Forum menu
Too few police around to catch this sort of thing when it's happening which effectively shifts the responsibility onto the general public to take some action - even if that's limited to reporting to the police.
I couldn't care less if anyone wishes to damage themselves as a result of drink or drugs but I do care if they present a risk to me and others.
It wouldn't be for the OP to assess whether or not the driver was indulging. Maybe not partaking - this time - but next time?
There is also the deterrent effect; if nothing is done the kids will likely believe they can do it again- and again.
So, yes I would report.
MoreCashThanDash - Member
I smell it from passing cars far too often when riding on the road.
I'd report it, because they are in cars. The Police would need to check if the driver was smoking and go from there anyway.
If they were just walking along the street, I wouldn't report it.
Mind blown. It tickles me that folk like you are out there. It seems you're not alone! Do you think the police are going to give an Ertha Kitt?
I'd be more worried about folk texting when driving rather than some kids having a puff. I imagine the penalty is greater too, rightly so.
Penalty is much less for texting and driving. Drug driving is the same as drink driving, The police used to have to show you were impaired and this is almost impossible as impairment tests dont show much impairment with spliffs and driving as the impairment is not motor / co-ordination impairment but perhaps concentration and judgement
I believe now some ( ? all ) police forces have set blood limits for drugs but these are not really evidenced based a far as I can see
If it were all evidence based texting or using a mobile phone when driving would be a year ban minimum same as drink driving as it carries the same level of risk. Drug driving - I would like to see some real good evidence but this is hard to get. Barring that I would like to see and impairment test based around concentration and judgement not motor skills / co ordination.
I have actually seen in my role as a nurse someone tested for impairment after being caught drug driving. Obviously stoned ( on smack FFS) but passed the tests. He was certainly not safe to drive
Thing is with stoned driving though, you need to go with the lowest common denominator, and there are some serious lightweights out there! 😆 So zero tolerance will be the ultimate conclusion of any testing.
Problem with weed is the residual that's still in your system for a month afterwards, I don't know how that shows up in tests, but it would be extremely unfair to charge someone that had a smoke 2 days ago.
As for any form of combination of weed and alcohol. That's crazy talk, I'd impose some extremely hefty sentence for that kind of stuff, far worse than what drink driving entails, because it is much worse..
Mind blown. It tickles me that folk like you are out there. It seems you're not alone! Do you think the police are going to give an Ertha Kitt?I'd be more worried about folk texting when driving rather than some kids having a puff.
Why? People quite rightly expect that others both respect the rules on the road and don't impare themselves while driving. What it really boils down to is that driving is seen as s right not a privilige and due to that the level of personal responsibility is seen as very low for operating what is really machinary in a crowded environment with multiple hazards and unpredictable other users. See the videos on the previos page from NZ you want to encounter some of those people when your on a bike?
Report them every time
btw what kinda testing kit do the police use? Anyone have any details on that? Can you buy something similar? would be curious to my thc levels after a binge and to see how long it takes for them to dissipate.
ps don't I don't have a driving license! 😆
IIRC they can distinguish between metabolites and active chemicals in your blood see alpins long thread. Cannabis can be detected for weeks not days
~so I guess the question is in the absence do you legislate heavily and risk punishing unimpaired people or legislate lightly and risk people crashing with drugs in their system? As it is you could get a years ban for the equivalent of half a shandy ( and yes even half a shandy does impair driving)
How about prescription drugs? Lots of them impair driving but the only think is a note on the packet of meds say " if impaired don't drive" NO testing. no clampdown
for me its suitably designed impairment tests not blood levels. found to be impaired for any reason - recreational drugs, tiredness, prescription meds then a heavy punishment
~so I guess the question is in the absence do you legislate heavily and risk punishing unimpaired people or legislate lightly and risk people crashing with drugs in their system? As it is you could get a years ban for the equivalent of half a shandy ( and yes even half a shandy does impair driving)
How about half way, OK lads you all appear to have been smoking, give us the keys and pick them up from the station in the morning. Don't do it again.
tjagain - Member
IIRC they can distinguish between metabolites and active chemicals in your blood see alpins long thread. Cannabis can be detected for weeks not days
They must somehow be able to tell if this things are still having a psychoactive effect though? Otherwise they are bogus?
Thats my issue with blood levels for testing. Its simply unclear at what point people are impaired and which of the complex cocktail of chemicals you are impaired at
Zero tolerence would mean weeks after smoking a single spliff you would be banned.
I would really like some proper reform of drug laws in this country based on proper evidence
They must somehow be able to tell if this things are still having a psychoactive effect though? Otherwise they are bogus?
Which comes down to the decison on drawing a line on the cautious side or the risky side. As a vunerable road user which side would be best?
And as this is also about younger and much less experienced drivers then maybe some stricter laws on what young drivers can do until they learn a bit more.
http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/novice/top_menu/novice_penalties
[quote=tjagain ]Zero tolerence would mean weeks after smoking a single spliff you would be banned.What's that you keep saying about speeding -
if you can't do the time, don't do the crime?
Not quite the same - is there really any impairment after 2 weeks? As things stand now you would not be prosecuted for such low levels.
At the moment we have (I think) prescribed blood levels. Exceeding them is a crime - impairment or not and everyone should know that ( but its not been widely publicised) get caught above those limits then yes - that applies.
the point I was making was that there is no good evidence about what blood levels lead to impairment or even which metabolites shuld be tested for.
hence my preference for impairment testing but not the current impairment test that are not relevant to drug driving.
the point I was making was that there is no good evidence about what blood levels lead to impairment or even which metabolites shuld be tested for.hence my preference for impairment testing but not the current impairment test that are not relevant to drug driving.
Which is probably why the law is currently, in the system above a level bad. Being as smoking and possesion are also illegal it shouldn't be a great leap to connect that doing that while driving are also illegal. Widely publicised or not drivers should know that and ignorance is no defence.
Your dealing with a chemical reaction in the body that varies from person to person, imparement may work but also do it with chemical testing to see what else is present in the system.
Personally this has very little to do with Drugs and more to do with being responsible for what people are doing in cars, I'm happy for police to persue drug drivers along with phone users, those driving in an unsafe way all they way down to the hero's trying to drive all the way to the alps in one go necking caffine drinks to stay awake. They all fall into the same boat of people not taking enough care and attention that driving requires.
Leave them to it. The odds of the police doing anything apart from waste your time is sufficiently low as to makeep it not worth the hassle.
mikewsmith - MemberWhich comes down to the decison on drawing a line on the cautious side or the risky side. As a vunerable road user which side would be best?
Draw a line, I'm with ye, but if you are saying because someone has some tbc in their system from 2 days ago that they are still impared, you are drawing the line way too far. I'm for zero tolerance, but you need to be sensible with it.
tbh, I can't really criticise or praise the police here, I don't know their testing process, nor the psychoactive halflife of weed. So I'm not saying anything one way or the other. Just that you aren't stoned 2 days later no matter how much weed you smoke. (I've tried, it's impossible, a bit lethargic the next day is as much as you get.)
tbh, I'd be happy with a 2 day thing for weed, you smoke 1 day, you don't drive the next, seems sensible enough, I think that should probably be the same for any substance.
You do but you also need something you can work with, if the tests are that vague then maybe they are not the best but work with imparement and use tests for legal implications for those impaired. In reality it's going to be very hard to collect a lot more data on the impariment of unregulated, variable strength, non measured drug use - im sure your's doesn't come with a % on the side of the bag. One of the problems is you don't know with any certainty how much you are consuming same as having 1/2 of your home brew and saying it's only half and driving.
Personally this has very little to do with Drugs and more to do with being responsible for what people are doing in cars, I'm happy for police to persue drug drivers along with phone users, those driving in an unsafe way all they way down to the hero's trying to drive all the way to the alps in one go necking caffine drinks to stay awake. They all fall into the same boat of people not taking enough care and attention that driving requires.
Exactly.
mikewsmith - Member
You do but you also need something you can work with, if the tests are that vague then maybe they are not the best but work with imparement and use tests for legal implications for those impaired. In reality it's going to be very hard to collect a lot more data on the impariment of unregulated, variable strength, non measured drug use - im sure your's doesn't come with a % on the side of the bag. One of the problems is you don't know with any certainty how much you are consuming same as having 1/2 of your home brew and saying it's only half and driving.
Cannabis strength is nothing like alcohol though, the analogy there doesn't stack up. Smoking strong weed isn't like drinking 2 bottles of vodka. It's impossible to get that messed up on weed.
Smoking strong weed isn't like drinking 2 bottles of vodka. It's impossible to get that messed up on weed.
The lovely stoners in the video from NZ managed to get messed up, it's not about 2 bottles of vodka, it's enough to impare your judgement sufficently that you should not operate something.
jamj1974 - Member
mikewsmith - Member
Personally this has very little to do with Drugs and more to do with being responsible for what people are doing in cars, I'm happy for police to persue drug drivers along with phone users, those driving in an unsafe way all they way down to the hero's trying to drive all the way to the alps in one go necking caffine drinks to stay awake. They all fall into the same boat of people not taking enough care and attention that driving requires.
Exactly.
I'd pretty much agree, it is a personal responsibility issue.
mikewsmith - MemberThe lovely stoners in the video from NZ managed to get messed up, it's not about 2 bottles of vodka, it's enough to impare your judgement sufficently that you should not operate something.
While stoned, yes. Like I say I'm for a zero tolerance approach. But zero tolerance with weed doesn't mean no thc in your system. (If someone can chip in with how police measure this stuff please do, would be interested to know.)
As I say I advocate a "you get messed up one day, you don't drive the next day" approach.
it is a personal responsibility issue
and when people fail to use their own personal responsibility it's a job for the police and the public to help them.
within reasonable limits, yes. 🙂
Id be happy with a "no driving stoned" rule. Its how we define stoned that is tricky. I am not adverse to this being tightly and strictly defined. I'm just a bit doubtful about being prosecuted for remnants in your system when not impaired at all. We seem to have gone from a situation where no one was prosecuted because impairment wasn't measured properly to a situation where people completely unimpaired get prosecuted because of the presence of traces of metabolites
Its a bit like being prosecuted for drink driving a day after you had a pint.
I hate the idea that the drink drive limits in england allow you to drink a pint and drive - you are still impaired. I want to see " no drinking and driving" I even think the scots level is too high. I'd like a lower level again.
Evidence based is drummed into me and the evidence here i s poor and that makes me uncomfortable
Would you report a group of young cyclists getting stoned then riding on the road? They could equally cause a severe accident.
I don't think I ever drove fast enough when stoned to cause a problem. Hell, the one time I couldn't figure out how to make the car go backwards so just sat there....
did it smell like quality weed or just crappy solid?
can you even get solid nowadays?
I got some squidgy black in the summer - 1st I've even heard of for about a decade. That'll have something to do with with not having been a regular toker for about 20 years, but even so there's **** all of it around.
I was great BTW 🙂 Properly stoned instead of monged as **** off rank force-grown hydro cheese.
so there appears to be a STW acceptance that thc can be in your system and not impacting your ability to drive (tjs call for impairment testing)
are you happy to apply that to drinking, to allow those who drink lots and regularly to legally drive with a higher blood/alcohol limit, or maybe to differentiate between those eating/drinking rather than just drinking?
will we apply the impairment testing to phone use, adjusting the radio, controlling kids in the back seat.
i just drove past a woman in a 4x4 with three kids in the back, should i report the car to the police as i suspect there might be a little driving without due care and attention.
CaptainFlashheart - Member
As I see it, you have three options;
1 - Kill the kids
2 - Kill yourself
3 - KILL EVERYBODY!
Said the wise woman
Merak - Member
MoreCashThanDash - Member
I smell it from passing cars far too often when riding on the road.
I'd report it, because they are in cars. The Police would need to check if the driver was smoking and go from there anyway.
If they were just walking along the street, I wouldn't report it.
Mind blown. It tickles me that folk like you are out there. It seems you're not alone! Do you think the police are going to give an Ertha Kitt?I'd be more worried about folk texting when driving rather than some kids having a puff. I imagine the penalty is greater too, rightly so.
I agree with you on the texting. But we're not talking about texting, hence I offered my opinion relating to potential drivers using weed.
HTH
Ertha Kitt
I was under the impression this particular bit of slang had be superseded by ex Mr Jolie.
[i]"Just off for a Brad, me ol' mucker. Cor blimey, yes sir indeed...!" [/i]
I have reported people getting stoned in cars. If they subsequently drive they'll be a risk to anyone else on the roads.
alcohol doesn't remain in your system for a month. You're missing the point. The 2 are not like for like comparable.soobalias - Member
so there appears to be a STW acceptance that thc can be in your system and not impacting your ability to drive (tjs call for impairment testing)are you happy to apply that to drinking, to allow those who drink lots and regularly to legally drive with a higher blood/alcohol limit, or maybe to differentiate between those eating/drinking rather than just drinking?
will we apply the impairment testing to phone use, adjusting the radio, controlling kids in the back seat.i just drove past a woman in a 4x4 with three kids in the back, should i report the car to the police as i suspect there might be a little driving without due care and attention.
I have actually reported a group of lads before.
It was about 8am in the morning near the local BMX track. There were 4 of them in a bling Focus RS (brand new) all in tatty old tracksuits. They nearly crashed in to a car coming in to the carpark, opened the car doors and got out with spliffs in hand, and cans of special brew.
The Police were gratful for the phone call and dispatched a car straighr away.
But that was different, chances are the car was nicked.
alcohol doesn't remain in your system for a month. You're missing the point. The 2 are not like for like comparable.
Whilst it's true benzodiazepines and cannabinoids can stay in your system for multiple weeks you have got to a be a pretty hardened user for this to be the case. For an occasional user its a few days. That's the urine tests and are effectively a non negative result rather than a positive. The new generation of mouth swobs that have been around for the last year or so that are sent off analysis give a pretty accurate timeline of last use. So the best practise now by the military, prison service (and organisations that follow their protocol) is a urine for a non negative then a mouth swab for a timeline. Results take about 5 days to come back.
soobalias - I did wonder about that point re drunk driving.
No - I think we need a lowest common denominator point its just that I want to be sure people are impaired before they are prosecuted. Even under the alcohol limit you are impaired.
As things stand we risk prosecuting people from stoned driving when they are the equivalent of half a pint 12 hours ago.
As I said - I don't condone any driving while impaired. I just want this to be evidence based and from my reading the evidence base is poor for a correlation between drug levels and impairment
As I said - I don't condone any driving while impaired. I just want this to be evidence based and from my reading the evidence base is poor for a correlation between drug levels and impairment
Probably due to a combination of lack of evidence and the complexity. Alpin's thread was quite informative though but again it lacks a test for impairedness which in itself could be highly subjective.
In some ways having worked in industries with testing policies there was a simple solution to is all of it though. If you took something chances were it would catch up with you. The testing went a lot further than just H&S in many places so the use of illegal drugs was also the issue.
walleater - Member
I don't think I ever drove fast enough when stoned to cause a problem. Hell, the one time I couldn't figure out how to make the car go backwards so just sat there....
and seriously you actually think this is fine? Just how normal people operate over a tonne of machinery responsibly? I think this fit's any definition of dangerously impaired.
If I reported every car I see full of weed smoking teenagers when I go on night rides I'd be on first name terms with the local plod!
and seriously you actually think this is fine? Just how normal people operate over a tonne of machinery responsibly? I think this fit's any definition of dangerously impaired.
One of the side-effects I've noticed with most habitual stoners I've interacted with seems to be a complete lack of self-awareness.
Whether or not the police will give an "Ertha Kitt" is their decision to make. It's up to them to ascertain whether the youths in question are just having a bit of harmless fun or whether they're Star Trekkin across the universe and only going forwards because they can't find reverse.
and seriously you actually think this is fine? Just how normal people operate over a tonne of machinery responsibly? I think this fit's any definition of dangerously impaired.
Well.....it was over 20 years go. It was probably around 2am on a weekday in rural Shropshire. No-one around for miles. I may have used some artistic licence but I do admit having to think for a short while on how to make the car go backwards.... FWIW, we didn't plan on getting so battered. The joys of antiquated laws meaning that it's possible to end up drinking whiskey rather than lager (in weed terms).
FWIW again, I've not smoked weed in around 10 years. I still think its morons that should be banned, rather than drugs. I smoked for 15 years I guess (I can't remember ho ho ho....), and never had an incident when driving. I just drove slower and concentrated on my surroundings more. Not a bad thing eh? I don't support driving after a spliff, but I do see way more stupid behaviour every day from sober people.
And people comparing weed to alcohol? Alcohol makes people do stupid stuff, take risks etc. Weed tends to just make people mellow.
[quote=walleater ]I just drove slower and concentrated on my surroundings more.
That's exactly what I used to tell myself when I'd be driving (or more accurately motorbiking) after a few drinks. I'm not sure you understand the concept of "impaired judgement".