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

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

First time DUI (drug) charge.. any advice?

Verybuffed said:
That is interesting. I would like to know the real answer to the drinking question. I don't understand why driving under the influence of drugs isn't a criminal offence as you say in VIC.

Anyone in VIC ever been done for DUI alcohol?
Click to expand...

I'm just talking about failing a random drug test - that is quite different to being pulled over on suspicion and being charged with Drive While Impaired.
 
ayjay said:
I'm just talking about failing a random drug test - that is quite different to being pulled over on suspicion and being charged with Drive While Impaired.
Click to expand...

How is it different if your driving a car and affected by drugs in both cases?
 
^ because introducing random roadside drug testing in Vic was a world first. Civil libertarians and privacy advocates everywhere were freaking out. The roll-out was designed to minimise blowback - hence the choice of drugs to test for (not necessarily the most impairing), the fact that a positive result doesn't form reasonable grounds for the purposes of a search etc etc
 
ayjay said:
^ because introducing random roadside drug testing in Vic was a world first. Civil libertarians and privacy advocates everywhere were freaking out. The roll-out was designed to minimise blowback - hence the choice of drugs to test for (not necessarily the most impairing), the fact that a positive result doesn't form reasonable grounds for the purposes of a search etc etc
Click to expand...

I agree with what your saying there but that wasn't my question. My question relates to your statement that:

ayjay said:
I'm just talking about failing a random drug test - that is quite different to being pulled over on suspicion and being charged with Drive While Impaired.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the difference, in both cases it has been proven that a person has been under the influence of drugs while operating a motor vehicle. I am still unclear as to why you are saying there is a difference between the two instances you mention regardless of whether you have been pulled over or not?

And thanks for your input ayjay, we don't have roadside testing here yet and I am doing my best to try to understand the conditions.
 
PsiloSubNaut said:
^ No road side testing in the ACT, why am I not surprised!
Click to expand...

The legislation has been put through so technically we do. They are working out the issues with the legislation because as it stands it allegedly violates basic human rights. Apparently this is the same with all legislation Australia wide.

There was also a 2 year roadside testing trial conducted in the A.C.T. by the ANU.
 
Verybuffed said:
I agree with what your saying there but that wasn't my question. My question relates to your statement that:



I don't understand the difference, in both cases it has been proven that a person has been under the influence of drugs while operating a motor vehicle. I am still unclear as to why you are saying there is a difference between the two instances you mention regardless of whether you have been pulled over or not?

And thanks for your input ayjay, we don't have roadside testing here yet and I am doing my best to try to understand the conditions.
Click to expand...

The difference is in how you have been identified as being under the influence. Also - failing a random roadside test doesn't necessarily mean you are impaired - in fact they don't even care if you are. It's what is called "per se" legislation - directed at a population rather than individuals. It's using statistics about crash victims and drugs on board - if we reduce the number of people driving after using drug x, we will have less accidents. It's not really about whether individuals can or can't drive with amount y of drug x on board.

And it really is about the controversial nature of random drug testing - it would be politically dangerous to allow further (criminal) sanctions to occur to individuals after returning a positive random drug test.
 
Wow. I seriously didn't know there was a different charge for failing a roadside test and a different charge for being pulled over and tested in VIC.

I still think they both should attract a criminal conviction, especially if a drunk driver fails a roadside alcohol test and gets a criminal conviction. I am still having trouble believing this is the actual law in VIC. I assumed it would be harsher for drug users not the other way around.
 
Verybuffed said:
Wow. I seriously didn't know there was a different charge for failing a roadside test and a different charge for being pulled over and tested in VIC.

I still think they both should attract a criminal conviction, especially if a drunk driver fails a roadside alcohol test and gets a criminal conviction. I am still having trouble believing this is the actual law in VIC. I assumed it would be harsher for drug users not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough politics has a huge impact on policy :\

Note also the random roadside test does not check for impairment of individual drivers - you might come up positive for methamphetamine but still be perfectly fine to drive, for example. Note also that the most impairing drugs aren't even tested for (benzos, opioids) - because it's bad PR when Aunty Mavis ends up on Today Tonight bleating about "just taking my medication" etc etc
 
Yeah it can't quantify impairment. I don't think you'll go to court or anything.. in W.A. the penalty for a first offence for drug driving (presence of a prescribed illicit drug in oral fluid or blood) is 3 demerit points and a MAX fine of $200. Second offense your licence gets suspended for a few months and a higher fine. These are from a document in 2007 when it first came in so might have changed since then, but still, I don't think you will get a criminal record for it, it's in the same class as a speeding fine as far as I can tell, but I could be wrong. And the fine won't come til confirmatory results are back from the lab.
I am assuming you were done for driving with drugs in oral fluid and not actually a "DUI" for drugs? Can't see how/why they'd charge you with that if you just licked a pill, I'm assuming it was a saliva test, anyway the penalty for "driving while impaired by a drug" is an $800 - $2,500 fine and minimum 6 months suspension.

ETA: Current laws http://www.ors.wa.gov.au/Documents/... - August 2010.u_2870946r_1n_D10^23191884.PDF
Scroll down, down, down, to get to penalties. (I was wrong, there is some sort of mandatory sentencing for driving while impaired, the wording is a bit wishy washy though.)
 
Last edited:
^ No problem, have tried to find it a few times in the past out of curiosity, it is really hard to find, even the link to drug driving on the W.A. Police website is a dead link. Pretty stupid.
 
I believe the link that MakersTable posted from the Office and Road and Safety WA is accurate. You probably won't have a conviction on your record just a fine and demerit points.

I'd advise approaching the legal aid office and sitting down with them where they will probably explain to you the mandatory bits and advise you to go with a plea of guilty. Unless you feel like you need someone who is going to fight tooth and nail for you for a hefty sum just to annoy the magistrate over a simple charge i'd recommend the legal aid quite ample.

They will even assign you a lawyer for the time you appear in court if you don't wish to speak too much. Get 2 good character references ready when you appear in court as well and explain that you're repentant and have spoken to people regarding your remorse and even bring a friend who can vouch for you on the court date.

You ought to be able to get off with a CBO and a few demerits. All the best mate.
 
i've been pulled over before and drug tested on the tongue.. only thing i had taken that day was an anti-depressent

they said my test came positive for meth/cannabis.

i denied everything, they brought over the sergeant constable and i still denied everything.

they ended up letting me go... (even though it tested positive apparently)

i dont know if they were just trying to scare me or what..
 
A lawyer is a must in this case IMHO, I would discuss it with legal aid or even see if you can get a free consult from a legit lawyer.

My first offence I didn't get a lawyer, got a conviction. Later when I got done for driving while disq and faced jail time, my lawyer told me I could of got no conviction on that.

I can't believe we have random drug testing without a blood sample, what a joke. We all remember the first "roadside drug positive" of that poor tradie who got his face plastered all over the news and it turned out to be a false positive!

Also, I miss pinging off my face and getting pulled over, jaw sliding all over, eyes big as fuck and the cop saying through gritted teeth "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" "Nup!" Hahahah Good ol' days!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top