• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    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)

Imagine the poor bastards who like a joint now and then... and won't be able to drive within days of having one.

Well fuck it, I think it's time to buy that limo I always wanted and hire a driver...

BigTrancer :)
 
BigTrancer said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

my point was, there are not too many of us that know someone that would not get busted for smokng a joint, or having a pill a few days beforehand!
and even if we do know someone, the chances are slim that they would be willing to rave with us pillers, just so we don't get done drug driving on the way home!

i like your limo idea!! might have to look into it!
just make sure you get a straight one(remembers ACA story about drug dealing limo drivers ;) ) hehe
 
I don't think we have an alternative, when the time comes, we need to devise an early-warning system for other drivers. In this age of the Information Superhighway and Mobile Telephony, I find it difficult to believe we can't come up with something to save each other's licenses. Especially with an overwhelming majority of regular recreational drug users having access to mobiles and computers.

Especially around the time of big parties, early-warning systems could definitely be a huge advantage. Ideas?
 
set up someone out the front of a party who is gonna leave before everyone and look for these tests then contact people at the party and tell them?
i dunno, i havent slept.
DfI;)
 
I think this will fuck the psytrance community worse though, as most places doofs are held aren't reachable by PT. Then again, supposedly LSD will not show up on these tests, so yeah...more people driving on acid....greeeat. :\

A query, since these tests aren't legislated yet, what would happen if you were to refuse to participate? Would they request a bloodtest (from which I believe you are not allowed to refuse without consequences)?
 
Having a chat to a friend of mine and he said that all this driving under the influence of drugs stemmed directly from the penington report into implementing safe injecting rooms for heroin. The idea was a radical one, and radical ideas do no get given the time of day under the right wing conservative Libour/Labral political super structure we have a present in Australia, especially those ideas about drugs which violate Needle-dick's (John Howard) tough on drugs innitative ie Zero Tolerance. Anyway i digress, radical ideas need a pay-off if they are to be considered, in this case the pay-off for supervised injecting facilities was a crack down on drug driving. Well several years after Bracksie backed out of the injecting facilities we have the politicians trying to implement this legislation under the veneer of harm reduction, which in fact looks like an open attack at maximasing the harm to drug users by subjecting them to the criminogenic interventions of the CJS.
 
would GHB show up on these tests?
if it doesn't i think alot more people who were driving would be using this on the night, myself included.....
but nothing has been totally agreed on yet? has it? it may get trialed then just never get put into practise?
my2c
DfI;)
 
*bump*
its coming so we might as well get used to it
DfI;)
 
Police to conduct random roadside drug tests
October 30, 2003 - 6:19PM

In an Australian first, the Victorian government today moved to give police powers to conduct random roadside drug testing.

Under legislation now before state parliament, from July next year roadside drug screening will be used to detect drivers affected by cannabis and speed with a saliva test.

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said drugs were involved in 27 per cent of road fatalities last year.

"It clearly indicates that the taking of illicit drugs is a major factor of similar proportions as the over-consumption of alcohol in fatalities on our roads," he said.

"The police will be given this equipment as new tools in the road safety campaign.

"It will be targeted to times and locations where it has been established that there's excessive drug use."

The screening will require drivers to provide a saliva sample by sucking or chewing on a disposable test cartridge.

Mr Batchelor said the test was designed to detect the presence of methamphetamine (the active ingredient in speed) and THC (the active component in cannabis).

But he said it would not detect over-the-counter and prescription drugs.

The initiative will be evaluated after 12 months of operation.

Source: The Age
Click to expand...
Lets see if I've interpreted this correctly...

It's currently draft legislation and is under debate in state parliament. This means that it's not in effect now but assuming that the legislation is passed then the tests will begin July next year.

Interesting.

I think I said earlier in this thread that these tests will encourage people to drive home during periods of heavy traffic. This thought is reinforced by the line "It will be targeted to times and locations where it has been established that there's excessive drug use". So in other words, if you're going to go out and get trashed, then wait until there are plenty of people on the road before driving home. Sounds like a bit of a flaw in the idea to me.

However this will probably stop a lot of people who would have driven that shouldn't be driving. So when weighed up, I guess it's hard to argue. I just hope that the powers aren't abused, that people aren't assumed guilty before being proven innocent, and that there aren't any false positive tests.
 
You've got to agree with the harm reduction basis of such an inititive, but the fact that one you can drive on alcohol slightly intoxicated, where as this allows no such buffer. This in turn creates a whole host of problems by accepting one thing and castigating another, prehaps even shifting the focus off drink driving which of course causes much more harm and onto drug driving. Then there is the matter of civil liberties, they are saying it is to prevent drug driving when in fact it provides the basis for 3 charges: the drug driving, use and possession. Then there are all the points you highlighted pleo. And these measures were supposed to be in pay-off for supervised injection facilities and do we have those? Nup. Fuck Bracks he's just a Kennett in labour and lebanese clothes
 
If it'll deter irresponsible people from driving whilst under the influence of drugs (ie to and from events), then i'm all for it. Its all well and good to bitch and whine about the inconvienience of random drug testing, but if it was your brother/sister/mother/father/friend who was cleaned up in a car accident by some selfish fuckwit who couldn't arrange alternative transport to and from an event, i bet the tune would change. Unfortunately i can't find it, but about a year ago there was a thread about a bluelighter who lost a family member as a result of a car accident with a driver under the influence of drugs.

Even for those that are responsible and don't drive under drugs, you must recognise that there are plenty of partygoers that don't have that level of maturity and think that it is perfectly within their rights to drive home when they are not fit to do so. In these cases, i hope that the law does step in to prevent these people from carry about with their own stupidity and selfishness. Its these weaker people with a nonchalant, uneducated attitude to the effects of drugs on their driving ability that puts consequences on all drug users. I'd suggest that we start viewing driving as a privledge and a responsibility before we start viewing it as a right.

I'm sure there would be some sort of cut off range, maybe a margin is included in the sensitivity of the test. As mentioned, a few medications may lead to a positive result. And like random breath testing, i'd guess that there would be certain peak times when these random tests would be dragged out. (ie late at night, early morning during the weekends and holiday periods). How many RBT's have been set up on a monday morning, nabbing commuters on their way to work?

Anyway, end of my rant. Sorry if i sound a bit 'goody two shoes'
 
Nope no cut off range, if you turn up positive to drugs your nicked for three offences not one. I agree with you had somebody close to me died then i prolly would change my tune, although i don't advocate driving under the influence at all. My point is however, would it really stop people from drug driving.... does the use of the criminal law deter people from taking drugs, No. Would people stop if they knew that they could still be done on the way to work on monday as much as they could leaving the club on friday night? Would people fearing the drugs bus stay awake even longer into comedown land just to be protected in heavy traffic where they are even more likely to have a crash from drowsiness and the increased volume of traffick? The are just to many problematic elements in this strategy to make it effective to do what it was designed to do and that is save lives. RBT shares little of these problems and as such is a workable harm prevention strategy, the drugs bus is not apart from being a violation of civil liberties.
P.S. I don't even drive so it's not like im arguing the point to save my own drug driving ways or that of my friends (they also wouldn't drug drive)
Wombat: ur a funny mofo!
Also while it is easy to conceive of rights only existing in the presense of responsibilities, they are two entirely different discourses. Although i'd agree everybody knows their rights, very few realise their responsibilities!
 
Nice posts Tabernacle! Very nicely put. I agree with your views on this issue.

BigTrancer :)
 
does any one have any info on WHAT exactly will be tested?
link maybe?

or if there is any acceptable limit?
 
Complete Random... this is the thread you were talking about:

Super Important - Drugs and Driving

Tabernacle said:
You've got to agree with the harm reduction basis of such an inititive, but the fact that one you can drive on alcohol slightly intoxicated, where as this allows no such buffer.
Click to expand...

I guess the problem still remains, these drugs are illegal, hence no buffer :\

You make some very valid points Tabernacle.

I personally don't drive under the influence of anything and do my best not to get in the car with anyone who has been taking anything. A choice which has seen me cop some flack from friends who think nothing of dropping 4 pills and getting behind the wheel. But I wouldn't be impressed if the test was to pick up substances at a level that saw you getting caught out days after you'd last consumed anything.

I would probably be more accepting of it, if extensive testing had been done to find at what level 'impairment' comes into it (like 0.5 for blood alcohol). But given the unpredictable nature of drugs, I don't know how possible it is.

I really don't know what the answer is for this one, but I don't think it would hurt to have more extensive driver education campaigns. Driving is a huge responsibility and far too often people neglect to realise the effect that any kind of impairment can have on them. Not only drugs and alcohol, but tiredness, anger, distractions in the car etc etc.

Stay safe guys :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top