News_The Age_12/11 - Drivers to face drug testing

[pundi]

It is already an offence to drive under the influence of a drug in Victoria (heck 185 people got done for it). All the govt is planning is to make it policy for our police to use random saliva tests just as they use random breath tests. They will ultimately have bugger all evidential value, but they will give police reasonable cause to order a blood test. Exactly the way roadside breath testing is used.
As to showing you were 'driving under the influence', it'll just be a matter of adding other evidence to the claim: 'Driving erratically', 'irate response', 'dilated pupils', 'loud music', etc etc. The value of this additional evidence will vary, but how you interact with police when pulled over will be critical. It is in no way a bad thing, people shouldn't be driving under the influence - and I currently know a hell of a lot more people that drive while drug affected than do while drunk.
[ 13 November 2002: Message edited by: pundi ]

 

[BigTrancer]

I currently know a hell of a lot more people that drive while drug affected than do while drunk.
Does that mean you know more drug users than drinkers, or more drivers than drinkers, or more sensible drinkers, or less sensible drug users, or does it mean that the people you know just don't tell you that they drive drunk?
I personally know of people who'll scout particular roads that are known for booze buses and police cameras, and send SMS to people who'd be likely to be drinking that night if they see any police presence. That way the people drinking never have to modify their drinking to drive, and they know they'll be able to get home a certain way without being stopped by police.
It's an abhorrent and unsafe practise, but it happens. Recreational chemical users will go to great lengths to subvert law enforcement that would curb this activity.
BigTrancer

 

[pundi]

Should have qualified that statement .
Of the people i know that drink but do not take drugs, the vast majority will take great lengths to avoid drinking when they believe they will be above 0.5. Unfortunately I can't say the same thing with the people I know that take drugs. It would be a 50/50 split between people who refuse to drive under the influence of drugs and those that make up some excuse to justify why they can. What I find even more surprising is the number of people I know that are both drinkers and drug users who refuse to drive while drunk but find it acceptable to drive while drug affected.
Thats just my experience though, so I presume many will find it the other way round. I know that when me and the mates drive to the pub we will nominate a driver, the same can't be said for the majority of doofs i've been to. To qualify this - I know a lot more recreational drinkers than I do recreational drug users.

 

[mossy]

A friend of mine is in the young liberals, and it is interesting their stance on this. The local branch is of the opinion that this would be too unreliable to properly prosecute, and the using it as an excuse to blood test would be the only advantage.
QUOTE FROM 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. END QUOTE
The big problem they face is the levels of the specific drug in the system, what causes you to be affected in regards to driving? And you can't arrest someone for having smoked a joint two days before. Or what if someone had some GHB in their drink, and were driving two days later?This problem is way too big, I know that the Liberal Party know this, and are only saying that they would implement it to get votes (surprise!!!)
They look further into it, but I can confidentally say it will not be happening in the near future.
The only worry I have is if dumbass Bracksy thinks he can try and push it through to make people happy, then it will be such a flawed system that it will only result in headaches to both sides of the coin.
Just another two cents........
P.S.-Injecting rooms is a whole other topic....
[ 15 November 2002: Message edited by: mossy ]
[ 15 November 2002: Message edited by: mossy ]

 

[psijuannn]

Was it just my imagination or did I see, tucked away in the back pages of The Age a couple of years ago, a small article detailing evidence that marijuana-'impaired' drivers are safer than drivers on nothing at all?? It's weird, but whenever I've mentioned this to people I get laughed at.
I've been following the issue of drug-testing drivers for a couple of years now, and as far as I know there has been no 'breakthrough' in screening technology that allows you to test for drugs in saliva (with the exception of a person who has been -smoking- marijauana, and even then smoking a cigarette before being tested messed up the results).