Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tin Foil Hat

Drugalyser And Cannabis

Recommended Posts

How's this going to work then?

Dope is not water soluble and traces stay for 30-60 days (or longer depending on how hardcore your technology is to detect it).

Effects of it wear off within hours though.

So, you had a joint in Amsterdam 3 weeks ago and then find you're busted for it on a police test?

Anyone know what the score is here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's this going to work then?

Dope is not water soluble and traces stay for 30-60 days (or longer depending on how hardcore your technology is to detect it).

Effects of it wear off within hours though.

So, you had a joint in Amsterdam 3 weeks ago and then find you're busted for it on a police test?

Anyone know what the score is here?

We had this exact discussion on another forum I bet you work for an American firm right?

The responses varied in that you were doing something perfectly legal in a foreign country.

To taking your boss out to lunch and buying opium seed baguettes for him so HE gets a positive too.

To get a bag of pee from somebody clean and strap it to your inner leg as nobody actually watches you pee. Like the guy in Gattica did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ken - no I most certainly don't work for an American firm - NHS as it happens.

The news today announced the rollout of drugalysers to UK police.

Just wondered if there was to be a quantative limit set on it as opposed to the qualitative presence.

It has other implications as well - do they then "mark" your car/house for further snooping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ken - no I most certainly don't work for an American firm - NHS as it happens.

The news today announced the rollout of drugalysers to UK police.

Just wondered if there was to be a quantative limit set on it as opposed to the qualitative presence.

It has other implications as well - do they then "mark" your car/house for further snooping?

No idea but considering the past 13 years of mimicking the stazi a positive test will probably be used as suspicion for further investigation and it will go on your secret record, i.e. the ID database they said they will cancel but will keep in secret and maybe send a Infrared camera van round your house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you had a joint in Amsterdam 3 weeks ago and then find you're busted for it on a police test?

If the machine does generate false positives along those lines I doubt if it'll be in use very long. The number of acquittals and appeals resulting from its use will render it politically useless.

The main reason why the booze breathalyser is so widely used is that it is widely accepted as giving a reasonably accurate indication of how affected by alcohol you're likely to be. Even so, there have been successful appeals based on incorrectly calibrated machines, tests not carried out in accordance with procedures and so on and so forth. If this drug testing machine does show a red light in response to a joint smoked weeks ago and long after you're no longer under any sort of influence from it, I fail to see how its use could not be successfully challenged in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the machine does generate false positives along those lines I doubt if it'll be in use very long. The number of acquittals and appeals resulting from its use will render it politically useless.

The main reason why the booze breathalyser is so widely used is that it is widely accepted as giving a reasonably accurate indication of how affected by alcohol you're likely to be. Even so, there have been successful appeals based on incorrectly calibrated machines, tests not carried out in accordance with procedures and so on and so forth. If this drug testing machine does show a red light in response to a joint smoked weeks ago and long after you're no longer under any sort of influence from it, I fail to see how its use could not be successfully challenged in court.

Slight correction. It gives a reasonably accurate indication of what level of alcohol you have in your body. How affected you are by it is actually irrelevant and as it's a simple offence to have a certain amount in your self whether it affects you are not and is actually irrelevant as different people will be affected differently.

I'm not actually sure what the police intend to achieve with these drug testing machines. It's an offence to drive whilst incapable through drugs (or drink for that matter) but it's not an offence to have them in your system - at any level. They would have to prove that the level of drugs you had in you was in fact affecting your ability to drive. Of course, this could be the first step in setting limits for various drugs but that's unlikely as successive governments have refused to do it on the grounds that setting a limit sends that message that it's ok to do it. I actually see their argument here as it seems rather contradictory to establish an acceptable level of illegal drug use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight correction. It gives a reasonably accurate indication of what level of alcohol you have in your body. How affected you are by it is actually irrelevant and as it's a simple offence to have a certain amount in your self whether it affects you are not and is actually irrelevant as different people will be affected differently.

I'm not actually sure what the police intend to achieve with these drug testing machines. It's an offence to drive whilst incapable through drugs (or drink for that matter) but it's not an offence to have them in your system - at any level. They would have to prove that the level of drugs you had in you was in fact affecting your ability to drive. Of course, this could be the first step in setting limits for various drugs but that's unlikely as successive governments have refused to do it on the grounds that setting a limit sends that message that it's ok to do it. I actually see their argument here as it seems rather contradictory to establish an acceptable level of illegal drug use.

They're talking of making a new offence of having anything in your system, full stop. Fine for the hydrophilics like coke/smack/e but no good for spliff where it's lyophilic and stays for a long time as you don't piss out oils and fats.

All the users who do it on a low-intensity/medicinal use for pain or other symptoms are going to be hammered by this. Odd as I would have thought this will affect lots of toffs and the tories like to hammer the proles whenever possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

I despair, I really do. Why does society demonise one of the safest drugs available for recreational use so much? It's ok to feck your body with alcohol and nicotine, but try using relatively harmless cannabis and your life's ruined by intrusive do-gooders. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight correction. It gives a reasonably accurate indication of what level of alcohol you have in your body. How affected you are by it is actually irrelevant and as it's a simple offence to have a certain amount in your self whether it affects you are not and is actually irrelevant as different people will be affected differently.

I always thought the US/Canada option makes more sense. Simple tests to see if you are in total control of your body or not. Better than some technical arbitrary limit IMO.

20 stone bloke drinks 3 pints. He usually can drink 15 pints in an evening no problem. Barely feels it. Gets in car = dangerous drink driver.

8 stone bird who has never had alchohol in her life before. Drinks one glass of wine. Pissed as a fart. Gets in car = on you way madam you are perfectly legal to drive !!

Now these are clearly extreme examples - but you get the point. They did something on TV similar to this last year IIRC. Was very interesting. Got similar results to above, if not quite so extreme.

I do agree some sort of arbitrary limit makes sense. However an initial test woudl be a better optino IMO PRIOR to going down the technical route. Works in rural Canada.

I despair, I really do. Why does society demonise one of the safest drugs available for recreational use so much? It's ok to feck your body with alcohol and nicotine, but try using relatively harmless cannabis and your life's ruined by intrusive do-gooders. :angry:

Yep. I suppose the point of this is to stop serious tokers getting in their cars when wasted. But then that is not the norm is it ? And as said above what if it stays in your system for ages ?

This will be messy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine to test for it, as fine to test for alcohol, as long as the penalties are proportionate.

So for alcohol with the two pints limit:

two pints something - you're a naughty boy lecture

three pints - caution

four pints - three points and fine

six pints - six points, fine and ban

eight pints - nine points, ban and fine

ten pints - disqualification and prison

I can't stand the current binary system that brackets together the woman who's had a couple of glasses at wine at lunch with the alkie who's drunk a bottle of vodka before getting behind the wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

As I said its nerds revenge

Where live the cops pull you over and test for drugs, so if you get ripped and drive the paranoia is compounded, have a nice drive…………………..

I think its fair enough doing a saliva test in high risk work environments, drilling heavy equipment etc otherwise it’s just a big massive social engineering tactic

I'm in no way condoning tokers who drive under the influence, they should be banged to rights the same as drink drivers are, but clearly there are going to be unjust penalties if tokers are tested for THC in the body, regardless of their actual sobriety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in no way condoning tokers who drive under the influence, they should be banged to rights the same as drink drivers are, but clearly there are going to be unjust penalties if tokers are tested for THC in the body, regardless of their actual sobriety.

As ccc said, welcome to the world of the drinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

As ccc said, welcome to the world of the drinker.

Hardly, I stopped drinking in January. This is different Frank, tokers might come up positive even though they're completely sober.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly, I stopped drinking in January. This is different Frank, tokers might come up positive even though they're completely sober.

And they'll come up positive for 30-60 days afterwards as well. We're talking a loooong time here. Sobriety doesn't even come into it. Even remembering when you had a smoke will be a hard job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine to test for it, as fine to test for alcohol, as long as the penalties are proportionate.

So for alcohol with the two pints limit:

two pints something - you're a naughty boy lecture

three pints - caution

four pints - three points and fine

six pints - six points, fine and ban

eight pints - nine points, ban and fine

ten pints - disqualification and prison

I can't stand the current binary system that brackets together the woman who's had a couple of glasses at wine at lunch with the alkie who's drunk a bottle of vodka before getting behind the wheel.

Aren't the driving bans imposed already proportional to the amount you are over the limit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly, I stopped drinking in January. This is different Frank, tokers might come up positive even though they're completely sober.

Yes, I knew that XQ. I meant that drinkers can be prosecuted despite being entirely safe to drive (I know what my driving's like, it's worse if I'm tired than if I've had a couple) and now that is being extended to dopeheads.

Welcome to the world of spurious prosectution then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't the driving bans imposed already proportional to the amount you are over the limit?

Yes, but there aren't the light penalties for being just over. This was missed by (most of) the media when they were comparing our two pint limit to the continent's more usual one pint limit; whilst missing their very light touch penalties for being a bit over that limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

Welcome to the world of spurious prosectution then.

I see your point now Frank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't the driving bans imposed already proportional to the amount you are over the limit?

I imagine they are in some way. However it is the line in the sand approach which is wrong IMO.

All or nothing. Safe to go have a nice night Sir. Or....you are a conicted drink driver and you now have a criminal record.

Rules have to be in place. Totally agree. However it is not as black and white as the Law suggests. Therefore the tests should have a bit of common sense involved IMO. Rather than just blowing into a tube and being informed you are now a criminal. Very 1984 isn't it ?

Sobriety test first. Then a breath or blood test if the Police think you failed. Why can that not work ? It does elsewhere.

And anyone who is way over the limit deserves what they get. No argument there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're talking of making a new offence of having anything in your system, full stop. Fine for the hydrophilics like coke/smack/e but no good for spliff where it's lyophilic and stays for a long time as you don't piss out oils and fats.

All the users who do it on a low-intensity/medicinal use for pain or other symptoms are going to be hammered by this. Odd as I would have thought this will affect lots of toffs and the tories like to hammer the proles whenever possible.

I doubt that will ever come about as it couldbe in your system perfectly innocently - if you had been in the vicinity of someone using it. No one would be able to drive ever if that were the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the US/Canada option makes more sense. Simple tests to see if you are in total control of your body or not. Better than some technical arbitrary limit IMO.

20 stone bloke drinks 3 pints. He usually can drink 15 pints in an evening no problem. Barely feels it. Gets in car = dangerous drink driver.

8 stone bird who has never had alchohol in her life before. Drinks one glass of wine. Pissed as a fart. Gets in car = on you way madam you are perfectly legal to drive !!

Now these are clearly extreme examples - but you get the point. They did something on TV similar to this last year IIRC. Was very interesting. Got similar results to above, if not quite so extreme.

I do agree some sort of arbitrary limit makes sense. However an initial test woudl be a better optino IMO PRIOR to going down the technical route. Works in rural Canada.

I have to say that I think the only sensible and workable route is an arbitrary limit. You don't want to be getting into long and drawn out debates about whether a person was actually incapable or not. With a limit everyone knows what it is (or has an appreciation of it) and there isn't any reason to argue or complain about whether you were or weren't capable.

Lets not forget that we do have both offences in this Country (which is even better than the above). It is still a separate offence to drive whilst incapable through drink or drugs. It you fall out of a car, stinking of drink and vomit on the officers boots then youy can still be convicted under that offence and you could still be convicted if one small glass of wine sends you scatty, even if you were under the prescribed limit. It's just that the latter is more difficult to prove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly, I stopped drinking in January. This is different Frank, tokers might come up positive even though they're completely sober.

And drinkers may loose thier licence even though they are perfectly capable of driving safely.

As I say, I think an arbitrary limit is the only way to do it or you will be getting into constant arguments about how much is too much in a particular individual. The answer is simple in all cases - don't imbibe the particular substances if you are likely to drive before it's out of your system or below a pre-set limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but there aren't the light penalties for being just over. This was missed by (most of) the media when they were comparing our two pint limit to the continent's more usual one pint limit; whilst missing their very light touch penalties for being a bit over that limit.

But this ignores that fact that you don't actually get prosecutred for being "just" over the limit here. The limit is 34mg per 100lm of breath so 35mg is the point at which it becomes illegal. However, the prosecution guidelines stipulate that you don't get prosecuted until you blow 40mg.

When you get stopped you get breathalysed. If you are at around 40 you get tested again after 20 mins and if still over you get arrested and tested again at the cop shop. If at any time you drop below 40 then you don't get done. So, in actual fact, no we dont have a penalty for being a bit over but it's the case that you have to be significantly over before you even get done!

It's actually not the easy to get to that reading and not know you were over the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine they are in some way. However it is the line in the sand approach which is wrong IMO.

All or nothing. Safe to go have a nice night Sir. Or....you are a conicted drink driver and you now have a criminal record.

Rules have to be in place. Totally agree. However it is not as black and white as the Law suggests. Therefore the tests should have a bit of common sense involved IMO. Rather than just blowing into a tube and being informed you are now a criminal. Very 1984 isn't it ?

Sobriety test first. Then a breath or blood test if the Police think you failed. Why can that not work ? It does elsewhere.

And anyone who is way over the limit deserves what they get. No argument there.

Because hard-core alcoholics, for instance, are very good at hiding the fact that they're off their t1ts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.