Drivers to be tested for drug use (Merged)

Edge80

Edge80

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
949
Drivers to be tested for drug use

Drivers to be tested for drug use

Tuesday, November 30, 2004
ABC News Online

Police in regional Victoria will tomorrow begin testing drivers to see if they are under the influence of drugs.

Victoria has started a 12-month pilot program, believed to be the first in the world, using saliva tests to detect illegal drugs including cannabis and methamphetamines (speed).

Police say drug driving is a major cause of road death in Victoria, with 31 per cent of drivers killed on Victorian roads last year testing positive to drugs other than alcohol.

link
 
Drugs bus targets truckies, ravers

Drugs bus targets truckies, ravers
By Marc Moncrief
November 30, 2004 - 1:25PM

Drug tests will be administered at random in conjunction with alcohol tests.

Drug tests will be administered at random in conjunction with alcohol tests.
Photo: Wayne Taylor

Victoria Police today unveiled a new road drug testing bus in a world-first pilot project demonstrating zero tolerance for drug drivers.

State Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said the bus would target groups known to have high rates of drug usage such as truck drivers and ravers.

The bus, a converted booze bus that will begin its 12-month pilot period on December 13, will carry equipment to test for methamphetamines and delta-9 THC, the psychoactive compound in cannabis.

Penalties will include three demerit points and $307 fine for a first offence or, if the matter goes to court, a maximum fine of $614 and three-months licence cancellation.

Subsequent offences would see drivers lose their licence for 6 months, with fines up to $1227.

The tests will be administered at random in conjunction with current alcohol tests.

Mr Haermeyer said motorists pulled over for a drug test would be required to place a small absorbent pad on their tongues for a few seconds.

They would then be required to wait about five minutes before their test results were known.

If the presence of drugs was indicated, police would conduct a second, more accurate test that would be used as evidence.

"Drug driving can kill," Mr Haermeyer said.

"Last year, a total of 31 per cent of motorists killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs other than alcohol."

"These drug buses are going to weed those people out."

The tests had undergone reliability testing at Swinburne University and the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Mr Haermeyer said.

"The devices are accurate and we have the final back-up of full laboratory testing by an accredited analyst before any prosecution can proceed.

"The testing agencies have confirmed that the roadside saliva tests will not detect the presence of prescription drugs or common over-the-counter medications."

Assistant Commissioner (Traffic and Support) Bob Hastings said the tests were likely to pick up users of cocaine and ecstasy, since these drugs were often combined with methamphetamines.

He believed the community would accept the five-minute wait period for processing each test.

"Research shows that a driver who has recently consumed cannabis or an amphetamine-based substance is at the same risk as having a crash as a driver with a blood alcohol concentration level above 0.05," Commissioner Hastings said.

However, Inspector Martin Boorman said there was no uniform threshold for illicit drugs to compare to the 0.05 blood alcohol content level applied in the case of alcohol. He said people who may have come down from drugs taken a day or two earlier may still test positive.

"The point is, both of these substances are totally illegal so they shouldn't be taking them anyway," Inspector Boorman said.

The tests:

can detect cannabis and methamphetamine, also known as speed;

do not detect prescription drugs or over-the-counter medicines like cold and flu tablets;

involve placing an absorbent collector in the mouth;

will be followed by a second sample if the first test proves positive;

must be confirmed by laboratory testing before charges can be laid;

are mandatory and drivers who refuse to take them are committing an offence.

with AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/30/1101577463341.html?oneclick=true
 
I would still refuse, how can it be illegal to refuse a drug test. First off, its an invasion of privacy.

I do not think this means anything.

Plus, maybe you were around someone smoking, and thusly it got into your saliva through passive inhilation.

These things wont work,
 
That's what they said about booze buses... These laws are nothing new, just the means of testing that's changed, I know that in QLD refusing a blood test receives the same penalty as driving under the influence.

The reason for not testing for opiates is cos of codeine, ppl on OTC medicines would result in false positives.
 
LOL!

"These drug buses are going to WEED those people out." NUFF SAID!
peace,
Jesse
 
Drivers tested for drugs in world first

Drivers tested for drugs in world first
December 13, 2004 - 2:29PM

A world-first random roadside drug testing facility took just 15 minutes to detect its first alleged drugged-driver in Melbourne on Monday.

Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings said police did not know what to expect when they began testing on Monday in Whitehall Street, Yarraville, in Melbourne's inner-west.

"We turned out here this morning with the expectation of not quite knowing what to expect really, and it was surprising that so early we got some driver who tested positive," he told reporters.

"We will crank this up as we move towards Christmas and focus on those areas where we believe there's high usage of illicit drugs."

Preliminary tests on a man, who appeared to journalists to be aged in his 30s, returned positive results to methamphetamines, or speed, at 11.15am (AEDT) on Monday.

The man, who was driving a white van, was just the fourth person to be tested after the roadside station began operating at 11am.

He returned positive results from both a roadside saliva swab and a second more detailed test in the police van.

That sample will be sent away for laboratory analysis which will take 14 days.

He will not be issued with an infringement notice until the results of the comprehensive laboratory test are available.

A second man on Monday returned a positive sample to speed at the roadside test, but the following analysis in the police van turned up negative.

Drivers who return a positive sample to preliminary tests would be provided with a sample, which they can have independently analysed, a Victoria Police spokesman said.

If the final laboratory test results are positive, a traffic infringement, $300 fine and three demerit points are issued.

If the matter is contested in court, there is a possible $600 fine, and up to six months licence cancellation where a conviction is recorded.

© 2004 AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Break...-in-world-first/2004/12/13/1102786997248.html
 
This is nothing new,really. Police in Germany (and perhaps elsewhere in Europe) have had this capability for a long time. In Germany, however, it is generally only used when the driver is highly suspected of being under the influence, and an alcohol test comes back negative - not for random roadside testing. I beleive the testing method employed is also slightly different. Still, this is kind of a shitty thing. But at least it is only 3 points and a small fine - in America, I shudder to think what may become of such a thing...
 
Re: Drugs bus targets truckies, ravers

killarava2day said:
Drugs bus targets truckies, ravers
By Marc Moncrief
November 30, 2004 - 1:25PM

...

"Research shows that a driver who has recently consumed cannabis or an amphetamine-based substance is at the same risk as having a crash as a driver with a blood alcohol concentration level above 0.05," Commissioner Hastings said.

However, Inspector Martin Boorman said there was no uniform threshold for illicit drugs to compare to the 0.05 blood alcohol content level applied in the case of alcohol. He said people who may have come down from drugs taken a day or two earlier may still test positive.

"The point is, both of these substances are totally illegal so they shouldn't be taking them anyway," Inspector Boorman said.

...
Click to expand...

Whatta buncha crap. The test is supposed to be for safety, but people can be busted even if they're not currently affected by drugs and therefore not a safety risk. Also, five minutes is a pretty long time.

Maybe they'll also decide that walking on drugs is dangerous also, and so they'll need random pedestrian drug tests outside nightclubs... for safety. I do object to driving on drugs, but I object more strongly to being busted for driving after eating drugs 24 hours ago.
 
Police defend roadside drugs test
By Marc Moncrief
December 15, 2004 - 12:57PM
Page Tools

* Email to a friend
* Printer format
*
*

Victoria Police have denied its officers identified to the media the world's first driver alleged to have returned a positive roadside drug test.

John De Jong, 39, says he is considering suing the police force after media reports on Monday alleged he tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine, becoming the the first driver to fail the new drugs test launched that morning.

Mr De Jong says he had not smoked marijuana in four weeks.

"He's arrived home from work to find his children and family in tears, having seen his face plastered across the television," said solicitor Katalin Blond of Slater and Gordons.

Ms Blond told ABC radio Mr De Jong might bring a suits for defamation and breach of privacy.

"My client's rights have clearly been violated," Ms Blond said.

Police have issued a statement defending the testing process.

The statement, from Assistant Director Media Kevin Loomes, said police had followed normal procedures and had asked the media to respect Mr De Jong's privacy.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

"Police at no stage identified the man and had requested the media likewise not to identify this person as the matter was still pending," the statement said.

In order to be subject to prosecution or fines, both of which are options under an amendment to the Road Safety Act, a driver must provide a positive roadside test after which a test accurate enough to be used in court must be provided.

Mr De Jong was identified in television reports Monday as the first driver in the world to return a positive roadside test on the basis of the results of a preliminary test. The analysis of Mr De Jong's evidentiary test should be available by the end of the week.

"We're not even in a position to dispute the validity of the test yet," Ms Blond said.

On Monday, Victoria Police had expressed surprise at how quickly they had tallied the first positive test. Mr De Jong was only the fourth person tested and the test took place only 15 minutes after Victoria Police's new drug bus began its operation.

Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings said police had taken steps to calm the media fenzy around Mr De Jong's result.

"We knew that there was intense media interest in this because it was a first and as a consequence we took an approach to control the situation and advised the media to be there at a certain time where they could watch what occurred," assistant commissioner Hastings said.

"At no stage did we identify him. We advised the media who were present at the scene not to identify him and after the process had been completed at the scene, we understand that he actually conducted a short media interview himself at the time."

"Following the process, he was also asked by an independent sub-officer was he satisfied with his treatment by police, of which he said he was. He was also asked if he understood what it was all about, which he did. And he was also asked if he had a copy or a sample of his own which he
could analyse."

"We conducted a process no differently to what we always do at our booze bus and in our random drug testing sites. So we believe that we complied with the legislation and we endeavoured to protect the privacy as best we could."

In a launch of the program on November 30, Inspector Martin Boorman said there was no floor for detection of illicit drugs that would be analogous to the 0.05 level established in the case of blood alcohol content.

He conceded that the tests, which detect marijuana and methamphetamine, would out drivers who had indulged whether they were impaired at the time of testing or not.

"The point is, both substances at totally illegal," inspector Boorman said. "So they shouldn't be taking them anyway."

Inspector Boorman also conceded that different people would metabolise drugs more quickly than others. Some people would provide positive tests results for longer periods than others after having taken an illicit substance, regardless of their level of driving impairment.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...side-drugs-test/2004/12/15/1102787114858.html
 
This really seems like a huge violation of rights here. What are they after, people who are endagering others by driving under the influence, or simply a way to violate basic rights and "rat out the evil drug users of society"?

Basically, what I am reading here is the police message is, if you drive a car, you should NEVER be smoking marijuana...
 
'Contradictory' drug tests in doubt
By Andrew Webster, Marc Moncrief
December 15, 2004 - 3:58PM
Page Tools

* Email to a friend
* Printer format
*
*

A world first roadside drugs testing program has been thrown into doubt after it emerged two separate tests taken from the same driver failed to agree which drug he had allegedly taken.

Victoria Police say John De Jong, 39, initially tested positive for methamphetamine.

But Mr De Jong today said he was told the results of a second, more sophisticated test conducted in the back of a police vehicle, showed only he had taken marijuana. He said police at no time told him he had tested for methamphetamine.

Experts say the contradictory results demonstrate the tests are not yet ready for use.

"Research that we are aware of has shown that these devices are not yet reliable enough," said Australian Drug Management and Education Group chief executive officer Gwen Wilcox.

"There will be legal ramifications from using this," she warned.

Police Minister Andre Haermeyer today defended the roadside drug tests, saying he had "every confidence in the integrity of this process".
AdvertisementAdvertisement

But Mr De Jong says he intends to fight to clear his name and is considering suing the police force after media reports on Monday alleged he tested positive for both marijuana and methamphetamine.

Mr De Jong today told The Age Online he had never used methamphetamine. He said the last time he had smoked marijuana was "a little over four weeks ago with a friend".

He said police on Monday told him the second of two saliva tests indicated he had smoked marijuana within the past two hours. At no point, he said, was he told he had tested positive for methamphetamine.

"I asked them a number of times to explain the test results and they said I had consumed it (marijuana) within two hours," he said.

"I told them truthfully that yes, four weeks ago I had had a joint," he said.

A police spokesman today confirmed the first test, conducted while Mr De Jong sat in his vehicle, indicated only that Mr De Jong had taken methamphetamine. He said police could not confirm the result of the second test until a third test is done in a laboratory.

The analysis of Mr De Jong's evidentiary test should be available by the end of the week.

Solicitor Katalin Blond of firm Slater and Gordon's today told ABC radio Mr De Jong might bring suits for defamation and breach of privacy.

"My client's rights have clearly been violated," Ms Blond said.

Mr De Jong today said he had very little sleep since Monday. "Everything that has happened to me in the last couple of days keeps going round and round in my head," he said.

Police have issued a statement defending the testing process.

The statement, from Assistant Director Media Kevin Loomes, said police had followed normal procedures and had asked the media to respect Mr De Jong's privacy.

"Police at no stage identified the man and had requested the media likewise not to identify this person as the matter was still pending," the statement said.

Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings said police had taken steps to calm the media frenzy around Mr De Jong's result.

"We knew that there was intense media interest in this because it was a first and as a consequence we took an approach to control the situation and advised the media to be there at a certain time where they could watch what occurred," assistant commissioner Hastings said.

"At no stage did we identify him. We advised the media who were present at the scene not to identify him and after the process had been completed at the scene, we understand that he actually conducted a short media interview himself at the time."

"Following the process, he was also asked by an independent sub-officer was he satisfied with his treatment by police, of which he said he was. He was also asked if he understood what it was all about, which he did. And he was also asked if he had a copy or a sample of his own which he
could analyse."

"We conducted a process no differently to what we always do at our booze bus and in our random drug testing sites. So we believe that we complied with the legislation and we endeavoured to protect the privacy as best we could."

* Top of Page

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/15/1102787114858.html?from=top5
 
killarava2day said:
'Contradictory' drug tests in doubt
By Andrew Webster, Marc Moncrief
December 15, 2004 - 3:58PM

...

A world first roadside drugs testing program has been thrown into doubt after it emerged two separate tests taken from the same driver failed to agree which drug he had allegedly taken...

Click to expand...


Hooray! The rest of the world owes Australia BIG for screwing up the application of an unreasonable policy. :D
 
Passive cannabis warning for drugs tests
December 16, 2004 - 3:00PM


Passive inhalation of cannabis smoke could lead to positive results from roadside drug tests, a test supplier said today.

d:tec Australia, which provides drug and alcohol tests to workplaces, said people who tested positive for cannabis in the roadside tests may not have taken the drug.

World-first random roadside drug tests of motorists were staged in Victoria last week in the start of a year-long trial.

The test detects THC, which is the active component in marijuana, and methamphetamines, or speed, in saliva.

Drivers provide a sample by touching their tongue on an absorbent collector and results develop in five minutes.

"Research has shown that a person who has passively inhaled cannabis smoke can show a positive result in a saliva test for up to 30 minutes post-exposure," d:tec Australia national account manager Andrew Leibie said today.

"As a result, people who test positive for cannabis use in a roadside saliva test may not have been actively smoking the drug themselves."
AdvertisementAdvertisement

He said the research was presented to an International Association of Forensic Toxicology conference in Washington earlier this year.

- AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...for-drugs-tests/2004/12/16/1102787197565.html
 
Innocent drug test man demands apology
Daily Telegraph
December 22, 2004

A DRIVER picked up under ground-breaking roadside drug testing in Melbourne last week is demanding an apology after police tests today confirmed his innocence.

John De Jong, of Ballarat, was said to have tested positive to amphetamines and cannabis when he was pulled over in his work van last week.

Mr De Jong maintained his innocence and said he had last smoked cannabis four weeks before he was tested.

He had his blood sample tested at an independent laboratory, with the results showing no traces of drugs.

Today, Victoria Police told Mr De Jong their own tests had confirmed he was innocent.

Victoria Police vowed to continue the program and are not offering Mr De Jong an apology for the stress his family has endured.

Mr De Jong today said he was shocked the police were refusing to say sorry.

"They put me in front of the media from the word go, and said I had tested positive to amphetamines and cannabis," he told AAP.

"Their tests and my tests show that not to be true and they are not even willing to apologise – I just think that is wrong."

Mr De Jong's wife Kay said the family had been aware of people in Ballarat talking about them, and said her husband deserved an apology.

Their 13-year-old daughter Belinda broke down as she told of the pressure on the family.

"We are very relieved that all this has come out now, that everyone should know now that my dad is an innocent person," Belinda said.

"It has been very hard on us all."

Mr De Jong said he was considering legal action against police.

Link
 
Penalties will include three demerit points and $307 fine for a first offence or, if the matter goes to court, a maximum fine of $614 and three-months licence cancellation.
Click to expand...
In California where I live, I believe the standard penalty for a DUI is roughly $10,000 in court fee's, legal fees, fines, and class costs, and 6 months without a license, and 6 months of bi-weekly alcohol-rehab classes and drivers education. And a MASSIVE increase in car-insurance rates (I've heard it adds $2500 a year for 5 years). These numbers go up for repeat offenders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top