Sussex wrote:
We mustn't confuse the rules relating to drink driving to that of drug driving.
As the law stands now you are allowed alcohol when driving but not an amount that will effect your driving. Hence the 35 mg max.
That doesn't apply for drug driving. That is a strict liability offence, any drugs in your system and you are deemed over the limit. The 2 mg is basically there to cover the effect of prescription drugs that you are permitted to take whilst being able to drive.
Indeed, but isn't drink driving a strict liability offence as well?
Maybe the difference is that alcohol allows a certain level, but drugs more akin to zero tolerance?
Didn't know about the prescription drugs thing - the stuff I was reading was making out that it was intended to cover passive inhalation, or whatever. But I suppose it's much the same principle, and thus accidental in nature.
But again that's all why I suggested at the outset that the 2.5 grams/litre recorded wouldn't have been the cause of the visible impairment - the aim is to effectively penalise any level of drugs while driving, except tiny amounts, and whether or not it's caused any impairment.
But still surprised that it's prosecuted at such a tiny level over the limit - maybe the fact he hit a police car had something to do with that - must have caused them a shedload of paperwork
Login
Register
FAQ
