Effect of building a tolerance to THC over months and driving?

[RUFUS HOUND]

16 hours ago, Personunknown said:

@Military Gradeyou'll have reg number and ins soon if they have there way But no mention of sticking reg numbers on the horse riders  , which are more scary than meeting 3 a breast cyclists on unclassified roads

once had a horse kick my rear door window through, right behind my head !!!! as we were driving by , I was more pissed at the fact  it was on the opposite side of the road and we slowed right down to 10mph - I should have sped up and it might have missed. 

[Military Grade]

29 minutes ago, RUFUS HOUND said:

being drunk/drugged in charge of a bike is an offence you know    

Yeah but they would have to 1st catch me in the fields and 2nd kiss my arse

[Herbal Kint]

On 8/27/2022 at 10:58 AM, Saddam said:

Lets just imagine OP has an accident, a really fucking bad one  and it wasn't even their fault, all drivers are tested and one comes back positive for THC. Who's going to be the one in the papers? 

This

[RUFUS HOUND]

an interesting article in the telegraph - food for thought. 

 

Its shows the police and courts are ignoring current gov and medical advice and prosecuting any and all "drug users".

and to heap on the misery the DVLA will look at the conviction and now class you as high risk offender - which means you will have to prove abstinence for 6 months and have a medical involving drug testing. if you pass you will be given a 1 year medical licence, which means you have the pleasure of doing it all again next year.

Im not saying any of it is right but its how this country operates unfortunately.

Medicinal cannabis users prosecuted as drug-driving arrests double in four years

Patients are being ‘demonised’ as they face arrest even though medical studies show their driving capability is not impaired

ByCharles Hymas, HOME AFFAIRS EDITOR7 May 2022 • 3:40pm

Medicinal cannabis users face being prosecuted for drug-driving as arrests have doubled in four years amid a police crackdown.

The number of people taking medicinal cannabis is expected to rise from the current 15,000 to 30,000 by the end of the year after the Government gave the green light to prescriptions largely to treat pain from cancer and other illnesses as well as psychiatric illnesses such as PTSD.

However, traces of cannabis capable of registering a positive result in police roadside drug tests can remain in the body for 72 hours, meaning patients face arrest and prosecution even though medical studies have shown their driving capability is not impaired.

Police are increasingly targeting drug drivers because of their potential links to other criminality with some forces such as Merseyside prosecuting more motorists for drug than drink driving, according to transport experts.

Drug driving arrests for cannabis have increased by more than 140 per cent since 2016 when the Government changed the law to allow roadside saliva tests, according to police figures obtained by The Telegraph under Freedom of Information laws.

Campaigners said medicinal cannabis users were being unfairly targeted in the crackdown and should be treated in the same way as users of other prescription drugs such as opiates like codeine or fentanyl, which are also used to treat pain.

Patients taking such prescription drugs can drive even if they are above specified limits as long as they follow their doctor’s advice and do not take the wheel when they feel “unfit” to do so, according to the Government’s official guidance.

‘A massive injustice’

David Dancy, 33, who has been prescribed medicinal cannabis for multiple conditions including arthritis, insomnia and anxiety, is being prosecuted after being found to be over the drug-drive limit even though he says he was not impaired having taken his prescription 12 hours previously.

The father-of-three said he was randomly stopped by police who then smelt the cannabis on his clothes after he had taken it as usual by vaporiser. He said he never drove until at least 12 hours after taking the drug and unless he was competent to do so.

“I have been driving for 10 years and never even had a parking ticket,” he said. “I am going to fight it all the way because I feel it is a massive injustice. My life is dependent on this.”

Lyphe, one of the biggest groups of clinics and registered doctors prescribing medical cannabis, advises its patients to carry their prescriptions with them so they can present them to police if stopped as well as to follow the Government guidance not to drive if they feel unfit to do so.

However, Jonathan Nadler, the group’s chief executive, said that despite this, patients were being “demonised” and prosecuted. “They are pretty much instantly arrested even though they have a prescription. These are normal people with families and jobs. You have lawyers, doctors and accountants. It is really concerning,” he said.

He urged police and the Government to review the rules so that roadside tests assessed impairment rather than being purely based on the level of medical cannabis in a driver’s bloodstream once the patient had demonstrated to officers they had been prescribed the drug.

“Otherwise, we will be criminalising people who are sick and looking to have a normal life,” said Mr Nadler.

[Newcouch]

i have sympathy for the pragmatics that @Saddam puts forward.

 

i wrote to my local chief of police to ask him about being stopped in the street for cannabis. he knew it was legal and said that carrying the standard proof wuold help the plod in his 'decision making'.

 

he then volunteered info from the local chief of traffic that yes, although potentially legal, if i failed a roadside swab i would need to be taken to the nick for a pace interview.

 

as saddam says, i wouldnt be surprised if i got charged (although i wuldlike to see the face of the desk seargeant when i produce aletter from his boss) , but there is no way in hell it would stick in court unless they could prove i was impaired.

 

the normal course of action after being charged would be to go to the media, then the cps wuld quietly drop it, as i suspect hapening above.

 

@stephenc , if you want further reassurances, and i hope you are doing well, go to /ukmedicalcannabis on reddit and ask /jadedlitigant for his standard reply. this subject has been done to death a million times on there, with legal people and pressure groups helping.

[stephenc]

16 minutes ago, Newcouch said:

i have sympathy for the pragmatics that @Saddam puts forward.

 

i wrote to my local chief of police to ask him about being stopped in the street for cannabis. he knew it was legal and said that carrying the standard proof wuold help the plod in his 'decision making'.

 

he then volunteered info from the local chief of traffic that yes, although potentially legal, if i failed a roadside swab i would need to be taken to the nick for a pace interview.

 

as saddam says, i wouldnt be surprised if i got charged (although i wuldlike to see the face of the desk seargeant when i produce aletter from his boss) , but there is no way in hell it would stick in court unless they could prove i was impaired.

 

the normal course of action after being charged would be to go to the media, then the cps wuld quietly drop it, as i suspect hapening above.

 

@stephenc , if you want further reassurances, and i hope you are doing well, go to /ukmedicalcannabis on reddit and ask /jadedlitigant for his standard reply. this subject has been done to death a million times on there, with legal people and pressure groups helping.

Thanks Newcouch, the reason I asked the original question is that there is so much confusion worldwide about this.

 

I'm a great fan of Dr Jeffrey Hergenrather from Canada and he is very sympathetic about the situation and cites different reports suggesting that users (particularly those who have reached their tolerance with THC) are no more dangerous and in fact may be even more cautious.

[Saddam]

22 minutes ago, Newcouch said:

i wouldnt be surprised if i got charged (although i wuldlike to see the face of the desk sergeant when i produce aletter from his boss) , but there is no way in hell it would stick in court unless they could prove i was impaired.

 

I'd like to see the duty sergeant's face too, no doubt they'd be quietly pissing themself.  

 

You can legally drive with many types of drugs in your system, there's a page on the .gov website which lists them and the quantities in blood which will result in a disqualification. 

 

If you are caught operating a vehicle on a public highway whilst over the prescribed limit then you will be banned. Simple

 

There's no need for pigs to perform an impairment test, and afaik impairment tests aren't even done in UK as they aren't reliable. A blue swab means a visit to station for breath and/or blood analysis. 

 

Wave your letter all you want, the pigs, cps and magistrate/judges won't care that you have a prescription, all they want to do is convict people who break the rules. The media will take a giant shit on you and make you out to be the devil for driving whilst 100x times over the legal limit.

 

But hey, it's all good as long as you can drive stoned, right? 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Saddam

[Newcouch]

@Saddam this is getting boring. argue with this;

Section 5A RTA 1988 - Defences

Section 5A(3) RTA 1988 provides a defence if a specified controlled drug is prescribed or supplied in accordance with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and taken in accordance with medical advice. Section 5A(4) RTA 1988 confirms that the defence is not available if medical advice about not driving for a certain period of time after taking the drug has not been followed. There is no reverse burden of proof. If a defendant raises this, the Court must assume that the defence is satisfied, unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-drink-and-drug-driving

 

that is the cps web page.

 

@stephenc hopefully the above and the link is game over. i should have posted it earlier i just didnt expect the spanish inquisition, lol. keep the link or the details on your phone. i carry hard copies when carrying. and i dont drive within 10 hurs of taking.

[RUFUS HOUND]

Like most of the laws in this country they are woolie at best and open to interpretation by whoever is prosecuting.

Enforced by police who get little to no legal training, they dont concern themselves with the finer points (thats for the courts to sort out), they see a limit and if your over (no  mater what excuse / reason.) you will be charged and then its upto you to fight your corner in court. 

 

How many times have you heard about plod misinterpreting the law to ultimately increase their arrest figures.

[Saddam]

Just now, Newcouch said:

the defence is not available if medical advice about not driving for a certain period of time after taking the drug has not been followed.

 

I don't need to argue fuck all, you've just destroyed your own defence.    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be the blood test result which the police produce, this means you done fucked up.

 

If your blood test comes back and shows you were under the prescribed limit then you won't go to court. Result = NFA. 

 

Which part of this is confusing to you? 

 

I'll just add that it's taken fucking decades of campaigning and hard work to get prescription cannabis in the UK, I have no doubt that some careless fuckwits will ruin it for everyone by trying to push the boundaries. 

[Newcouch]

[Saddam]

I'm not surprised that's the best reply you can offer.  

[Newcouch]

@Saddam ok, one last time. there is clearly an assumption that you have complied with all the requirements of your medicine. if yours says 12hrs, you are shit out of luck, although i do that anyhow. mine has no such restriction. i just have the standard 'drowsy' nonsesne. in fact it actually says something about the next day, but anyhoo....

 

so no, i havent just destroyed my defence.

 

im really having a hard time trying to be polite, not that my previous one was particularly, so i apologise. But i dont think any of this is helping @stephenc can we please just let it lie?

 

love and peace brother.

[Saddam]

11 minutes ago, Newcouch said:

 there is clearly an assumption that you have complied with all the requirements of your medicine. if yours says 12hrs, you are shit out of luck, although i do that anyhow. mine has no such restriction. i just have the standard 'drowsy' nonsesne. in fact it actually says something about the next day, but anyhoo....

 

Again, the advisory on your prescription or what your doctor suggests doesn't make any difference to the law, if you are caught driving on a public highway whilst over the prescribed limit (for any drug whether prescribed or not) then you will be prosecuted. 

 

You can argue the toss if and when your case comes up, otherwise it's probably better to keep your shitty advice to yourself and not advise folks to 'do as you do' when it comes to legal wranglings. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Saddam

[botanics]

If precedence has already been set then a deferred judgment would take place unless you are putting forward a test case which the courts have never seen before.   Then the arguments ensure but Saddam is right with regard to the prosecution aspect. 

 

You'd get nicked, charged and then summonsed to appear before a court if you are in breach of the criteria specified, plain and simples.