Monday, May 7, 2012 -

    Drug Driving Proposals Are Unjust, Unscientific And Dishonest

    Of course, no one should drive whilst impaired in any way but the proposed new drug driving law is nothing to do with this principle. It is, in fact, just another knee jerk reaction from a government that formulates its policies based on tabloid headlines rather than science or justice.

    Quite properly, anyone who drives whilst their judgement or motor skills are impaired should be taken off the road and there need to be deterrent punishments to ensure that such behaviour is prevented. However, any such law needs to be based on accurate and scientific measurement of impairment as our drink driving laws always have been.

    Alcohol, cocaine, opiates and amphetamines are all recognised by our body as poisons and so are excreted as quickly as possible. Cannabinoids, on the other hand, are natural substances compatible with our body chemistry and beneficial to health. For this reason our body retains them and they can be detected for many hours, days, weeks or even months after cannabis has been consumed, well after any impairment has worn off.

    How are users of the prescription medicine Sativex going to be treated? If cannabinoids are detected in their system, are they going to be exempt from penalties or is there going to some distinction between licit and illicit cannabinoids – and how is this going to be determined?

    What about users of prescription pain killers, tranquilisers, hay fever remedies and a host of other medicines which inarguably do cause impairment? How is the danger they cause going to be controlled?

    At what level is having drugs in the system going to be an offence? We already allow some impairment through alcohol, the most dangerous drug of all. It is well established that at the current limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood there is already signifiicant impairment. Yet it seems that this proposed drug driving law is going to be far too simplistic. Any level at all of the drugs singled out (which may cause far less impairmnent than alcohol) will be an offence.

    This proposal is for an unjust and unscientific law which discriminates against some drug users for reasons of prejudice and hatred. It has nothing to do with preventing accidents. It is about a weak government seeking to generate cheap, tabloid headlines.

    The insurance industry already knows that cannabis users are safer drivers than drinkers: http://www.4autoinsurancequote.com/uncategorized/reasons-why-marijuana-users-are-safe-drivers/

    Research from the US shows that where a regulated supply of cannabis is available traffic accidents and deaths from accidents are reduced: http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/

    Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

    Related news:

    1. Sentencing Council, Drug Offences Guidelines. Response To Public Consultation.
    2. “MS Patients Denied Licensed Cannabis Drug By NHS”, The Guardian, 30th May 2011
    3. Students For Sensible Drug Policy
    4. What Does 2012 Hold For The Cannabis Campaign?
    5. Reefer Madness In A Final Frenzy
    • sykesbenson

      Another way of revenue for the thievin’ no-good bastards!:-(

    • Lesabyst

      This could be one way of ‘winning’ the law on drugs – if this policy was approved, I’d sadly have to stop smoking. Surely they’d need to provide evidence that pot smokers are more likely to be involved in accidents though?

    • Focusonpeace

      There grouping cannabis with hard drugs again, i hate that! ! !

      I must admit there are certain strains of cannabis you probably shouldnt smoke while driving, mainly Indica or indica dominate strains. strains like ‘grape ape’ and ‘the doctor’ can be like taking a sleeping pill, so good for insomniacs, good for deep muscle relaxation, it has its medicinal value but it dont belong in the drivers seat. Sativa, or sativa dominate strains, like the ‘Haze’ family, well thats different. They can actually heighten sense of awareness and make the driver more stimulated yet relaxed. Because there are so many strains of cannabis, its hard to differentiate. Certain Indica can have the same effect. I guess thats why research needs to be encouraged. Lets not forget some people have a higher tolerance than others. But really, we all know we would rather be in the car with the driver being kinda stoned or high, than kinda tipsy or drunk. My friend drives and smokes cannabis, and his driving couldnt be more careful and perfect. I feel more relaxed with driver stoned, than buzzing from a starbucks coffee to be honest! In fact if there is any danger what so ever when it comes to ‘high’ driving its because were driving too slow lol

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Badbluffer-Jones/100002358136758 Badbluffer Jones

      State sponsored social conformity terrorism.

    • cshaws

      In a perverse sort of way this may help us if the gov push it forward.  Whoever has suggested this has obviously not thought it through and, even more obviously, have no idea at all about the biological mechanisms involved in metabolising cannabinoids.  They are already cornered over the sativex scam and this proposal will push the sativex debate right to the top of the agenda and into the public spotlight.  Maybe we’ll finally find out what the mysterious impurities are ???  At the very least they will surely have to schedule Sativex because they will have to differentiate sativex  users from ‘raw’ users and, at the moment, sativex is technically non-prescribable as it has no MoDA scheduling.  I’m sure GWP won’t be happy if their customers can no longer drive legally. Oh what a tangled web they weave.  

    • headinhands

      Cannabis stays in the bloodstream for weeks/months? Cocaine and other chemicals leave the bloodstream in days? Is that correct? And how exactly is that going to work then … it means anybody who smokes will be triggering the device even if they haven’t smoked for days/weeks? Or there will be a threshold of tolerance? On an illegal substance?As for Sativex or other legal drugs, I imagine it will have ‘no not drive’ written on the packaging; thus it will be included in the ban.

      FFS legalise it, I’ll be very happy to get a push bike.

    • headinhands

      I’ve been reading about the Lillian Groves campaign. The guy got an 8 month prison sentence but only served 8 weeks – it was for dangerous driving as he was doing about 43mph in a 30mph area – what they are angry about is that he had smoked cannabis but that was not taken into account with sentencing because they couldn’t prove it was a contributory factor. If he had have been over the drink-drive limit then the sentence would have been much longer. So, regardless whether cannabis contributed to the collision they are still trying to get it to be taken into account. I don’t have a problem with this as such; I could put up with a zero-tolerance approach to drug-driving, in a sensible world where cannabis is legal.

      I’d love to put this point to the Groves family – do they really believe that the presence of a joint on the dashboard of the car was a contributory factor? That this guy “showing off in a borrowed car with no insurance” was doing so because of the cannabis? Would road side testing for drug use have saved their daughter?

    • JaniceWells

      This sort of testing wont prevent accidents, it might cause some if people are desperate enough to evade testing.

    • MauriceRabbit

      Surely, the onus will be on the police to prove that one is under the influence of cannabis. If they can devise a test which will tell them that, then fair enough. 

    • maxwood

      The first thing is to do what cannabis-users do anyway in a car: drive slowly and carefully (the drug warriors call this paranoia, heh heh).  Beyond that, stick to slow quiet streets where a cop won’t suspect you of driving “slower than the traffic”.  headinhands had it right– get a bike.

    • nooneatallhere

      But like with alcohol, who is to say what is a ‘safe’ limit. A machine testing saliva will only give a pass or a fail reading, what level of intoxication is classed as ’under the influence’? a pass or a fail? Roadside sobriety tests that don’t involve expensive machines being rolled out would be far more effective at gauging someones level of intoxication. Hop on one leg while touching your nose with your eyes shut whilst saying the alphabet would work better, rather than an un-discriminating machine..

    • MR_Bimble

      If you drive drunk or Stoned then you get what you deserve – reading the background on the test the government wanted a specific amount to be detectable but what does that equate to? Everyone knows with the current limit you can have about a pint or small glass of wine and be OK – but if you have smoked a joint how long do you have to wait before you can drive? With the current policy they can’t say as that would be advocating drug use.

    • Focusonpeace

      Completely agree, but what about cannabis staying in your system long after the high or stone has dissipated? So I could be feeling stone cold sober, yet because I took cannabis a few days ago, I cant drive? Because the test will show there’s cannabis still in my system?
      I cant make sense of it, and saying a pint or a small glass of wine is acceptable, how many draws can i take from my joint before its unacceptable? Or is just one toke unacceptable, if so then i think one sip of wine shouldn’t be allowed either.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Badbluffer-Jones/100002358136758 Badbluffer Jones

      Look at the insurance web link above. Cannabis and alcohol are not the same.

    • nooneatallhere

      House of Lords
      Queens Speech Debate
      Baroness Meacher
      http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2012-05-15a.327.0