Forum menu
.
Junkyard - lazarusPretty sure tests on pilots found this 24 hours after one joint.
To be fair though, other tests on pilots have [i]not[/i] found this after 24 hours.
<oops, edit, your link includes that information>
There must be a reason why the illegal level is set to whatever it is....it can't be entirely arbitrary
Habitual users of substances that impair driving are a higher risk than those that don't. This is why dvla now do the cdt test which looks at previous levels of alcohol consumption. A binge the night before won't increase the cdt value (even if the blood alcohol level is still over the limit for driving) but it will pick up the pattern of drinking a month or so previously.
Obviously this doesn't have any bearing on the op but it does demonstrate the thinking from driving authorities. So whether or not the op was impaired when he was pulled over, his doobie every day puts him in a higher risk category as far as the authorities are concerned. Risk to himself and other road users.
Because it is not easy to regulate your intake.
I'd bet my driving licence on having regulated my usage sufficiently that passing that blood test right now wouldn't be a problem.
TBH I'm in the throw the book at you camp.
If you've smoked every day for the past two weeks, I can't imagine you've left long enough before driving each and every time, there aren't enough hours in the day (literally if junkyards like is correct).
thisisnotaspoon - MemberIf you've smoked every day for the past two weeks, I can't imagine you've left long enough before driving each and every time, there aren't enough hours in the day (literally if junkyards like is correct).
Unless he just didn't drive much in that period, which is what I took from it.
There must be a reason why the illegal level is set to whatever it is....it can't be entirely arbitrary
I bet it can. Everything else is.
Habitual users of substances that impair driving are a higher risk than those that don't. This is why dvla now do the cdt test which looks at previous levels of alcohol consumption. A binge the night before won't increase the cdt value (even if the blood alcohol level is still over the limit for driving) but it will pick up the pattern of drinking a month or so previously.
So, does mean that if you are an alcoholic and stopped while driving, but not over the limit, you will lose your licence as you are more likely to drive drunk than someone who isn't an alcoholic? Sounds sensible if a little presumptuous.
Someone said something about only trendy middle class people thinking driving stoned was ok. I suspect some people from other classes don't give a shit about it either. I'm wondering if the statement was made by an aristocrat or an unfashionabe member of the working classes. I'm sure if the working classes could let go of their prejudices and tried a little bit harder they too could buy soft drugs, fashionable clothes and a car.
I'm in agreement that if it was drunk driving reactions would be different, but if the tests don't actually prove a driver is stoned, then they aren't really very good. Unless you think druggies shouldn't be allowed to drive ever.
I'm fed up with smelling the stuff everywhere, I bought a house the people in the street smoke it all day (luckily I don't live there but I have got to sell it on eventually), I've just been to the beach some guy was smoking a joint whilst playing with his kids. I went in the shop at a holiday park yesterday a couple stank of it and the woman was out of her tree. Either legalise it and get some tax from it or clamp down on it. It's ridiculous.
@ LAT: I understand that the cdt test is used to see if someone can get their licence back after being banned for drunk driving. It's not a roadside test. A case one of my colleagues heard about was where a person had filled in some forms for dvla that indicated they might be an at risk driver, so they were asked to have the cdt test, which came back raised and confirmed this. So they then weren't able to get the licence back until the cdt test was normal (memory a little sketchy in those details but that was the gist of it)
Wow 15 seconds on google later
TOP TIP: You could have googled just as easily as you got shitty
I dont make shit up on here and if i am wrong on factual matters I will accept it.
I am sure you will follow this lead as you seem the charming factual friendly type
Have you actually read that document?
It's full of phrases like "suggesting" and "some evidence". The author has not performed any "tests" himself and references other studies.
Looks like someone has their own agenda. The dramatic cover photograph suggesting the airports are full of pilots skinning up before getting in their planes, is clearly meant to shock the Aussie Daily Mail readers.
Unless he just didn't drive much in that period, which is what I took from it.
He needs to drive every day to get arround for work?
, but if the tests don't actually prove a driver is stoned, then they aren't really very good.
I thought someone posted up saying they tested for the active THC compound, not the metabolite? In which case it seems perfectly valid.
I can happily drink 4 pints and not be 'drunk' just as you could smoke a spliff and not be 'stoned', you'd not drive under either circumstances though.
The OPs defence seems to revolve around not knowing what the limit was, how high he was the day before, or how quickly his body metabolises the drug, and that he's got fast reaction times because he can ride a bike faster than his mates. Ignorance of the law isn't a defence, and in this context ignorance is a valid synonym for stupidity.
and the money made from the sale of the drug is legit, taxed of course and doesn't fund any other criminal activity ......
Unless you think druggies shouldn't be allowed to drive ever.
I don't think I'd have an issue with that
thisisnotaspoon - MemberThe OPs defence seems to revolve around .................. Ignorance of the law isn't a defence, and in this context ignorance is a valid synonym for stupidity.
What are you talking about.......what defence ?
The OP isn't on trial here. He didn't ask people whether they thought he was guilty or not, he didn't ask for their judgements or opinions.
He asked two questions :
[i]"Has anyone any experience of this...?"[/i]
And :
[i]"What is the likelihood of my blood THC content being below 4nanogram?"[/i]
Have you any experience and/or do you know the answer to the second question ?
Come on, you know - a superiority complex gold mine is on offer. 🙂
Throw the [s]book[/s] haribo at 'im!
(Alpin, try not to stress. Sorry you've got to wait so long for a decision, but based on absolutely nothing other than a random opinion, I reckon it'll be fine).
Many more folk drive hungover.
The limit set in Germany is lower than that in Switzerland. 1-4ng in Germany, 3ng in Switzerland. Weed is easy to get hold of in Switzerland and the police are not overly interested.
I know when I'm high. Trust me, I've had enough experience to know.
I don't drive daily. Very rarely do I need to drive to work. I'm fortunate that most of my workshop/customers are less than 15km away. On the rare occasion I do drive to work I'll often throw my bike in the back and ride home or get a lift back to town with a colleague.
Often the van will sit there for a fortnight or more without being moved.
I've not got a problem with being caught. It is more the art of testing that have/am likely to have a problem with.
I fear my fat cells are full of redundant THC.
I've smoked for so long that I don't see having a smoke any different to having a glass of wine or a beer in the evening. Whether you agree is down to you.
As stated, I wouldn't knowingly get behind the wheel stoned. I might have a shandy with a meal if I'm driving,but more often than not I'll have a mango juice (#rockstar).
I don't think of myself as a criminal for smoking. I do think that all drugs should be regulated.
Even as a teenager I was never one for smoking in public spaces (other than the graveyard... Quiet,and a tap for filling buckets/bongs was handy).
Spoke to another acquaintance who despite having smoked few hours before being tested had levels so low that it wasn't taken any further.
Just chatted to an old friend at the wedding and his brother got well and truly done despite not being a regular user and having smoked three days previously before being tested.
There doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule with regards to the effectiveness of testing. In fact, so far from those I have spoken to those that are/were heavy users and have been tested their results have come back negative. Those that are infrequent users have been stung.
Despite the interest from the desperate to be offended on your behalf, I'm not having a go at you. I don't think using cannabis is any worse than using any number of legal things.
I do think that using it everyday leaves you open to exactly the kind of situation you find yourself in, and will also blunt your appreciation of how it may or may not affect you.
...I would also be concerned about why you feel the need to use it everyday; that's not recreational use, more like a coping mechanism.
Smoking it will already have caused serious lung damage, and that's the biggest long term effect that would worry me.
I hope you get away without much in the way of censure, but 'ave a word with yourself before you need to.
I fear the hand wringing and naysayers will come out in the morning for you on here though Good luck fella
You weren't wrong 🙁
crikey - MemberDespite the interest from the desperate to be offended on your behalf, I'm not having a go at you.
Who is "desperate to be offended" ?
Smoking it will already have caused serious lung damage, and that's the biggest long term effect that would worry me.
What's that got to do with the question alpin is asking ? Do you think that he's never heard the claim that cannabis might be harmful ?
I feel completely unoffended by your comments btw, I just wonder why the need to lecture him. And why some people seem to think that he's on trial here.
I just wonder why the need to lecture him. And why some people seem to think that he's on trial here.
You're new here aren't you?
(I know you're not ernie but you get my gist 😉 )
I wonder why some feel the need to defend him, he's not on trial.
What you having for tea ernie? Is it taking a long time to cook?
Alpin how much do you smoke and how often? Have you spoken to anyone about your addiction?
I love STW yesterday we had a thread where you were the worst thing since a baby robbin had his face stoved in for using more than a pinch of salt, or heaven forbid a stock cube bought from the supermarket!
Today you're a member of the professionally offended if you think a habitual cannabis user is maybe not the best person to be judging whether or not he was under the influence when pulled over and failed a roadside drug test?
Drac - ModeratorI wonder why some feel the need to defend him, he's not on trial.
Who's defending him ?
I said at the start of the thread : [i]"I don't approve of the use of narcotics, I don't much like alcohol either"[/i]. But only in response to "Wow.... Was expecting a backlash".
Personally I think he's an idiot. But I don't see why I would need to tell him that since he's not asking me what I think - I'm sure he's not in the least bit interested in what I think.
He's asking has anyone any experience of this and what is the likelihood of his blood THC content being below 4nanogram.
EDIT : [i]" But I don't see why I would need to tell him that since he's not asking me what I think"[/i]. Actually it's more than that - I think he's got enough shit on his plate without receiving lectures. So yes perhaps I am defending him. In different circumstances I might tell him he's an idiot. But with potentially losing his job and having to leave the country another tact might be appropriate.
You're stoned ernie...
[quote=alpin ]I know when I'm high. Trust me, I've had enough experience to know. You really need to stop repeating/thinking like that - I've heard it so many times from folk who've been drinking alcohol (and said it myself) 😆
Hora is everyone who drinks alcohol an addict as well? Have you spoken to anyone about your bigotry?
enfht - MemberHora is everyone who drinks alcohol an addict as well? Have you spoken to anyone about your bigotry?
Alpin sounds like your textbook functioning addict tbh. Or at the very least, incredibly habituated. Addict's an alarming word but addiction's out there all over the place, what matters isn't the tickbox, it's how you live with it.
FWIW, I love cannabis & really wish it was legal in the UK. It should be available on prison canteens at least.
We don't get weed in UK prisons anymore because it can be tested for quite easily & cheaply, also the remnants/evidence/residue or whatever It's called can stay in the body for up to 30 days.
Everyone's on 'spice' now which is screwing people up beyond belief.
You lot however, won't hear about that or even give a shit.
So it should be legal because if it's not people will do something worse?
Drugs in prison is a failing on so many levels. That it's crap enough at stimulating rehabilitation that inmates resort to psychoactives for escapism, that security is sub par to name a couple.
But legalising one thing to prevent something else? There's probably a million straw men to be had there in other examples, but why would legalising weed help in prisons help any situation, with the possible reason that they'd just be high/stoned for their sentence which doesn't sound either productive or punishing, why not just offer them sedation to make the time pass quicker too?
I can't help but feel you're getting a very easy ride from the STW 'cool' kids, one would assume that if it had been a drink drive issue you may not have the same.
No, I don't think he was likely to be impaired at the time of testing.
World Anti-Doping Agency classifies THC as a performance enhancing substance - By this yardstick would not a professional racing driver get banned for trying to gain an unfair advantage? But for the civilian motorist THC is being cited an impairment and thus as irresponsible and dangerous?
But legalising one thing to prevent something else? There's probably a million straw men to be had there in other examples, but why would legalising weed help in prisons help any situation,
Why not legalise it to prevent something else? I work as a 'screw' & see what happens every day. Have you any idea at all of the problems that NPS causes? I do, but why don't you tell me.
By this yardstick would not a professional racing driver get banned for trying to gain an unfair advantage? But for the civilian motorist THC is being cited an impairment and thus as irresponsible and dangerous
Presumably because it's not considered a good idea that "civilian motorists" drive like professional racing drivers.
Decreased anxiety and fear might be a good idea for professional racing drivers but personally I would prefer that other road users maintain a healthy level of anxiety and fear.
Why were you stopped?
Was an Allgemeineverkehrskontrolle, better known to us as a random stop. no reason to stop us as such.
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Allgemeineverkehrskontrolle&rlz=1C1GGGE_en-gbGB480GB480&oq=Allgemeineverkehrskontrolle&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ]2nd link down...[/url]
Random stop.... We had just cleaned the van, drove 100m and the Cop car was behind us. Totally random
Asked him whether it was because of my driving or something with the van,but no.
Random stop.... We had just cleaned the van, drove 100m and the Cop car was behind us. Totally random
Asked him whether it was because of my driving or something with the van,but no.
Good chance the stop was "intelligence based" then. Sounds like they were waiting for you.
Random stop.... We had just cleaned the van, drove 100m and the Cop car was behind us. Totally random
Random stops are something we should adopt in this country, they're quite common in some mainland European countries.
Good chance the stop was "intelligence based" then. Sounds like they were waiting for you.
You sound paranoid, smoking too much maybe...
Good chance the stop was "intelligence based" [s]then[/s] man. Sounds like they were waiting for you dude.
You sound paranoid, smoking too much maybe...
I've never smoked dope - not even when I lived in Holland. I did however also live in Bavaria and random traffic stops didn't seem all that common. Certainly not ones where they'd go as far as a piss test. What can happen is that someone has smelled dope from the OP and had a word with the police, who've then followed up with a pseudo-random stop.