[Closed] Following on from the "neighbours smoking weed" thread (drug driving content)

Police are a finite resource, especially this weekend due to the very peaceful protesting going on, the answer looks like do they look like they are about to crash? If so we can send somebody to catch/stop them

Do you know how much they smoked. Did the driver looked stoned ?

If you saw someone have beer/glass of wine then drive, would you call the police despite having no idea whever the were over the limit or not.

Your police mate's response seems perfectly sensible to me.

So you rang your friend to see if you should ring 999 but weren’t happy when he told you his opinion. If you were so concerned then why not ring 999? Would you do it if you seen someone leavng a pub and getting in a car?

Not that I condone either as I work on the one pint is too man rule for myself.

Drac - it wasn't an opinion it was a a fudge. As I said - how can I calculate or estimate the risk?

Why am I getting grief?

Taxi - I said in my OP that I didn't know how much he'd smoked.

The evidence on cannabis and driving is thin

The consensus would seem to be that under controlled testing impairment is very hard to show and the mistakes stoned drivers make are much less dangerous than drink drivers

However in these tests the subject will be concentrating.   In the real world is this applicable?

In the US states where cannabis is now legal I think there is no evidence that accident rates have risen

One thing that is clear is that cannabis and alcohol are a very bad mix for driving.  Far worse than either separately.

So to the OP I would say if his driving seems OK as he set off I wouldn't worry. You have to be very stoned to be significantly impaired so long as the driver is concentrating.

Yes, this is a 999 situation. Consider the risk to the children.

(Copper for 15 years, before anyone asks the question)

Ring 101 if you don’t want to ring 999

Drac – it wasn’t an opinion it was a a fudge. As I said – how can I calculate or estimate the risk?

Why am I getting grief?

Odd that you think your friend would be better placed to decide for you if it was an emergency?  If I dial 999 I expect the nearest available officer to be dispatched with blue lights and siren.  If I don't think that is necessary I dial 101; the trained staff who handle the 101 call can decide that actually my perception is wrong and it does require an immediate response.  They may take into account factors I am unaware of in making that decision (like previous markers on the car, availability of resource, etc).

I do know it was strong shit as the smell filled our garden.

Does strength of smell correlate to potency of the drug?

(Genuine question, I've no idea.)

Why am I getting grief?

You need to ask? 😀

I agree that your mate’s response is crap in my opinion; think the rules on 999 are crime in progress or danger to life IIRC, so pretty sure you’re in the clear on both those counts.

Either ring 999 or post on the STW forum.

Or phone a friend.

In the US states where cannabis is now legal I think there is no evidence that accident rates have risen

Has the the amount of users risen? Has the amount of drivers who smoke cannabis then drive risen?

Neither known for sure as far as I know but seems likely

A part of the thin evidence

Anti cannabis campaigners predicted a rise in both leading to a rise in accidents

Without good quality testing it's going to be one of those things that it is hard to prove either way

Tj, I’d be surprised if the numbers of users have massively increased (like doubling or tripling which is probably what you’d need to create a measurable change in road casualties, given not every stoned driver harms someone every time, and there baseline casualty rate is quite high anyway).

then if you consider that the type of user who wouldn’t participate because it was illegal is probably law abiding it doesn’t lead to a conclusion that stoned drivers increase with legalisation.

finally add to that that where there is legalisation generally roadside testing is increased there would be an argument that stoned drivers should either get caught more or deterred more.

All good points Poly

Clinical trials on controlled substances are by their very nature, illegal and therefore very rare. Is this because they are controlled substances? Or is this because the potential results declare responsible use safer and less damaging than many legal pharmaceutical products?

How many people drive away from a festival or rave?

How much more Daily Fail scaremongering and untruths will there be to continue the fruitless and highly damaging war on drugs?

An informative read for those interested is 'Chasing The Scream' by Johann Hari. Well, I found it informative and interesting 😃

You would get a better response if you phoned 999, are you sure your officer mate wasn’t just putting the ball in your court with a nod to ringing 999? I’m an officer and my response would be exactly the same if you asked. 999 is for emergencies but you could big most things up to warrant a 999 call. It’s your perception after all, not your mates. Personally drink/drug driving I would. How would you feel if that person drove off and subsequently killed someone? I have successfully prosecuted several drink drivers and recently a few drug drivers. To say someone is not impaired when under the influence of drugs is a ridiculous thing to say. Of course they are, why take the drug in the first place if it has no effect? Honestly some of the people I have seen driving under the influence of drugs would make anyone think twice.

Snitches get stitches apparently.

Not quite sure how it works, but phone 101 with the reg plate and it might get passed on to the 'interceptors' (I've seen them on the telly) to pull over or follow if they happen to come by them.

and 3 miles away  today a 12 year old girl in in hospital after being hit by an arrested suspected drug driver,luckily she was a few hundred yards from an A and E hospital, road has been closed all afternoon and tonight. The young girl has suffered a head injury.

Shame somebody didnt report the driver before  they got a criminal record and the girl got hurt.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/man-arrested-suspicion-drug-driving-14909941

Thorpie

The problem is that cannabis does not mean people cannot pass impairment tests.  I saw this first hand when working alongside the police and I have an interest in drug usage and policy having also worked in drug rehab.

The evidence for cannabis use impairing driving significantly is thin at best and some testing of driving ability after moderate use has been done with little to no impairment found.   Certainly very much less than alcohol even at alcohol levels under the limit

I like evidence based practice

Millions of British folk smoke cannabis

Differentiate between drugs.   Some prescription drugs cause serious impairment and so does cocaine and opiates.

Police can test for both cannabis and cocaine at the roadside with the new drugs wipe kits. Other prescription drugs can cause impairment, you are right, and that is why they feature in the new drug drive legislation, however we have no way of testing for them at the roadside yet. It won’t be long before we have evidential devices for both drink and drugs at the roadside removing the need for further testing on arrival at the custody suite. Field impairment tests at the roadside probably take second place to drug wipe tests now. Personally I absolutely detest cannabis and it’s use. It is antisocial, causes mental health problems and it is illegal. Full stop.

Police can test for both cannabis and cocaine at the roadside with the new drugs wipe kits

Can you do quantity to the same degree as alcohol?

No, it’s a pass or fail. Just like the roadside breath kits. If you fail a roadside drugs wipe a sample of blood would be obtained and sent for testing. With drink you give two further samples of breath on an evidential device in custody.

. If you fail a roadside drugs wipe a sample of blood would be obtained and sent for testing.

And how have we determined the levels that are legal or safe? Isn't the cannabis retention time quite long?

It is antisocial, causes mental health problems and it is illegal.

It's illegal, no doubt about that. (Well, there might be some doubt as it seems to be tolerated a lot more than other similarly-classified substances - see OP).

Antisocial? I'm not a user, can't say that anyone else using it has ever given me any grief. The illegal nature of it probably doesn't help - if you're cool with, say, smoking cannabis, you *may* be cool with breaking other laws/societal norms, like smoking without first blocking up all the vents between you and your neighbour's house and installing an air filtration system.

Mental health problems? My brother has studied the effects of cannabis use quite extensively (psychiatrist). IIRC his thoughts are that for it to mess you up, you had to smoke an enormous amount and already be susceptible to whatever it was you ended up with. If you stopped smoking, the effects generally go away after a few weeks/months. On the face of it, that doesn't sound too bad to me. Certainly no worse than lots of other things one could do without breaking any laws.

Full stop.

Is this like a kind of 'end thread' lite? 'Cos if you use the full stop key, it's not strictly necessary to type out 'full stop' 😉

@kenneththecurtain - chap, you are on fire this morning! Two very good posts, one here and also  on the tailgating thread! Loving your style and thank you for expressing more eloquently than I can at this time on a Sunday 😃

For those who 'detest' and support the criminalisation of cannabis, please be aware that the reason it was made illegal in the 1930's was due solely to one man: Harry J Anslinger, who headed up the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

He was a fascist. He claimed the herb made the black man lazy and uncontrollable. He went further by ensuring that heroin and cocaine were also predominantly used by the American African's and ensured his agenda by relentlessly pursuing people such as Billie Holliday and in some quarters held as the man ultimately responsible for her demise.

There is now growing evidence that the herb has many medicinal and therapeutical applications, further research only being held back by the fascist beliefs of one man, who sought to undermine the black people of the United States in the 1930's.

In the UK, we are still heavily influenced by the policies of the federal US administration, there have been many successful projects here in the U.K. and other countries, which prove that the controlling of certain substances leads to more crime and suffering of the under classes, of all races.

Supporting the prohibition of opiates, cannabis and hallucigens (sp), continues to support dogma and repression that were fundamentally borne from rascism.

Mental health problems? My brother has studied the effects of cannabis use quite extensively (psychiatrist). IIRC his thoughts are that for it to mess you up, you had to smoke an enormous amount and already be susceptible to whatever it was you ended up with. If you stopped smoking, the effects generally go away after a few weeks/months. On the face of it, that doesn’t sound too bad to me. Certainly no worse than lots of other things one could do without breaking any laws.

Well that's official then on the basis of what you remember of what your brother said .

Decrimonalise it.

Grant states licenses to legislated cultivators.

Ensure that THC is better balanced with CBD

Allow oil form to be sold to further distance it from tobacco

Sell it cheaper than it is currently on the street. Easy to do.

Tax it.

Well that’s official then on the basis of what you remember of what your brother said .

My bad. I was under the impression that this is a discussion forum. For, you know, discussing stuff. Please accept my humblest apologies.<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> </span>

So I’m a ‘dick’ for detesting an illegal drug and it’s use? Guess I’ll have to take that on the chin. I’ve worked as a police officer on a response team for 14 years in a large city, I’ve had dealings with and experience of cannabis, it’s effect on users and the problems it causes in terms of criminality for that long so not ‘reactionary bile’. Do not tell me cannabis is fine. It is not. As for the ‘past your bedtime grandad’ comment I’m probably dealing with idiots off their head on weed and various other substances when you are away with the fairies thanks but I guess you must know better right?

Thorpie

Those comments aimed at you were well out of order

There is a link with cannabis use and mental health but causality is not only not proven but is not accepted by many in the medical profession

The issue with police views is that you only see those that cause problems not the millions that smoke regularly with no issues

Prohibition and the war on drugs has failed. Many countries are moving to an evidence based policy on drugs and the evidence is that moving drug use management out of the criminal justice system and into healthcare means less problems for society. Read up on the Portuguese experience.   Crime down, number of addicts down

Thorpie, it is clear you are a man of fine intention .

Those observations you are reflecting on from the front line as a police officer are in fact the result of the current illegality of cannabis and the resultant black market turf wars.

Legalisation, if done correctly, would remove this and alloy the police force to direct resources elsewhere.

I was just about to type similar to TJ. Having a go at Thorpie for his beliefs won’t achieve anything, but it would seem, as with police officers that I know, a bit of confirmation bias is at play. I know more folk who smoke weed, are mentally sound, productive members of society than I do criminals or the mentally ill who smoke it. Then again my job doesn’t involve dealing with either of those types of people.

Hey @thorpie, I apologise if my comments were perceivied as derogatory to you, I was commenting upon what seems to be in the best interests of the politicians.

Because certain substances are controlled, the black market takes over and has to ship their goods in as small a space as possible, which is why there is a proliferation of high dose  substances, both heroin and ecstasy have recently been reported as being too strong, as too has cannabis, which for young developing minds is not beneficial in quantity.

For this state of madness, I firmly lay the fault at those who are elected to take responsibility for society. Thorpe, unfortunately, you have to pick up the pieces of these policies and the minority who will abuse any substance, be it drugs or alcohol.

Furthermore, I presume the front line police are also having to deal with the synthetic highs that have been manufactured to get around the current legislation, Spice being particularly prevalent and nasty.

During the 1990's, during the height of the rave scene, it was estimated that around 8million ecstasy pills were being consumed in the UK every weekend! Okay, there were a lot of grumpy people every Wednesday, but the statistics and dogma being trotted out bear little resemblance to reality for the majority of recreational users.

Some very eloquent and persuasive posts up there, I’ll not attempt to match them. Have massive sympathy for Thorpie though, he’ll be seeing the worst end of the worst shit day in, day out. That being said; I would just like to say as a serving ambo in a big city, I’d rather deal with a cannabis case than a heroin case, a heroin case than an alcohol case, an alcohol case than a cocaine case, and worst of all are the Mamba/Spice cases. Proper killer zombie shit that stuff. Cannabis seems like the least worst of the poisons to me, in my (nearly) twenty years of experience.

Obviously no substance misuse at all would be the best option.

For me the debate is very simple

1. The illegal status of cannabis is completely inconsequential other than to use up police resources. Getting it is easier than ordering a pizza. It makes no difference..

2. The illegal status of cannabis has driven the market to produce ever higher strengths of cannabis which can cause problems with certain consumers.

3. The illegal status of cannabis has driven the development of much worse synthetic chemicals, the so called legal highs, some of which are now illegal, but still easy to obtain , 'spice' being a good example.

The answer is simple.. Regulate it, tax it  and spend the tax revinue previously not available on health and social care.

This also has the added bonus of removing it from the black market. Less money for gangsters and a reduction in all the secondary social issues that causes and more money for health and social services via taxation. That's assuming the tax money is actually targeted and funneled into health and social  rather than lost in the great black hole and used as a pay off to industry or to bribe the DUP.

IIRC his thoughts are that for it to mess you up, you had to smoke an enormous amount and already be susceptible to whatever it was you ended up with.

For me this is on of the big issues. I have friends who smoke and seemingly a similar amount. Most are fine but a few just can no longer do more complex tasks. For sure there are a variety of factors that could have caused this but the rules are to protect the weakest not the strongest.

If you want to smoke IMO you forgo your “right” to drive until such a time as it can be shown there is no impairment. As has been mentioned any drug is taken to cause a physical effect, how this is quantified wrt driving and potentially risking peoples lives is a challenge to say the least

Having just smoked a superb Camberwell Carrot (in the garden), I'm off out for spin in my Evo.

Aside,

WTF is "spice?"  I thought that's what they mined in Dune.