Shoot the Messenger

[Jim Roper]

It is already illegal to drive impaired by any drugs, legal or otherwise.

 

So there ARE conclusive tests?

 

Just to show that there is a presence of cannabis, or that your driving is impaired through it's presence?

[Sportsman]

I thought booze was banned on oil rigs.

 

 

Generally it is.

It is also illegal and unavailable in Libya (which is where we were)

The illegality meant that any sort of booze commanded a good price and led to the Italians based at a nearby refinery setting up a still and making more money selling booze than they did in wages.

Seems to be the same story wherever you make something illegal doesn't it

[chesters1]

So there ARE conclusive tests?

 

Just to show that there is a presence of cannabis, or that your driving is impaired through it's presence?

 

you can prove youve smoked it for many months after the even using your hair ,ofcourse easily got round by shaving your head

[Steve Walker]

So there ARE conclusive tests?

 

Just to show that there is a presence of cannabis, or that your driving is impaired through it's presence?

 

They don't test specifically for cannabis at the roadside, but there is a field impairment test:

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/think/drugdrive/testfordrugs.shtml

 

If you fail this, you will be taken back to the police station and reassessed. If you still appear to be under the influence, you will have to submit to a urine or blood test. If this comes up positive for any of a number of drugs, you will be prosecuted.

 

Some analysis of the policy here:

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/resea...fectiveness.pdf

 

Amongst those who were pulled, shown at the roadside to be impaired and subsequently tested, the most common cause was found to be diazepam (Valium), followed by opiates, then cannabis residues. Which is interesting, because as I understand it cannabis is much more widely used than those drugs - it suggests to me that cannabis is not particularly likely to make people drive in a way which causes the police to take an interest, nor to impair them enough to fail the roadside test.

 

To be honest, I think that an impairment based test followed by a clinical test is in some ways fairer than the way that we police alcohol - if less effective in stopping people drinking too much.

[Steve Walker]

To all of you who say that the advisor's should not be sacked because they disagree with the government, may I remind you all of how many times has a judge been condemned for giving a lenient sentence. Both advisor's and judges are HUMAN and are capable of making a mistake.

 

He was employed to give his opinion. Politicians disagreed with the scientists and did what the hell they felt like instead. The scientist in question refused to lie about the relative harm caused by various drugs. The scientist's job was not to be political, it was to give an honest opinion, and that's all he did.

 

It's like firing soldiers who point out that the kit is rubbish.

[pfcruleok]

I admire Prof David Nutt et al who have stood by their guns and not towed the line, shows the ignorance of the current government, and this in light of what has happened to past advisors that have criticized them !

On the subject of cannabis, which i may add, i smoked for at least 25 years ( stopped now i also may add )

It has had no debtrmental effects on me and has in fact inspired me to do things that i would probably would never have done and meet some excellent people on the way too.

On the other hand there is a dangerous new home grown strain of Skunk that has been engineered to have a very high THC content and this is now the perfered choose of the younger generation of users and is more readlly available that resin.

There is definetly a conection between this new type of cannabis and mental health problems (Psychotic episodes ).

I have first hand day to day experiences of this as a professional working as part of the Community Mental Health Team.

Edited November 3, 2009 by pfcruleok

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

So ban it until there are conclusive tests.

 

Not being able to prove a negative should not be able to circumvent safety.

 

So what you gonna do about all the legal drugs which have no conclusive tests?

 

I'm not sure its safe, but its by far safer than alcohol as i've driven many times under the influence of cannabis (when younger, not now) but wouldn't have done so with alcohol. How many people drive after hayfever tabs, or even with hayfever, or the flu, or a bad cold even? Where do you draw the line?

 

We'd all like everyone behind a wheel to be 100% fit both mentally and physically but that just isn't going to happen is it?

[Sportsman]

I have spent the last 22 years driving (quite legally) under the influence of codeine. Was I safe? I didn't have an accident, but if I had I could have been done for driving whilst unfit. That is the nonsense.

 

I was quite within my rights to take over the counter medicine at the recommended dose and then drive., but if I had an accident after taking it I could be classed as unfit, and the same dose of the medicine may not have the same effect on other people.

 

The difference seems to be in the intent. If I intentionally smoke dope and then drive, I am intentionally committing an offence but then could I be said to be intentionally taking the pain killer or hay fever cure, knowing that they may impair my judgment when I later drive?

 

Let's ban everything to be safe

[Jim Roper]

When I listened to Prof Nutt talking about it, I got the impression that he/his friends/family members might be users.

The posters on here who defend it, give me the same impression.

[Sportsman]

When I listened to Prof Nutt talking about it, I got the impression that he/his friends/family members might be users.

The posters on here who defend it, give me the same impression.

 

 

TBH Jim I don't give a rat's ar5e what impression I give you