“They just didn’t care” – cannabis patient arrested on driving lesson speaks out

[Simple Jack]

“They just didn’t care” – cannabis patient arrested on driving lesson speaks out

A learner driver was arrested despite having a legal prescription for cannabis.

Nathan Williams was on a driving lesson with a friend when he was pulled over by police in his hometown of Newton in February. 

The 25-year-old, who has been prescribed cannabis for chronic pain since January 2020, refused to provide a roadside saliva sample, explaining that his medication was legal. But despite logging onto his clinic’s patient portal and showing the officers a copy of his prescription, Williams said they ‘didn’t care’ and had ‘no idea’ what it was. 

He was then taken to the local police station where officers requested he take a blood test, which he also refused on the basis of advice he had received.

Under Section 5A of the Road Traffic Act (RTA) any driver who is stopped by the police can expect to be swabbed and if THC is identified, a blood test is enough to secure a conviction. However, blood and saliva tests have repeatedly been shown to be  ‘inconsistent markers for a driver’s impairment’, as THC can be detected in the blood for up to 30 days after consumption.

Williams felt he had ‘no choice’, but to plead guilty to the charge of failing to provide a specimen under Section 7 of the RTA, leaving him at risk of losing his licence. 

“It was horrible,” William says.

“I could have lost my licence before I had even passed my test. I kept trying to tell them about my prescription and they just didn’t care.”

Case dismissed on a ‘technicality’ 

Williams then reached out to Guy Coxall, founder of advocacy group Seed Our Future (SOF), who has repeatedly called for reform to the RTA having supported dozens of cannabis patients facing similar offences.

SOF believes there is a defence case for patients who refuse to complete a swab after providing evidence of a prescription.

With the support of Coxall, who worked closely with Williams’ lawyer, he went back to court and withdrew his guilty plea, requesting a trial instead. 

Williams appeared at Welshpool Magistrates’ Court on Monday 4 September, where a trial was due to take place, but the charge was dismissed when the prosecution offered no evidence. 

It was hoped Williams’ case may set a precedent for the prescription defence, however, his case was actually won on a technicality.

His lawyer stated: “Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, as amended, provides the police with only two grounds for requesting blood i.e. failure of the roadside test or impairment based upon the opinion of a health professional. Neither of those scenarios applied to Nathan’s case and the charges were dismissed.

“We never had to refer to the prescription defence… the prosecutor actually applied to the court today to lay a charge relating to the roadside test; but with the expiry of the six month time limit for bringing new charges the magistrates refused to entertain this.”

Concern over roadside swab tests

Williams’ lawyer also expressed concern that roadside swab tests are being used as a ‘political tool’ to ‘deter cannabis use’ rather than for apprehending those who should not be driving as a consequence of impairment.

“I can confidently state that in the many dozens of cases that I have dealt with over the past many months, there has been no evidence of impairment,” he said.

Coxall commented: “Nathan’s case is yet another example of the police refusing to believe that lawful medical cannabis prescriptions are real even after five years since the change in legislation. This has recently been highlighted via the increasing cases of patients having their essential medications seized and charged with possession, sometimes even in the privacy of their own home.

“Roadside swabs should only be used following either a road traffic incident (such as a crash) or following evidence of impairment (via a field impairment test). Unfortunately, this is far from reality and even following production of evidence of a valid prescription, the police continue to insist on using swabs which will only identify the presence of THC.”

He added: “SOF believe that there is a case for those who refuse a swab following evidence of a prescription, but a precedent is still to come.”

Calls for overhaul of ‘discriminatory’ driving laws 

A recent report by the Cannabis Industry Council (CIC) produced with support from SOF called for an overhaul of ‘discriminatory’ driving laws following numerous reports of patients having been stopped by police and had charges brought against them, in some cases even losing their licence. 

Analysis shows the number of arrests for driving under the influence of cannabis have increased by more than 72% between 2016/17 to 2020/21. A conviction may lead to a 12-months driving ban, an unlimited fine, up to six months in prison and a criminal record.

Key recommendations include standardising medical cannabis and driving guidelines to focus on impairment rather than the ‘zero tolerance’ threshold limit and the use of the Field Impairment Test (FIT) to identify impairment, as THC concentration in blood and saliva are inconsistent markers.

The report also called for a review of the ‘consistency and effectiveness’ of law enforcement training around the legalisation of medical cannabis and patients’ statutory rights.

“I know I’m probably have to go through it all again”
Nathan has recently passed his driving test, but says the incident and following court case have had a significant impact on the health of him and his partner.

“It’s made things a lot worse,” he says.

“My partner has anxiety, depression, autism, ADHD and that whole incident has been really difficult for her.”

Meanwhile, he continues to live in fear that the same thing will happen again.

“It’s not nice at all and I know I’m probably going to end up going through it all again,” he continued.

“[Without cannabis] I can’t do anything and if I was to lie in bed my mental health would be so bad. It allows me to  get up and get out and do stuff. Without it I wouldn’t be able to have that ability to concentrate or the lack of pain to be able to drive. I couldn’t take the dogs out, or cook dinner or even have a shower.” 

He added: “What’s the difference between me vaping cannabis a few hours before I drive and someone else taking a slow-releasing morphine pill? Cannabis needs to be treated like any other medication.”

Williams has received an apology from Dyfed Powys Police in response to a complaint he submitted regarding his treatment by officers.

Cannabis Health contacted the press office for further comment but had not received a response at the time of publication. 

What the official guidance says 

DVLA guidelines require patients to be ‘free from any medication effects that would impair driving’ as a condition for continuing to drive or resuming driving following medication. The elements required for safe driving include: attention and concentration, good reaction time, and coordination.

However, it is down to the individual driver to judge whether their ability to drive safely is impaired, as with any other prescribed medication.

UK law requires that drivers tell the DVLA about any medical condition that could potentially affect their driving. The only condition requiring mandatory notification for which a CBPM is commonly used is epilepsy. There is no requirement for patients to inform the DVLA of their prescription, unless related to epilepsy. However, some prescribers told researchers behind the report that they have advised patients to notify the DVLA of their prescriptions ‘to comply with the law’.

In line with DVLA guidelines, as with other medicines, prescribers of CBPMs should give their patients advice on driving, including informing them that they should not drive if they feel impaired. 

 

https://cannabishealthnews.co.uk/2023/10/20/cannabis-patient-arrested-on-driving-lesson-speaks-out/

[MidgeSmith]

Medical cannabis patients who are tried for being under the influence - with no signs of incapacitation - are victims of a stupid police force, wrongly exercising stupid laws.

 

Until we have a law based on harm reduction instead of fascistic punishment of anyone who does not toe the party line, we can expect a "do as I say or die" kind of law.

[Clean Green]

Looks like this was thrown out not because he did have a prescription, but more because there was no grounds to proceed as he's refused the tests. I never drive impaired but probably frequently do 'over the limit' so would definitely refuse any swabs / blood tests.  Offer a breath and saliva sample and be polite see what happens if needed. 

[Simple Jack]

He was charged with refusing to provide a blood test. At the last minute the CPS backed down. A tactical withdrawal IMO. They would rather let this one go than run the risk of setting a legal precedent - ie why should legally prescribed medical cannabis users be treated differently to other prescription medication users?

[gb1]

gotta remember...even after they ?!! ..........................  "..make pot legal.".

 

they will and can still,,,,,, arrest yer sorry ass  ..possession over ...etc

as for impaired..

 there isn't a lab in canadah that can test for the amount of THC in your blood .

.not in 4 hours.............

 let alone 4 months ..

it is Just not possible and the police know it here

They  will gladly  fine you when caught.. apposed to trying to push an impaired 

which they knowingly  can't test for anyway

people are happy taking a fine  not realizing the issue at hand 

Any med patient has at least 800 NG/l of blood of thc

and

 ...8 NG's                is against the law !!! or .............AN Impaired charge!

how they came to that conclusion......... when we are ALL different...........

 

[Clean Green]

Hopefully it will be reformed or updated at some point as it's a pain having this in the back of your mind all the time and like this guy's legal rep said, it's being used as a deterrent for using canna.  In fact I'd go as far as saying that there's no incentive with the current system to wait until your not impaired to drive as they don't have a difference between 'had a dab fifteen minutes ago' and 'had three tokes on a banger last night' its like pulling people over and doing them for drink driving because they've got a beer belly currently. 

[Underdog]

We're still in the dark ages gentlemen.

[Newcouch]

the problem is the limit is a miniscul, zero tolerance of 2ng/ml.

the govt advisors said this was far too low. its being done for possession.

 

the problem is that the police and mags relate the cannabis limit to the alcohol limit which is wrong. the alcohol limit is an impairment limit, the cannabis one aint. there is a known linear relationship between alcohol level and impairment. there isnt one for cannabis. fifth gear did a test and the driver was better after cannabis! alcohol makes you over confident and stupid. cannabis makes you ultra aware and careful.  to a point, lol.

 

any daily cannabis user, like me, is likely to be over the limit at any time. its detectable in blood for up to 30 days.

[Goodbloke]

I don't drive very often and don't use herb on days I do. I'd have trouble though if their detection methods picked up weed after 30 hours let alone 30 days. 

Is their a generally accepted 'best course of action' regarding taking/refusing tests etc?

Is @Clean Greenon the money?

Cheers 

[Arthur Mix]

Yes refuse and they then get a nurse prob forcibly take it and always no comment edit to add apparently can’t do it forcibly. It’s refusal that’s a separate charge 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Arthur Mix

[Simple Jack]

30 minutes ago, Goodbloke said:

Is their a generally accepted 'best course of action' regarding taking/refusing tests etc?

 

If you don't have a prescription, refusal is highly likely to result in disqualification plus whatever other penalties they choose to impose. The argument for (legal) users is that they have no choice in being over the limit so why should they be treated differently to other prescription drug users.

 

1 hour ago, Goodbloke said:

I'd have trouble though if their detection methods picked up weed after 30 hours let alone 30 days. 

 

Probably not, unless you're a chronic heavy user, especially if you have a lot of body fat. I think the majority can rest easy after 24 hours or less, but the bitch is the uncertainty. I get the impression that those who do get busted have consumed cannabis relatively recently, ie a few hours; it may not be fair, but it can be avoided.

[MidgeSmith]

From what I've read in the past regular use for a person with regular build will typically result in retention for 30 days or so.

 

I think I recall that the saliva test only works for 24 hours or so and can be defeated with certain special chewing gum or a particular brand of mouthwash.  Blood shows use for weeks rather than hours or days in regular users.

[Simple Jack]

Just now, MidgeSmith said:

From what I've read in the past regular use for a person with regular build will typically result in retention for 30 days or so.

 

 

Are we talking blood THC blood levels or THC metabolites? The latter is notoriously long term detectable in urine tests.

[MidgeSmith]

Well, whatever they choose to demand.  Saliva is easiest and shortest term isn't it.  Urine is pretty darned easy and shows forever too.  Blood is more invasive, but I have been told they don't have blood tests that can show levels of THC, just its existence.  They've got you either way since they only have to show the existence of it in your body to ban you, they'll take the path of least resistance I guess...

[Simple Jack]

Just now, MidgeSmith said:

but I have been told they don't have blood tests that can show levels of THC, just its existence. 

 

As I understand it, the legal limit is based on the level of THC in the blood (as with alcohol). The controversy is over whether this admittedly arbitrary level limit represents "impairment".