ABC News - NSW cannabis user aquitted of drug-driving

[Sir PsychoHashy]

Fraid not, the legislation is quite specific about it being in your system, with no onus to prove impaired driving ability.  This guy had a good lawyer and a sane magistrate, there will be a large number of magistrates who will not take the line of this one without being forced to, not to mention a lot of us just can't afford the good lawyer.  It's going to take a few more instances like this one before any progress can be made at a general level, by which time I reckon the pollies will be looking to strengthen the legislation to close the loophole rather than having to be fair and rational about impairment.  This legislation is clearly aimed at statistics, and they will not want to give those up if they can help it.

 

I also call "bollocks" on the NT coppers' comments, that may well be the intention and possibly even the general results from the tests, but it clearly isn't completely true and they all know it.

[mogroith]

I just heard a queens council make the comment on the precedent, and how it will effect up and coming court cases.

[Sir PsychoHashy]

I just heard a queens council make the comment on the precedent, and how it will effect up and coming court cases.

 

Can you please elaborate?

[mogroith]

Heard it on the radio, think it was hack jjj, was at a friends and his missus was listening to it dont have a phone so when i call past will double check.

[grow for me]

Fraid not, the legislation is quite specific about it being in your system, with no onus to prove impaired driving ability.  This guy had a good lawyer and a sane magistrate, there will be a large number of magistrates who will not take the line of this one without being forced to, not to mention a lot of us just can't afford the good lawyer.  It's going to take a few more instances like this one before any progress can be made at a general level, by which time I reckon the pollies will be looking to strengthen the legislation to close the loophole rather than having to be fair and rational about impairment.  This legislation is clearly aimed at statistics, and they will not want to give those up if they can help it.

 

I also call "bollocks" on the NT coppers' comments, that may well be the intention and possibly even the general results from the tests, but it clearly isn't completely true and they all know it.

hashy they now have to prove every time they go to court that the test showed that you were impaired at the time, with the testing they have now it isnt possible i know people in charge at state rail and people in the drug squad all say the same thing. a full time smoker will never ever pass the test. unless they somehow cheat. the levels in our system take something like 19 days to get to lower levels haha. even urine tests are not accurate. i dont even think blood tests would be for a fulltime smoker.

just make sure you dont smoke before you drive.

 

that way you can deny that you were impaired. and they cannot prove it.

Edited February 5, 2016 by grow for me

[Sir PsychoHashy]

hashy they now have to prove every time they go to court that the test showed that you were impaired at the time, with the testing they have now it isnt possible i know people in charge at state rail and people in the drug squad all say the same thing. a full time smoker will never ever pass the test. unless they somehow cheat. the levels in our system take something like 19 days to get to lower levels haha. even urine tests are not accurate. i dont even think blood tests would be for a fulltime smoker.

just make sure you dont smoke before you drive.

 

that way you can deny that you were impaired. and they cannot prove it.

 

You are completely correct about other tests continuing to show well after smoking, the urine tests are the worst as they test for a by product of the THC being broken down by the body which can remain in fatty tissue in the body for up to 6 months in rare cases.  For those who do brekky bongs and top ups all day, the blood test will be a waste of time, but those smokers have to accept that if you live a life of permanent stonedness you will fail the test with good reason unless you luck out with a false negative. 

 

My comment was directed at people like me who only choof at the end of the day and don't drive until the next, we know we're straight in the morning which should allow us to drive legally by any reasonable persons opinion, a blood test for us will still show a level but it will be measured low enough that we could at least have a chance of using that to demonstrate that it has been a while since consumption.  It would be very optimistic to believe it would work out, but at least it's a chance, especially if we get a few more results like this guy.

 

This magistrates' finding for this case doesn't change the legislation though, so legally they still have no onus to prove impairment as the law is quite clear that it's simply about it being in your system, but it should at least open the door for the few sane magistrates out there who agree with it.  So it's definitely worth having a crack at the "I clearly was not impaired" defense, just not guaranteed to work.  And I still reckon that if a couple more get this result they will simply strengthen the legislation rather than amending it to draw some sort of line for demonstrating impairment.  And you're right in that they all know that smokers have stuff floating about in their systems well after the fact, and that's why they drew up the legislation the way they did, because they know that the potential is there to acheive massive numbers on paper, which is all they actually want without a care in the world for the lives that get fucked up as a result.

[Stiritup420]

yeah, in other words you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent and even then you are guilty.

 

Simples

[Loco]

Fraid not, the legislation is quite specific about it being in your system, with no onus to prove impaired driving ability.  This guy had a good lawyer and a sane magistrate, there will be a large number of magistrates who will not take the line of this one without being forced to, not to mention a lot of us just can't afford the good lawyer.  It's going to take a few more instances like this one before any progress can be made at a general level, by which time I reckon the pollies will be looking to strengthen the legislation to close the loophole rather than having to be fair and rational about impairment.  This legislation is clearly aimed at statistics, and they will not want to give those up if they can help it.

 

I also call "bollocks" on the NT coppers' comments, that may well be the intention and possibly even the general results from the tests, but it clearly isn't completely true and they all know it.

 

RE: NT copper's comment - it just adds to the confusion and further highlights how incompetent the legislation is.

 

 

Loco

[slicker1]

sorry to revisit this post but i just saw a TV ad from the coppers claimed they were increasing Random Drug Tests to 100,000 next year.

 

Any news on this issue either legally or politically

and very important, any chance of cheating the system.

 

it seems the legislation in NSW was just written to penalise weed smokers for smoking, not for driving under the influence. 

a conviction is a criminal offence so you will have a drug conviction if you get caught.

 

if thats the case only a change in the law will solve the problem.

I'm going to contact the Drug Law reform party and the Greens to see where their at on this issue.

the other thing arising from this is the Medical Cannabis legislation and there effects on this legislation.

[MrPTSD]

Interested in more news on this

 

Sent from my X9009 using OZ Stoners mobile app