Drug Driving

[Falkor]

Why is this a new offence i always thought it was used in similar situations as Drink Driving, i often seen police do road side drugs tests. I always assumed it was illegal.

 

[beardy gull]

Under the law at present, the police can only prosecute drivers who have taken drugs if they can show that driving ability has been affected. The new law will allow police to use home-office approved equipment to test for drugs roadside.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Do people still do drugs? thought that all so yesterday.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Do people still do drugs? thought that all so yesterday.

In today's Argus a woman has been convicted of shoplifting 8 chicken breasts after a night on the lager and Valium. It would appear so.

 

[slinky]

surely it would depend on what the drug is?

if it were coke or speed, surely this would improve peoples driving, as they will be more alert?

i can understand where people's driving skills are reduced on others like, cannabis, E, LSD, smack, ketamine and so forth...

However drugs are drugs and they are illegal for a reason i suppose....

 

[slinky]

surely it would depend on what the drug is?

if it were coke or speed, surely this would improve peoples driving, as they will be more alert?

i can understand where people's driving skills are reduced on others like, cannabis, E, LSD, smack, ketamine and so forth...

However drugs are drugs and they are illegal for a reason i suppose....

 

[Lord Bracknell]

If people think they can fly, they should fly. And not clutter up the roads.

 

[BLOCK F]

Do people still do drugs? thought that all so yesterday.

Judging by some postings on previous threads concerning drugs ,I got the impression that half of NSC were regular drug users!

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

A drugged up driver lost control of her car, crossed the opposite carriageway and hit the side of our house causing several £000's worth of damage. Fortunately neither she or others were badly injured (this happened close to a busy pedestrian crossing).

The feedback from the Police a couple of days later was that she sustained a bump on the head so was hospitalised but then discharged herself before they could gather evidence to show she was unfit. Yet she was 'well known' to the Police for having a drug problem and turned out she did not have valid car insurance. We then had a fight to get the damage paid for and eventually this was met by the motor insurance fund. We never got any feedback as to whether she was prosecuted or at least helped for her drug problems. The Police acknowledged there was a problem securing conviction for drivers unfit through drugs. We were left with the feeling that such drivers could get away without any sanction so am pleased to read this thread.

 

[beorhthelm]

apparently it covers prescription drugs too. so if the medicine says dont take and drive, dont drive.

cant wait for the first Daily Mail story of an middle aged mum banged up for driving under the influence of her medication.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

surely it would depend on what the drug is?

if it were coke or speed, surely this would improve peoples driving, as they will be more alert?

f***ing hell......

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

surely it would depend on what the drug is?

Quite, jacking up with Ritalin would be a yes, sleeping pills a no no.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

At the moment, there is a roadside fitness test (not unlike the ones you see American cops doing on TV), but it's quite rare to see it used. They would take a blood sample if you were arrested and have that analysed to determine whether there were any drugs, recreational or prescription, in your system. But there is no legal limit regarding drugs in the way there is with alcohol, so once it comes back that yes, you have traces of cocaine, or MDMA or Temazepam say, in your blood, a prosecution relies on someone being able to say that they saw you do this or that (ie swerving all over the road, or ploughing into another vehicle, for example) that might suggest you were impaired.

 

[Muzzy]

Does this mean that the pharmaceutical companies making prescription drugs will have to tighten up on whether or not you should be driving or not? And will they have to make it clearer on the packaging? Much like the government health warning on tobacco products.

My health problem makes me tired anyway without the drugs I have to take. Therefore, should I be driving at all?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Does this mean that the pharmaceutical companies making prescription drugs will have to tighten up on whether or not you should be driving or not? And will they have to make it clearer on the packaging? Much like the government health warning on tobacco products.

My health problem makes me tired anyway without the drugs I have to take. Therefore, should I be driving at all?

Well that's the decision you have to make, isn't it? Most prescribed drugs contain warnings anyway about driving or operating machinery if there's a side effect of drowsiness. It's no different to when people fall asleep at the wheel. If it happens, it's usually deemed to be your fault, whether as the result of drugs or not. Every driver is responsible for their own condition, and therefore if someone was to drive when they were shattered and end up crashing, you'd potentially be looking at a charge of driving without due care and attention, if the circumstances warranted it. Or even worse.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

At the moment, there is a roadside fitness test (not unlike the ones you see American cops doing on TV), but it's quite rare to see it used. They would take a blood sample if you were arrested and have that analysed to determine whether there were any drugs, recreational or prescription, in your system. But there is no legal limit regarding drugs in the way there is with alcohol, so once it comes back that yes, you have traces of cocaine, or MDMA or Temazepam say, in your blood, a prosecution relies on someone being able to say that they saw you do this or that (ie swerving all over the road, or ploughing into another vehicle, for example) that might suggest you were impaired.

How will this proposed new law work or differ from current methods?

 

[smeariestbat]

f***ing hell......

this

 

[Lady Whistledown]

How will this proposed new law work or differ from current methods?

Not entirely sure as it's only a proposal at the moment- whether they're looking at some kind of legal limit or not?? Would be difficult I guess because of the sheer number and variety of drugs. My understanding is that they want to bring in some kind of testing kit, which would give a more conclusive answer at the roadside as to whether someone has drugs in their system. Currently the only test is one of those "walk in a straight line, touch your nose with your left hand" sort of things. In most cases, the reason people are stopped is because of their erratic driving, so in theory, the evidence of impairment is already there. If there's no evidence of alcohol from a breath test, you'd then give them the drug test, if you were suspicious there was another reason for their state, and then arrest them on that basis if they failed it.

Don't take that as gospel though, the first I heard of it was yesterday so it's mostly guesswork on my part

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

apparently it covers prescription drugs too. so if the medicine says dont take and drive, dont drive.

cant wait for the first Daily Mail story of an middle aged mum banged up for driving under the influence of her medication.

If this is true then OTC (ie General sales List and Pharmacy Only) medicines will also be impacted. The driving "warning/caution" on medicines in relation to side effects etc is usually written in terms like* "........; if affected, do not drive", because not every patient will be affected so it'll be interesting how this is handled. You could make something like "don't drive" a statutory warning on all medicine leaflets where there is a possiblity of the drug imparing your ability but that's not a science based approach. I somehow doubt that this has been thought through in the govt's rush to deflect media attention from poor election results, lack of an economic policy, or whatever......

*eg: one of my anti-cancer drugs -
"Irinotecan may make you feel dizzy or cause visual disturbances. If this happens to you do not drive or operate machinery until this resolves."

 

[Muzzy]

Well that's the decision you have to make, isn't it? Most prescribed drugs contain warnings anyway about driving or operating machinery if there's a side effect of drowsiness. It's no different to when people fall asleep at the wheel. If it happens, it's usually deemed to be your fault, whether as the result of drugs or not. Every driver is responsible for their own condition, and therefore if someone was to drive when they were shattered and end up crashing, you'd potentially be looking at a charge of driving without due care and attention, if the circumstances warranted it. Or even worse.

That's the issue surely. Saying that most prescribed drugs have a warning isn't going to be good enough, is it?
Does everyone read the small print that comes with them? Should your GP make a point of asking and telling you whether or not should be driving before giving you a prescription?

It could open up a real can of worms if you are arrested and charged with drug driving. Ignorance isn't an excuse I accept, but if you are not aware because there was no warning from either the company or your GP, then what?

Will there be a drug limit in place in the near future?

Maybe my point is extreme but the authorities have to have some sort of guideline on this.