h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ok, so the Forum is the place for sensible debate here on h2g2, or so I've heard. That being (hopefully) the case I'd like to just see what people think of this little problem my cousin is facing.

He's a 26 father of four with a heroin addiction, although he's now been clean for 8 months. His sole means of earning to support his family is through driving, and he works for his father's coach firm. However, he's attempting to start his own business and has just applied for his HGV licence. The thing is that on a drugs test which he had to take as a known heroin user, he tested positive for cannabis, which he has been using to help control the worst effects of heroin withdrawl and as such has had his drivers licence revoked. I was just wondering what the thoughts are of people on the authorities allowing him to keep his driving licence for all the years he was using heroin, but taking away his sole means of income when he attempts to better himself.

Don't feel you have to hold back or skirt the issue, as anything you could possibly think or say about him, I've probably thought the same or worse at some point. I just think that this time the authorities are wrong and he should be allowed some leeway as he's committed to recovering from a very insidious and harmful addiction.

Psyc.

The authorities are probably going by the book, and will be reluctant to make what they would undoubtedly consider an exception.

Would it be feasible for your cousin to take the drugs test again, perhaps in a few weeks? This would allow him time to detoxify his system.
With a proper cleansing diet and exercise, it is possible to remove all traces of cannabis over a period of three to four weeks. His hair may retain signifiers, but a very close haircut would take care of that one

For what it's worth, I do think the authorities are wrong. But then, I think weed is relatively harmless, and should not be classified as an illegal substance.

Good luck to your cousin. I admire anyone who can put that needle away for good.

It just strikes me as strange that for the years he was using, and claiming benifit and committing crimes that he was allowed to remain in posession of his licence, but when he comes off heroin and stops claiming benifits and tries to set up his own way of supporting his family they throw the book at him.

I think he's appealing it and isn't touching any of the dope.

Who was it said, 'the law is an ass'?

I worked in the local justice system for nearly 12 years. It was the insufferable bureaucracy which finally exceeded my tolerance, and I resigned.

btw, you or your cousin may find this useful: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing_faq.shtml#6

No, it's not fair. He should never have been allowed to keep his licence when he was on heroin.

I made the mistake of driving whilst stoned once. Never again.

I am apalled at the idea of a coach or truck driver being on the roads whilst on drugs.

I'm actually really angry that you think it's relevant that he has a family to support. This guy has put himself first every time and, even though he knew he had to take a drugs test, he continued to use cannabis at least up until a few weeks before the test.

I agree that weed can be harmless, but NOT while you're driving.

I think it is right that they should take away his licence if he is smoking pot and driving - particularly if he was wanting to drive HGVs. In this case what happened before is irrelevant, although I'm sure they would have taken away his licence had the police had cause to test him and found him positive for heroin while driving.

It is a shame that this means he can't do what he sees as the only means of supporting his family, but the state has to consider the risk he poses to other road users if driving while on cannabis.

If you are saying that he stopped the pot some time ago and it just hasn't cleared his system then that is different and an appeal when it has quit his system would be worthwhile.

The authorities didn't 'allow' him to keep his licence while on heroin - they just didn't catch him at it.

I admire that he's attempting to get completely clean & start a new career. However drugs & driving are not compatible with safety. The authorities are right to deny him a licence.

Does he really 'need' cannabis, or could he be helped some other way? Is there some other work he could do that doesn't require a driving licence?

Basically, he's uneducated and in the main unskilled. My mum summed it up this morning when she said "he can drive or he can steal, and they're not letting him drive..."

Sadly for him, that is still no reason to allow someone who is using drugs to be in control of at least a ton of fast-moving metal on a public highway.

And that's just turning things round to blame someone else. There are more jobs than driving. Unskilled work is ten - a - penny. Get a ladder and a chamois and wash windows. Hang around building sites and get a labouring job.

*He* closed the door on driving, no-one else.

Trying to be positive, get a job as a drivers mate. Go clean for a year and be in a position to take any opportunities that come up.

I suppose not. I just sort of feel sorry for him. When he was stealing and using he somehow managed to get away with it all time after time. He stops and then gets punished. I guess it's sod's law or karma or something...

I'd have thought that in a *general* case the significant thing should be whether someone was intoxicated while driving.
There's all the difference in the world between someone driving within X hours or a heavy smoking session, someone driving the day after having an odd puff the evening before, and someone driving many days or weeks after last smoking anything.
In terms of road safety, there seems to me to be no difference between someone being found to have miniscule traces of cannabis in their system from smoking days or weeks before and someone known to drink alcohol in the evenings - the question is not whether someone did have anything intoxicating in their system, but whether they still do.

However, in the specific case, I'd wonder whether people might reasonably be concerned that if smoking pot was being used as some kind of self-medication, that there might be a significant risk that it *wouldn't* be clear of his system when he was driving.

I can see an argument for stricter standards for professional drivers of heavy vehicles than might be applied to a regular car driver, possibly even making a HGV/PSV licence dependent on regular testing, but if his regular car-driving licence was revoked for traces of cannabis being found in his system, that could be seen as a bit harsh given the number of other people who must be driving with traces in their systems which aren't affecting *their* driving.

Are the current tests simply yes/no ones for the presence of cannabis, or do they give some indication whether someone is likely to be impaired?

Wait a second *millions* of people smoke cannabis on a regular basis.

I merely having enough gear in your blood to fail a drugs test disqualifies you from driving thewn vast quantitys of people should be in-eligible.

Cannabis stays in the blood for weeks, which is why for example all the druggie service men I know wont touch it but will do cocaine and ecstacy.

"Are the current tests simply yes/no ones for the presence of cannabis, or do they give some indication whether someone is likely to be impaired?"

It's yes/no.

My immediate reaction to post 1 was that if your cousin knew he had a drug test coming up he should have de-toxed totally and stopped the weed smoking for awhile beforehand (as Tal suggested).

I wonder what the reaction by the authorities would have been if they'd found methadone in his system? It is often used as a prescription substitute for heroin addicts. Apparently finding traces of alcohol in someone's system does not result in having one's license revoked, as long as they weren't driving at the time they were hauled in for testing, so it does seem unfair that traces of cannabis should have ended up with him losing his license.

One worrying thing (that others have also commented on) is that he might be smoking cannabis *while* he's working ... which is a similar offense to driving while drunk (and for good reason).

Might he consider a methodone-treatment programme? And then go back for another test in a month or so? Though if he has really been totally off the heroin for eight months a methodone-treatment programme wouldn't be appropriate. What about counselling?

The bottom line, as far as I can see from what you've told us, is that although your cousin seems to be getting over his heroin habit, he is still using another illegal substance to cope with it, which is not going to please the authorities. Especially if he needs cannabis to work ... obviously this is not acceptable.

<>

Absolutely *not* the only options he has. SWL has already pointed out that there are lots of other unskilled labour jobs out there. He is only limiting himself if he thinks driving for a living is the only thing he could do to support his family. Good heavens, there are tons of jobs out there - he could become a house painter, a construction worker, a warehouse worker ... the list is almost endless.

Meanwhile, an ex-heroin addict possibly high on cannabis is not the sort of person that should be driving anything at all (imho).



az

Slightly offtopic, I read an interesting point of view as to why cannabis is illegal. It can be found (yes, in French again, I know) at http://www.martinwinckler.com/article.php3?id_article=494 . The idea is that it comes from hemp, which is easy to grow about anywhere and can be used in a number of ways: clothing, building; the seed is as nutritious as soy; it has more cellulose (?) than wood, which could be good for making paper; it can be used for cheap fuel; you can process in into some environmental-friendly plastic.

One of the active persons to go on campaign against hemp was some counsellor of Roosevelt, leading to heavy taxes votes for hemp growing in the US in 1937. Amusingly enough, the following year, some close friend of this guy patented Nylon.

I could have a go at a full translation if someone's interested.

Back to the topic now.

It is totally unfair on me as a tax payer.

He could be doing semi-skilled work which he has the apptitude for instead because of the way tests for cannabis are used he will be more likely to end up in a less skilled and probably less well paid job. Which will mean the greater likelyhood of the state topping up his earnings and/or being liable to pay for any out of school childcare necessary for him to hold down said job.

Like others have said the tests do not say; so many parts per million and thus over the limit just that he'd had some in the last six weeks. Doesn't mean that he was driving round off his head.

It's all academic now fair or not, it is seems like bit of a done deal and I dont see much hope in appealing, but good luck to him.

I don't care if it's heroin, cannabis, alcohol or prescription drugs. People have no buisness driving while under their influence. I say this as someone who has been in pain for the last 35 years thanks to a drunk driver. I'm afraid I have a closed mind on this subject, and absolutely no sympathy for people who drive while high on their substance of choice.

To be fair, he wasn't driving with a spliff in one hand and a bottle of whisky in the other, he'd had a joint a few days before and when he applied for his HGV license he had to submit to a blood test as part of his rehab.

I do agree on your point though, I think the legal limit for drinking and driving should be lowered to nowt, not all this "oh, I can just have one" crap that it is now.