• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    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)

Pleonastic said:
Any bluelighter that is stopped by the drug bus (and isn't under the influence and thus can't be busted for anything) should quiz the cops and find out as much as they can. It's probably the only way we're going to find this stuff out.
Click to expand...
although i say this may be where the only information comes from, you could anonymously ring your local police station after law is passed and speak to someone there that knows what the deal is. you are asking about new law, and they are there to serve the community..
 
I guess this paragraph answers one of the key questions people have about this:
Clause 4, Sub-clause 1

...

The new definition of "prescribed concentration of drugs" means, in the case of a prescribed illicit drug, any concentration of the drug in the blood or oral fluid of a person. This means that a person will be guilty of the new drug-driving offences created by clauses 7(1) and 7(4) if any prescribed illicit drug is detected in his or her blood or oral fluid.

"prescribed illicit drug" is defined to mean methylamphetamine or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.
Click to expand...
This means the law is going to provide for zero tolerance, and it doesn't look like the police will have any judgement powers to determine if you are genuinely impaired. And yes, this does mean that you can potentially be charged on the day after if you still have traces in your system but are otherwise totally fine.

The only hope is that the testing devices aren't calibrated to pick up traces and instead are designed to detect an amount significant enough to cause genuine impairment.
 
Here that drug syndicates start producing the lysergic diethylamide
Although you'd be much safer driving on meth IMHO, just to point out the stupidity of these measure and as if they will calibrate the devices to pick up significant amounts as to warrant impairment.
Army wide drug tests, roadside drug tests, workplace drug tests......... streetside and school drug tests are next mark my words, be afraid, be very afraid your civil liberties don't mean shit!
 
eughh i've been meaning to post up all the stuff i've read on this. however it's not all www stuff (OH MY GOD!! you mean you can find information OFF the internet?!?!) there's a few good medline reports on the testing of the machines in france that will be used here. also detailed analysis of detection of various drugs at various concentrations over different time.

not at home so don't have links atm...but form memory thc could be detected at 18hrs at 1ng detection levels. however the detection levels mentioned for use in australia are much higher than that. (also the hand held devices can't be that accurate i don't think).

yeah..anyways..search medline if your interested...otherwise i'll post links when i get home...
 
so does that mean that MDMA will be detected? since it has a methylamhpetamine compound or something in it(cant think of the specific word) or will that be not found
DfI;)
 
But it still has an amphetamine element to it, so i'd imagine yes.
 
yeah thats what im thinking but it isn't stated in the bill.
DfI;)
 
Yes Hardicus you are right in a sense. Most of the enzymes which metabolise MDMA and Amphetamine are the same or very similar. The tests use a fluorescent labeled antibody, which binds to either the drug itself, and or to metabolites themselves (which in vivo may undergo further breakdown by the same enzymes)

If an amphetamine was structured oddly, various factors such as the polarity of groups attached or molecular crowding (steric hindrance) may redirect the amphetamine towards an alternative route of elimination (and enzyme/s).

The body normally goes for the most energy favorable pathway. For pseudoephedrine, methamphetamine and MDMA this pathway can involve many of the same enzymes. As pointed out by Hardicus, the "isopropylamine" of the amphetamine molecules and pseudoephedrine form almost identical substrates (keys) for some enzymes or specific antibodies (sockets).

After hydroxylation of the aromatic ring, some amphetamine/meth is normally then metabolised by hydroxylating the 1st position carbon on the isopropyl side arm, thereby forming the same metabolite as pseudo forms.

These processes can occur in different ways in different people. However, I would not think this would have too much affect on the tests. Immunoassay traditionally employs 1 or 2 "modified" antibodies, where 2 different protein surfaces bond/bind with different parts of the metabolite/drug. It therefore makes the process quite selective, as no "light comes on if only the first antibody binds. Think of it as being like a double cut key, each with different cuts for different locks. The first antibody/enzyme fits OK, but the second which contains the fluoro marker does not. Therefore the test produces a negative result (no UV glow).

It's a pretty simplified description, but then again the principles are also quite simple. Some companies claim they can build tailor made enzymes/antibodies for almost any purpose. Yes that includes those for quantitative analysis of MDMA and other drugs, but so far in my searching I've only found suitable candidates which require lots of money to buy, and a -20 degC environment to store them. Still I don't think these areas will remain obstacles for very long =D
 
Last edited:
I can also see this producing a surge in the popularity of methylaminorex providing it doesn't produce a positive for the meth test, my question is because it can detect alpha-methyl-phenylethylamines, therefore methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine too but also any phenylethylamine in the 2C series, 2CB, 2CI, 2CT-2, 2CT-7 or DOM and DOB etc?
 
I am not sure if this has been mentioned before, but what happends if someone 'spiked' my drink at a club just before i was ready to drive home?

Surely i can't be charged for that!
 
my question is because it can detect alpha-methyl-phenylethylamines, therefore methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine too but also any phenylethylamine in the 2C series, 2CB, 2CI, 2CT-2, 2CT-7 or DOM and DOB etc?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't like to say no, other than to say all the relevant (PEA/AMPs)biolabeling compounds I've seen for sale from big companies (& that's only a fraction) have only listed Meth/amp with some including MDMA. I've not seen phenethylamines listed.

It's also possible the bulky groups on substituted PEAs could prevent binding to the amphetamine specific proteins. Phenethylamine is a natural endogenous chemical, and although mostly present in the brain, you wouldn't want too much of an immune response every time you fell in love.....but maybe it's what actually happens 8(
 
Last time I read the statistics
a blood alcohol level of .05 doubles
your chance of being in an accident.

If one was to try and reduce the fatalities
on the roads wouldn't one of the most effective
means be to have a zero blood alcohol, full stop, all drivers?

Wouldn't go down to well with the voters, methinks.
 
No, you're right - it would piss off a LOT of voters, but it would be safer... provided people obeyed that law. However, in my opinion it is not the law-abiding alcohol users who drive under or near 0.05% blood alcohol concentration that are the problem, so I don't think that changing the legal limit from 0.05% to 0.00% would change anything in terms of road safety or numbers of road fatalities in which alcohol is a causal factor.

In my opinion it is those who pay no attention to the 0.05 limit and drive regardless of how intoxicated they are, with no heed for the law at all who are the cause of this particular problem. The law exists to try and deter people from this kind of behaviour, but clearly it is being broken on a regular basis and this leads to deaths.

BigTrancer :)
 
Last edited:
ok, i just read the bill and was owndering if anyone could tell me if "Preliminary Testing" mean the random testing they are doing NOW, or the actual testing they want to implement LATER???
 
Judge Grudge

Big Trancer

I'm probably just sore as I lost my license for 3 months
for being at .055... pickin' up my car at 11.45pm on my
birthday after counting my drinks and using the standard
drinks table... thinkin' I got it right.
I was arrested, ect.

...It really pissed me off...

The judges words were 'if you waited 10 more minutes...

But as the government openly admits that .05 is still
twice as dangerous as .0, leeway would be nice
(for 'illegal drugs'; one that is a stimulant, one
[in my opinion] shown to slow and focus my driving).

If you weighed up the accidents of people
drivin' on speed or cannabis against those driving
on .05, which you think'd be higher?

UnS
:\


Yo, 2 years ago, the government had a team come up with
the idea that they could test for fatigue, and charge people
for drivin' under it, by using a gameboy-type machine that
tested people's hand-eye co-ordination.

That sounded fun.
Really, how much can you do?
 
But as the government openly admits that .05 is still
twice as dangerous as .0, leeway would be nice
Click to expand...
you do realise drugs are illegal don't you??
why would they go anyone leeway?!?!?!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top