davidg Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Police forces are recording positive results for as many as 56 per cent of suspects who are pulled over, figures uncovered by the Daily Fail show. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095433/Hidden-menace-drivers-high-drugs-Six-ten-motorists-failing-new-roadside-tests.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 thought this was a thread about muslims uprising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Shouldn't that be '56% of all drivers pulled over for odd driving behaviour are stoned'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Is this the test Manchester didn't want to use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilf Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Shouldn't that be '56% of all drivers pulled over for odd driving behaviour are stoned'? Yeah exactly, I suspect that the number of people who actually drink and drive these days is way down on what it would have been in the past and so if you are driving erratically then drugs are the more likely culprit. Just out of interest just looked at the drink driving stats, in England from the 1960's up until the mid 1980's there was a steady increase I suspect in part more to do with an increase in drivers and cars than out an out drinking, then it levelled at a peak of around 100,000 convictions and then since then a steady decline and the most recent figures I could find are 50% of the peak number in 1988. Although interestingly convictions for females rose massively (about 100% in 10 years) from 1994 to 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 With about 40% of people in any given year on some kind of anti-depressant I suspect these figures are the Police eagerly using their new powers to arrest people suffering from things like anxiety / panic disorder, mental health problems, etc, and lumping in ill people as being stoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Shouldn't that be '56% of all drivers pulled over for odd driving behaviour are stoned'? Or more likely 56% of drivers pulled over and then showing obvious signs of being stoned are stoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC1 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 50% of drivers have below average driving ability. Scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovinedealer Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I know what you mean, man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC1 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Hey, what...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John51 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Comment from the Fail article: The government's own expert panel, assembled to make recommendations on the blood levels that might indicate impairment recommended a level of 5 micrograms for Cannabis. In doing so they also pointed out that this was a level showing impairment in inexperienced users & that regular consumers may not be impaired at this level. As usual, the government knows better than the experts they employ & decided to set the level at 2. In Colorado, where Cannabis is legally available, the level was set at 8 micrograms, with the added protection that anyone testing at or over this level can request an impairment test. There have been medical users of concentrated cannabis oil that have tested over 1,000 micrograms but have still passed the impairment test due to their acquired tolerance from high, long term use. The stats actually show that road safety has improved in most US states with medical cannabis laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 50% of drivers have below average driving ability. Scary. 50% of drivers have below average intelligence. Bar them from holding driving licences and you cut down on congestion, accidents and road deaths at a stroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Yeah the twit that drove into the back of my car and wrote it off on a motorway where ours were the only two cars on it for several miles, was driving under the influence of drugs. I'd have liked to have stoned him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juvenal Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 thought this was a thread about muslims uprising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monks Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Everyone (including the journo who wrote the story) is missing the point though. Drug tests rarely test for the drug itself. Instead they test for the metabolite of the drug. This is the by-product of the drug after it has been processed by the body and generally long after the effects of the drug have worn off. Different drugs metabolise at different speeds, for different people, and in different ways. Cocaine for instance is water soluable, meaning the metabolites are "flushed" out quickly (1-3 days), with the process "improved" by consumption of water, exercise, sweating etc Cannabis is fat soluable, meaning it binds to fat cells and therefore can remain in the body for much longer, and is slowly released as the fat cells break down. For a regular user, this may be weeks or months after last use. Of course then, if you tested, say 100 people, for cannabis metabolites, there would be a fairly misleadingly high, "positive" rate, even though many had not touched the drug in the previous week or so. Are they a danger to the roads? Probably not, but that story doesn't suit the Daily Mail opinion makers. A far better test would be a roadside reaction test (perhaps on a handheld tablet PC), that would test peoples suitability to drive AT THAT POINT IN TIME. I suggest many sober, 30mph, "self-proclaimed safe" drivers would be caught out by this method. I also suggest that many people "failing" the current drugs test would prove more than capable of driving a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Everyone (including the journo who wrote the story) is missing the point though. Drug tests rarely test for the drug itself. Instead they test for the metabolite of the drug. This is the by-product of the drug after it has been processed by the body and generally long after the effects of the drug have worn off. Different drugs metabolise at different speeds, for different people, and in different ways. Cocaine for instance is water soluable, meaning the metabolites are "flushed" out quickly (1-3 days), with the process "improved" by consumption of water, exercise, sweating etc Cannabis is fat soluable, meaning it binds to fat cells and therefore can remain in the body for much longer, and is slowly released as the fat cells break down. For a regular user, this may be weeks or months after last use. Of course then, if you tested, say 100 people, for cannabis metabolites, there would be a fairly misleadingly high, "positive" rate, even though many had not touched the drug in the previous week or so. Are they a danger to the roads? Probably not, but that story doesn't suit the Daily Mail opinion makers. A far better test would be a roadside reaction test (perhaps on a handheld tablet PC), that would test peoples suitability to drive AT THAT POINT IN TIME. I suggest many sober, 30mph, "self-proclaimed safe" drivers would be caught out by this method. I also suggest that many people "failing" the current drugs test would prove more than capable of driving a car. From what i can make out the test in use (a swab test) especially for cannabis, tests for delta 9 thc this is not metabolised it`s basically a contact test i.e residue left in the mouth/saliva after smoking , this is the type of test http://www.narcocheck.com/en/saliva-drug-tests/thc-marijuana-saliva-test.html If my thinking is correct these test are not testing for the level of intoxication ( there`s no way of doing this for cannabis) and only proves evidence of recent(ish) use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
workingpoor Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 They dont have to prove impairment anymore they convict (and have already done so multiple times) upon breach of the set level the same as alcohol. I have difficulty understanding the procedure though as a failed roadside swab test leads to arrest and a blood test at the station the blood test level is what they convict on so which is going to show what? will the blood test show more than the saliva test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eroginald Rimmington Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I must be wrong in the head but I have always thought that people that cause crashes regardless of their sobriety are worse than drunkards who cause no crashes. All I see is sober people crashing and getting away with driving courses/ 3 points whilst people causing no harm who are slightly over the limit, or stoned are criminalised. By all means, let's criminalise lots of bad people, but FFS if Drink/Stoned Driving is criminal so should causing a crash through negligence. Crashing your car is surely good enough evidence to say that you should be banned? (I would suggest short bans - 1 week, 1 month eg - the whole 12 month thing is slightly overegging the pudding in many cases, I think). Too many HWFs would be affected, I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 They dont have to prove impairment anymore they convict (and have already done so multiple times) upon breach of the set level the same as alcohol. I have difficulty understanding the procedure though as a failed roadside swab test leads to arrest and a blood test at the station the blood test level is what they convict on so which is going to show what? will the blood test show more than the saliva test? A blood test will provide a ng per ml of blood result a saliva test is an above threshold test it do not provide a ng/ml result For cannabis time is the enemy of the drug tester (or friend of the user) whether it`s a saliva test or blood test, i think this is the reason for the incredibly low threshold being used here in the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I bet it's 90% in Gloucester Road, Bristol. I was there a couple of weeks ago, never realised anywhere like that existed in the UK. It was like going to Amsterdam in the 1970's. Amazing murals everywhere, hippies and drug paraphernalia shops. I like the Gloucester Road! Or Bong Street, as it is affectionately known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The XYY Man Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I must be wrong in the head but.... And please continue to be so - or you'll never fit-in on "off-topic"...! XYY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 And please continue to be so - or you'll never fit-in on "off-topic"...! XYY All great philophisers here? And we like dorty fanny and nob jokes too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Comment from the Fail article: The government's own expert panel, assembled to make recommendations on the blood levels that might indicate impairment recommended a level of 5 micrograms for Cannabis. In doing so they also pointed out that this was a level showing impairment in inexperienced users & that regular consumers may not be impaired at this level. As usual, the government knows better than the experts they employ & decided to set the level at 2. In Colorado, where Cannabis is legally available, the level was set at 8 micrograms, with the added protection that anyone testing at or over this level can request an impairment test. There have been medical users of concentrated cannabis oil that have tested over 1,000 micrograms but have still passed the impairment test due to their acquired tolerance from high, long term use. The stats actually show that road safety has improved in most US states with medical cannabis laws. This begs the question where do people using cannabis based pharmaceuticals in the UK stand concerning driving laws, are they effectively now banned from driving whilst taking their medicine as they are almost certainly going to fail with the limit so low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
workingpoor Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 No not if taking within the prescribed dose and can produce a bone fide prescription to back it up. It still results in a court appearance though and the prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was over the prescribed limit. The advice is to keep your prescription in the car as it may prevent being run in by the five 'o This 20 page PDF will clear up all the questions: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02884/SN02884.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.