For example, they're testing for Benzoylecgonine which is a metabolite of Cocaine that is detectable in the body long after the Coke itself has worn off - a minimum of 4-5 days according to my preliminary research. The limit under new legislation is 50 micrograms per litre (of what? blood? plasma? piss? who knows) and I have no idea what this or any of the other thresholds mean in terms of dosage/time since usage.
I like to drink, but I would never drive if I was pissed up or hungover. I like to do various other things as well, but I'm strict with myself regarding drugs and driving - I would never intentionally drive under the influence but this new law seems like it's out to punish me for doing drugs sometime last week. I honestly can't imagine how the coke I snorted on a big Friday night out could be impairing my driving on a Wednesday afternoon or how a joint I smoked 2 weeks ago could make me more likely to crash tomorrow.
Is this just a dirty trick by the Eton mess and the bacon to pocket 5 grand from everyone that enjoys non-state-sanctioned altered states or do the thresholds they've set reflect actual intoxication and therefore ability to drive? I'm all for making our roads safer and keeping people that are hammered off of them but I don't know enough about biology, chemistry or pharmacology to reassure myself that this is the true goal of the new legislation.
>>7206 There are, but if memory serves they are aggravating factors under more conventional dangerous driving laws, rather than specific offenses - like you'd have to swerve wildly in front of a copper, then be obviously high and then fail a drug test at the station.
My worry with this new law is that every time the establishment feel like making some money, they'll set up a road block and drug test everyone coming past in the hopes of slapping them with a fine for having taken drugs sometime in the past, rather than actually being intoxicated at the wheel and a danger to other road users.
>Is this just a dirty trick by the Eton mess and the bacon to pocket 5 grand from everyone that enjoys non-state-sanctioned altered states or do the thresholds they've set reflect actual intoxication and therefore ability to drive?
Are you daft or summat? I'm fairly sure you already know which one of those two it is.
But anyway, fuck it, you can act sober under the influence of almost anything short of alcohol and psychedelics. You only have to worry about it if you get pulled over, and it's not like they can do any of these tests by the roadside- so they need to be convinced that you're fucked out of your head before you have to worry about the actual testing.
If you had a line or two last week, and you're perfectly sober at the wheel, then what would give the police reason to bring you in and test you? I reckon this is more one of those changes aimed at generally giving the police more leeway and influence in terms of evidence, rather than actually catching drug drivers.
No they CAN test you at the roadside. That's the whole point. They're now rolling out saliva test kits where you swab your tongue.
I know you can "act sober", I'm not worried about getting pulled because of my driving, I'm more worried about the kind of stop where they pull you to tell one of your headlights is out or something and then proceed to do you for anything else they can.
I've been pulled over before because they thought I "might have seen where the car behind me was heading". I said "frankly the car behind me has been you for the last 3 junctions, I'm just heading home from work". Then they asked where I was going and where i'd come from, breathalysed me (negative) and briefly looked over my car before letting me go. It worries me that this kind of patently arbitrary tyre-kicking traffic stop could be used to penalise people with trace amounts of drugs in their blood
>Is this just a dirty trick by the Eton mess and the bacon to pocket 5 grand from everyone that enjoys non-state-sanctioned altered states
No, it's to placate old people who might vote UKIP without wasting time with young people who definitely won't vote Tory.
>>7209 Roadside tests aren't often legally enforceable, due to the margins of error being too large. For blood alcohol for example you breathe into a breathalyser and then take you back to the station where you do another test. This is the only one that actually matters. You can be off your tits but if you've managed to sufficiently sober up by the time you get to the station then you're dandy, which means bullshitting as much time as you can when you're in the car still.
>>7210 >Roadside tests aren't often legally enforceable, due to the margins of error being too large
I know this is definitely true for alcohol, I have no idea how the new drug swab tests will work. If you're swabbed at the roadside, then that sample presumably accurately reflects the substances in your blood at the time, even if it is only processed later
>>7210 I thought that they can use the breathalyser as evidence, but they have to take a blood test at the station if you demand that they do so, which anyone smart does anyway.
