Roadside Drug Tests - Twice in 1 week!!!

[staple_it]

WOULD YOU BLOODY BELIEVE IT….. I was pulled over once again on Friday around 1.30pm on Sydney road heading out of Melb. I thought I was fucked for good this time, as I’d been smoking spd that day and last hit was only one hour earlier.
Recognised the guy testing me so asked him if he had been on toorak rd last Friday night- answer: yes. Then he recognizes me. I ask how many drug buses there are in melb. Answer: one! Couldn’t help but laugh like a maniac. What are the chances ?!
As I sat there thinking about how the hell I was going to get where I was going & what story I’d have to make up, the test came up NEGATIVE.
Now, I have concluded that this could be due to one of either two things; the test is seriously flawed. (I asked and the officer said 48hrs is the window, but I’d been smoking it all day) OR perhaps the apple I just happened to be munching on at the time affected the results of the test.
I respect the fact that everyone has their own opinions on this topic, so I'm not going to start firing back. But I will say this, I believe myself to now be a responsible driver. Yes, I was younger and a whole lot stupider once, driving off my face and knowing full well I was. but I've woken up to the fact that i can kill inocent people and destroy peoples lives. so I now only drive when I believe I'm safe to. I think I'm the best judge of that, considering i know my body and have driven frequently in the past at both ends of the scale. If you disagree, I suggest you get the fuck off the road. (oops, maybe just a little fire)

In answer to some peoples questions about my initial drug bus encounter: First I was informed that I had tested positive for an illicit substance (the test given to me when first pulled over). Then I was told I had tested positive for ecstasy after the second saliva test I took in the van. Then further down the interview process I was told I’d tested positive for amphetamines/methamphetamines (not quite sure of which wording was used). It was more than likely due to the half a pill I’d consumed 5hrs before hand, but that’s a guess as I regularly use speed- to such an extent that I’d say traces of amphetamines would more than likely be present in my system 24hrs a day 7 days a week.
If I hadn’t been able to successfully provide enough saliva for the second test in the van, I was told that a nurse would be could in to take a blood sample. I even heard someone call in to have a nurse come to the van to take bloods from the person on the other side of the van.
I’m still awaiting the results of the lab test (they send the sample to a lab for testing) before I find out exactly what’s going to happen.

 

[hoptis]

Recognised the guy testing me so asked him if he had been on toorak rd last Friday night- answer: yes. Then he recognizes me. I ask how many drug buses there are in melb. Answer: one! Couldn’t help but laugh like a maniac. What are the chances ?!

LOL!

Maybe Victoria Police should give you a drug-bus membership? You've obviously earnt it. Next time just pull up, show your keyring and they'll skip the first couple of tests and just move you to the last one.

 

[mongman]

Your a testement to why they have a drug bus in Victoria now. Your actions could be considered an embaresement to every responsible drug user on this site.

Don't you think that driving under the influence of drugs is dangerous? You admited that in the past you have driven while very drunk, how can you see your recent exploits as anything but drug related versions of the same thing.

Perhaps you need to educate yourself regarding the dangers of driving under the influence of speed and other amphetamines. There are very good reasons the police are targeting this in particular... and its not because they make you more alert and in control of your vehicle

 

[Pleonastic]

If she's been caught twice in a week then at least they're putting the bus in the active places...

 

[shorza]

but I've woken up to the fact that i can kill inocent people and destroy peoples lives. so I now only drive when I believe I'm safe to. I think I'm the best judge of that, considering i know my body and have driven frequently in the past at both ends of the scale. If you disagree, I suggest you get the fuck off the road.

Let me get this right. You only think you are right to drive, when your meth-effected mind believes that you're safe to. So explain to me, what gives you the right to tell me to "get the fuck off the road"?

Anyone with half a brain would have learnt after getting caught the first time.

I hope you get punished to the full extent of the law!

 

[BigTrancer]

Punish them! Evil law breakers! It's dangerous and illegal! Moral outrage!

I don't agree with driving under the influence, but somehow I think flaming staple_it on the internet isn't going to make much of a difference in their driving habits if being randomly saliva-tested while under the influence twice in a month hasn't. Penalties exist as a deterrent to crime, and repeated crimes attract stronger and stronger deterrents... whilst at the moment the penalties for drug-driving in Vic are quite mild (slap on the wrist like a parking fine at best) it ramps up steeply with repeated offences. Moreover, keep an eye on those penalties because after the 12 month trial finishes they may increase.

BigTrancer

 

[its_all_goog]

Whilst I don't condone the actions of staple_it, i think the scariest part of this issue is the fact that these test OBVIOUSLY aren't accurate, yet they're still being used on our roads.
Personally, I'm not too keen on police using us as guinea pigs, because unlike animals we have livelihoods etc to worry about.

imagine if i'd falsely tested positive and received my 3 demerit point slap-on-the-wrist + fine. then imagine i applied for a job that required a police check prior to hiring. I wonder what the company's reaction would be when they saw a conviction for driving under the influence of drugs?

The way I see it, the drug testing regime is unconstitutional, because the state governement are using laws about drug driving to police drug use (which is not illegal).

I'd encourage people to write in to papers and to the minister if they're also worried by the inaccuracy (or any other facet) of the current regime. So far, I've been surprised by the lack of letters i've seen in the paper regarding this issue, especially since the government is set to announce whether the scheme will continue on a permanent basis.

You don't have to condone drug driving to speak out against this current system.

 

[dimmo]

The first guy who got caught, had a blood test and was cleared. I'm assuming this means his 'record' was cleared also!

 

[its_all_goog]

The first guy who got caught, had a blood test and was cleared. I'm assuming this means his 'record' was cleared also!

Sort of true...he actually had a THIRD saliva test and was cleared. This was after the first test came up positive for amphetamines only, and the second and apparently more precise test showed a positive for marijuana only.
Sounds reliable to me. How do we know the third test doesn't provide inconsistent results too?

Yes, he was eventually cleared, but I don't think we should have to drive in fear that we may be pulled over and subjected to a similar demeaning series of false allegations.
And while the first guy, John De Jong, leaves the experience with no police record, thousands of people remeber him as the 'drug test guy'. Charged, convicted and executed by the media.

Maybe it's about time to bring back witch-burnings?

 

[dimmo]

^
I don't know about the saliva testing, but I know (as long as we're talking about the same guy) the police had his blood analysed and he also had an someone analyse his sample of blood - and they both came back negative.

 

[dimmo]

Saliva testing is never used as proof. Saliva testing precedes blood testing (correct me if I'm wrong; that was my understanding anyway).

Same with alcohol. The breath test shows alcohol, but the evidence is the blood test, not the breath test.

 

[Fry-d-]

Thats how it goes dimmo.

They use the saliva test because its a quick indication on the side of the road. If you test postive the results are then confirmed with a blood test. They can't charge you based on the swab test results because they could be wrong, they can't blood test everyone as they drive by because it takes to long and well I don't think I'd volunteer a needle full of blood even if a copper did ask nicely

 

[BigTrancer]

Well, it's BLOOD alcohol concentration you're being charged on... so it stands to reason. There is no necessity for them to take a blood sample to charge you for drug-driving though, because there is no concentration of metabolites/active drugs measured. Only the presence of these indicators is required to charge you for driving while impaired. Personally I believe this is the largest hole in the saliva testing scheme.

All the drug bus would require is a separate 2-part saliva test taken after the initial positive reading. You keep 1 part, and they send off the other to a Lab for analysis. Your part, I'm sure they don't even care what you do with it, but it's in your interests (if you're not-guilty) to have it analysed privately to clear your name... the blood test is (according to media articles) only required if you fail to produce enough saliva in the bus while making the 2nd test sample.

BigTrancer

 

[its_all_goog]

thanks kindly BT for backing me up on this one.
a blood test is not part of the drug-driving tests, unless you refuse to give saliva or your mouth is too dry (!!) to provide an adequate sample.
all the press releases from VicRoads state this pretty clearly.

cheers....

 

[BigTrancer]

Well, that's the current status in Vic to the best of my knowledge - it's been repeated in the media recently here. However, I did stumble upon a paper in 2001 from a WA panel giving a review of roadside drug testing methods which makes a good read, and goes along with Fry-d-'s point that saliva/breath testing while you're in the car is always a preliminary (and quick) test, which when a positive result is returned, is followed up by a more reliable and sensitive test in the 'bus'.

Note the info in this paper may well have been superceded by newer research and reports on the impending introduction of drug testing due to the date of publication (2001).

Excerpted from http://www.officeofroadsafety.wa.gov.au/Facts/papers_2001/paper13/paper13.html

There are several methods for road side drug testing. The behavioural tests (eg. Field Sobriety Tests) are numerous including: horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk and turn, stand on one leg etc. They are in use in combination in several jurisdictions including the USA, UK and Victoria. They have been successfully validated by the US National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) against blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% (Burns, 1995). There is also a Drug Recognition Expert program in the US in which trained police officers achieve a high level of success in recognising the physiological signs of the presence of the major drug types. Again this program has been successfully validated by NHTSA. Both programs require well trained Police officers who undergo periodic re-accreditation. It is unlikely these programs could be maintained outside the metropolitan areas.

More recently urine, saliva and sweat testing kits have been introduced for the major drug classes (eg. Rosita). Urine tests by and large test for the metabolic break down products of the drug; they are thus even further removed from the drug’s site of action and the results are mainly a historical record of what drugs have been taken in the past. Positive urine tests are no gaurantee that the driver is presently impaired by the drug or even has much of the active drug in their blood. However, the tests have been well validated against the ‘gold standard’ of gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GCMS). Urine testing is unlikely to be popular at the road side although it is widely used in mining and transportation industries and standards (Standards Australia) for acceptable levels of major classes of drugs in urine have been agreed. Though the standards may say more about the technology than about impairment.

Sweat and saliva testing have more recently been introduced; the drug concentrations in sweat and saliva have a much better correlation with blood drug concentration than does urinary concentration. There is some validation data against GCMS for these kits. The kits are in use by the Police in some German states and Belgium. Some of the kits are clearly suitable for use in road side drug testing as a preliminary test to justify evidentiary testing. Some tests are quick enough to be used in the context of Random Breath Testing where the RBT result fails to explain driver behaviour and impairment.

Finally, the gold standard for evidentiary testing is GCMS of a blood sample.

Edit: Went back and found the Arrive Alive FAQ on drug testing.
http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugs_faq.html

7. Why are saliva samples being used to test for the consumption of illicit drugs?

Saliva samples are used because they are easy to collect and can be screened using a quick, easy and accurate method to detect the presence of THC (the active component in cannabis) and methamphetamines (speed).

8. How reliable is saliva testing for illicit drugs?

Saliva screening is an accurate and reliable method for detecting the recent consumption of methamphetamines (speed) and THC (the active component in cannabis). All saliva drug screening devices will be required to meet rigorous standards of accuracy. Before any charge can be laid, the presence of THC or methamphetamine in the saliva sample must be confirmed by laboratory testing.

9. For drivers who return positive results to roadside saliva tests, when and how will they receive results from laboratory analyses?

Drivers will be informed within a few weeks of the roadside saliva test being conducted that their saliva test laboratory analysis confirms an illicit drug was present and that they are to be fined or prosecuted for an offence.

10. Will drivers who return positive results to roadside saliva tests be allowed to drive before laboratory analysis of the test is complete?

Drivers will not be permitted to drive immediately after positive roadside saliva test. Drivers may choose to wait at the roadside until an illicit drug is no longer present. Alternatively, they can leave and return to collect their vehicle at a time which will be advised by the police. Once an illicit drug is no longer present, drivers will be allowed to drive prior to receiving the results of their saliva test laboratory analysis.

[...]

13. What if I am unable to provide a saliva sample?

Drivers who are unable to supply a saliva sample will be required to supply a blood sample to test for the recent consumption of illicit drugs. Authorised health professionals will take blood samples. There is also a provision enabling police to take urine samples for testing.

So I think ultimately GCMS of blood is the bees knees in terms of any chemical investigation of drug use, but analysis of an "oral fluid" sample can provide sufficient evidence to charge you with driving under the influence of drugs in Victoria at the moment.

BigTrancer

 

[staple_it]

Good news to all those whove "flamed" me for my drug driving: I recveived my penalty notice in the mail today accompanied with a toxicology certificate provided by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine stating that, using SIM analysis (selected ion mass spectrometry with gas chromatography) on my saliva sample resulted in the detection of 1000ng/mL of methylamphetamine. It will be recored as a conviction and I will be required to pay $307 and lose 3 demerit points.
I'll be fighting this just as soon as I've been to see my doctor and figured out exactly how.
I'll keep you all up to date as Staple_it fights to staple the penalty notice to the arse of the victorian police.

 

[BigTrancer]

Thanks for the update on your test results, staple_it.

BT

 

[igyzigy]

just a clarifaction - in this thread the word "conviction" has been mentioned a few times. Isnt it a traffic infringement notcie, and not a police record?

 

[dimmo]

To find or prove to be guilty = convict.

the act or process of convicting of a crime especially in a court of law = conviction.

 

[Pleonastic]

I'll be fighting this just as soon as I've been to see my doctor and figured out exactly how

Why? I thought you said you were actually guilty? Just pay the damn fine and try and learn your lesson.