I don't like the idea of being on the road at the same time as an alcohol or drug impaired driver. Driving is hazardous enough as it is without the addition of booze or drugs.
I support it as long as there is a threashold on how much cannabis can be used before safely driving - for example there is a limit on how much alcohol people can drink then safely drive so there should be a limit on how much cannabis can be consumed.
if this drug-testing does not have a blood threashold limit then I CURSE THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PITS OF THE FIREY ABYSS, It was them who said "hey were gunna keep the blood alcohol limit at 80mg/100mls but people with even minute traces of cannabis in there system will be charged while driving under the influence" Shame on Helen Clark, Shame on Paul Swain She should be beaten with Shoes. - in fact i live 3 blocks away from Paul Swain, i may as well have a nice, friendly professional chat with him later today.
BTW i do not support people driving totally smashed and tripping on Marijuana - its just the fact that people will be done-in 3/4 days later Long, Long, Long after the slightest effects have worn off (which is between 3 and 5 hours). and ironically it is proven that driving on small amounts of Marijuana is alot safer than driving on small amounts of alcohol. but again i do not condone it.
so to wrap things up, id give it my full seal of approval provided a set blood THC limit is enforced just the same way Alcohol and driving laws are enforced with set BAC (blood alcohol) limits
thats clearly what im talking about mana, its double standards that they decided to keep the alcohol limit at 80mg/100mls yet if they find people with minute traces of THC in there blood stream, even 4 days after smoking there last joint they get a "Stoned in Charge"? (now theres an innotive way to put it)
also it comes around to the fact - THC stays in your body for between 2 and 6 days in an occasional user and as much as 30 in heavy users, it is not broken down by the liver either. With alcohol It breaks down 1 hour per standard drink so after after a night of drinking 7 or 8 330ml tui or lion red cans, 12 hours later you would have been ol to drive for some 4 or 5 hours, maybe even 8 hours (80mg is in a guideline but not gospel sense equivilent to 3 cans of beer consumed without food in a one hour period for a male of average height and weight).
Umm, probably SIC is the last thing they'd be worried about. Last time I checked, smoking any amount of pot was still illegal. Actually, I heard once that one of the reasons cannibis is still illegal is because they couldn't find an effective breath test for it.
another thing im worried about is the police using these "roadside drug tests" as a "fishing trip" to pick up anybody who has smoked at anytime in the past week or month, without clear evidence (its a fact your body can produce THC Naturally)
Sounds like you'd need to fail the subjective police-administered roadside test (walk a straight line, stand on one leg, estimate 30 seconds, pupil dilation examination) before being sent off to hospital for a blood test. The blood test is what'll get you.
And remember! The test is going to be volunatary during the trial period, '... but police are counting on the overconfidence or irrationality of drug users for compliance." Ahaha! So if you're too stoned to realise that you don't even need to take the test, you've already in trouble.
"The Land Transport Act deems it an offence to drive under the influence of a drug to the extent of being 'incapable of having proper control'."
I think, although I'm not sure of the law on this one, that if you're hauled in for one crime (in this case drug-driving), and it can be established that you weren't stoned, and in proper control of the car (ie. you can argue that you smoked yesterday, and that the effects had worn off), that you can't be charged for another offense (the offense being what? is it illegal to have THC in your system)? Lawyers, anyone?
the relevant section in the statute (misuse of drugs act) doesn't talk about past tense... there'd be some case law on it - makes for interesting reading. the section linked to below is the closest i could find...
okay that link doesn't quite take you there... if anyone is interested go to M on the left hand bar and select misuse of drugs act then have a look at section 7. Useful site. in my line of work anyway
(1) Except as provided in section 8 of this Act, or pursuant to a licence under this Act, or as otherwise permitted by regulations made under this Act, no person shall—
(a) Procure or have in his possession, or consume, smoke, or otherwise use, any controlled drug;
---
So that would be a 'yes' to it being illegal to have it in your system.
// So that would be a 'yes' to it being illegal to have it in your system.
more likely a 'maybe' - would have to look at case law. there's a good argument that its no longer in your possession if you can't control it - possession=control
the only drug I can think of off the top of my head that is naturally present in the brain is nitrous, but it's not like they can actually measure brain concentrations of drugs/chemicals anyway (unless you're dead), and a lot of drugs are metabolized into other things which then exert influence over your brain. Thus, any laboratory testing is likely to be very much focussed on what they can find in your blood/urine.
//The test is going to be volunatary during the trial period,
so its only a trial period. how long will this trial period last??? and because its voluntary, do not count on me "assisting the police" especially when you could be done SIC 4 or 5 days after smoking a joint (even though the effects of cannabis wear off completely within 5 hours) but ive always applied a 12 hour rule of thumb between driving and smoking joints. after all at least with cannabis you dont wake up with a foggy head the next morning. The overall point is they should invent a sniffer device which tracks prior cannabis use up to only 12 hours after consumption and also set a blood THC threashold to make it fair and equivilent with Blood Alcohol Laws (after all you can have as many as 3 cans in an hour without food and still be under the present legal alcohol limit)
//(the offense being what? is it illegal to have THC in your system)?
The human body can also produce natural yet Minute traces of THC without even having to be near Cannabis products, its also recently been proven that 1 hour of intense exercise can produce similar blood THC levels as those who have smoked pot.
so it looks as though the police could be heading for another blunder.
//The human body can also produce natural yet Minute traces of THC without even having to be near Cannabis products, its also recently been proven that 1 hour of intense exercise can produce similar blood THC levels as those who have smoked pot.//
LS, can you please cite your evidence for these assertions.
so hypothetically
in this free and democratic society
if you drive a motor vehicle
and you volunteer to do a P.E. test which involves:
-walking in a straight line
-standing on one leg
and you naturally don't have good balance
or you have no sense of timing
and miscount 30 seconds
or for whatever reason your pupils are dialated,
the police are now legally able to detain you and have your blood tested
LS, my reading of that is that exercising produces the same 'sort' of chemical high in the brain as smoking does, but that it's not THC that's causing the 'runner's high', it's the anandamides...
"The chemical compounds called anandamides released after exercising vigorously are also found in chocolate, and are related to the chemical tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana ... Anandamides are compounds related to anandamide, which is a naturally occurring cannabinoid found in the brain," said Jeffrey Stowell, assistant psychology professor at Eastern. "Cannabinoids are chemicals related to THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana."
Aucklands traffic problems could be solved if everyone smoked pot while driving. Sure you might run the odd red light now and then, but everyone would drive half the speed they do and give way more.
// They should make it mandatory for bus drivers and couriers.
Passenger: Does this bus go to Newmarket?
Bus driver: Hey, yeah, come on board, man.
Passenger: I need to go to the Woolworths in Newmarket. Does this bus go near there?
Bus driver: Come on, young traveller. It's the groove bus.
Passenger: Look, just tell me if this bus will take me to Newmarket.
Bus driver: Hey, chill out, man. Take a seat and let the grooves move you.
Passenger: Sod this. I'm getting a taxi.
So how do they intend on actually testing for drugs? and what drugs will they be testing for? Will check point officers be standing at your window with a breathalyser, a needle and a mini lab kit?
I heard a news item on it on the radio, I was only half listening and I only tuned in at the end but but I heard a interview with sergent someone saying the tests will involve "touching the tip of your nose with your finger, walking in a straight line and standing on one leg" I mean, whoever that was, they were taking the piss right?
Whatever they do it's bound to be a collossal waste of money .... and meanwhile it takes 3 days for the police to turn up at your house if you've been burgled.
There was an article in the Dominion post about this a while ago, and it described a couple of tests they'd use, One was to shut your eyes, lean your head back and "estimate" 30 seconds.. If it is too for out of a range, then its more likely that you are under the effect of drugs.. or something like that..
There was also a little article in today DomPost as well, and there is another one regarding pupil dialation, they didn't give a lot of detail, just said that two officers in wellington had been trained to recognise it..
My father would also be in some trouble, when he puts his head back he loses his balance.
today when i was on teh motorway, a man who was what i guess to be in his 50's gave me the finger for blocking him. anyway, he didn't use his middle finger, he used his index finger?!? I burst into hysterics and nearly crashed. The thing is though he put alot of feeling into this gesture, he was really fucked off.
This got me thinking that the big index may have actually been some kind of legitimate old school insult back in the day, or was he such a dork that he's been giving people the wrong bird all his life?
BTW i thought i'd try it out on the traffic heading home today.. a girl laughed at me and another lady looked a bit confused.
How about leaving "CANNABIS" out of this & test for the more potent drugs..
We haven't heard any stories of people 'losing it' through any means other than just kicking back..its a sham!! I smoke green & drive..I love it..now this for me sux..im never a hazard on the road & I always keep it safe..now this law is absolutely out of focus..the law is so crooked these days..you wonder about those people who are passing these bills..Oh shit sorry..its the government..the ones who make rules for shit they dont even know about..
Well for the typical stereotype minded one..Weed makes you just relax & kick back. You dont ever hear of dope smokers who are comitting the large crimes or being of threat to others. So called 'normal' people are a threat to the ones who are high on natural herb!
// You dont ever hear of dope smokers who are comitting
// the large crimes or being of threat to others.
Yes you do. They're called stoned drivers.
// So called 'normal' people are a threat to the ones who are high on natural herb!
What do you mean? Straight people should be more careful on the road so as to not get into accidents with all the slow-moving, lane-weaving stoners driving about the place?
I May smoke some herb but i always keep within the principles of responsibility and that includes not driving while impaired on any drug (including cannabis) and in the once or twice occasion ive driven stoned it has always been a very small amount (2-3 puffs) and my driving was actually better.
as far as your comment goes Natalie Biz. id agree to disagree - yes i agree that you shouldnt be driving stoned and wasted but its far more likely swerving left and right is solely caused by alcohol or a combination of Cannabis and Alcohol, While yes there are downsides to driving stoned (and there many) its more likely with the healing herb youll pull out in front of somebody or run a stop sign than lose control of your vehicle (which is what alcohol causes yu to do).
But other factors should be considered, i reckon it would make a good arguement that The Government should have at least conducted Govt-Sponsored trials of The effects of Cannabis and driving before starting roadside drug-tests. If they did, they would be able to determine how much cannabis would impair Driving Ability. This is how they got the Alcohol tests started in the 1960s - they did trials of Alcohol and driving and concluded that above 100mg your driving was appalling and so a 0.10 BAC limit was set in 1967 (and lowered to 0.08 in 1978)
so what im saying and maybe again there should be govt. sponsored trials of Cannabis and Driving effects before they conduct roadside tests, that way they will know how much cannabis can impair your driving and give guidelines on how much you can consume befor egetting behidn the wheel (just as with alcohol).
// While yes there are downsides to driving stoned ... its more likely with the healing herb youll pull out in front of somebody or run a stop sign than lose control of your vehicle (which is what alcohol causes yu to do). //
What? Running a stop is somehow less dangerous than drifting across lanes? My point was that it shouldn't be the responsibility of straight drivers to avoid the haphazard driving of stoners, whatever combination of poor driving manouveres the stoners may happen to be undertaking.
//Running a stop is somehow less dangerous than drifting across lanes?
i never didnt say that, i said that they should carry out tests to see how much cannabis impairs your ability to drive before roadside drugs tests could be enforced.
and joe - you can drive and still be under the limit if you drank 3 cans of beer on an empty stomach, the Government decided to keep this law rather than dropping the limit to 2 cans, i find this hypocritical because we all know alcohol is far worse than cannabis in terms of driving.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
I don't like the idea of being on the ...
I don't like the idea of being on the road at the same time as an alcohol or drug impaired driver. Driving is hazardous enough as it is without the addition of booze or drugs.
Where are these checkpoints where you ...
Where are these checkpoints where you can volunteer to test drugs?!
there are so many different drugs these ...
there are so many different drugs these days, I'm wondering how they will test for them if/when it becomes compulsory.
that's a very good point, and anyone ...
that's a very good point,
and anyone who follows sports knows of the problems with drug testing
i look forward to the headline about ...
i look forward to the headline about the guy who loses his licence for using steroids
perhaps they should have 'driving ...
perhaps they should have 'driving skill' testing at checkpoints ..
some people are shocking drivers without the use of drugs or alcohol. ..
Here..Here.....
Here..Here..
I support it as long as there is a ...
I support it as long as there is a threashold on how much cannabis can be used before safely driving - for example there is a limit on how much alcohol people can drink then safely drive so there should be a limit on how much cannabis can be consumed.
if this drug-testing does not have a blood threashold limit then I CURSE THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PITS OF THE FIREY ABYSS, It was them who said "hey were gunna keep the blood alcohol limit at 80mg/100mls but people with even minute traces of cannabis in there system will be charged while driving under the influence" Shame on Helen Clark, Shame on Paul Swain She should be beaten with Shoes. - in fact i live 3 blocks away from Paul Swain, i may as well have a nice, friendly professional chat with him later today.
BTW i do not support people driving totally smashed and tripping on Marijuana - its just the fact that people will be done-in 3/4 days later Long, Long, Long after the slightest effects have worn off (which is between 3 and 5 hours). and ironically it is proven that driving on small amounts of Marijuana is alot safer than driving on small amounts of alcohol. but again i do not condone it.
so to wrap things up, id give it my full seal of approval provided a set blood THC limit is enforced just the same way Alcohol and driving laws are enforced with set BAC (blood alcohol) limits
dude, you either wasted or your not. ...
dude, you either wasted or your not. fuck imagine being busted for the joint you smoked the day before. gutted
thats clearly what im talking about ...
thats clearly what im talking about mana, its double standards that they decided to keep the alcohol limit at 80mg/100mls yet if they find people with minute traces of THC in there blood stream, even 4 days after smoking there last joint they get a "Stoned in Charge"? (now theres an innotive way to put it)
also it comes around to the fact - THC stays in your body for between 2 and 6 days in an occasional user and as much as 30 in heavy users, it is not broken down by the liver either. With alcohol It breaks down 1 hour per standard drink so after after a night of drinking 7 or 8 330ml tui or lion red cans, 12 hours later you would have been ol to drive for some 4 or 5 hours, maybe even 8 hours (80mg is in a guideline but not gospel sense equivilent to 3 cans of beer consumed without food in a one hour period for a male of average height and weight).
Umm, probably SIC is the last thing ...
Umm, probably SIC is the last thing they'd be worried about. Last time I checked, smoking any amount of pot was still illegal. Actually, I heard once that one of the reasons cannibis is still illegal is because they couldn't find an effective breath test for it.
another thing im worried about is the ...
another thing im worried about is the police using these "roadside drug tests" as a "fishing trip" to pick up anybody who has smoked at anytime in the past week or month, without clear evidence (its a fact your body can produce THC Naturally)
okay this is pretty disturbing stuff... ...
okay this is pretty disturbing stuff... anyone got a link to a news article? I need facts...
Sounds like you'd need to fail the ...
Sounds like you'd need to fail the subjective police-administered roadside test (walk a straight line, stand on one leg, estimate 30 seconds, pupil dilation examination) before being sent off to hospital for a blood test. The blood test is what'll get you.
And remember! The test is going to be volunatary during the trial period, '... but police are counting on the overconfidence or irrationality of drug users for compliance." Ahaha! So if you're too stoned to realise that you don't even need to take the test, you've already in trouble.
"The Land Transport Act deems it an offence to drive under the influence of a drug to the extent of being 'incapable of having proper control'."
I think, although I'm not sure of the law on this one, that if you're hauled in for one crime (in this case drug-driving), and it can be established that you weren't stoned, and in proper control of the car (ie. you can argue that you smoked yesterday, and that the effects had worn off), that you can't be charged for another offense (the offense being what? is it illegal to have THC in your system)? Lawyers, anyone?
the relevant section in the statute ...
the relevant section in the statute (misuse of drugs act) doesn't talk about past tense... there'd be some case law on it - makes for interesting reading. the section linked to below is the closest i could find...
[ external link ]
okay that link doesn't quite take you ...
okay that link doesn't quite take you there... if anyone is interested go to M on the left hand bar and select misuse of drugs act then have a look at section 7. Useful site. in my line of work anyway
7.Possession and use of controlled ...
7.Possession and use of controlled drugs—
(1) Except as provided in section 8 of this Act, or pursuant to a licence under this Act, or as otherwise permitted by regulations made under this Act, no person shall—
(a) Procure or have in his possession, or consume, smoke, or otherwise use, any controlled drug;
---
So that would be a 'yes' to it being illegal to have it in your system.
// So that would be a 'yes' to it ...
// So that would be a 'yes' to it being illegal to have it in your system.
more likely a 'maybe' - would have to look at case law. there's a good argument that its no longer in your possession if you can't control it - possession=control
the only drug I can think of off the ...
the only drug I can think of off the top of my head that is naturally present in the brain is nitrous, but it's not like they can actually measure brain concentrations of drugs/chemicals anyway (unless you're dead), and a lot of drugs are metabolized into other things which then exert influence over your brain. Thus, any laboratory testing is likely to be very much focussed on what they can find in your blood/urine.
//The test is going to be volunatary ...
//The test is going to be volunatary during the trial period,
so its only a trial period. how long will this trial period last??? and because its voluntary, do not count on me "assisting the police" especially when you could be done SIC 4 or 5 days after smoking a joint (even though the effects of cannabis wear off completely within 5 hours) but ive always applied a 12 hour rule of thumb between driving and smoking joints. after all at least with cannabis you dont wake up with a foggy head the next morning. The overall point is they should invent a sniffer device which tracks prior cannabis use up to only 12 hours after consumption and also set a blood THC threashold to make it fair and equivilent with Blood Alcohol Laws (after all you can have as many as 3 cans in an hour without food and still be under the present legal alcohol limit)
//(the offense being what? is it ...
//(the offense being what? is it illegal to have THC in your system)?
The human body can also produce natural yet Minute traces of THC without even having to be near Cannabis products, its also recently been proven that 1 hour of intense exercise can produce similar blood THC levels as those who have smoked pot.
so it looks as though the police could be heading for another blunder.
From June, in several districts, for ...
From June, in several districts, for between three and six months.
[ external link ]
//The human body can also produce ...
//The human body can also produce natural yet Minute traces of THC without even having to be near Cannabis products, its also recently been proven that 1 hour of intense exercise can produce similar blood THC levels as those who have smoked pot.//
LS, can you please cite your evidence for these assertions.
sounds like Sam spent too much time ...
sounds like Sam spent too much time with the Ab Flex this morning.
so hypothetically in this free and ...
so hypothetically
in this free and democratic society
if you drive a motor vehicle
and you volunteer to do a P.E. test which involves:
-walking in a straight line
-standing on one leg
and you naturally don't have good balance
or you have no sense of timing
and miscount 30 seconds
or for whatever reason your pupils are dialated,
the police are now legally able to detain you and have your blood tested
freedom my ass
stu right here....
stu right here.
[ external link ]
LS, my reading of that is that ...
LS, my reading of that is that exercising produces the same 'sort' of chemical high in the brain as smoking does, but that it's not THC that's causing the 'runner's high', it's the anandamides...
"The chemical compounds called anandamides released after exercising vigorously are also found in chocolate, and are related to the chemical tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana ... Anandamides are compounds related to anandamide, which is a naturally occurring cannabinoid found in the brain," said Jeffrey Stowell, assistant psychology professor at Eastern. "Cannabinoids are chemicals related to THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana."
Aucklands traffic problems could be ...
Aucklands traffic problems could be solved if everyone smoked pot while driving. Sure you might run the odd red light now and then, but everyone would drive half the speed they do and give way more.
and the thought of having road rage ...
and the thought of having road rage attacks would have been completely diminshed.
They should make it mandatory for bus ...
They should make it mandatory for bus drivers and couriers.
// They should make it mandatory for ...
// They should make it mandatory for bus drivers and couriers.
Passenger: Does this bus go to Newmarket?
Bus driver: Hey, yeah, come on board, man.
Passenger: I need to go to the Woolworths in Newmarket. Does this bus go near there?
Bus driver: Come on, young traveller. It's the groove bus.
Passenger: Look, just tell me if this bus will take me to Newmarket.
Bus driver: Hey, chill out, man. Take a seat and let the grooves move you.
Passenger: Sod this. I'm getting a taxi.
it's pretty clear the general anti ...
it's pretty clear the general anti marijuana law is just a lip service when they introduce this kind of thing
look out for the ad campaign...
<cringe> I can see it now......
I can see it now...
i will welcome prohibnitionists with ...
i will welcome prohibnitionists with baseball bats, grenades, and shoes.....they have no right to tell us what to do and run our lives.
So how do they intend on actually ...
So how do they intend on actually testing for drugs? and what drugs will they be testing for? Will check point officers be standing at your window with a breathalyser, a needle and a mini lab kit?
I heard a news item on it on the radio, I was only half listening and I only tuned in at the end but but I heard a interview with sergent someone saying the tests will involve "touching the tip of your nose with your finger, walking in a straight line and standing on one leg" I mean, whoever that was, they were taking the piss right?
Whatever they do it's bound to be a collossal waste of money .... and meanwhile it takes 3 days for the police to turn up at your house if you've been burgled.
There was an article in the Dominion ...
There was an article in the Dominion post about this a while ago, and it described a couple of tests they'd use, One was to shut your eyes, lean your head back and "estimate" 30 seconds.. If it is too for out of a range, then its more likely that you are under the effect of drugs.. or something like that..
**far not for, Sorry....
**far not for, Sorry.
well I'm screwed then - anyone who ...
well I'm screwed then - anyone who knows me, knows my concept of time is completely out of whack.
There was also a little article in ...
There was also a little article in today DomPost as well, and there is another one regarding pupil dialation, they didn't give a lot of detail, just said that two officers in wellington had been trained to recognise it..
My father would also be in some trouble, when he puts his head back he loses his balance.
howbout a 30s no smiling test?...
howbout a 30s no smiling test?
[ external link ]
didn't know where else to put this ...
didn't know where else to put this so...
today when i was on teh motorway, a man who was what i guess to be in his 50's gave me the finger for blocking him. anyway, he didn't use his middle finger, he used his index finger?!? I burst into hysterics and nearly crashed. The thing is though he put alot of feeling into this gesture, he was really fucked off.
This got me thinking that the big index may have actually been some kind of legitimate old school insult back in the day, or was he such a dork that he's been giving people the wrong bird all his life?
BTW i thought i'd try it out on the traffic heading home today.. a girl laughed at me and another lady looked a bit confused.
a news link re our little dilemma - ...
a news link re our little dilemma - public support for roadside drug testing.
"...either a saliva based test or a coordination test." i wonder if these would give the same results?
[ external link ]
How about leaving "CANNABIS" out of ...
How about leaving "CANNABIS" out of this & test for the more potent drugs..
We haven't heard any stories of people 'losing it' through any means other than just kicking back..its a sham!! I smoke green & drive..I love it..now this for me sux..im never a hazard on the road & I always keep it safe..now this law is absolutely out of focus..the law is so crooked these days..you wonder about those people who are passing these bills..Oh shit sorry..its the government..the ones who make rules for shit they dont even know about..
// How about leaving "CANNABIS" out of ...
// How about leaving "CANNABIS" out of this & test for the more potent drugs..
The police will be testing for all illicit drugs, not just cannabis.
// We haven't heard any stories of people 'losing it' through
// any means other than just kicking back..its a sham!!
What do you mean?
Well for the typical stereotype minded ...
Well for the typical stereotype minded one..Weed makes you just relax & kick back. You dont ever hear of dope smokers who are comitting the large crimes or being of threat to others. So called 'normal' people are a threat to the ones who are high on natural herb!
// You dont ever hear of dope smokers ...
// You dont ever hear of dope smokers who are comitting
// the large crimes or being of threat to others.
Yes you do. They're called stoned drivers.
// So called 'normal' people are a threat to the ones who are high on natural herb!
What do you mean? Straight people should be more careful on the road so as to not get into accidents with all the slow-moving, lane-weaving stoners driving about the place?
I May smoke some herb but i always keep ...
I May smoke some herb but i always keep within the principles of responsibility and that includes not driving while impaired on any drug (including cannabis) and in the once or twice occasion ive driven stoned it has always been a very small amount (2-3 puffs) and my driving was actually better.
as far as your comment goes Natalie Biz. id agree to disagree - yes i agree that you shouldnt be driving stoned and wasted but its far more likely swerving left and right is solely caused by alcohol or a combination of Cannabis and Alcohol, While yes there are downsides to driving stoned (and there many) its more likely with the healing herb youll pull out in front of somebody or run a stop sign than lose control of your vehicle (which is what alcohol causes yu to do).
But other factors should be considered, i reckon it would make a good arguement that The Government should have at least conducted Govt-Sponsored trials of The effects of Cannabis and driving before starting roadside drug-tests. If they did, they would be able to determine how much cannabis would impair Driving Ability. This is how they got the Alcohol tests started in the 1960s - they did trials of Alcohol and driving and concluded that above 100mg your driving was appalling and so a 0.10 BAC limit was set in 1967 (and lowered to 0.08 in 1978)
so what im saying and maybe again there should be govt. sponsored trials of Cannabis and Driving effects before they conduct roadside tests, that way they will know how much cannabis can impair your driving and give guidelines on how much you can consume befor egetting behidn the wheel (just as with alcohol).
So in yr system you'd be pinged for ...
So in yr system you'd be pinged for smoking pot but if you've smoked under a certain amount it won't affect your licence?
// While yes there are downsides to ...
// While yes there are downsides to driving stoned ... its more likely with the healing herb youll pull out in front of somebody or run a stop sign than lose control of your vehicle (which is what alcohol causes yu to do). //
What? Running a stop is somehow less dangerous than drifting across lanes? My point was that it shouldn't be the responsibility of straight drivers to avoid the haphazard driving of stoners, whatever combination of poor driving manouveres the stoners may happen to be undertaking.
//Running a stop is somehow less ...
//Running a stop is somehow less dangerous than drifting across lanes?
i never didnt say that, i said that they should carry out tests to see how much cannabis impairs your ability to drive before roadside drugs tests could be enforced.
and joe - you can drive and still be under the limit if you drank 3 cans of beer on an empty stomach, the Government decided to keep this law rather than dropping the limit to 2 cans, i find this hypocritical because we all know alcohol is far worse than cannabis in terms of driving.