 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Out running on the local Moor tonight I passed 3 separate cars all full of kids with a smoke haze and smell of weed coming out from them.
They were not directly harming anyone else, so half of me thinks leave them to it, the other half of me thinks, what happens if they cause an accident whilst driving home....
What would you do?
Biscuits anyone?
What would you do if they were drinking cans of cider instead?
[quote=wrightyson ]Biscuits anyone?
Munchies already?
If they were all shitfaced [s]Strongbow[/s]advocaat what would you do. They are not directly harming anyone, after all.
Help youself.
[img] 
[/img]
Saw the same the other evening, but parked up right in the middle of the village next to the (still open) co-op.
Personally I wouldn't say anything, I'm not sure the police would do much anyhow
I'm guessing 3 pages. Pass the biscuits please.
Leave them to it. If they have to wind the windows down the hotbox will be ruined
The Police are getting much keener on drug driving at the moment. I smell it from passing cars far too often when riding on the road.
I'd report it, because they are in cars. The Police would need to check if the driver was smoking and go from there anyway.
If they were just walking along the street, I wouldn't report it.
I'd treat it the same as being drunk in charge. I reported my neighbour when he drove home drunk. Take the car out of the equation and I couldn't give a monkey's.
It's my perception (as someone who works day in day with 17/18yr olds) that most are oblivious that drug drink is just as bad as drink driving. Drink driving (even one) is a complete social taboo in that generation; drug driving not so much.
Do you think the driving was partaking?
Happy days
Stash it in your pants the cops never search there.
The Police are getting much keener on drug driving at the moment.
Understandable really; it's a stressful job.
😀
oblivious that drug drink is just as bad as drink driving.
Obliviousness will be the result of being drunk and drugged or drug drink as the kids call it . Never mix the grape and leaf.
As I see it, you have three options;
1 - Kill the kids
2 - Kill yourself
3 - KILL [b][i][u]EVERYBODY![/u][/i][/b]
4 - bring some cakes and join them
Report it! Definitely! The major problem facing the police and society generally is kids smoking weed in car parks. Before you know it.. Armageddon. order needs to be maintained! They'll be right on it! Otherwise the Daily Mail will be furious!
I don't think they were actually in a car park Binners and that's why the Police need to be involved. There are unwritten codes of conduct when it comes to partaking of jazz woodbines.
let them have their nice things and go home and read your daily mail.
Legality of the drugs aside, would you report drink drivers? Even if the driver isn't partaking, if he's in the car with them he'll be passively getting stoned, and more likely as a result to kill them all along with whoever he runs into.
Banana in the tailpipe
Out running on the local Moor tonight I passed 3 separate cars all full of kids with a smoke haze and smell of weed coming out from them.They were not directly harming anyone else, so half of me thinks leave them to it, the other half of me thinks, what happens if they cause an accident whilst driving home....
What would you do?
Nothing, because here in London I'd be reporting about every 2nd car!
shermer75 - in a eddie murphy voice i hope.
funkmasterp - Member
I'm guessing 3 pages. Pass the biscuits please.
Nah, he failed to mention their skin colour, ethnicity, religion........two pages, max.
On recent Traffic Cops tv show the driver of a car was found to be over the alcohol limit by about 4 times.
Strangely though he was also several times the limit for cannabis and several times the limit for cocaine?
When did they introduce safe limits to drive with either, I was under impression it was an almost zero tolerance?
It would have to be an exceptional hot box to be passively stoned.
did it smell like quality weed or just crappy solid? 😮
can you even get solid nowadays?
Don't care about weed generally. People driving when they may still be under the influence does bother me though. I wouldn't turn a blind eye to it anymore than I would drink driving. If that makes me 'square' frankly I don't give a shit.
I'd report it, because they are in cars
Likewise.
They were not directly harming anyone else, so half of me thinks leave them to it, the other half of me thinks, what happens if they cause an accident whilst driving home....
driving under the influence, they are potentially harming a lot of people with that one. Sometimes what kids need is a good solid warning from a copper to point out that maybe they will turn a blind eye in some places but not when it involves cars.
Daddy isn't coming home tonight the kids smoking weed knocked him off his bike, Merry Christmas.
Grass them up.. Just dont make a Hash of it though
Ok mixed views. Were the drivers participating? Well unless they had their own oxygen supply in the cars then yes.
I've seen car accidents that were the result of alcohol where people have been badly injured. My wife has had to screw people back together who have been smoking weed.
So an honest actual real life result from this. An ex labourer of mine got pulled on the road back to Derbyshire from skegVegas by the old Bill, they pulled him as they smelt weed as he zipped by on a 50mph road apparently! Road side "test" blah blah. "Failed" that but back at the station passed it so they swabbed him for the works. He'd had coke the night before, it came up positive but was let go as he was deemed unimpeded by it and left to drive away/pick up his car at that point. Went to court a few months ago and got a 12 month ban. All seems a bit hotchpotch pitch to me.
shermer75 - in a eddie murphy voice i hope.
Of course! 😀
It would have to be an exceptional hot box to be passively stoned.
Proper old mini makes a good one
Happy days
Stash it in your pants the cops never search there.
Oh, they do !
Must admit i've been in cars with stoned drivers in the past, they don't/i didn't see it as a problem at the time(It's not as bad as drink driving, but its still unacceptable tbh).
Being honest i doubt i'd personally stick someone i know in, so I'm aware I'd be part of the problem(talking historically, it's been years, and we did actually been caught by the polis too, nothing happened to any of us, but this was the late 90s. polis were more interested in finding out if i'd divulge info on the local loonballs, i had no info to divulge even if i wanted to, they were bawbags about that actually but that's another story) But i do agree with the zero tolerance approach to stoned driving.
Bit shit sticking a whole load of people in for weed, but i guess we need to start the zero tolerance thing somewhere to get the message across.
A good start would be providing legal establishments where people can smoke their lungs out away from the cars.
Bit shit sticking a whole load of people in for weed, but i guess we need to start the zero tolerance thing somewhere to get the message across.
Not really, they all got in the car knowing that one of them would be driving back, it's as bad as getting your mate to drive you up somewhere with a few bottles of white lightening then being surprised he was pissed too.
The police have many ways to deal with stuff that doesn't involve prosecution.
Guess there is 2 points here, drivers being stoned and passengers being stoned.
There later isn't a problem, but tbh I would say that, I've no problem sparking up on a journey with the window open, if the driver allows it.
If you are sitting in a car park and the car is full of smoke, well, the drivers getting stoned too, that much is obvious.
Guess you just need to judge the situation as you see it.
[img] 
[/img]
mikewsmith - Member
it's as bad as getting your mate to drive you up somewhere with a few bottles of white lightening then being surprised he was pissed too
That's only bad if you allow them to get back in the motor and drive home after tanning said bottle.
The point here is really what the driver is doing, long as the passengers aren't imparring the driver, then there's no real issue imo.
😆 vongassit - Member
shermer75 - Member
Banana in the tailpipe
Bit harsh, they won't be able to sit down and enjoy their Christmas dinner.
Interesting one.
Evidence on drug driving is poor and establishing at what levels people are impaired is difficult. the little decent testing tends to show spliffs and driving is nothing like the impairment of drink driving or using a mobile but more like being tired. thats people smoking and then driving in a controlled environment where they are concentrating on driving well. In these circumstances spliffs are much less impairing than alcohol
Post crash analysis shows a lot of drug driving but without knowing the incidence in the population its hard to know if its causal or coincidental and polypharmacia / drinks mixed in is also common in the post crash analysis
Of course mixing drink and spliffs even when blood alcohol levels would be legal is a disaster for accident rates.
Beware reefer madness stories in the papers colouring your view. the real evidence of the effects on spliffs and driving is not good or clear and indeed contradictory
I do dob in drink drivers. Never really been in the position the OP was in. If its a regular hangout then maybe yes and if the kids are showing off in the cars then certainly yes. concentrating on driving well there appears to be little impairment but showing off / driving fast etc then certainly its dangerous as concentration is impaired.
Finally - should this be a police priority? Id rather they were sorting out the drunks driving or not.
So - long answer to a short question. NOt easy to me, not clear and obvious. No decent evidence to make an evidence based decision on
Too few police around to catch this sort of thing when it's happening which effectively shifts the responsibility onto the general public to take some action - even if that's limited to reporting to the police.
I couldn't care less if anyone wishes to damage themselves as a result of drink or drugs but I do care if they present a risk to me and others.
It wouldn't be for the OP to assess whether or not the driver was indulging. Maybe not partaking - this time - but next time?
There is also the deterrent effect; if nothing is done the kids will likely believe they can do it again- and again.
So, yes I would report.
MoreCashThanDash - Member
I smell it from passing cars far too often when riding on the road.
I'd report it, because they are in cars. The Police would need to check if the driver was smoking and go from there anyway.
If they were just walking along the street, I wouldn't report it.
Mind blown. It tickles me that folk like you are out there. It seems you're not alone! Do you think the police are going to give an Ertha Kitt?
I'd be more worried about folk texting when driving rather than some kids having a puff. I imagine the penalty is greater too, rightly so.
Penalty is much less for texting and driving. Drug driving is the same as drink driving, The police used to have to show you were impaired and this is almost impossible as impairment tests dont show much impairment with spliffs and driving as the impairment is not motor / co-ordination impairment but perhaps concentration and judgement
I believe now some ( ? all ) police forces have set blood limits for drugs but these are not really evidenced based a far as I can see
If it were all evidence based texting or using a mobile phone when driving would be a year ban minimum same as drink driving as it carries the same level of risk. Drug driving - I would like to see some real good evidence but this is hard to get. Barring that I would like to see and impairment test based around concentration and judgement not motor skills / co ordination.
I have actually seen in my role as a nurse someone tested for impairment after being caught drug driving. Obviously stoned ( on smack FFS) but passed the tests. He was certainly not safe to drive
Thing is with stoned driving though, you need to go with the lowest common denominator, and there are some serious lightweights out there! 😆 So zero tolerance will be the ultimate conclusion of any testing.
Problem with weed is the residual that's still in your system for a month afterwards, I don't know how that shows up in tests, but it would be extremely unfair to charge someone that had a smoke 2 days ago.
As for any form of combination of weed and alcohol. That's crazy talk, I'd impose some extremely hefty sentence for that kind of stuff, far worse than what drink driving entails, because it is much worse..
Mind blown. It tickles me that folk like you are out there. It seems you're not alone! Do you think the police are going to give an Ertha Kitt?I'd be more worried about folk texting when driving rather than some kids having a puff.
Why? People quite rightly expect that others both respect the rules on the road and don't impare themselves while driving. What it really boils down to is that driving is seen as s right not a privilige and due to that the level of personal responsibility is seen as very low for operating what is really machinary in a crowded environment with multiple hazards and unpredictable other users. See the videos on the previos page from NZ you want to encounter some of those people when your on a bike?
Report them every time
btw what kinda testing kit do the police use? Anyone have any details on that? Can you buy something similar? would be curious to my thc levels after a binge and to see how long it takes for them to dissipate.
ps don't I don't have a driving license! 😆
IIRC they can distinguish between metabolites and active chemicals in your blood see alpins long thread. Cannabis can be detected for weeks not days
~so I guess the question is in the absence do you legislate heavily and risk punishing unimpaired people or legislate lightly and risk people crashing with drugs in their system? As it is you could get a years ban for the equivalent of half a shandy ( and yes even half a shandy does impair driving)
How about prescription drugs? Lots of them impair driving but the only think is a note on the packet of meds say " if impaired don't drive" NO testing. no clampdown
for me its suitably designed impairment tests not blood levels. found to be impaired for any reason - recreational drugs, tiredness, prescription meds then a heavy punishment
~so I guess the question is in the absence do you legislate heavily and risk punishing unimpaired people or legislate lightly and risk people crashing with drugs in their system? As it is you could get a years ban for the equivalent of half a shandy ( and yes even half a shandy does impair driving)
How about half way, OK lads you all appear to have been smoking, give us the keys and pick them up from the station in the morning. Don't do it again.
tjagain - Member
IIRC they can distinguish between metabolites and active chemicals in your blood see alpins long thread. Cannabis can be detected for weeks not days
They must somehow be able to tell if this things are still having a psychoactive effect though? Otherwise they are bogus?
Thats my issue with blood levels for testing. Its simply unclear at what point people are impaired and which of the complex cocktail of chemicals you are impaired at
Zero tolerence would mean weeks after smoking a single spliff you would be banned.
I would really like some proper reform of drug laws in this country based on proper evidence
They must somehow be able to tell if this things are still having a psychoactive effect though? Otherwise they are bogus?
Which comes down to the decison on drawing a line on the cautious side or the risky side. As a vunerable road user which side would be best?
And as this is also about younger and much less experienced drivers then maybe some stricter laws on what young drivers can do until they learn a bit more.
http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/novice/top_menu/novice_penalties
[quote=tjagain ]Zero tolerence would mean weeks after smoking a single spliff you would be banned.What's that you keep saying about speeding -
if you can't do the time, don't do the crime?
Not quite the same - is there really any impairment after 2 weeks? As things stand now you would not be prosecuted for such low levels.
At the moment we have (I think) prescribed blood levels. Exceeding them is a crime - impairment or not and everyone should know that ( but its not been widely publicised) get caught above those limits then yes - that applies.
the point I was making was that there is no good evidence about what blood levels lead to impairment or even which metabolites shuld be tested for.
hence my preference for impairment testing but not the current impairment test that are not relevant to drug driving.
the point I was making was that there is no good evidence about what blood levels lead to impairment or even which metabolites shuld be tested for.hence my preference for impairment testing but not the current impairment test that are not relevant to drug driving.
Which is probably why the law is currently, in the system above a level bad. Being as smoking and possesion are also illegal it shouldn't be a great leap to connect that doing that while driving are also illegal. Widely publicised or not drivers should know that and ignorance is no defence.
Your dealing with a chemical reaction in the body that varies from person to person, imparement may work but also do it with chemical testing to see what else is present in the system.
Personally this has very little to do with Drugs and more to do with being responsible for what people are doing in cars, I'm happy for police to persue drug drivers along with phone users, those driving in an unsafe way all they way down to the hero's trying to drive all the way to the alps in one go necking caffine drinks to stay awake. They all fall into the same boat of people not taking enough care and attention that driving requires.
Leave them to it. The odds of the police doing anything apart from waste your time is sufficiently low as to makeep it not worth the hassle.
mikewsmith - MemberWhich comes down to the decison on drawing a line on the cautious side or the risky side. As a vunerable road user which side would be best?
Draw a line, I'm with ye, but if you are saying because someone has some tbc in their system from 2 days ago that they are still impared, you are drawing the line way too far. I'm for zero tolerance, but you need to be sensible with it.
tbh, I can't really criticise or praise the police here, I don't know their testing process, nor the psychoactive halflife of weed. So I'm not saying anything one way or the other. Just that you aren't stoned 2 days later no matter how much weed you smoke. (I've tried, it's impossible, a bit lethargic the next day is as much as you get.)
tbh, I'd be happy with a 2 day thing for weed, you smoke 1 day, you don't drive the next, seems sensible enough, I think that should probably be the same for any substance.
You do but you also need something you can work with, if the tests are that vague then maybe they are not the best but work with imparement and use tests for legal implications for those impaired. In reality it's going to be very hard to collect a lot more data on the impariment of unregulated, variable strength, non measured drug use - im sure your's doesn't come with a % on the side of the bag. One of the problems is you don't know with any certainty how much you are consuming same as having 1/2 of your home brew and saying it's only half and driving.
Personally this has very little to do with Drugs and more to do with being responsible for what people are doing in cars, I'm happy for police to persue drug drivers along with phone users, those driving in an unsafe way all they way down to the hero's trying to drive all the way to the alps in one go necking caffine drinks to stay awake. They all fall into the same boat of people not taking enough care and attention that driving requires.
Exactly.
mikewsmith - Member
You do but you also need something you can work with, if the tests are that vague then maybe they are not the best but work with imparement and use tests for legal implications for those impaired. In reality it's going to be very hard to collect a lot more data on the impariment of unregulated, variable strength, non measured drug use - im sure your's doesn't come with a % on the side of the bag. One of the problems is you don't know with any certainty how much you are consuming same as having 1/2 of your home brew and saying it's only half and driving.
Cannabis strength is nothing like alcohol though, the analogy there doesn't stack up. Smoking strong weed isn't like drinking 2 bottles of vodka. It's impossible to get that messed up on weed.
Smoking strong weed isn't like drinking 2 bottles of vodka. It's impossible to get that messed up on weed.
The lovely stoners in the video from NZ managed to get messed up, it's not about 2 bottles of vodka, it's enough to impare your judgement sufficently that you should not operate something.
jamj1974 - Member
mikewsmith - Member
Personally this has very little to do with Drugs and more to do with being responsible for what people are doing in cars, I'm happy for police to persue drug drivers along with phone users, those driving in an unsafe way all they way down to the hero's trying to drive all the way to the alps in one go necking caffine drinks to stay awake. They all fall into the same boat of people not taking enough care and attention that driving requires.
Exactly.
I'd pretty much agree, it is a personal responsibility issue.
mikewsmith - MemberThe lovely stoners in the video from NZ managed to get messed up, it's not about 2 bottles of vodka, it's enough to impare your judgement sufficently that you should not operate something.
While stoned, yes. Like I say I'm for a zero tolerance approach. But zero tolerance with weed doesn't mean no thc in your system. (If someone can chip in with how police measure this stuff please do, would be interested to know.)
As I say I advocate a "you get messed up one day, you don't drive the next day" approach.
it is a personal responsibility issue
and when people fail to use their own personal responsibility it's a job for the police and the public to help them.
within reasonable limits, yes. 🙂
Id be happy with a "no driving stoned" rule. Its how we define stoned that is tricky. I am not adverse to this being tightly and strictly defined. I'm just a bit doubtful about being prosecuted for remnants in your system when not impaired at all. We seem to have gone from a situation where no one was prosecuted because impairment wasn't measured properly to a situation where people completely unimpaired get prosecuted because of the presence of traces of metabolites
Its a bit like being prosecuted for drink driving a day after you had a pint.
I hate the idea that the drink drive limits in england allow you to drink a pint and drive - you are still impaired. I want to see " no drinking and driving" I even think the scots level is too high. I'd like a lower level again.
Evidence based is drummed into me and the evidence here i s poor and that makes me uncomfortable
Would you report a group of young cyclists getting stoned then riding on the road? They could equally cause a severe accident.
I don't think I ever drove fast enough when stoned to cause a problem. Hell, the one time I couldn't figure out how to make the car go backwards so just sat there....
did it smell like quality weed or just crappy solid?
can you even get solid nowadays?
I got some squidgy black in the summer - 1st I've even heard of for about a decade. That'll have something to do with with not having been a regular toker for about 20 years, but even so there's **** all of it around.
I was great BTW 🙂 Properly stoned instead of monged as **** off rank force-grown hydro cheese.
so there appears to be a STW acceptance that thc can be in your system and not impacting your ability to drive (tjs call for impairment testing)
are you happy to apply that to drinking, to allow those who drink lots and regularly to legally drive with a higher blood/alcohol limit, or maybe to differentiate between those eating/drinking rather than just drinking?
will we apply the impairment testing to phone use, adjusting the radio, controlling kids in the back seat.
i just drove past a woman in a 4x4 with three kids in the back, should i report the car to the police as i suspect there might be a little driving without due care and attention.
CaptainFlashheart - MemberÂ
As I see it, you have three options;
1 - Kill the kids
2 - Kill yourself
3 - KILL EVERYBODY!
Said the wise woman
Merak - Member
MoreCashThanDash - Member
I smell it from passing cars far too often when riding on the road.
I'd report it, because they are in cars. The Police would need to check if the driver was smoking and go from there anyway.
If they were just walking along the street, I wouldn't report it.
Mind blown. It tickles me that folk like you are out there. It seems you're not alone! Do you think the police are going to give an Ertha Kitt?I'd be more worried about folk texting when driving rather than some kids having a puff. I imagine the penalty is greater too, rightly so.
I agree with you on the texting. But we're not talking about texting, hence I offered my opinion relating to potential drivers using weed.
HTH
Ertha Kitt
I was under the impression this particular bit of slang had be superseded by ex Mr Jolie.
[i]"Just off for a Brad, me ol' mucker. Cor blimey, yes sir indeed...!" [/i]
I have reported people getting stoned in cars. If they subsequently drive they'll be a risk to anyone else on the roads.