NEWS Segeyaro wants to seal the deal

[Broncapz]

What is the limit based on? The (assumed) biological impact of alcohol on a person's ability to control a motor vehicle before they become impaired.
I doubt it cares what type of license you have, so it should be the same for everyone.

I don't agree with many of the current traffic laws, and even less the way police monitors them (but that is a different discussion anyway). However I have no problem with anyone DUI (and I mean actually impaired) being thrown the book at, because they are a danger on the road to everyone, including themselves.
That said, this is not the case and it is being treated the same way because "it's the law". I know you have to act that way as an officer of the law, but that doesn't mean it's right.

Like our drug driving laws don't actually test your impairment, they simply detect if you've had a joint in the last few days. Would love an evidence based sweep over the laws.

We should always be pushing for our laws to be updated with increased scientific knowledge and evidence.

 

[Jason Simmons]

What is the limit based on? The (assumed) biological impact of alcohol on a person's ability to control a motor vehicle before they become impaired.
I doubt it cares what type of license you have, so it should be the same for everyone.

I don't agree with many of the current traffic laws, and even less the way police monitors them (but that is a different discussion anyway). However I have no problem with anyone DUI (and I mean actually impaired) being thrown the book at, because they are a danger on the road to everyone, including themselves.
That said, this is not the case and it is being treated the same way because "it's the law". I know you have to act that way as an officer of the law, but that doesn't mean it's right.

The medical research that shows the cognitive and behavioural impairment that alcohol consumption has on the ‘average’ person.

0.05% is generally agreed as the limit beyond which you are impaired to a degree that you become a danger to others due to decreased reaction times / reflexes, situational awareness diminishes and so on.

However the medical research also shows that ANY alcohol consumption leads to impaired cognitive ability and behaviours, so they have adopted the position that the combination of impaired ability and inexperience means that less experienced drivers (ie: P platers) should be zero, while more experienced drivers (Open licences) can accept a limited level of alcohol impairment, ie: up to 0.05%.

I think in the long term there will be a stronger push to make it zero for everyone, just as it is with drugs...
[automerge]1559096670[/automerge]

Like our drug driving laws don't actually test your impairment, they simply detect if you've had a joint in the last few days. Would love an evidence based sweep over the laws.

We should always be pushing for our laws to be updated with increased scientific knowledge and evidence.

They do for offences of driving while a relevant drug (Cannabis, Methylamphetamine and so on) but UIL - Under the Influence of Alcohol OR a Drug is the same offence.

If you are completely off chops, it’s no different (at law) whether you’ve had 15 beers or 15 cones etc.

 

[Huge]

The medical research that shows the cognitive and behavioural impairment that alcohol consumption has on the ‘average’ person.

0.05% is generally agreed as the limit beyond which you are impaired to a degree that you become a danger to others due to decreased reaction times / reflexes, situational awareness diminishes and so on.

However the medical research also shows that ANY alcohol consumption leads to impaired cognitive ability and behaviours, so they have adopted the position that the combination of impaired ability and inexperience means that less experienced drivers (ie: P platers) should be zero, while more experienced drivers (Open licences) can accept a limited level of alcohol impairment, ie: up to 0.05%.

I think in the long term there will be a stronger push to make it zero for everyone, just as it is with drugs...
[automerge]1559096670[/automerge]


They do for offences of driving while a relevant drug (Cannabis, Methylamphetamine and so on) but UIL - Under the Influence of Alcohol OR a Drug is the same offence.

If you are completely off chops, it’s no different (at law) whether you’ve had 15 beers or 15 cones etc.

I could have 30 cones of premium quality cannabis and still perform any tests of any skills and perform competently. I most certainly couldn't make that claim if I'd had 30 7oz xxxx golds! There is no such thing as being 'off your chops' on marijuana. You get stoned, reach a plateau and no amount of extra cones, joints whatever take you higher. A saturation point is reached, similar to adding sugar to a glass of water.

 

[Jason Simmons]

I could have 30 cones of premium quality cannabis and still perform any tests of any skills and perform competently. I most certainly couldn't make that claim if I'd had 30 7oz xxxx golds! There is no such thing as being 'off your chops' on marijuana. You get stoned, reach a plateau and no amount of extra cones, joints whatever take you higher. A saturation point is reached, similar to adding sugar to a glass of water.

Okay, Doc. Apparently medical science is wrong on this one...

 

[Renegade]

I could have 30 cones of premium quality cannabis and still perform any tests of any skills and perform competently. I most certainly couldn't make that claim if I'd had 30 7oz xxxx golds! There is no such thing as being 'off your chops' on marijuana. You get stoned, reach a plateau and no amount of extra cones, joints whatever take you higher. A saturation point is reached, similar to adding sugar to a glass of water.

Whilst true you do plateau at a certain point with weed, if you've had some potent shit, there is no way you would be operating at optimum level. like booze though, you'd be confident that you were.

 

[Jason Simmons]

This is an interesting article that goes some way to contradicting your statement:

THE EFFECT OF CANNABIS COMPARED WITH ALCOHOL ON DRIVING

The prevalence of both alcohol and cannabis use and the high morbidity associated with motor vehicle crashes has lead to a plethora of research on the link between the two. Drunk drivers are involved in 25% of motor vehicle fatalities, and many accidents ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yes I'm only picking the parts that suit my argument (and experience). There's plenty in this study to also show that there are negative effects also.

Experienced drivers on a set course has obvious applicability to road conditions...

 

[tommy]

There are people out there that can't function properly if they haven't had a cone tbh.

 

[Broncapz]

The presence of marijuana in our current roadside tests are not a realiable source of testing if a driver is actually too impaired to drive. The evidence is there that the technology and legislation behind this will need to be updated at SOME point.

I of course do not want 30 Cones McGee on the road, no matter how much of an axe he is. :)

 

[tommy]

I always wondered why they don't test for cocaine? All the tests are for poor man's drugs. Are they protecting the rich end of town or something?

 

[tommy]

Too many politicians, surgeons and lawyers would be affected...

That's honestly what I think too.

 

[Renegade]

I always wondered why they don't test for cocaine? All the tests are for poor man's drugs. Are they protecting the rich end of town or something?

coke ain't cheap, dude probably can't afford a fine after buying a few g's.

 

[Morkel]

This is an interesting article that goes some way to contradicting your statement:

THE EFFECT OF CANNABIS COMPARED WITH ALCOHOL ON DRIVING

The prevalence of both alcohol and cannabis use and the high morbidity associated with motor vehicle crashes has lead to a plethora of research on the link between the two. Drunk drivers are involved in 25% of motor vehicle fatalities, and many accidents ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yes I'm only picking the parts that suit my argument (and experience). There's plenty in this study to also show that there are negative effects also.

Hence, the driving at 20kph and still thinking it’s way too fast.

 

[Huge]

Okay, Doc. Apparently medical science is wrong on this one...

Or you're wrong and misquoting or misrepresenting the evidence. You know, you could be wrong. I'd readily choose the person who's had ten cones over the person who's had ten tequila's if forced to choose one or the other to drive me home. That would be especially true if it was someone like Nashy and not a once decade smoker.

 

[Huge]

Whilst true you do plateau at a certain point with weed, if you've had some potent shit, there is no way you would be operating at optimum level. like booze though, you'd be confident that you were.

See, here's the problem. You read the words and THEN COMPLETELY CHANGE THE MEANING. Who fucking said anything, anything at all about OPTIMUM???

 

[Jason Simmons]

Or you're wrong and misquoting or misrepresenting the evidence. You know, you could be wrong. I'd readily choose the person who's had ten cones over the person who's had ten tequila's if forced to choose one or the other to drive me home. That would be especially true if it was someone like Nashy and not a once decade smoker.

Sure, it’s me misrepresenting the evidence. Hence why virtually if not every jurisdiction on the planet makes it illegal to drug drive...

 

[Jason Simmons]

I always wondered why they don't test for cocaine? All the tests are for poor man's drugs. Are they protecting the rich end of town or something?

It’s because of the chemical nature of the drugs themselves. When we take blood we definitely check for Cocaine, Opiates and all sorts of over the counter meds that don’t leave you fit to drive.

Anyone ‘clearly’ off chops won’t be subject to roadside testing only anyway. They’ll get the full works.

 

[Huge]

Sure, it’s me misrepresenting the evidence. Hence why virtually if not every jurisdiction on the planet makes it illegal to drug drive...

Yes, great thinking employed here. Cobble together two different statements, add a bit of useless and unrelated matter, attribute it to the original poster and then shoot it down. Masterful.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Yes, great thinking employed here. Cobble together two different statements, add a bit of useless and unrelated matter, attribute it to the original poster and then shoot it down. Masterful.

Not sure I did all that, but thanks! You seem to think I’m putting a lot more effort in here, then I really am.

I’m simply stating what the law is and why it is so. The overwhelming medical advice is that drugs are bad and impair your ability to drive, which is danger to yourself and others, hence why it’s illegal.

But if you feel differently, that’s fine.

But I’m sticking with the medical advice.