and over again.

The toll of people dying on the roads is a national disgrace tbh. I would support any measure that helped to reduce this.

If it is any consolation, it must be extremely unlikely for the courts to convict on the basis of a test which only proved that you had taken a substance anytime during the past few weeks. Prejudicial though the results may be.

It's not going to happen.

People could be banned for up to a year.

In theory. In practice, a court will look at the evidence. And in practise, there simply aren't enough police resources to stop everyone who might have had a joint last month.

It will be interesting to see the first case, but I somehow think we'll be waiting for a long time.

At the moment, I'm not aware of any legislation which means that someone who has taken illegal substances can be prosecuted for driving. In practice, I suspect what will happen is that the police will stop a driver because of bad driving, they will test for both alcohol and (if legislation is introduced to allow them to) illegal drugs. If either of the tests is positive, then prosecution will probably follow. I personally do not have a problem with this. I doubt very much that any police force is going to devote any resources to this that aren't already doing it.

If you have concerns about your use of illegal drugs being picked up in this way (whether immediately or a month down the line) either don't do the drugs or don't get behind the wheel of a car.

got a link to this? To see how accurate the test is with regards to 'when' the joint was smoked.
But I'm with LittleBella, too many poeple are killed on our roads and maybe smoking a joint 6 weeks ago (and how likely it is to have one then and never again ) does impair driving.
And since cannabis is illegal, then getting all hot bothered about being caught is just tough.