Aus - GREENS' NEW RBT PETITION ASKS: WHY PUNISH DRIVERS IF THEY'RE NOT IMPAIRED

[poledriver]

GREENS' NEW RBT PETITION ASKS: WHY PUNISH DRIVERS IF THEY'RE NOT IMPAIRED

Greens MP David Shoebridge is getting pretty sick of the government's bulllllshit, particular their lack of scientific reasoning with RBT drug testing.

Why? Because the NSW State Government claims that cracking down on drivers with RBT drug testing is about safety, and caring for the public welfare.

So Shoebridge would like to know, why doesn't the government care about actual impairment?

When police conduct RBT testing for alcohol, they find your blood-alcohol level, right? This tells them approximately how wankered you are - they gauge the level of your impairment.

But with drugs, this does not exist. They simply test whether you have cannabis, MDMA or amphetamines in your system - even if you are no longer impaired by them.

So, if you smoked somethin' or took somethin' recently, and it's still in your system, you can lose your drivers license - even if you're no longer impaired. Like, imagine losing your license because you had a few beers yesterday arvo.

He also takes issue with the fact that testing only happens for those three types of illegal drugs, and doesn't test for legal or prescription drugs that can also easily impair you while operating a car.

Shoebridge has created a petition about this, and asks for NSW Police to better educate themselves and improve their testing procedures, much like the UK Government has. He also asks for police to do this before their plans to triple their amount of RBT testing.

He said this to us about the petition:

“The Greens support evidenced-based policing that detects and punishes drug impaired drivers on the road, but that’s not what we have in NSW. The Coalition government continues to fudge the figures and invest limited police resources in a programme that is arbitrary, unreliable and invasive.

The fundamental problem with the police roadside drug testing is that it has nothing to do with removing drug impaired drivers from the road. Testing for minute traces of just three illegal drugs at levels well below those that impair drivers is all about ideology and nothing to do with road safety."

If you'd like to read more, or sign the petition, you can here:

https://www.change.org/p/nsw-police...ce-free-roadside-drug-testing#petition-letter

http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts-...s-if/b9237ca0-6473-4bd2-a307-7e32f837ef63.htm

 

[DRUGZNOTHUGZ]

Is there a better way to drug test people? In which there's an accurate way of gauging how fucked up they are at that exact moment in time? Cos last time I checked, driving like you threw your set in the air and just don't care on shard was pretty fucking dangerous. Not to mention coming down off it. From what I know, alcohol just has a conveniently accurate and cheap way of testing for it. Not gonna vote these twats just cos they promise to let drug drivers off.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ I don't know for a fact there is a better way but the article implies the testing in the UK is more impairment oriented.

You seem confused. There is a very big difference between arguing that driving with drugs in your system should only be a crime if you are impaired by said drugs and arguing that there should be no penalty for driving whilst intoxicated. The greens are arguing for the former, not the latter.

 

[DRUGZNOTHUGZ]

I'm drunk atm, ironically, so forgive me if I don't present my case well.
No, I'm asking is there a way to efficiently test the difference between driving impaired by drugs and driving with drugs present in your system? Seeing as the article mentioned how the UK test their drug affected drivers like it's a model system, how can we change the present system of drug testing? Because I checked the links given and it didn't suggest a solution to that end.

 

[pofacedhoe]

uk is not a model system its almost the exact same bullshit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ten-motorists-failing-new-roadside-tests.html

 

[drug_mentor]

Not gonna vote these twats just cos they promise to let drug drivers off.

This is largely what I was responding to.

No, I'm asking is there a way to efficiently test the difference between driving impaired by drugs and driving with drugs present in your system? Seeing as the article mentioned how the UK test their drug affected drivers like it's a model system, how can we change the present system of drug testing?

As I stated in my previous post, I don't know the answer to this question.