mikewsmith – Member
it’s as bad as getting your mate to drive you up somewhere with a few bottles of white lightening then being surprised he was pissed too

That’s only bad if you allow them to get back in the motor and drive home after tanning said bottle.

The point here is really what the driver is doing, long as the passengers aren’t imparring the driver, then there’s no real issue imo.

😆 vongassit – Member

shermer75 – Member
Banana in the tailpipe

Bit harsh, they won’t be able to sit down and enjoy their Christmas dinner.

Interesting one.

Evidence on drug driving is poor and establishing at what levels people are impaired is difficult. the little decent testing tends to show spliffs and driving is nothing like the impairment of drink driving or using a mobile but more like being tired. thats people smoking and then driving in a controlled environment where they are concentrating on driving well. In these circumstances spliffs are much less impairing than alcohol

Post crash analysis shows a lot of drug driving but without knowing the incidence in the population its hard to know if its causal or coincidental and polypharmacia / drinks mixed in is also common in the post crash analysis

Of course mixing drink and spliffs even when blood alcohol levels would be legal is a disaster for accident rates.

Beware reefer madness stories in the papers colouring your view. the real evidence of the effects on spliffs and driving is not good or clear and indeed contradictory

I do dob in drink drivers. Never really been in the position the OP was in. If its a regular hangout then maybe yes and if the kids are showing off in the cars then certainly yes. concentrating on driving well there appears to be little impairment but showing off / driving fast etc then certainly its dangerous as concentration is impaired.

Finally – should this be a police priority? Id rather they were sorting out the drunks driving or not.

So – long answer to a short question. NOt easy to me, not clear and obvious. No decent evidence to make an evidence based decision on

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

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 – Member

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?

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 – Member

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.
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 4×4 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.

“Just off for a Brad, me ol’ mucker. Cor blimey, yes sir indeed…!”

I have reported people getting stoned in cars. If they subsequently drive they’ll be a risk to anyone else on the roads.