• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NEWS: The Age 15 Sep 03: Random driver drug tests are on the way (Latest guess Dec 1)

I think that this is, as usual, just a bandaid approach, more useful for winning elections and raising revenue than providing any *real* safety benefits. If this does get implemented, all it will mean is that designated drivers will be "forced" to use drugs NOT picked up by the test. I'm sure there are any number of drugs that won't be able to be picked up that people will be able to use in the event that they will have to drive. And on the same tip, people will have these same drugs to take if they want to drive fucked out of their brain...I see no way that this will cause any drastic change to the safety of the roads.

Also, obviously these are gonna be set up at spots where they KNOW they are gonna get lots of positives (ie, the end of the road out of kryal, along the westgate coming form altona). IMO people coming home form parties (sleep deprived or scat) take as much care as is humanly possible when driving, especially from venues such as these. That is not to say it's safe, but IMO they're probably being more careful than the vast majority of drivers out there.

Sounds like it's time to bust out the Research chems =D
 
when it comes to discretionary levels, how in the HELL are they going to accommodate for toleration levels?

Ie - a first timer takes one pill and is peaking for 5 hours, feeling the effect for a further 3.
Then a long-term raver dumps 4 and is fine after the same amount of time. Guess which one will have a higher level of drugs in their body??
 
^^^ very good point from dexter.
agree with what everyone has said above. i think that drug testing drivers that are CURRENTLY under the effect is a good idea. However, they have jumped into this head-first. They amount of research done on alcohol levels before they started testing drivers was immense.
here they have gone and implemented a plan that looks great on paper, but they've forgotten to take in the 1,001 variables that WILL arrise in the tests.

"Up to 30 per cent of drivers killed on the road had tested positive to drugs other than alcohol"

what was the percentage of pissed cunts killing innocents mr. media?

one other thing, i'm guessing that saliva tests will pick up different levels of chemicals than that of a blood test. we all know weed is in you blood for a long duration, but what about saliva?????
 
Since it's the metabolites of THC which hang around; these being the things the antibodies (from immunoassay) attach to, THC will record on these tests. Of course they may use a system which employs a different form of detection but it's unlikely as fluorescence labeled immunoassy is pretty SOTA at the moment.
 
Officer: You fell asleep at the wheel, drove into the front of a church and killed eight people, what were you doing last night?
User: I went to a rave party
Officer: ...and what did you take at the rave party?
User: Three pills and smoked some meth
Officer: ...did you think that you would be fatigued after taking all these drugs and driving home
User: No, I was fine driving home, wide awake
Officer: ...and why do you think you fell asleep?
User: I dunno... maybe it was the four panadols, six sudafeds and bottle of cough medicine I washed down before driving home to beat the drug bus officer.
 
WA's approach to Driving under the influence is actually a lot more scary than it seems. They have rejected drug swab tests in order to push for blood testing. The blood tests follow a visual inspection. The officers will be trained to identify someone who looks like they could be on drugs and then your taken in and a blood test done.

I'll see if I can find the paper that was in.
 
^^^ shit. that's a pretty sceptical method, but then we just end up in the damn same round-about situation! How the HELL are they going to devise a method to know what level's of drugs in your system mean you're 'effected'.
another thing while on the topic...what if you have a massive 3 day binge of.......whatever you can find. next day or two, you're pulled up with levels in your blood off the scale, but of course you feel fine....this is frustrating
 
BigTrancer, I couldn't find the guidelines for this drug test on the Austroads website. I'm too lazy to keep looking. If you know the link to the specific page, it would be lovely if you could post it :) Ta!
 
It's gunna be interesting when the first rich kid gets done for drugs he used 3 days ago, and he gets daddy's high priced lawyers to get him off on the basis that the tests are flawed. It'll happen eventually, and hopefully the media will give it coverage when it does.
 
Poptart: What information are you seeking?

On a related note, I had a quick look and found the following information on the VicRoads website about penalties for drug driving.

Drug & Driving Offences


A driver licence or learner permit can be cancelled or suspended for the following offences:

1. Driving under the influence of a drug.
2. Driving or in charge of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug.
For a first offence, the minimum cancellation/disqualification period is 12 months. For a subsequent offence, the cancellation/disqualification period is two years.

3. Refuse to undergo drug assessment.
4. Refuse to provide blood or urine sample.
For a first offence, the minimum cancellation/disqualification period is two years. For a subsequent offence, the cancellation/disqualification period is four years.

Offences 2 & 3 & 4 above may be issued with an immediate suspension notice.
Click to expand...

BigTrancer :)
 
I wonder, if the penalties are similar for 3 and 4, would a driver knowingly under the influence be better off refusing the test, prefering instead to accept an automatic cancellation/penalty, rather than be convicted of driving under the influence of an illicit drug?
 
Dunno phase - I know that a lot of workplace drug testing policies state that a refused test is treated as a positive result. I guess the same deal would apply in this case?

BigTrancer :)
 
There are some people that believe drugs testing is an invasion of privacy though... I don't know, a sort of moral expectation if you will, that they don't need to be tested, them being what they consider upstanding members of society. I know people who blatantly refuse RBT, just because they think its an obnoxious presumption.
Quite stupid if you ask me.
 
The ACT Gov. is having a close look at how this works in VIC, and if all goes well is thinking of implementing it here soon.

DJC*
 
Hmmm, well as my brother put it last night "if you're the designated driver, you've got nothing to worry about", which is kinda the underlying harm reduction for which the police are aiming. While a 'designated driver' on a pub crawl can have a couple of drinks, and still be under the legal limit, in this case the designated driver would just have to ensure they were not using drugs. If the police will be showing up at prime locations to catch drug drivers, then regardless of the techniques, tolerances, and variables, if you've had no drugs, you will have zero to fear from these tests.

Might as well start getting used to picking a sober driver when you go out in groups, because these tests will not go away, and the methods of detection always get more sensitive. If a designated driver means that you have to leave a party at 4am to go home because they are tired... well I guess it's better to leave early than risk getting busted for drugs, or dying in a car crash because the designated driver has fallen asleep.

BigTrancer :)

PS: Maybe this is the signal for shorter parties and longer 'home recoveries'... hehe. Because you can still go out (and maybe have a few drinks) to socialise, and then wait til you get home and drop one.
 
i think what everyone is worried about here BT, is what if the designated driver had smoked some cones, or popped a pill 2-3 days prior to the event/night out, leading to a positive result!

would this show up on the test, if you had a cone 3 days ago, or popped a pill on the weekend?

because with most of the people that us bluelighters know, even the designated driver will test positive for cones or pills, even if they are straight when tested!

because i for one don't drink, so suppose i would be selected as the designated driver, but i would still test positive to drugs, even though i had them days beforehand!
 
That's the whole thing - designated driver means someone who is guaranteed not to get busted drug driving, not someone who is straight on the night but was high the day before...

BigTrancer :)
 
That however would put an end to home recoveries as we know it, unless people are going to stay over for three days before they drive home to their house. :\

Which raises another ironic point. Maybe it's better to wait until heavy traffic to drive home, because you'd be less likely to encounter a drug bus (those two minute waits for test results wouldn't work well in a congested area).
 
1. Driving under the influence of a drug.
2. Driving or in charge of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug.
Click to expand...

Anyone have any idea how influence vs impairment is defined?

Looks like this is a real zero tolerance rule...doesnt matter if you are 'effected' rather if you have used at all

While on the whole it is a step towards non-scat driving...it still has a lot of problems...and sucks the big ones for anyone driving home from parties/recoveries

on a side note...imagine the poor bastards that have a house party and then drive past a rave on the way home only to be stopped by the bus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top