quilp Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 8 minutes ago, Wavey Davey said: 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. That point has already been made. Fucking wring it out why don't you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 23 hours ago, quilp said: It does really. Being completely different drugs chemically, different centres of the brain are affected by each. 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? Without that stupidly low level, plod would have nothing to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forestboy Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 2 minutes ago, Passing Time said: Without that stupidly low level, plod would have nothing to do Idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 19 minutes ago, forestboy said: Idiot. Self praise is no praise at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted October 29, 2022 Share Posted October 29, 2022 15 hours ago, Passing Time said: Without that stupidly low level, plod would have nothing to do It does seem to be a revenue generator and work for the police rather than accident prevention. The levels measured are equivalent to having a pint of cider 24 hours ago and then being somehow impaired. The medicinal cannabis leaflet states that you shouldn't drive for 4 hours, this would suggest we are about to see a lot more people testing positive when it's finally available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 29, 2022 Share Posted October 29, 2022 On 10/27/2022 at 10:44 PM, quilp said: It does really. Being completely different drugs chemically, different centres of the brain are affected by each. 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? The problem is that it’s a political decision as to what is set as the level, even in drink driving. There’s no uniformity, even across Europe, categories of drivers, or even with in the UK. They all claim to be science based. The English alcohol level, at 0.8, is extremely high by reference to other countries, 60% above the next most common figure (0.5) ( Scotland uses 0.5 - there are roads near the border where you cross the border two or three times between two villages in Scotland and can go from driving illegally, legally and back again within a couple of miles ). But there are countries with zero tolerance. Standard Commercial drivers Novice drivers Austria 0.5 0.1 0.1 Belgium 0.5 0.2 0.5 Bulgaria 0.5 0.5 0.5 Croatia 0.5 0.0 0.0 Cyprus 0.5 0.2 0.2 Czech Republic 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denmark 0.5 0.5 0.5 Estonia 0.2 0.2 0.2 Finland 0.5 0.5 0.5 France 0.5 0.5 (0.2 bus drivers) 0.2 Germany 0.5 0.0 0.0 Greece 0.5 0.2 0.2 Hungary 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ireland 0.5 0.2 0.2 Italy 0.5 0.0 0.0 Latvia 0.5 0.5 0.2 Lithuania 0.4 0.0 0.0 Luxembourg 0.5 0.2 0.2 Malta 0.5 0.2 0.2 Netherlands 0.5 0.5 0.2 Norway 0.2 0.2 0.2 Poland 0.2 0.2 0.2 Portugal 0.5 0.2 0.2 Romania 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slovakia 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slovenia 0.5 0.0 0.0 Spain 0.5 0.3 0.3 (0.0 for under 18s) Sweden 0.2 0.2 0.2 UK 0.8 0.8 0.8 Switzerland 0.5 0.1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 29, 2022 Share Posted October 29, 2022 The only comparison I’ve been able to find for Cannabis is this table. It should be noted that the IoM minimum disqualification penalty period is 2 years, compared with 1 year in the UK. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtleish Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Andy wint on Mr moaning line..... What happens to all the syringes that the cannabis uses leave lying around!! What a fucking uneducated muppet!! 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOR Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 I stopped listening (and very occasionally contributing by email) to Manx Radio Mannin Line a couple of weeks after Wint took over. It was a painful couple of weeks but I tried. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forestboy Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 47 minutes ago, AOR said: I stopped listening (and very occasionally contributing by email) to Manx Radio Mannin Line a couple of weeks after Wint took over. It was a painful couple of weeks but I tried. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 We all know about the ludicrously inflated prices that the Police quote for that little nugget they found in Jonny's pocket. It seems they are applying a similarly ambitious pricing structure to home grown too. 8 plants up to £15k and 5 plants up to £8,400 apparently. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/cousins-in-the-dock-for-cultivating-cannabis/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxfisherman Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Both of those two are fucking idiots. And Kewley is a thug too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 14, 2022 Share Posted November 14, 2022 It'll be interesting to see how CoMin proceed with this. Plenty of opposition, from everywhere it seems. Presumably, Peel NRE's response to the concerns will be swift and reassuring; net gains, jobs, etc., but its probably unlikely the project will materialise. Mrs Caine very vocal about meeting targets. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/planning/concerns-over-cannabis-farm-572338 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted November 14, 2022 Share Posted November 14, 2022 1 hour ago, quilp said: It'll be interesting to see how CoMin proceed with this. Plenty of opposition, from everywhere it seems. Presumably, Peel NRE's response to the concerns will be swift and reassuring; net gains, jobs, etc., but its probably unlikely the project will materialise. Mrs Caine very vocal about meeting targets. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/planning/concerns-over-cannabis-farm-572338 “The possibility of a rare grasshopper” FFS… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOR Posted November 14, 2022 Share Posted November 14, 2022 1 hour ago, Passing Time said: “The possibility of a rare grasshopper” FFS… I love this song: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.