Dont think Brixton will be in the speech
Yeah because only Rastafarians chewing on a camberwell carrot 24/7 live there and no one in any other part of the UK take drugs.
How will this differentiate between illegal and prescribed medication? I would hate to loose my licence because I had taken something the doctor prescribed, only to have it show up on this machine.
The firm I work for wants a Spanish Inquisition if your caught speeding, you get caught with drugs in your system there will be holy murder.
44 Tonne Ton:
(Thread Title)I can see problems in Brixton, yeah man!
Sorry, but your thread title is utterly wrong. The drug driving problem is across the country, and not everyone in Brixton is of the ethnic group most likely to be Rastafarian, let alone drug drivers.
Being serious for a moment, I hope this is carefully thought out. The parents of the girl who was killed by a speeding motorist on cannabis were on the BBC this morning calling for zero tolerance because “they’re all illicit drugs”.
I do not support the use of illicit drugs and certainly not driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs, but this is wrong in two ways.
Firstly, many of these drugs have legitimate medical uses - some forms of amfetamine (forgive me - as a former chemist I use international names) for ADHD, cannabinoids for pain relief in MS, opiates and ketamine for pain relief. When these drugs are prescribed and used carefully, they can make someone otherwise unfit to drive a safe driver.
I’ve been on prescribed morphine at a relatively low level since 1997 - without it I am completely disabled by neurogenic pain. My neurologist and other doctors have confirmed that I am not impaired on the morphine and certainly would be impaired without it, the dosage used has been declared to DVLA and has been subjected to medical scrutiny, and I continue to hold an unrestricted driving licence that includes C1 entitlement. Ideally I’d do without any medication and have taken efforts to reduce the levels of various prescribed drugs, but my body will only allow so much.
If the zero tolerance rule those parents call for is introduced, I could be facing prison any time I drive as I would read positive for opiates. Of course, in most cases you won’t be stopped if you don’t draw attention to yourself on the roads, but even apparently innocent drivers involved in a collision where police attend are likely to be checked as a matter of routine, also vocational drivers are used to being stopped for checks that may involve the police as well as VOSA.
Secondly, many of these substances linger on in trace levels for a long time and casual exposure can lead to traces that are in no way impairing. In particular, some cannabis metabolites linger on in body fat for months. Casual exposure to cannabis smoke - i.e. being in a place where others are smoking - is going to lead to some sort of reading but is unlikely to be impairing to any significant extent. A non-zero reading for cannabis could happen almost by accident.
In practice, I cannot see zero levels being introduced. In the contentious area of anti-doping in sports, few substances have zero permitted levels despite the highly sensitive GC-MS and HPLC-MS analysis that is used, which is capable of finding small fractions of a microgram of a substance in a sample.
Clearly non-impairing medical use will have to be an absolute defence, though it would be wise for any driver (vocational or not) who is prescribed a potentially impairing drug to declare this to DVLA. This will, of course, subject the driver to the incompetence typical of Drivers’ Medical Branch, where a simple case with all the documentation available can take 9-12 months to resolve.
There’s also the question of which drugs will be included in the tests. The law will have to be drafted to allow easy updating - that will likely be done by allowing ministers to pass regulations determining which drugs are included.
It isn’t just drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act that are an issue. The ‘hangover’ of sleeping medication (benzodiazepines - diazepam and other ‘-pam’ drugs, also ‘z’ drugs - zopiclone, zolpidem and zaleplone) that has not cleared from the driver’s system is much more impairing than many supposedly harder drugs in trace amounts.
When talking about controlled drugs, most people think only of schedule 1 (illegal apart for special research licences) and schedule 2 (the drugs you have to sign for and produce ID, such as morphine). By way of contrast, benzodiazepines are schedule 4 controlled (temazepam is in the tighter schedule 3 because of the problems of diversion for injection) - not that many people know this, as the controls on schedule 4 are minimal. By way of contrast, one of the most abusable forms of morphine, beloved of certain addicts, is Oramorph - a rather alcoholic solution of morphine taken by mouth. As the level of morphine in the most common Oramorph bottle size falls below a certain threshold, legally it is an ordinary prescription only medication, not schedule 2 controlled. Personally, I find Oramorph so disgusting that I rarely use it even when I should!
Many other drugs can be significantly sedating when used properly, such as early antihistamines originally used for allergies but now used in over the counter sleeping medication such as the non-herbal version of Nytol. These also impair driving - are they going to be included?
Whilst I agree that this law is overdue, the drugs to be included, the threshold levels and the defences allowed all need thinking through carefully. This is not as straightforward as a drink driving law, where there is no medical use for alcohol and there is extensive research on the impairment to driving alcohol causes.
I would also add that the distraction of smoking whilst driving can be serious. If you are concentrating on lighting up when an emergency develops, your response cannot be as good as someone who has both hands on the wheel at the time. Even before the recent smoking bans, I believe PCV drivers were banned from smoking at the wheel, but this ban didn’t extend to LGVs.
djw:
Whilst I agree that this law is overdue, the drugs to be included, the threshold levels and the defences allowed all need thinking through carefully. This is not as straightforward as a drink driving law, where there is no medical use for alcohol and there is extensive research on the impairment to driving alcohol causes.
I thoroughly agree that this proposed law is seriously overdue but I can only see problems in our inept lawmakers ability to draft legislation that will have less holes in it than a string vest. Defence solicitors throughout the land must be salivating at the prospect of easy money from this proposal.
“Police have to show driving has been impaired by drugs to prosecute.”
This statement alone opens up the arguments before we even start. It seems as though they will be able to stop you, for what they believe is, driving under the influence of drink, and only then conduct the drug test after the drink one. Many people do drive with drink and drugs in their system and you would never know, yet as we see on the roads everyday, there are many people whose driving is appalling with no undue substances in their system.
I await the impending balls-up our lawmakers will implement.
Stan
Oh dear, slight sense of humour failure chaps! PC lorry drivers, who’d believe it! 
djw:
I would also add that the distraction of smoking whilst driving can be serious. If you are concentrating on lighting up when an emergency develops, your response cannot be as good as someone who has both hands on the wheel at the time. Even before the recent smoking bans, I believe PCV drivers were banned from smoking at the wheel, but this ban didn’t extend to LGVs.
Thanks for a considered and highly informative post. I’ve left the quote of the only bit I personally find fault with; not because I disagree with the fundamental truth that any activity done whilst driving, even scratching your nose, is a distraction, but because this argument is now being pedalled by the health nannies who want us all to die of boredom as an excuse to ban smoking in all vehicles. 
I liked the comment below the article that said “driving in a built up area wearing a loud shirt” should be illegal. ■■■■ right it should.
Pretty sure the chattering classes in Islington like a bit of white after the latest dinner party, it helps them think up government policies.
44 Tonne Ton:
Drug-driving law set to be introduced in Queen's Speech - BBC News
When they kick in your front door, how you gonna come?
Happydaze:
Pretty sure the chattering classes in Islington like a bit of white after the latest dinner party, it helps them think up government policies.
Very true
Happydaze:
44 Tonne Ton:
Drug-driving law set to be introduced in Queen's Speech - BBC NewsWhen they kick in your front door, how you gonna come?
I’ve yet to experience that and don’t expect to any time soon!
just another money making scam.