NEWS : 5.6.09 - Drug test blitz

[kingpin007]

Drug test blitz

Liam Houlihan

July 05, 2009 12:00am

EXCLUSIVE: EVERY person admitted to hospital after a crash will be tested for drugs as police vow a zero tolerance crackdown to curb the rising road toll.

The new mandatory testing - of both injured drivers and passengers - is expected to boost prosecutions and convictions of drugged and culpable drivers who might previously have slipped through the net.

Starting this month, each road-related casualty admitted to hospital, previously only screened for alcohol, will be tested for cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamines.

The State Government has bankrolled the $4 million blood screening project and police expect it to lead to hundreds more drug driving convictions every year.

The compulsory drug screening move follows revelations one in five people killed in a motor vehicle collision last year were affected by drugs.

It also follows a weekend that saw the state's road toll overtake the toll for the same time last year.

Police said the reforms were brought in after alarming evidence highlighted the major role drugs played in road deaths.

Of the 332 deaths from collisions in 2008, one in five had illegal drugs in their system.

While the public is increasingly aware of drink driving dangers, police believe young people using drugs and driving are a silent, but major contributor to death and road trauma.

Victoria's head of road policing, Deputy Commissioner Ken Lay, said the state of our road toll called for the new measures.

"The road toll will always ebb and flow, but this is a big step forward and sends a clear message to drivers that substance abuse has no place on our roads," he said.

"It is blatantly obvious and alarming that one of the main reasons for these collisions is the fact that many people are impaired by either drugs or alcohol when they get behind the wheel," Mr Lay said.

"We are leading the world on this. We got the power for random drug testing years ago, but last budget we got funded to do the (hospital) tests."

Working Against Culpable Driving head Penny Martin, whose son, Josh, died in a car being driven by a drunk driver, welcomed the reforms.

"It's fantastic they're filling in the gaps. Nothing that protects the public from dangerous drivers is too harsh," Ms Martin said.

"Any driver involved in any crash should automatically have that done.

"If not, they might end up with a clean record and just go out and do it again.

"The focus should not be the rights of the driver, but protecting the public."

Mr Lay said forensic drug screening of all admissions would make the roads much safer.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25733761-661,00.html

 

[The-Munt]

The new mandatory testing - of both injured drivers and passengers - is expected to boost prosecutions and convictions of drugged and culpable drivers who might previously have slipped through the net.

What happens if a passenger shows up drug positive? Surely they can't prosecute on that basis!

 

[danzaman]

Interesting. Its not always clear who was driving the car, especially if there are ejections. These people tend to have more to worry about than drugs charges though.

I also have a vague recollection that the majority of drugs implicated in road accidents were scripted (ie benzos and opiates) - anyone have any information on this?

 

[kingpin007]

if passenger tests positive for a drug then the police would investigate if that person may have distracted driver causig the accident ... for instance you driving and person next to you does something stupid like punching a window causing you to lose concentration and causing you to crash and so on...

if you a passenger and you got drugs in your system then all police can do is see if you had done something in car to cause the accident ... other than that you cant get in trouble ...

 

[danzaman]

If you were a passenger in a car and caused the accident, I'm pretty sure you could be charged.

 

[marley]

A positive results does not prove intent to consume!

What if I'm out having a few drinks with friends. Suddenly I feel a little ill so I drive home. On the way I have an accident. Turns out someone dropped something in my drink without my knowledge.

Guilty until proven innocent = WRONG.

 

[danzaman]

Of course it doesn't But the very vast majority of drug use is consensual, and, when the police present a driver with their positive test results, I'll wager that the majority will not hide behind the piss poor excuse "my drink was spiked".

 

[drug_mentor]

It is pretty dodgy to test the passengers imho as that is irrelevant. I am for this because I don't think drugged driving or drink driving is acceptable really.

The main problem I see with this is the same as with the roadside drug tests, a positive result doesn't neccessarily mean that the driver was under the influence while they were driving. I think a few drug users who weren't actually intoxicated but who unfortunately get into some serious crashes are going to automatically get the blame for crashes that weren't neccessarily their fault.

 

[danzaman]

I'm not opposed to testing everyone in the car - but I hope that evidence is only used when relevant. In accidents where people are injured and require hospitalization, testing for alcohol is done at the hospital by staff, not the police. In an accident with multiple injuries, it is not always clear who is driving. Its for this reason I would rather that everyone gets tested, so that the chance of prosecuting a drug affected driver is not lost. The results of the passengers should then be discarded if it is established they had nothing to do with the crash.

I don't know enough about the science behind drug testing to say whether one can be genuinely unaffected and still return a positive test. For me, the tougher situation is that for full-blown addicts, its probably safer for them to be driving after a hit than when they are withdrawing.

 

[Jakeperson]

"The focus should not be the rights of the driver, but protecting the public."

The focus is really being drawn away from the rights of Australians at the moment.

 

[hoptis]

This has some pretty serious implications. Firstly, I assumed that any driver who is deemed the cause of a car accident that injures another person is always blood tested as a matter of course? Hospital or otherwise.

By this article I assume they now intend to blood test anyone involved in a car accident admitted to hospital; drivers whether at fault or otherwise and passengers.

So even if you do the right thing and have a designated driver to take people to and from a venue where drugs are consumed you can still get in trouble?

It's moves like that that suggest to the public that drug driving initiatives have less to do with road safety and more to do with fighting the war on drugs and making further, uninvited intrusions into civil liberties... in areas where they know the "mainstream" public won't care.

I'm not sure why they expect drug users to care about the rights of others when they're making it clear they think drug users have no rights themselves.

 

[kingpin007]

^^^

I was thinking about this more and when your driving and have nothing in your system but your passengers in car do and someone causes an accident with you being that persons fault to have your passengers and yourself forced to give blood tests and having you being totally clear but having your passengers go through bullshit and sent to forced drug Council courses and handed fines if they don't comply and what happens to you ?? you get fines for having drug affected persons in your vehicle or some crap and what happens to the person who caused the accident in first place ? Let off because passengers in your car were on drugs ?

I know police can cause trouble for you if your passengers are very drunk and so on if they are too noisy ... so I am thinking drugs would be higher category than that because drugs can make people do crazy things and being in a car they could say that is dangerous as passenger in vehicle may become hostile from drug taking and cause an accident also but then the courts have to prove you knew your passengers were affected by drugs which of course you would say no , so more trouble for you having to fight the justice system.

 

[phase_dancer]

It's moves like that that suggest to the public that drug driving initiatives have less to do with road safety and more to do with fighting the war on drugs and making further, uninvited intrusions into civil liberties... in areas where they know the "mainstream" public won't care.

And you can bet that such moves will be commonplace if its thought HR might gain some ground. It's all to do with association, be that direct or indirect. The passenger tested is then recorded as a drug user, and the driver, even if he/she doesn't use drugs, is recorded as an associate of a drug user.

Sobriety; don't leave home without it!

 

[sxoxyvg]

Great news for cannabis users eh? Smoke a joint, week later sit in a car driven by some drunk, go to hospital, zomg drug user, roads are safe once again!

 

[headdah]

*bump*

a mate of mine was invovled in a car accident last week. Wasn't her fault. a truck drove into the back of her sedan.

Went to the hospital and all that. Blood test came back positive for Meth. I'm assuming that information will be put forward to the police is that correct???

Also that will effect her claim of her car too yeah? Unfortunately her car is a write off .

She's on a P2's as well.

 

[chewie]

gah i like how they only show how many ppl die each yr but forget to show how many new drivers are on the road each yr..... talk about scare tatics

 

[misteee]

on topic, couldnt believe the night, police were having a local crackdown on drug driving, i had consumed two pills which i found very speedy.
driving home i was stopped nd swabbed, i came up non-active...... i thought shit, whats in these pills then....
both good nd bad feeling, thought id share that with the community

 

[Jakeperson]

*bump*

a mate of mine was invovled in a car accident last week. Wasn't her fault. a truck drove into the back of her sedan.

Went to the hospital and all that. Blood test came back positive for Meth. I'm assuming that information will be put forward to the police is that correct???

Also that will effect her claim of her car too yeah? Unfortunately her car is a write off .

She's on a P2's as well.

If it wasn't her fault and she hadn't consumed meth on the day and that can be verified from the test I'm sure her lawyer can make sure the police know that

 

[Jordan`]

That's why a lot of people are pissed off you can be under the influence and not be detected and vice versa. It's ridiculous that someone that could possibly be impaired as misteee could have been does not get caught while people who are not affected by drugs are taken in.

 

[PsiloSubNaut]

on topic, couldnt believe the night, police were having a local crackdown on drug driving, i had consumed two pills which i found very speedy.
driving home i was stopped nd swabbed, i came up non-active...... i thought shit, whats in these pills then....
both good nd bad feeling, thought id share that with the community

Could just mean the pills didn't contain amphetamines and therefor weren't detected by mouth swabs.