Ado Carr caught on coke again.

Low doses of cocaine will be detectable for up to 24 hours (higher doses for up to 48-72 hrs), so it's probably worthwhile separating out two things with regard to driving. Was JAC within the effects zone of the drug while driving? Let's call that "reckless" (and illegal). Was JAC driving while beyond the effect zone of the drug but while the drug was still detectable? Let's call that "stupid" (and illegal).

Unless it turns out a case of c) reckless driving - lab results to determine dosage and police report of degree of impairment - we only have a) second drug offense (doubly stupid), and b) stupid and illegal drug and driving behaviour.

Using PubMed, I skimmed two studies of cases of drug use and crashes. In lab work the median dose for impairment in crashes was 0.10mg/L, so we can expect that lab results will show if JAC's result suggests impaired driving. Below 0.07mg/L apparently means not impaired. Unlike alcohol, where there are prescribed limits - up to 0.05% blood alcohol concentration for fully licensed drivers - for drugs like cocaine it is zero tolerance. But that will mean cases where the driver is non-impaired but trace amounts still detectable = illegal (and I have no reason to disagree with that zero tolerance).

None of this is meant to dispute either a) the stupidity of a second drug offense, or b) the stupidity of not using Uber. But we should not equate it to, say, the Ezra Mam case - thereby adding c) reckless driving - until lab results show degree of impairment?

"Perhaps. As a club we don't owe anyone anything. We don't have to buy into woke agendas or anything like that. We only have to do what's best for the club and fans. Is JACs value to the club worth more than the reputational damage caused by his…"

"Only problem though is that the law is not written around impairment - it's based on the detection of the drug in a driver's system (usually through detecting its metabolites). So from that perspective, my understanding is that it's still a DUI and…"

Replies

- fishbulb > Sneaky Pete September 13, 2026 at 12:19pm
  
  LOL - MON is our version of the Canadian Mounties. He always gets his man...
Prof. Daz September 13, 2026 at 12:20pm

Low doses of cocaine will be detectable for up to 24 hours (higher doses for up to 48-72 hrs), so it's probably worthwhile separating out two things with regard to driving. Was JAC within the effects zone of the drug while driving? Let's call that "reckless" (and illegal). Was JAC driving while beyond the effect zone of the drug but while the drug was still detectable? Let's call that "stupid" (and illegal).

Unless it turns out a case of c) reckless driving - lab results to determine dosage and police report of degree of impairment - we only have a) second drug offense (doubly stupid), and b) stupid and illegal drug and driving behaviour.

Using PubMed, I skimmed two studies of cases of drug use and crashes. In lab work the median dose for impairment in crashes was 0.10mg/L, so we can expect that lab results will show if JAC's result suggests impaired driving. Below 0.07mg/L apparently means not impaired. Unlike alcohol, where there are prescribed limits - up to 0.05% blood alcohol concentration for fully licensed drivers - for drugs like cocaine it is zero tolerance. But that will mean cases where the driver is non-impaired but trace amounts still detectable = illegal (and I have no reason to disagree with that zero tolerance).

None of this is meant to dispute either a) the stupidity of a second drug offense, or b) the stupidity of not using Uber. But we should not equate it to, say, the Ezra Mam case - thereby adding c) reckless driving - until lab results show degree of impairment?
- fishbulb > Prof. Daz September 13, 2026 at 12:28pm
  
  Only problem though is that the law is not written around impairment - it's based on the detection of the drug in a driver's system (usually through detecting its metabolites). So from that perspective, my understanding is that it's still a DUI and it's still a second offence. We can't get away from that.
  
  I agree that the Mam example is not equivalent. Luckily there was no accident or injury caused.

of 15

This reply was deleted.

Eels Blogs