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

[Newcouch]

51 minutes ago, botanics said:

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.

 

Cheers @botanics i have tried to be sympathetic to the pragmatic side of @Saddam but he is now off on hystrionics despite my olive branch.

 

i have agreed that you could well get nicked, charged etc, but then that a court is bound to find you innocent as posted from the cps site. i am not going to go into the qualifying criteria. afaik, since 2018, no prosecution against a legally cannabis medicated driver has gone to a high enough court to set precedent. sadam is right that if oyu are over the 2ng/ml you are likely to be in for a rough drawn out ride. but the law says, in the end provided the conditions are met, you are innocent.

[Saddam]

58 minutes ago, Newcouch said:

in the end provided the conditions are met, you are innocent.

 

The only condition for innocence being that the driver's blood contained under 2µg/L upon testing. 

 

You are not a solicitor, barrister, legal expert, or judge. You are purely speculating on your assumed innocence because you claim to have a letter from a copper. 

 

Have you ever been to court for a driving offence? It's not like Ally McBeale.   

[botanics]

19 hours ago, Newcouch said:

a court is bound to find you innocent as posted from the cps site. i am not going to go into the qualifying criteria. afaik, since 2018, no prosecution against a legally cannabis medicated driver has gone to a high enough court to set precedent.

 

Remember that a court cannot find someone innocent mate.  They function via an empirical method and there is either enough evidence to prove a crime has been committed or there is not, in which case they end up with a not guilty verdict (if the prosecution evidence is so lacking a judge will throw it out via a pre trial review but it still doesn't prove 'innocence').

 

With regard to the precedence aspect you would have to prove to the judge that there has been no similar cases of the type that is currently being put in front of the court and that requires some serious homework and trawling through case history.  Any cases that contain enough of a similarity to the one being put forward however would be followed because otherwise a judge would be calling into question a previous judgment and they don't tend to do that in lower courts that's for sure.  Such an endeavour would be extremely expensive.  

 

The best thing to do is follow the law (or not get caught breaking it) as opposed to arguing semantics with the legal professions.  

[Newcouch]

hi @botanics fine. 'not guilty'.

 

the problem with precedence is that the law has only been on the statutes since Nov 2018, so i dont think any case has actually got to the precedence stage, since magistrates court cant set precedence. and it really doesnt need to, it is pretty cut and dried as quoted above. statutory defence and onus on prosecution to prove otherwise.

 

there are though some specilaist solicitors for this, so if i did get nicked i would probably go to them. they are quite clear on what i have said. its pretty black and white, but yes, your local bobby may not know about it and just go into standard procedure mode. This is why i wrote to my local chief of police - we need as much awareness as possible.

[botanics]

@Newcouch

 

I hear what you're saying mate and by all means it's certainly worthy of investigation because these statutory definitions appear to be conflicting with each other which is certainly a can of worms if opened up.   You'd definitely need some good heads on board and would of course be up against it notwithstanding the financial clout to take it all on but if no one tried to break moulds then we'd still all be living caves at the end of the day so I admire the tenacity.  

 

On a personal level, it's not a hill that I'd die on because it doesn't feature high within my order of prioritisations (I gave up toking and growing over a year ago because of the rising trends regarding electricity pricing) but for some it may well be that hill and better to fight therefore than bend over, just know the enemy you're dealing with and a cost/benefit analysis is always a wise move before embarking on a set path.