World Of Weed

The drug-driving tests in Australia have produced their first convicted felon. A man from Sydney failed a saliva test back in January. He’d been pulled over on his way up the F3 freeway and was tested by the NSW unit near Mount White, north of Sydney. The results proved he had cannabis in his system. He was fined $500 and disqualified from driving for 1 year.

The NSW random roadside drug testing unit was introduced in September 2006 and no other convictions have been made in the last 7 months. The unit was set up due to concerns about the growing number of drivers under the influence of various substances.

I’m interested to know the general feeling about drug-driving and testing. Currently, in the UK there is no definitive roadside test for any drug, although similar saliva tests are being developed and should be in use by the end of 2007.

Since we are in the World of Weed, let’s concentrate on cannabis for a while… Are stoned drivers a liability?

I’m sure there are many arguments out there from people who believe that driving after taking cannabis should be allowed simply because it’s not as dangerous as drink-driving. In fact, you may say that drivers under the influence of cannabis are more likely to drive conservatively. They will take fewer risks and they are unlikely to speed. Some reports even suggest that teh use of canna bis can reduce
car accidents.

I have mixed feelings about this. I know plenty of people who are perfectly capable of having a joint or two then getting behind the wheel and with whom I would feel safe and confident as a passenger. In fact, even though I myself have not been driving long, I reckon I’d be reliably alert and calm on the road after a toke. However, different people have different limits and different responses to cannabis. And I guess the main concern is that a stoned driver may take longer to respond to unexpected hazards.

It is proving very difficult for the government to set limits that indicate whether or not a person has taken too much cannabis to drive a car. As already mentioned, people’s tolerance differ greatly, and then there are many types of cannabis that have varying effects. Also, substances can linger in the system for varying lengths of time, depending on the person. A standard has been set for alcohol intake so breathalysing is an efficient test for drunkenness, but too little is known about the relationship between driving accidents and the presence of cannabis to draw definitive lines. How can a saliva test prove that one person is roadworthy and another is over the threshold?

The co-ordination tests that are already in operation are fairly effective. A copper can ask you to stand on one leg and count to 30 or touch your nose with your eyes closed. If you find these difficult, you really shouldn’t be anywhere near a set of car keys. And if we stuck to this kind of testing, it would allow people to make their own choices about how capable they are.

The obvious problem with this, however, is that left to their own judgements, people will often perceive themselves to be more in control than they actually are.

Perhaps the only answer will eventually be that drivers must be completely clear from cannabis and other drugs in their systems and therefore totally eliminate any question of liability due to intoxication.

Seems a little harsh but when you consider that a driver is (or should be) in control of a potentially fatal piece of equipment, the law can’t be too subjective. What does everyone else think?

I take my hat off to Patricia Tabram, the 68-year-old grandmother who was recently convicted of growing cannabis. After years of suffering side-effects from pharmaceutical medication for pain relief, this strong-willed, independent lady made the decision to medicate herself with cannabis. She’s not doing it to get high. She’s not promoting substance abuse. She’s not selling drugs to anyone. She’s simply looking after herself in a natural and far more effective way than the NHS could manage. And for this act of self-sufficiency, she is being punished with 250 hours of community service and a £1,000 fine.

Thankfully, Patricia hasn’t bowed down after her sentence. She has stated firmly that she’ll continue to take cannabis and she will appeal her sentence. She’s even prepared to go to prison for her cause.

Well, I hope this brings to light the sheer lunacy of cannabis laws in this country. Tax-payers fund the ever-dwindling government health system and here is someone who can take care of herself with no harm or cost to anyone else. Surely she should be revered as an example to us all! Soon enough, there will be no NHS and those of us who can’t afford private health-care will be feeling pretty sore. Anyone who is able to medicate him or herself should be encouraged to continue and to educate the rest of us.

And it’s not just a question of self-dependence. Cannabis is well-known to be a very effective painkiller with far fewer side-effects than pharmaceutical drugs. Patricia claims one cup of hot chocolate containing cannabis provides her with up to five hours pain relief and she feels no ill-effect from her regular intake. Compare this with an hour or two of relief using legal prescriptions that can cause irreversible liver damage… There really isn’t much choice, is there?

So we’re back to that omnipresent question: Why is cannabis illegal? Well, in this case, the drugs companies whose remedies the vast masses rely upon are lining the government’s pockets and therefore must be kept in business. If our population was allowed to begin using alternative, natural medication and cultivate it in an economical and environmentally friendly way, the corrupt power of our country would fall apart.

Go on, Patricia! Give ‘em all you’ve got! We’re right behind you!!!