Well put IG.
However it is unfortantly the case that when dealing with cannabis, logic dosnt seem to factor in the UK anymore.
I would be surprised if it didnt get introduced.
Thanks, Sir Nial.
I think that, even if passed (as it did in Canada), it will rarely be used.
(By the way, I think it was passed in Canada, because, to those with complete ignornace on the matter, it sounds like a really good idea AND for the prohibitionists it sends another "cannabis is evil" message. So, it accomplished several goals.)
The British legal system, on which almost all others in the English speaking world is based, will see to it that that no-one is succesfully convicted using this law. Defense council wil bring up the arguments I did, (and, likely, many more arguments that are much more sophisticated than my own) so no worries.
IMO, governments always seem to revert to "tough-on-crime" laws in times when the public has lost all faith in government and justice, and/or when they (governments) can not successfully argue their way out of an un-winable position.
These laws fool the suckers, and never really seem to accomplish the stated purpose, but they can have serious impacts on those to whom they are directed.
As I have previously stated, I don't condone drunk/drugged driving. However, I recall seeing a study, within the last 2 year, which showed that cannabis intoxicated drivers are NOT the menace they are made out to be. If I can find it again, I will post the link.
IMO, other issues to consder are the following:
A) Imagine the driver has consumed a very powerful drug, such as LSD.
200-300 micrograms of LSD (a good hit size) will get you far more wasted that any amount of grass. If the LSD was consumed three hours prior to driving, then: 1) it will likely have metabolised away, so detection will be nearly impossible, and 2) you will only be two hours into your trip (given a roughly 1 hour time till it kicks in). So you will still be climbing and very wasted and yet, very little, if any, will remain detectable in your system.
Dilemma....how does the police officer determine that you are intoxicated? The old way by your behaviour? OR the new way by sampling your blood and (trying to) finding a responsible substance?
My view is that the old way would suffice and, hence, the new laws are not necessary (Ignoring the fact that they are also a huge infringement on civil liberties). However, if the police are determined to go ahead with the new method instread of the old one, then an obviously wasted driver (high on LSD) could get away scot free. Strange trip, indeed?
B) Who will be taking your blood?
Thickie-copper or a medically certified doctor or nurse? If the shit hits the fan and the accused has a medical emergency due to some factor involved in the sampling, how quickly will this person get qualified medical treatment?
Will the local coppers/town councils/crown be able to afford the lawsuits for wrongful death, negligent homicde, and so on, if they screw things up?
C) In addition to the costs involed in 1) and 2) above, how much will it cost to set up, run, and maintain the program?
I think the economics of setting up a program which, at best, is useless, will be too much for the rational taxpayer to bear.
D) Finally, it takes quite some time for a toxicology analysis to come back. It is NOT like on TV, where, in 15 minutes the tox results are ready.
(In my experience, tox analysis typically takes a week or two (or 3) to get from the lab to me. This may be due to a backlog, which will get worse, if driver's will be subjected to tox screens.)
Think about it. They do the intial screens, to see if any drugs are present. (Typically for alcohol, cannabis, opiods, cocaine, diazepines, barbituates, and few others.) If the screens come back negative, then then might try searching for some other substances, but which ones should they look for? There are an almost inifnite number of drugs out there.
On the other hand, if a screen comes back positive, they will then try a more detailed search, for the substances. (i.e. say the opioid screen comes back positive, then they will try to determine which substances are present, such as morphine, codeine, 6-monoacetylmorphine (an unabiguous indicator of heroin use), etc.
It is extrmely unlikely that heroin will be found in the tox screen, since it very quickly metabolises from diacetylmorphine into both morphine and 6-monoacetylmorphine, which has an extremely short half-life.
So, if morphine is found it could have come from morphine (duh?), heroin, or some other opioid, like codeine, since many opioids metabolise into morphine. Often no 6-monoacetylmorphine is found in heroin cases, due to its short half-life. Hence, the results are NOT conclusive proof. (i.e. The driver may have had presription drugs (morphine and or codeine) in their system AND they may not have been intoxicated. )
Perhaps if someone made this info known to thier local MP's they might see the folly of the new law.
THat's my two cents worth.
Sorry I had to edit the post and add this part.
Usually several vials of blood are taken when done for toxicology sampling. For post mortem sampling this is not really an issue, since the deceased no longer has any use for their blood. However, a living person would not be willing to have too much blood taken from them.
Yet, one sample might be taken, and not tested as a control sample (also defense councils might want to have a private lab do their own testing) so that might mean another sample, and the police will want several samples to test. At what point does the accused have the right to say, "that's enough, mate, I'm down two quarts?"
