In the news

I get what you're saying, but it's still, you know, illegal.

Kind of the point of my post. It is now possible to fail a drugs test and be banned from driving when not under the influence of drugs where previously a police officer could only arrest you for driving under the influence of drugs and I believe that using that in combination with the new fashion for pulling black people over because of a made up claim of smelling of weed, could be very problematic.

Also, what is the point of the test then?

Driving under the influence is dangerous (also with some legal prescription medication btw) to others and yourself.

Randomly drug testing people "because you used drugs recently" well, if you want to play that game, perhaps you need to randomly test everyone, grab an area and start testing people.

Oh wait, =that= won't go down very well (and would be hilarious if they did it in parliament/the city of London if rumors about drug use there are true) ...

The government claim that cannabis should be undetectable in Saliva after 12 hours but in reality this is utter nonsense.

Cannabis used to be the drug of choice in prisons in England and Wales. Then random mandatory drug tests were introduced. Result? Heroin became the most commonly used drug in prisons, because it stays in the body a much shorter time. Epic win, obv.

Worth noting that roadside testing is only done for cocaine and cannabis. Because I can drive fine on shrooms.

Anyway, not intending it to be a drug policy discussion. Operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs should attract an immediate ban as a minimum sentence. More that it feels like we are on a step towards handing out criminal convictions for something with little or no benefit to society. Reminds me how a busted tail light can get you into prison in parts of the US...

Roadside tests aren't sufficient evidence for a ban, are they?

A positive will lead to a blood test, which has far better sensitivity & specificity.

stopped under the false pretence

Not trying to be pedantic, but the police have powers to stop drivers for any (or no) reason in the UK.

Sure. The blood test looks for a blood cannibinoid level greater than 2ug per liter.

The panel of advisors that the government used to help establish their new drug driving policy recommended 5ug as the lower limit as they felt that would catch the majority of drivers who were indeed intoxicated. The government ignored them. The new roadside tests, from a medical perspective, are likely to show positive 24 hours after using cannabis for a significant proportion of people being tested.

This observation further emphasises the massive discrepancies in stop / search etc too. POlicy makers are so far from considering themselves the demographic likely to be affected by these things - not because they aren't knee deep in marching powder, but because they know they'll never be targeted.

The police will absolutely never pull over a pink person with collar and cuffs driving a 3 ton Jag while they can hassle a brown lad in a Corsa... despite the fact that the Gieves and Hawkes guy is almost certainly constantly firing Plaster of Paris nose missiles. I'm open to correction but I have absolutely never heard of an inappropriate or unnecessary stop being afflicted on someone with a golf club membership despite the fact that these are precisely the people who have over cooked it at lunch, been doing lines all afternoon or prefer to drive to their country boozer rather than wait for a cab.

these are precisely the people who have over-coked it at lunch

Fixed.

despite the fact that the Gieves and Hawkes guy is almost certainly constantly firing Plaster of Paris nose missiles.

Cocaine is a drug taken by the younger demographic.

In the UK in 2017-2018, 2.6% of people aged 16-59 took powdered cocaine (as opposed to crack cocaine, the more potent variant of the drug, which was taken by 0.1% of the population in the same period), up from 2.4% in 2013-2014, according to Home Office figures.

More young people are taking cocaine than ever before: 6% of 16- to 24-year-olds have tried it, despite the fact that, overall, fewer young people take drugs in general. It is also likely that Home Office figures, which often exclude students, prisoners and homeless people, underestimate cocaine use because those groups typically have above-average illegal drug use.

There are a lot of teenager drug related stop and searches in =poorer= areas of Belfast, as drug use is more =visible= there.

Near my way kids have been using nitrous in the park, in other parts the paramilitaries are drug dealing, none of those areas of Belfast are rich parts and so the low income parts get it again. It is not racially targeted here, but I doubt the teenagers in richer areas get lots of stop/searches going on as drug use there is probably indoors.

Of course people have to put up with the hassle/are worried about the kids, but the PSNI isn't the way to deal with this and in effect "drug use" becomes code for "those parts of Belfast"...

In this case I don't think the NI politicians are big drug users (though what the DUP is on, we'll never know ;) those searches/lack of a drug policy reinforce socio-economic issues though.

Are those not two different measures? The first one seems to be phrased as if it was only counting use in the past year. The second counting any previous use.

All I'm saying is that if our law makers friends, families and colleagues were targeted in proportion to drug intake rather than demographics of race or welfare things would be a lot fairer.... but there's a class of people who despite being rampant drug / drink drivers are not systemically pulled over. Which I'm aware is stating the obvious but it really pisses me off.

My port wine faced uncle habitually drives way over the limit - cos the law doesn't apply to him.

but there's a class of people who despite being rampant drug / drink drivers are not systemically pulled over.

This in spades. I'd be significantly less irked if the new drug driving law relied on genuinely random stops rather than "driving while black".

Edit:

You hear about it all the time. People being pulled over because the police officer says the car smelled of weed as it passed. Search shows nothing. Dogs brought in. Dog search finds nothing. No drugs found? Let's breathalyse! No alcohol? Let's try cocaine and cannabis tests! Spliff 15 hours ago? 12 month driving ban, £1,000 fine and criminal record.

Totally agree: Even if it doesn't intentionally target certain demographics, in effect some demographics do get checked more often and you cannot excuse that with "but that lot is more unsafe" unless you back it up with hard data, which I guess doesn't exist.

If somebody is a danger they really should be checked out, and the focus on weed is also probably leading to a lot of bias, driving while drunk/merely not paying any attention whatsoever/with expired license/insurance is probably a lot more common.

Roughly 20,000 people are banned due to drug driving each year. The number of people banned in total for all offences hovers around 120,000 people annually.

Possession of banned drugs is illegal, being under the influence while driving is illegal

Not sure consuming drugs is illegal, so tests that show someone has taken a drug, but doesn’t discern whether it’s a sufficient amount to impair driving is going to be a great test.

Pretty sure taking drugs IS illegal in the UK. I guess you might have just returned from somewhere where it is legal and still have legal traces in your system.

It is definitely not an offence to take illegal drugs in the UK. None of the three main drug laws contain any reference to the taking of drugs.

Is there an equivalent of NORML here in the UK?

Well IANAL, but gov.uk seems to think it is -

Drugs penalties
You can get a fine or prison sentence if you:

take drugs
carry drugs
make drugs
sell, deal or share drugs (also called ‘supplying’ them)

What if you were just out for a drive to check that the drugs hadn't made you unfit to drive?

A proper sorrynotsorry from Starkey. Doesn't matter, he's finished - ludicrous that it's took this long:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jul/06/david-starkey-says-sorry-for-deplorably-inflammatory-remarks

Would appreciate a lawyer"s input on that because the misuse of drug act does not specify taking drugs as a crime. I wonder which law it is a crime under?

Possibly wrapped up in what the established interpretations not "possession" is.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had been deemed that taking drugs counted as possessing them.

Although, I'm not sure how that would work in the event of being spiked.