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


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

News_The Age_12/11 - Drivers to face drug testing

Mr. Horse

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jan 31, 2000
Messages
3,571
Location
Melbourne
Drivers to face drug testing
November 12 2002
By Padraic Murphy
Police Reporter
Victorian motorists could face random drug testing as early as next year after an alarming increase in the number of road fatalities involving illicit drugs.
The Labor and Liberal Parties yesterday both pledged to introduce random drug testing of drivers after the November 30 state election.
They promised to act after the publication of figures showing illicit drugs were now implicated in more Victorian road deaths than alcohol.
Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Ray Shuey said yesterday that 29 per cent of drivers involved in fatal accidents in 2000-01 were drug-affected, up from 25 per cent the previous year. Alcohol was implicated in 22 per cent of deaths.
"It is critical, in the same way that we impacted on the culture of Victorian drivers when we brought in drink-driving legislation, that we provide random drug testing as a major deterrent to drivers," Mr Shuey said.
 
Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said legislation for random drug-testing would be introduced in the new year if the government was re-elected. "VicRoads are working through issues to do with equipment and the accuracy of testing, but the legislation will be put up at the next session," he said.
Technology being examined by VicRoads would enable police to detect drugs in a saliva sample, mostly collected by a swab, Mr Batchelor said.
Opposition transport spokesman Geoff Leigh said the introduction of drug-testing was a priority, and a Liberal government would also consider empowering magistrates to suspend the licences of known drug offenders, regardless of whether they were caught driving while under the influence.
Mr Shuey said the rising incidence of "drug-driving" reflected increased drug use in the community. "It just seems we are belting our heads against brick walls trying to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving and drug-impaired driving," he said.
Of the 29 per cent of drug-related road deaths, 13.5 per cent involved marijuana, 11.3 per cent heroin or other opiates, 5.1 per cent speed and 2.9 per cent stimulants. Nine per cent involved both drugs and alcohol.
Studies have shown marijuana use puts drivers at similar risk to those with blood alcohol readings of between .05 and 0.1 per cent.
Mr Shuey said 185 drivers had been charged in Victoria in the past year with driving under the influence of drugs.
article
 
^^
and a Liberal government would also consider empowering magistrates to suspend the licences of known drug offenders, regardless of whether they were caught driving while under the influence.
well... i dont know about that.
 
It is quite alarming that drugs or alcohol affects almost 50% of drivers involved in fatal accidents. More so that more people seem to think driving under the influence of drugs is ok. It is interesting that weed is the most common of all drugs and drivers affected by amphetamines make up a smaller percentage. The extent of the effect the drugs have on your driving are made clearer I guess.
No surprise about the drug testing of drivers though, this seems to have been a looming threat for some time now.
 
pffft. liberal's have a more fucked up view on the drugs policy than labour. labour pushed for harm reduction safe injecting houses, whereas johnny howards liberal pushes zero tollerance. dont vote liberal if all your considering is voting on their drugs policy, labour has a harm minimisation approach to it.
 
Yes to the above, but there should be zero tolerance for drivers under the influence of drugs or alchohol. I dont see how this could be considered a bad thing at all.
 
Can they next introduce a law banning egotistical, my penis is bigger than yours, P plate, "Peter Brock" wannabe heroes ;)
In seriousness though, I don't have a problem with the drug tests, in fact I agree with them - if your're under the influence you shouldn't be on the road...
 
I'd have to agree with Dim Mak with pretty much what he's said there. I just hope those tests don't show up anything that's been taken anymore than say 24 or so hrs ago, otherwise it would just be ridiculous.
Other than that I can't see that this is really a bad thing.
 
hmmm interesting point dim_mak - can you be prosecuted for having an illegal substance in your system? - I would have thought not - what would be the charge?
Having been in a house that was raided by Victoria's finest, I can say first hand they were only interested in finding the substance. In this particualr case, all the dope had been smoked and all that was left was a bong and four stoned individuals :D Apparently the coppers were tipped off that the house had a large stash. Anyway, after a search of the house and us, nothing was found that could lead to an arrest - and trust me there was no doubitng we were stoned, no test needed :D
Anyway, that was a few years ago and things migth have changed since?
 
scary! yeah what if we were pulle dp 3 days later?
damn its gonna get harder! :(
 
I'm not really sure what the law is (in NSW). Self-administration of a drug is an offence under s 12 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, as is administering a drug to someone else (s 13) and allowing someone else to administer a drug to you (s 14).
But I don't think a positive drug-test would be enough proof for the police to bust you. Unless you or someone else admit that you had taken the drug, you could claim ignorance and the police couldn't prove otherwise.
But then again, I could be entirely wrong (I'm a student, not a lawyer) :) hope that helps...
 
Technology being examined by VicRoads would enable police to detect drugs in a saliva sample, mostly collected by a swab, Mr Batchelor said.
Innacurate! The tech does not back up their rhetoric... I don't know any substance testing lab in the world that uses saliva testing as a reliable means of acertaining drug use. Sloppy and legally shaky as a means of prosecution, what kind of drug spectrum would be examined anyway? This looks like votewhoring to me, and the Lib's kneejerk comments to this policy position are indicitive of their one-upmanship "tough on crime" Rudolph Guliani wannabe bullshit. I am all for effective means to prevent intoxicated driving, but to make claims like this at this stage, with such vague emphasis on how they actually plan to carry this out... Its just misleading the electorate and scoring points.
Alot of pseudopolicy is going to be flying around in the coming weaks from both sides of politics. Regard it with a sceptical eye people...
 
^^^^^ I hope you are right about the scare-mongering. Although it could be that the swab is similar to a breath test, eg. not evidence enough to arrest but enough to then get a blood sample off you.
As for driving under the influence I think if you get caught then you earn't it, how is it different from alcohol? You are effected.
The only thing I worry about is;
1 - As others have said, how long can you not drive for.
2 - Where else and how can they then use this machine. I mean I'm sure once police have this technology they won't just use it to test drivers.
 
Thank you Thoth,
for vote-whoring it is and useful it aint.
Vote Green.
Drive sober.
Easy, really, when you think about things.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^
this has been the forensic weakness in many drug driving cases that have gone to courst so far.
because said substances are illegal it is nigh impossible (there have been some tests done by Monash with cannabis) to determine at what level drugs impair driving.
standard urine tests done following an accident, for example, measure opiates to 300ng/ml of blood - a trace amount that could still be present 4 days after using; amphetamine levels for about 72 hours etc. pot remains present for weeks after a heavy smoker stops.
if there is no obvious impairment when the tests are done and a drug driving case goes to court, most defendants lawyers are able to argue that while the drug was present the defendant was not under the influence, and they generally win, and rightly so.
driving under the influenec should be legislated against (i've never written those words b4 on bl), but without changing the broader framework to allow the establishment of accurate impairment levels the laws will inevitably be both ineffective and unjust.
 
Originally posted by Cowboy Mac:
pffft. liberal's have a more fucked up view on the drugs policy than labour. labour pushed for harm reduction safe injecting houses, whereas johnny howards liberal pushes zero tollerance. dont vote liberal if all your considering is voting on their drugs policy, labour has a harm minimisation approach to it.
Bracksie here in Melbourne has backed away from injecting rooms, he has in fact said outright that it won't be considered in a Labor second term. This probably has something to do with the fact that heroin is a less visible problem in the CBD now.
A few years ago when the heroin toll per year was above 200 I think? this was a big issue, now its at 48 or so for the year (Herald Sun) and apparently thats an acceptable number of junkie deaths.
Pathetic.
 
No offence to any labour afficinados present, but Bracksie is well to the right of the ever present labor factional spilt. Bit of a Bollanger socialist really, but this is Vic... The place Jeff ruled like a king for all those years. Change in degrees I guess ;)
 
^^^ He been aptly refered to as Jeff Bracks. I haven't been too impressed with our Bracksie, don't even get me started on the increase in woodchiping since his term of government.
 
Top