Time To Change The Law On Drugs?

[philwebs]

Czech mate:

https://english.radio.cz/could-czechia-become-second-eu-country-legalise-recreational-cannabis-8764554

"Currently, only one EU country has legalised recreational cannabis – and despite popular misconception, it is not the Netherlands, where the sale of cannabis is tolerated at licensed coffeeshops, but cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis still remain criminal offences. In December 2021, Malta became the first EU country to legalise cannabis for recreational use – and Czechia may be well on its way to becoming the second.

If national anti-drug coordinator Jindřich Vobořil’s proposed plan comes into effect in 2024 as he hopes, Czechia could become the second EU country to legalise the recreational use of cannabis. And not only that – it would even go a step further, also making its sale legal. The anti-drug coordinator presented his plan for combatting addiction – which includes the proposal to legalise cannabis – at a press conference this week."

Those European countries who legalise early will do very well.

[quilp]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The way in which the new drug driving regulations are being implemented in the Courts is throwing so very strange and unfair-looking judgements.  For example here is someone with a reading of 10 micrograms per litre who is given a fine of £500 and ten penalty points.  On the other hand here is someone with a reading of only 2.1 (only just over the limit) who was fined £1000 and banned for driving for two years.  Both cases are from this month.

Now the main difference is that they seem to have decided to charge the first accused with being in charge of the vehicle rather than actually driving even though "his keys were in his hand and the ignition was on".  But is shows that. unlike with alcohol, absolutely no account is taken of how great the consumption of the intoxicant was.  It all sems very arbitrary and unscientific.

Didn't one of them have previous for weed?

The law has been ill thought-out. The scientists, when asked to recommend an upper limit for cannabis stated that that 5 would be ideal. Some said 10. So the limit was set at 2 anyway. 

[Roger Mexico]

8 hours ago, quilp said:

Didn't one of them have previous for weed?

The law has been ill thought-out. The scientists, when asked to recommend an upper limit for cannabis stated that that 5 would be ideal. Some said 10. So the limit was set at 2 anyway. 

No previous for either that I could find, at least not mentioned..  Of course it's ridiculous that there seems to be no scientific assessment involved of what levels of cannabis use impair driving skills or if the current blood tests are the best way of assessment.  But my point was more that they seem to impose a flat rate penalty for the offence whatever the level of intoxication registered.  But if you had two drivers, one whose blood test gave 84 mg/100ml of alcohol (limit is 80 mg) and one whose gave 400mg they would be treated very differently by the Courts (and the first probably wouldn't be prosecuted).

[cissolt]

19 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The way in which the new drug driving regulations are being implemented in the Courts is throwing so very strange and unfair-looking judgements.  For example here is someone with a reading of 10 micrograms per litre who is given a fine of £500 and ten penalty points.  On the other hand here is someone with a reading of only 2.1 (only just over the limit) who was fined £1000 and banned for driving for two years.  Both cases are from this month.

Now the main difference is that they seem to have decided to charge the first accused with being in charge of the vehicle rather than actually driving even though "his keys were in his hand and the ignition was on".  But is shows that. unlike with alcohol, absolutely no account is taken of how great the consumption of the intoxicant was.  It all sems very arbitrary and unscientific.

Having keys in hand and the ignition on is baffling, is this one of these new keyless cars?

Massive inconsistency in the archaic sentencing. The lack of reasons for testing people is very troubling, lots of made up excuses by the police.   Is lying by the police a crime? It's not acceptable.

[Max Power]

19 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The way in which the new drug driving regulations are being implemented in the Courts is throwing so very strange and unfair-looking judgements.  For example here is someone with a reading of 10 micrograms per litre who is given a fine of £500 and ten penalty points.  On the other hand here is someone with a reading of only 2.1 (only just over the limit) who was fined £1000 and banned for driving for two years.  Both cases are from this month.

Now the main difference is that they seem to have decided to charge the first accused with being in charge of the vehicle rather than actually driving even though "his keys were in his hand and the ignition was on".  But is shows that. unlike with alcohol, absolutely no account is taken of how great the consumption of the intoxicant was.  It all sems very arbitrary and unscientific.

The whole thing does seem to be a muddle. 

Many years ago there was a fatality at the MGP, the rider involved had 'traces' of cannabis in his bloodstream. It was not possible to determine how long before the accident that this had entered his bloodstream and it apparently could have been up to 28 days beforehand. It was stated that him simply being in a room where it was smoked would have been enough to have given the blood test result! 

I wonder if the passive aspect has been considered? 

[2bees]

Wait til I tell ya... 

What they've done is, put the bill through which has blocked people getting prescriptions from the UK & now they've got 'problems' sorting out the dispensaries over here, suspicious as.

On the driving thing, how is it different driving stoned stoned or medicated stoned? Anyway, I've heard drug people in Liverpool are driving around with mouthwash in their cars (corsodyl) because it cleans the traces of drugs from their mouth. Mad eh?

And why are the courts telling people "This is a serious offence"? No, it's not, it's a stupid drugs charge which serves no good purpose to society AT ALL, whatsoever. What about the rapists, fighting attackers and paedophiles are they more serious or less serious criminals? Belittling actual victims by giving harsher sentences for the victimless crimes. Mental.

Edited October 27, 2022 by 2bees
ETA...

[The Phantom]

59 minutes ago, Max Power said:

It was stated that him simply being in a room where it was smoked would have been enough to have given the blood test result! 

I wonder if the passive aspect has been considered? 

The first winter olympics with snowboarding in 1998, the gold medalist was subsequently stripped of his medal for testing positive for weed.  He is Canadian and claimed it was from second hand smoke.  On appeal, he had the medal returned. 

Two months after the drug testing incident, in April 1998, the IOC officially banned cannabis use. In 2013 the THC metabolite limit for Olympic athletes was raised to 150 ng/mL, so as to only detect current intoxication.

Speaking from experience, one resort in Canada I went to had a hidden snow amphitheater in the trees at the top of one of the lifts.  We called it 'Glade Club' and it was an amazing little pot party place.   Little birds would come an sit on your hand and eat your trail mix.  Everyone who knew about it would gather there for a sundowner. It was surreal. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by The Phantom

[Passing Time]

On 10/26/2022 at 5:27 PM, quilp said:

Didn't one of them have previous for weed?

 

That appears to be the case. Police know who has previous for weed then just keep an eye out for them driving and go for it.

[Wavey Davey]

7 hours ago, 2bees said:

And why are the courts telling people "This is a serious offence"? No, it's not, it's a stupid drugs charge which serves no good purpose to society AT ALL, whatsoever. 

Of course it’s a serious offense. They’re driving while seriously impaired and could kill someone. No better or worse than drunk driving. 

[manxfisherman]

There's some pretty kicking gear about, you'd have be crackers to try driving on it. Can barely stand up.

[WTF]

1 hour ago, Wavey Davey said:

Of course it’s a serious offense. They’re driving while seriously impaired and could kill someone. No better or worse than drunk driving. 

there are more doddery old biddys that need removing from the roads long before someone with a few atoms of weed in their system need dealing with

[cissolt]

1 hour ago, Wavey Davey said:

Of course it’s a serious offense. They’re driving while seriously impaired and could kill someone. No better or worse than drunk driving. 

How many accidents have been attributed to people being impaired through cannabis?

The limit set by the IOM is 400,000 times lower than that of alcohol.  Which causes more accidents?

[Wavey Davey]

23 minutes ago, cissolt said:

How many accidents have been attributed to people being impaired through cannabis?

It doesn’t really matter. It’s no different to drunk driving. I fully support legalizing cannabis but you can’t really argue that getting stoned and then driving isn’t a dangerous or bad idea. 

[quilp]

9 minutes ago, Wavey Davey said:

It doesn’t really matter. It’s no different to drunk driving.

It does really. Being completely different drugs chemically, different centres of the brain are affected by each.

9 minutes ago, Wavey Davey said:

I fully support legalizing cannabis but you can’t really argue that getting stoned and then driving isn’t a dangerous or bad idea. 

Of course. The issue mainly, is that the level set for a THC+ result and subsequent legal punishment has been set too low. If I remember correctly, year's ago, prominent researcher and former Home Office scientist Professor Nutt stated that 10 might provide an accurate predictor for potential intoxication, the sort of level one might find 30mins or so after smoking a standard spliff and as you state, it's probably not a good idea to drive for at least a few hours following it. Another report recommended a THC level of 5. Yet for some reason scholarly recommendations were overruled and 2 was set into law. It would be interesting to know why. It's probably safe to say that anyone producing a level of 2, even in a novice smoker, probably wouldn't notice any difference in visual perception, spatial awareness and reaction time, rather than being a potential danger to themselves and others.

People might argue that in some cases, the punishment doesn't fit the crime; the recent case of the driver showing 2.1 for instance and once medicinal cannabis consumption becomes more common, what happens then?

There are far more, other, prescribed and illegally-obtained pharmaceutical drugs in daily use which are problematic, also having the potential to produce impairment, will we see those addressed in the same way?

 

[Wavey Davey]

19 hours ago, quilp said:

It does really. Being completely different drugs chemically, different centres of the brain are affected by each.

It doesn’t really matter you’re still driving when impaired and could injure or kill someone. Which is entirely different to whether you should be allowed to sit on your own sofa and legally have a spliff.