[Closed] I'm about to be screwed... the question is how hard? THC content content.

countries with more enlightened laws have less problems with drugs and legalisation does not mean there would not still be laws against driving stoned

The Law is created by men (and women obvs). Men are fallible, as is the law.

cyclingweakly - Member

I suppose that's the sort of comment I'd expect from a stoner... Is "LAW" too complicated for you to get your drug-addled brain around?

Mark - Resident Grumpy

The ethos of this forum must be one of mutual respect for everyone who uses it. You may argue and debate with anyone but when the argument becomes heated or abuse begins to creep in, then you will have crossed the line.

Some people just find it hard to follow the rules I guess

does anyone have any experience of dealing with THC levels in blood?

Men are fallible

It's been scientifically proven that men on cannabis are even more fallible. Hence, they're not allowed to drive!

My real question is this: does anyone have any experience of dealing with THC levels in blood? Essentially how likely am I to be stung.

I don't, but a quick foogle found this

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html

Thanks Jim...have seen and ready that link already, but have heard from other friends/acquaintances who are/were heavy users that their results came back negative. Equally have heard of others who very rarely smoked/had half a doobie a few days prior and were over the limit.

Guys, guys, guys; I think I have a Jaffacake in my pocket!

Don't like jaffa cakes....Got any hob nobs?

shut up neil 🙂

Don't take drugs - just get one of these
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/testing-the-vibrating-drugdriving-suit-that-could-cut-road-deaths-a3119806.html

Haven't read the comments, but I expect they go from the inexplicable tolerance of bad driving that seems to prevail on this site, through to calls for the OP to be hanged.

OP, sorry I can't help you. I hope you are treated fairly by the police and courts, and you get a punishment that is appropriate for the crime of driving while under the influence.

Please don't smoke weed and drive. Regards, other road users.

Are we really being asked to explain how an adult freely choosing to take a substance of their choice is different from non consensual sex with a minor?
Is there really a person this dumb that they need it explaining?

Got to be trolling no one is this dumb

I bought a sprinkler from the pound shop yesterday and was totally surprised today, to find out today it was a total design failure (unless you wanted to water everything in a 1cm wide line, 5m from the sprinkler) so yes, we can all be a bit thick, albeit in different ways 🙂

Hebden. Actually I haven't seen anyone defending driving stoned. The nearest is discussion around at what blood levels you are impaired.

Don't like jaffa cakes

Hangings too good for him.

cyclingweakly - are you actually interested in the discussion of harm reduction / healthcare based approach compared to prohibition / criminal justice approach? If so I'll take the time to type it out.

Are we really being asked to explain how an adult freely choosing to take a substance of their choice is different from non consensual sex with a minor?
Is there really a person this dumb that they need it explaining?

Nope, and if that's the end of the stick you've got, then there's only one dumb person here, and he's holding a stick by the wrong end!

The comparison was not the far-reaching ramifications of the crime; merely pointing out that in law, they are both crimes. A peadophile and a dope smoker have both broken the law.

I was using the example of 2 contrasting crimes to highlight how fickle some people are in that they think they should be allowed to pick and choose what laws they obey based on nothing more than their own moral values.

And worse than that, that they use their "moral values" as justification and even a reason that the law should be changed!

I am pointing out that peadophiles think what they do is OK, and in many cases they feel that they're being persecuted in the same way that homosexuals were persecuted in the not too distant past. They justify their actions and don't necessarily feel morally outraged by their own actions. So should we just change those laws because a bunch of peadophiles feel morally allowed to do as they please?

No, they shouldn't. The laws are there to protect the vulnerable and uphold standards in society. And that goes for drug laws as well as sexual consent laws!

cyclingweakly - are you actually interested in the discussion of harm reduction / healthcare based approach compared to prohibition / criminal justice approach?

No, not in the slightest. It has no bearing on whether or not the OP is a criminal.

It has no bearing on whether or not the OP is a criminal.

We're all criminals in one way or another.

We're all criminals in one way or another.

What?? Is that one of those super-profound concepts that potheads come out with???

I think he means that we all break the law in one way or another, which isn't really helping with the point of the thread. Neither is half the shit you're writing, either.

😀

Do we? Well, I'm racking my brains and I can't think what criminal acts I commit...

What?? Is that one of those super-profound concepts that potheads come out with???

Ever played knock-down ginger?
Ever gone above the speed limit?
Ever walked a dog without a lead?
Ever been gay in the 1950s?

I think he means that we all break the law in one way or another, which isn't really helping with the point of the thread.

CW is suggesting that the law is absolute, which isn't really helping Alpin.

I'm just feeding the troll so I'll stop...

Do we? Well, I'm racking my brains and I can't think what criminal acts I commit...

If that's what you took from my post then, my good man, you have grasped the wrong end of the stick...

😉

You've made your point chap.

Ever played knock-down ginger?

Is that like ginger bashing? No... Although I could punch Ed Sheeran

Ever gone above the speed limit?

Possibly, but not deliberately or habitually. And that's not a criminal act.

Ever walked a dog without a lead?

I don't have a lead... Or a dog.

Ever been gay in the 1950s?

Ah, the golden age of homosexuality... The joy of bumlove combined with that frisson of excitement that you were going to get fingered by the filth... But no, I haven't.

Breaking the speed limit is a criminal act and is implicated in far more RTCs than drugs.

Tsk tsk. You killer you.

No it isn't, if you settle by fixed penalty it isn't considered a criminal offence.

Wrong. It is still a criminal offence just one you do not have to disclose under most circumstances.

But it's still breaking a law otherwise there would be no penalty, surely.

Wrong again my friend, if you contest it and are found guilty, you will have a criminal conviction. If you accept a fixed penalty, there is no criminal conviction and you don't have a criminal record. You get 3 or 6 points and a fine.

But it's still breaking a law otherwise there would be no penalty, surely.

Yes it is. But I don't deliberately or habitually break the speed limit. Which is why I answered the way I did.

There are two types of law. Civil and criminal. Road traffic acts are part of criminal law.

There are two types of law. Civil and criminal. Road traffic acts are part of criminal law.

I'm guessing you're not a lawyer TJ...

I don't have a lead... Or a dog.

Which is why I answered the way I did.

Yes, I can read. But you're being very manipulative in your answers so as to absolve yourself of any deliberate breach of the law rather than just admitting that we all are fallible.

Just admit it and move on.

..don't forget crimes of fashion. CW, what's your view on chinos, brown shoes. brogues and tattoos?

Seriously, I'm trying to enjoy a day off in the garden sunbathing, and this thread is starting to get on my tits. Let's stop using the OP as a punchbag, eh? 🙂

But you're being very manipulative in your answers so as to absolve yourself of any breach of the law rather than just admitting that we all are fallible.

Finding yourself still doing 36mph when driving into a 30 zone could, I admit, be construed as fallibility.

Spending the larger part of your adult life seeking out illegal drug dealers, buying, hiding and consuming those drugs is NOT fallibility, it's criminality!

Just admit it and move on.

OK, I admit it... I b*mmed Ed Sheeran in 1953... It's a fair cop gov!

day off in the garden sunbathing

Baked...?

Spending the larger part of your adult life seeking out illegal drug dealers, buying, hiding and consuming those drugs is NOT fallibility, it's criminality!

Can't argue with that. Well, I could but I can't be arsed. The thread's yours.

Think I might wander outside and get a tan for a bit...

I'm totally fried.

Wheaton's Law?

Gets broken round here with impunity.