# Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appearance.



## Leon76 (21 Feb 2009)

My brother was caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in his car over a year ago. 

The Garda at the time brought him to the local garda station where a blood sample was taken. 

A number of months later he received in the post the results which showed he has traces of spamspamspam in his system. His summons has been issued/delivered and he will appear in court next week. 

He has to use a barrister from the area where the case is (Mullingar-so he was told) heard.

This man has told him he has no chance of getting off on any technicality. 

He also told him he'd get 4-6 years of the road. 

Does anyone know or have knowledge of similar cases in the past. 

Advice would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## j26 (21 Feb 2009)

*Re: Court case for failing a blood test........*

I think your brother has already had advice particular to his situation.  He's unlikely to get better here.

Whatever the merits, I'd say a judge is likely to go a bit harder on him as it's spamspamspam rather than alcohol.


----------



## Sully1 (21 Feb 2009)

*Re: Court case for failing a blood test........*

In Mullingar - I'd recommend throwing himself on the mercy of the courts and apologising profusely to the judge and saying hes learnt his lesson, stopped teh hash and will never ever do it again. The judge there shows very little mercy especially for drugs offences


----------



## jhegarty (21 Feb 2009)

*Re: Court case for failing a blood test........*

It's an automatic four-year drive ban afaik.


----------



## ajapale (21 Feb 2009)

*Re: Court case for failing a blood test........*

What is he charged with?


----------



## McCrack (21 Feb 2009)

*Re: Court case for failing a blood test........*



jhegarty said:


> It's an automatic four-year drive ban afaik.


 
Correct and the Judge has no discretion. It's harsh in my opinion.

I'm aware of a recent drug-driving case where the defence asked that the person from the medical bureau that tested the sample be present for cross-examination. The State was unwilling (for reasons I dont know) and the matter was struck out on consent as a result.

There's no harm in your brother through his legal representives to bring the State to proof. I assume that his solicitor got all statements/custody records and a precis from the arresting Garda. It's a matter now for him and his advisers.


----------



## Leon76 (23 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

Thanks for your help. Praying things go ok.


----------



## UptheDeise (23 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

Does anyone know how long spamspamspam lasts in your system? 

The only thing I think your brother can do is owe up and throw himself at the mercy of the courts.


----------



## mathepac (23 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



UptheDeise said:


> Does anyone know how long spamspamspam lasts in your system? ...


That depends on  a number of variables, (medical issue, won't get into it) but an individual can test positive for anything up to 4/5 weeks.


----------



## Pique318 (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

Or even up to 10 weeks. Having it in his system means nothing apart from the fact that he smoked it at some point in the previous 3 months, and the tester would likely be forced into making this admission under oath.


----------



## Tomodinhio (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

he could state he was a victim of the local authorities inability to fill in the pot holes.


----------



## PetrolHead (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



mathepac said:


> That depends on  a number of variables, (medical issue, won't get into it) but an individual can test positive for anything up to 4/5 weeks.






McCrack said:


> I'm aware of a recent drug-driving case where the defence asked that the person from the medical bureau that tested the sample be present for cross-examination. The State was unwilling (for reasons I dont know) and the matter was struck out on consent as a result.



Surely this is the area to concentrate on. The medical bureau should be pressed into defining the effect the level of spamspamspam he had in his system would have on his ability to control the car. Force them to prove scientifically that he was unfit to drive. 

I bet they can't!


----------



## mathepac (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



PetrolHead said:


> ... The medical bureau should be pressed into defining the effect the level of spamspamspam he had in his system would have on his ability to control the car. Force them to prove scientifically that he was unfit to drive...


That's nonsense. Its an illegal substance and the level is zero for driving, just as in other jurisdictions the alcohol level for learner permit holders and newly qualified drivers is zero.


----------



## jhegarty (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



mathepac said:


> That's nonsense. Its an illegal substance and the level is zero for driving, just as in other jurisdictions the alcohol level for learner permit holders and newly qualified drivers is zero.




You better let this judge know :
[broken link removed]


----------



## mathepac (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



jhegarty said:


> You better let this judge know :
> [broken link removed]


Great consistency displayed by the judge.


----------



## z103 (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



> Its an illegal substance and the level is zero for driving, just as in other jurisdictions the alcohol level for learner permit holders and newly qualified drivers is zero.


Illegal in ireland.(even though fags and booze are perfectly legal)
He could have gone over to Amsterdam and had tea and cakes the week before.


----------



## truthseeker (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



mathepac said:


> That's nonsense. Its an illegal substance and the level is zero for driving, just as in other jurisdictions the alcohol level for learner permit holders and newly qualified drivers is zero.


 
The testing for spamspamspam in your system doesnt give any indication of the amount in the blood - its not like the blood alcohol test.
You could have smoked 1 spliff 4 weeks ago and have it show up in your blood yet be perfectly fit to drive on the day in question.
Plus - as Leghorn says, he could have consumed it in a jurisdiction where it is legal.


----------



## Latrade (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



truthseeker said:


> The testing for spamspamspam in your system doesnt give any indication of the amount in the blood - its not like the blood alcohol test.
> You could have smoked 1 spliff 4 weeks ago and have it show up in your blood yet be perfectly fit to drive on the day in question.
> Plus - as Leghorn says, he could have consumed it in a jurisdiction where it is legal.


 
I'm surprised if this is the case as any person testing for intoxicants compares the results to an agreed european standard. In effect you can only state there is a positive result when it is above a certain concentration. The agreement is that, firstly, it is debateable whether below that concentration merits the term "intoxicated" and secondly, illiminates the accidental or historical presence of the substance.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that any lab set up to test for intoxicants on a workplace basis uses this standard. The Alstom case in the labour court:
http://www.independent.ie/national-...om-drug-test-should-get-job-back-1297135.html

based its judgement in part on the notion that a zero level is unfair (that and zero wasn't part of the agreement).

I know there is a difference between the workplace and driving. Plus as it is an illegal substance it would be a hyporcritical to make it an offence to be in possession and distribution, but to define a "safe" limit in order to drive.


----------



## McCrack (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



truthseeker said:


> The testing for spamspamspam in your system doesnt give any indication of the amount in the blood - its not like the blood alcohol test.
> You could have smoked 1 spliff 4 weeks ago and have it show up in your blood yet be perfectly fit to drive on the day in question.
> Plus - as Leghorn says, he could have consumed it in a jurisdiction where it is legal.


 
Yes that's the big issue (and possibly the unfairness) with drug driving, once traces of a controlled drug are found in a person's system that is enough to convict. The law makes no allowances for the type/levels/capability to drive. A mandatory ban of 4 years applies too. It's quite severe considering the legislation makes no discretion towards levels like it does regarding drink in the system.


----------



## truthseeker (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



Latrade said:


> Plus as it is an illegal substance it would be a hyporcritical to make it an offence to be in possession and distribution, but to define a "safe" limit in order to drive.


 
I agree with this point but as pointed out earlier - he could have consumed it in a place where it was legal to do so in which case the 'safe' limit is relevant.


----------



## truthseeker (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



McCrack said:


> Yes that's the big issue (and possibly the unfairness) with drug driving, once traces of a controlled drug are found in a person's system that is enough to convict. The law makes no allowances for the type/levels/capability to drive. A mandatory ban of 4 years applies too. It's quite severe considering the legislation makes no discretion towards levels like it does regarding drink in the system.


 
Agreed - but if the legal system were to be overhauled to actually take into consideration that a man smoking 1 spliff 4 weeks ago is safe to drive today then youd have all the do-gooders jumping up and down convinced that Ireland was about legalise the sale of crack cocaine in every supermarket.


----------



## Pique318 (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



truthseeker said:


> Agreed - but if the legal system were to be overhauled to actually take into consideration that a man smoking 1 spliff 4 weeks ago is safe to drive today then youd have all the do-gooders jumping up and down convinced that Ireland was about legalise the sale of crack cocaine in every supermarket.


 And in school canteens in place of chips !

You hit a very big nail on the head there TS.


----------



## mathepac (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



leghorn said:


> Illegal in ireland.(even though fags and booze are perfectly legal)
> He could have gone over to Amsterdam and had tea and cakes the week before.


Following this rather perverted logic, if he'd got drunk on the plane back from Amsterdam instead of having the tea and cakes, does that mean he can legally drive and avoid a drunk-driving conviction because the consumption was outside the jurisdiction?


----------



## truthseeker (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



mathepac said:


> Following this rather perverted logic, if he'd got drunk on the plane back from Amsterdam instead of having the tea and cakes, does that mean he can legally drive and avoid a drunk-driving conviction because the consumption was outside the jurisdiction?


 
There is a difference between alcohol in someones system and residue (or trace as the original post stated) of spamspamspam in someones system - one may impair the ability to drive, the other doesnt.


----------



## mathepac (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



truthseeker said:


> There is a difference between alcohol in someones system and residue (or trace as the original post stated) of spamspamspam in someones system - one may impair the ability to drive, the other doesnt.


Based on what research or authority?


----------



## truthseeker (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



mathepac said:


> Based on what research or authority?


 
I dont need research or authority for this piece of common knowledge.

Are you suggesting that 1 spliff 4 weeks previously (which would show up as a trace in a test) would impair someones ability to drive - 4 weeks later?

If you would like a link to back this up (despite it seeming common knowledge to me perhaps this is not the case for everyone):
http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index19034EN.html



> It is not easy to prove scientifically that a person was actually under the influence at the time of driving, ie their skills were affected but the alternative approach, to penalise levels of detection (the “zero tolerance” approach) means the driving may not have been affected at all, as some metabolites may be detected for days or even weeks after taking the drug. In addition, some laws provide for a driver to be adversely affected, whereas others may simply mention being under the influence – this latter clause could theoretically justify punishment of a person who has taken a controlled substance in order to be well enough to drive a vehicle.


 
Your comparison about being drunk on the plane from Amsterdam does not campare the same thing.
If he got drunk on the plane back from Amsterdam and then drove 4 weeks later having imbibed no alcohol in between then should he be done for drink driving on the later date? Thats a comparable situation.


----------



## McCrack (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

I'm with you on this truthseeker, it's an anomaly in the present Road Traffic legislation that drug driving is prosecuted without consideration given to the quantities which should be reflected in the penalties as is the case with drink driving.

I'm not condoning either action but I'm pointing the present unsatisfactory state of the legislation.


----------



## blackbrera (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

Completely agree with Truthseeker on this.

The problem is that to propose a reasonable attitude to the particaulr drug use, risks the hysterical reaction of some who would see that as encouraging general and widespread drug use.


----------



## mathepac (24 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



truthseeker said:


> I dont need research or authority for this piece of *common knowledge*...


The preferred citation of the factually challenged. 

Here's another piece of "common knowledge" - spamspamspam is legal in the Netherlands, as implied in this post - 


leghorn said:


> Illegal in ireland... He could have gone over to Amsterdam and had tea and cakes the week before.


The Dutch authorities are soft on enforcement but that's not the same as possession, cultivation, importation, sale, etc. being legal in the Netherlands. None of the laws have been repealed there and proposals for legislative reform in relation to spamspamspam have slowed down since 2004.

As per my previous post, spamspamspam is a controlled substance here, so the higher the penalties for drivers testing positive for it the better - zero tolerance and the sooner any legislative or judicial "wriggle-room" is closed off the better, IMO. Drivers know the possible penalties on conviction, so on their own heads be it.


----------



## PetrolHead (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



mathepac said:


> Here's another piece of "common knowledge" - spamspamspam is legal in the Netherlands, as implied in this post -




Possibly inferred but not implied... certainly not if you are in any way familiar with Amsterdam. 

Mathepac, I think your argument is a little reactionary. We all accept that spamspamspam is illegal in Ireland and if we choose to enjoy it we are fully aware of the potential penalties attached to this. 

In the situation described by the OP we are looking at a twist in the law that is unacceptable and should be challenged in court at the first opportunity. 

We are not looking for leniency... if someone smokes a spliff and then immediately gets into a car they are as stupid as a driver on 6 pints... but the physical effects of spamspamspam only last a few hours, and if an individual is driving the day after (or, as has been discussed, up to four weeks later for trace amounts) then a blood test will show up the substance but not demonstrate and incapacity. 

It's this inconsistency that needs to be addressed.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



PetrolHead said:


> We are not looking for leniency... if someone smokes a spliff and then immediately gets into a car they are as stupid as a driver on 6 pints... but the physical effects of spamspamspam only last a few hours, and if an individual is driving the day after (or, as has been discussed, up to four weeks later for trace amounts) then a blood test will show up the substance but not demonstrate and incapacity.
> 
> It's this inconsistency that needs to be addressed.


 
I agree.

Just from a practical viewpoint - it seems silly to heavily penalise someone who is not actually 'under the influence' of an illegal drug but who may have traces left in the bloodstream some time after use. 

Zero tolerance is an unfortunate reaction of those who are ignorant to the impact of various different drugs on the body. They cannot all be lumped into the same boat as each other (or as alcohol for that matter) - as they do not all have the same effect or last for the same length of time.

For a simple analogy its a bit like the penalty being the same for someone who shoots someone in the arm with a standard gun and someone who blows someone and their home away with a rocket launcher. Both items are illegal but both have very different impacts and effects.


----------



## RSMike (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



Leon76 said:


> My brother was caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in his car over a year ago.
> 
> The Garda at the time brought him to the local garda station where a blood sample was taken.




Would it be safe to assume that your brother may have drawn himself to the attention of the Garda in some way, i.e. was it really the case that the traces were in his system from some weeks ago?


----------



## PetrolHead (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



truthseeker said:


> For a simple analogy its a bit like the penalty being the same for someone who shoots someone in the arm with a standard gun and someone who blows someone and their home away with a rocket launcher. Both items are illegal but both have very different impacts and effects.




While I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment I think the analogy is a little clumsy.

... and having tried to think of one, I don't think an efficient analogy can be drawn.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



PetrolHead said:


> While I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment I think the analogy is a little clumsy.
> 
> ... and having tried to think of one, I don't think an efficient analogy can be drawn.


 
It is a clumsy analogy - but I cant think of a better one off hand either


----------



## DavyJones (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



RSMike said:


> Would it be safe to assume that your brother may have drawn himself to the attention of the Garda in some way, i.e. was it really the case that the traces were in his system from some weeks ago?




I too would like to know, Was the OP's brother stoned at the time of driving and why was he pulled over in the first place and searched.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

I was making the assumption that if the blood test showed only trace in his system (as per original post) then he wasnt stoned at the time of the arrest.
Perhaps the OP could clarify.


----------



## z103 (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



> Here's another piece of "common knowledge" - spamspamspam is legal in the Netherlands, as implied in this post -
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *leghorn* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=815134#post815134
> _Illegal in ireland... He could have gone over to Amsterdam and had tea and cakes the week before._
> ...


Arrgh! - How annoying! Why didn't you quote me properly? These were two different statements in the original.
I certainly was NOT impling that spamspamspam is 100% legal in the Netherlands.I went out of my way not to mention the legal status of spamspamspam in the Netherlands because it is such a minefield.

So much for your 'common knowledge' remark.


----------



## DavyJones (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



truthseeker said:


> I was making the assumption that if the blood test showed only trace in his system (as per original post) then he wasnt stoned at the time of the arrest.
> Perhaps the OP could clarify.



If he was stoned or not is somewhat of a side issue. the fact that you can get 4 years off the road for a trace of it in your blood is shocking. I'll be thinking twice the next time I get offered a pull on a J or a go on the crack pipe.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



DavyJones said:


> the fact that you can get 4 years off the road for a trace of it in your blood is shocking.


 
I agree - and Id imagine that a LOT of drivers would be off the road if the guards decided to test every driver for a trace.



DavyJones said:


> I'll be thinking twice the next time I get offered a pull on a J or a go on the crack pipe.


 
Crack pipe? Thats fairly posh. Do you not just use a dirty bit of tinfoil and a rolled up note like the rest of us


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

A bit more related discussion here BTW.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=92216


----------



## truthseeker (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

Thanks Caveat - will go over to other thread rather than drag this one off topic.

OP - given the discussion that has taken place here, I would be advising the brother to speak to his solicitor on the grounds that he wasnt 'under the influence' at the time (if he wasnt).


----------



## Seagull (25 Feb 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

How much passive smoking is needed to show up as a trace? I've been at concerts where other people were smoking nearby.When you're crammed in like sardines, there's not much you can do to avoid breathing in the fumes.


----------



## WinniePooh (6 Mar 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

You are all forgetting that the Guard has to "form the opinion" that the driver has consumed an intoxicant to such an extent to render him incapabale of controlling the car i.e. some reason to suspect the driver is under the influence - its only on carrying out a test which will confirm the presence of the intoxicant - when going to court the Guard will prove the presence of the intoxicant as well as how he formed the opinion that the driver was under the influence.


----------



## AnnieC (11 Mar 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

Apologies if I have this all wrong, but to the OP:  

Was your brother charged with posession of spamspamspam (as you stated in the title of your post) or was he charged because they found traces of it still in his system?

Surely the charge of "possession" would be more severely dealt with than if he was being charged with being under the influence?


----------



## octavia (9 Apr 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

I do hope you or your loved ones don't meet someone spaced out at the wheel of a car. Perhaps the lesson will do him and the motoring public some good!


----------



## Caveat (9 Apr 2009)

*Re: Caught with a small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*



octavia said:


> I do hope you or your loved ones don't meet someone spaced out at the wheel of a car. Perhaps the lesson will do him and the motoring public some good!



Who are you adressing this to?


----------



## kfk (10 Apr 2009)

*Re: Drug Driving: small quantity of spamspamspam in car, failed blood test, court appeara*

Why did the guard search the car in the first place? Surely he/she needs a reason to search the car.


----------

