Driving stoned

[Ewan Oozarmy]

that's true; some of you prefer heroin

You're confusing London with Glasgow, mate.

[davereid]

How the hell did an entirely sensible thread get hijacked into this crap ?

[candor]

Aside from all debate about the validity of that level, there doesn't appear to be any impairment threshold in the new test - they only need to detect usage.

(Anybody have any better info ?)

So if you smoke a joint, quite legally in the Netherlands, Spain, Colorado or Alaska, and then get stopped in New Zeaalnd a week later you may in trouble.

While you are not impaired (unless it was a very good smoke) THC is detectable for months as it is fat soluble.

Yep have info - skip to bottom of Herald article -
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...ectid=10467634

No need for paranoia other than that NORML might tell you porkies -

Drug driving blood evidence safe (scoop)

Comments by lawyer Mark Edgar regarding drug blood court evidence as recently reported by the news media are somewhat misleading, say Candor Trust.

He claimed that a joint smoked the day before could produce high blood readings for the drug in their system the next day, despite the user by then being unimpaired.

Mr Edgar along with NORML (per alarmist nonsense in their Press Release) fails to understand that our highly skilled scientists at the ESR do not test for the cannabis metabolite that shows up at high concentrations such as 45ng/ml 12 hours after use.

The Department of Environmental and Scientific Research confirmed to Candor Trust today that it would not be testing for THC-COOH under the new drug driving law. That would be senseless.

It would instead continue to test for the impairing substance Delta 9 THC which it currently tests driver blood samples for. The comments of Mr Edgar are therefore irrelevant.

Delta 9 THC has usually dropped to a level below 5ng (the cut off level regarded as significantly impairing in Europe) within 3 hours of heavy use.

Research also shows that the people Mr Edgar has concerns for ie those driving a day after use who have high levels of THC COOH still in their blood would show a test result of under 1ng/ml of impairing delta 9 THC.

No prosecutor in any country having impairment based legislation that uses blood as evidence of impaired driving would dream of filing criminal charges against a person with such low Delta 9 THC levels.

The following INCORRECT claims made by NORML NZ today are also ill informed red herrings;

"Drug tests do not even measure THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. Instead, they test for the presence of THC-COOH, a non-psychoactive metabolite of THC that remains in the body up to 3 months after a person has straightened up."

"We would be less concerned if the blood test actually measured impairment, but it doesn't. Instead, all it shows is that a person has at some point come into contact with cannabis, which could be up to three months ago."

Mr Edgar was at least correct in advising that a cut off level in blood samples would be an important component for the life saving new legislation.

Only by setting a level where driving would become off limits can drug users be enabled to begin modifying their behaviour with some confidence they are not driving impaired.

Only by setting an evidence based level such as 5ng (delta 9)will drivers not be rendered so paranoid they will be scared off the road for an eternity, after just one good night out - without cause.

A limit enables educational efforts to proceed. And would enable responsible smokers to buy technology such as saliva tests, which will help them to find out if they are in the normal time-frames for metabolising pot ie are able to drive safely within a few hours of a joint.

Or to drive in many cases after a much shorter duration - if only a cone has been consumed. As with alcohol, a persons driving impairment and duration of impairment is dose related.

[Usarka]

• have they actually set a limit?
• why arent other drugs not included
• and why is the co-ordination test not enough?

[candor]

Bill is not published on parliament website yet but sounds like no limit set - one needs to be, so people need to nag govt about that by making submissions.

It seems the "licit" drugs are included per one news report - if people are abusing medical drugs - shown by no script or excess pills down the hatch as shown in blood. This is going to catch 90% of the problem as those taking risk drugs as per script are not over represented in crashes. Drug abusers tho are.

The co-ordination test is not enough because some people will pass it tho they will have SOME obvious signs of being wasted. P users have a high pass rate tho they will be unfit to drive and may be obviously not dealing the full deck. And with no blood test some could fail but its not drugs the reason why. Also some ppl can't do field tests eg handicapped, eg people getting medical care after causing a fatal crash (not very convenient to do one leg stand). So in this situation some body fluid is needed evidence.

The blood test is required to confirm the person is actually impaired by drugs - legally for a criminal conviction you need a good amount of evidence. A defence lawyer could say a coordination test on its own gives say a 20% margin of error (same as alcohol breathalyser in fact).

Or that a blood test on its own doesn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt as people can be affected differently (as with alcohol). Put the 2 forms of evidence together and the proof is not twice as strong but like the odds are 5x stronger no mistake has been made. IF the "symptoms" noticed during the field test happen to match known effects of the drugs found in blood.

Field and blood tests will likely only be used for a couple years - as smarter tech is just round the corner. It's called RITA (road side imp[airment testing apparatus) and has a computer reactions test etc and a saliva test built in. Fast, convenient, highly holeproof.

[peasea]

How the hell did an entirely sensible thread get hijacked into this crap ?

Going off on tangents is the kb way.

[canarlee]

Going off on tangents is the kb way.

and why change it?





oh feck here comes another infraction......

[davereid]

Thanks Candor, good research.

So it seems the law will be that any detectable level of drugs is a "fail - go straiht to jail."

But the people currently doing the testing say they are only going to test for levels of the drug associated with impairment.

So actually, we don't know what will happen !

Once again I thank my lucky stars that my drug of choice is alcohol !