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

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

NEWS : 2.10.09 - Drug-drivers overtake drink idiots

kingpin007

kingpin007

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
1,888
Location
(Acacia unit ) Barwon Prison riding my excercise b
Drug-drivers overtake drink idiots



TOM ZED, TRANSPORT REPORTER

October 02, 2009 01:30pm

DRUGGED up drivers are being caught at twice the rate of drink drivers.

Launching a new Motor Accident Commission campaign yesterday, Road Safety Minister Michael O'Brien said the disturbing numbers of people being caught drug-driving were one of the reasons penalties for the offence were increased last year.

"The statistics are telling us that the drug driving detection rate is more than double that of drink driving," he said.

"Last year, 20 per cent of all drivers killed on our roads tested positive to detectable quantities of prohibited drugs in their system. We hope the new television campaign gets the message across that drugs significantly impair judgement and driving with drugs in your system could result in serious injuries or death."

Police statistics show 661,039 breath tests were carried out in 2008, with 5468 or less than one per cent of those tested recording an illegal blood alcohol level.

Between July 2008 and April 10 this year, 31,054 drug tests were run, with 691 of those tested, or 2.22 per cent, returning a positive result.

MAC chief executive Andrew Daniels said the new campaign was part of an ongoing strategy to educate drivers on the issue of drug driving.

"MAC's previous drug driving campaign succeeded in dramatically improving awareness that police are able to randomly test for drugs at any time," he said.

"Our challenge now is to educate SA motorists on the effects of drug driving, with a focus on the most common offenders, young men.

"Disturbingly, many drug takers believe that driving on drugs can make them more cautious or more alert. The shocking crashes we see almost daily involving drugs tell a very different story."

The new MAC campaign challenges people's perceptions of drug driving by asking whether they would trust an airline pilot, surgeon or bus driver if they had taken drugs.

"You wouldn't trust the people in the campaign if they'd been on drugs so why would you trust yourself," Mr Daniels said.

Dr Peter Ford, a former president of the Australian Medical Association, said doctors saw the terrible toll of accidents caused by people driving under the influence of prohibited drugs.

"It's important that people realise that drug driving is very dangerous," he said.

"People who drive while under the influence of drugs, such as cannabis, methylamphetamine or ecstasy, risk not only their own lives, but the lives and safety of others on our roads."

The MAC campaign will air on television from tomorrow and also involves radio, pubs, clubs, street press and online advertising.
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26155301-2682,00.html?from=public_rss
 
r446419_2164073.jpg


20pc SA fatalities on recreational drugs

By Joe Sullivan

Posted 6 hours 43 minutes ago
Updated 5 hours 25 minutes ago

Organisers of a new campaign against drug driving say one in five drivers killed on South Australian roads test positive to recreational drugs.

The Motor Accident Commission says the drivers were on marijuana, speed or ecstasy.

The Commission's chief executive, Andrew Daniels, says research shows some people think they can drive better after taking drugs.

"Twenty years ago people would say "I drive better after I've had a few drinks' when clearly that is not the case," he said.

"We ask people to ask themselves, you would not trust your doctor, your pilot or your bus driver, you would not put your life in their hands if they had taken drugs, so why on earth would you trust yourself?"

ABC News
 
Yeah but what I want to know is the detection periods for the drugs in the dead drivers system? It seems to me like plenty of these people could have been drug users that would fail a post mortem drug test without neccessarily having been intoxicated at the time of the crash.
 
drug detection and drug intoication (ie being impaired by the drug rather than it just being in your system) is the big issue for me. Especially with how long some drugs can stay in your system to be detected versus being impaired by them AND I don't mean "I have only had one pinger, that hardly effects me, I am right to drive" BUT I am talking about long after the effects have worn off.
 
^ Thats it, its entirely possible to have dropped a pill on a Friday or Saturday night and still test positive for it on Monday or Tuesday as far as I am aware. That is pretty ridiculous to argue impairment and chalk it up to "drug driving".
 
Out front of a building site I was on in the suburbs one week every day an RBT was set up at 9am. At one point I was pulled over while getting smokeo and asked them why. They said something along the lines of having a bad weekend and needing to balance the numbers a bit.

wtf is with that? Wasteing time just to lower the ratio. I had a little whine about how its a waste of time setting up the RBT at 9am Wed morning and shes like "yeah I know but we gota do it huh" at which point the car in front of me was ordered off the road for being over the limit. She said "well there you go ha ha" and we both laughed. Lucky she didn't pull me over any of the other weekdays when I was still drunk from breakfast.
 
If anyone read the recent thread about fatigued doctors, they would notice doctors were encouraged to take 400mg of caffeine to combat their tiredness.

So guys, would you trust a surgeon who had been taking drugs? I hope so.
 
That depends. If the alternative is missing out on potentially life saving surgery, then yes I would. It's not a black and white issue.
 
If you assume that alcohol intoxication and illegal substance intoxication should be treated the same way, with threshold values for operation f vehicles and the like, then yes, the difference in the way detection is carried out seems unfair.

BUT

The difference is that alcohol is legal and illegal drugs are, by definition, not legal. How can there be an acceptable level of intoxication of a substance that is illegal to make, buy, sell, possess?


Being under the influence of an illegal substance is AFAIK not illegal per se (and i'm happy to be corrected) so the only way you can be charged for having actually TAKEN your drugs is that if you get caught behind the wheel with metabolites in your system. Then, look out.


Remember, guys, the police are not there to take care of you or make sure youre safe. They are the enforcement arm of the state. In all your dealings with them, ask yourself :"why is this bastard trying to stitch me up?"

Be smart, be safe people.

PLUR
 
If 1% of the total people were over the limit how many had a detectable blood level? Well i guess we dont get to many chances if you take drugs.
 
^^^ Yeah it sucks big time.
I think the day is comming soon where they have refined the drug tests and when you are pulled over for anything you will have to blow and lick regardless :p :p :p :p :p
 
alfisti72 said:
If you assume that alcohol intoxication and illegal substance intoxication should be treated the same way, with threshold values for operation f vehicles and the like, then yes, the difference in the way detection is carried out seems unfair.

BUT

The difference is that alcohol is legal and illegal drugs are, by definition, not legal. How can there be an acceptable level of intoxication of a substance that is illegal to make, buy, sell, possess?


Being under the influence of an illegal substance is AFAIK not illegal per se (and i'm happy to be corrected) so the only way you can be charged for having actually TAKEN your drugs is that if you get caught behind the wheel with metabolites in your system. Then, look out.


Remember, guys, the police are not there to take care of you or make sure youre safe. They are the enforcement arm of the state. In all your dealings with them, ask yourself :"why is this bastard trying to stitch me up?"

Be smart, be safe people.

PLUR
Click to expand...

Not trying to burn you, but I think you are missing the point. These laws are supposed to be about road safety, not the detection of drug users. I've heard some extreme cases of people being done by these tests up to, and even occasionally over, a week after they last consumed something. If you got caught with one or two pills or a little bit of weed you would most likely avoid a criminal conviction throguh a caution or a drug diversion scheme. Is it logical that if you took those pills or smoked that weed and was driving long after the effects had subsided then you get a drug conviction? That seems pretty inconsistent to me, the legal system is prepared to give you a chance if you get caught with drugs, but not if you drive several days after using them.

Having said that, some sort of tolerance/acceptbale level is never going to happen. Too may ignorant sections of society would kick up a god-almighty stink about how it was 'sending the wrong message'.
 
Drugs threaten road toll record

Peter Rolfe | Sun Oct 18 00:00:00 EST 2009

A DRUG-driving scourge is threatening to ruin Victoria's hopes of recording its lowest annual road death toll.

Victoria is bucking a nationwide surge in road deaths with substantially fewer fatals this year than most other Australian states.

A reduction in road deaths and serious injuries has raised hopes a death toll lower than 300 may be recorded for the first time.

But new Victoria Police figures show many motorists put lives at risk by taking illicit drugs before driving.

Deputy Commissioner (Roads) Ken Lay said Victorian motorists were twice as likely to test positive for drugs as they were for alcohol: on average, one in 200 tested showed traces of alcohol, but one in 79 tested positive for drugs.

"Drugs really are the new alcohol," he said.

"About a third of drivers who end up on a slab at the morgue have some sort of drug in their system."

Herald Sun
 
yeah, especially that MJ stays in the body for so long. One could have a crash days after smoking, pot would out on the drug screen and would they attribute the crash to drug driving? Doesn't make sense.
 
I think it's kind of funny that none of the drugs you 'really' wouldn't want people driving on (K, G, benzos, opiates, acid) are on the test. I guess because they're not as popular as meth/MDMA/weed, but still..
 
they have a BAC, why not introduce a similar concept for amounts of drugs?
I suppose the point being they are illegal, but still....

big difference between peaking off ones tits & 48hours after the fact.
morons :X
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top