Roadside Drug Testing (WA)

[Fry-d-]

Drug buses on the way
From July, busted drivers will face jail, $5000 fines
EXCLUSIVE
By JOE SPAGNOLO

WA motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs face fines of up to $5000 and jail as part of radical new laws which will allow police to conduct random roadside testing for illicit drugs.

The fines will be tougher than drink-driving penalties as the State Government moves to crack down on dnig drivers.
The State Government has brought forward plans to introduce roadside drug testing, to’ July 1 next year. The scheme Is expected to cost taxpayers $4.5 million over four years.
Police Minister John Kobelke said yesterday the Drug Driving Bill would be Introduced in Parliament this week.
The new laws would allow police to stop drivers and take samples of their saliva to test for tetrahydrocannabinol, the active component in cannabis, as well as speed and ecstasy.
Specially trained police manning fully equipped “breath and drugs buses” would check the saliva results before issuing infringement notices, with first- time offenders fined $200 and losing three demerit points.
Offenders would not be permitted to drive for 24 hours after being booked by police andanyone refusing a test would be charged.
Police would also have powers to demand drivers undergo sobriety tests on the roadside to determine if drugs had impaired their ability to drive safely. Drug- impaired drivers would face bigger fines, with first offenders slugged a minimum of $800 and losing their licence for six months.
Drug driving is prevalent in WA, with a survey estimating that 17 per cent of drivers aged 20 to 29 had driven a vehicle while under the influence of drugs. Monash University researchers found drugs other than alcohol were present in 26.7 per cent of 3398 dead drivers in WA, New South Wales and Victoria.
Mr Kobelke said he believed a number of the 155 deaths on WA roads this year had been caused by drug use.
“If you look at some of the accidents we have had this year, people have done some absolutely stupid things and you have to believe that in some of those cases drugs were an influence,” he said.
Random testing of drivers for alcohol over the decades had saved lives and he hoped the new drug laws would do the same.
They were part of the measures to be introduced next year to reduce the road toll, including increased speeding fines and new restrictions for young drivers.
Victorian police have had powers to conduct roadside drug- saliva tests since December 2004.
The WA Opposition is supporting random drug-driving tests.
“The Government can’t bring It on quick enough as far as we are concerned,” Liberal road-safety spokesman John McGrath said.

Scanned from The West Australian newspaper.

 

[jokah]

Notice the fucks in this article only ever say "believe"... "Oh we believe its the drugs, we don't have any evidence but YOU JUST GOTTA BELIEVE!@"

I mean sure, I don't agree with driving while drugged but this article is rubbish. Also why would you give drugs a harsher penalty, to me it's like saying that driving drunk is better than being high.

 

[yossarian_is_sane!]

^ Good Point. It's interesting that they're making a distinction between drug driving and drup impaired driving, which IMHO is a good idea but excatly how will they determine this impairment? Recite the alphabet backwards? Touch your nose?

I just hope our taxi situation improves before these things get introduced. I hate waiting in the damn lines while coming down.

I presume its the same test as the VIC's: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=243860

 

[m4dd0g]

I think its a good thing (although i deplore the usual sensationalist journalism)

Seriously if you take drugs and get behind the wheel of a car you're no less a fucktard than a drunk driver. You are impaired and threatening the lives of others for purely selfish reasons.

Hee hee, why is it always "radical new laws"
You think working for a paper they would have a thesaurus?

 

[8L4YN3]

^lmao!!
Driving on some drugs is alot safer then driving on alcohol, not that i at all condone driving whilest not completely sober. But, if one has a tolerance to cannabis or routinly drives after smoking bud, they may be alot more aware of their surroundings and danger around them. I dont know anyone whos driving gets worse after having a couple bongs or pipes before driving.

 

[thinkingwelfare]

^^ you serious???

I stick my hand up for that, i don't consider myself a safe driver after a cone or two... therefore i dont drive. i agree with m4dd0g ... dont take drugs and drive... meh

 

[chooselife]

^lmao!!
Driving on some drugs is alot safer then driving on alcohol, not that i at all condone driving whilest not completely sober. But, if one has a tolerance to cannabis or routinly drives after smoking bud, they may be alot more aware of their surroundings and danger around them. I dont know anyone whos driving gets worse after having a couple bongs or pipes before driving.

why not give a schizophrenic a few bongs dude, then see how he can drive??????
HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLO

 

[ruski]

^lmao!!
Driving on some drugs is alot safer then driving on alcohol, not that i at all condone driving whilest not completely sober. But, if one has a tolerance to cannabis or routinly drives after smoking bud, they may be alot more aware of their surroundings and danger around them. I dont know anyone whos driving gets worse after having a couple bongs or pipes before driving.

This is the sort of attitude that gets people killed. Serious dude, you are a twit.

Driving on drugs is not safe. Driving while drunk is not safe. Driving when tired IS NOT SAFE.

No matter which way you look at it, ITS NOT FUCKING SAFE.

Just read this thread: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49487&r=44

Don't be a moron, change your attitude now before you kill someone or yourself.

 

[yossarian_is_sane!]

Hee hee, why is it always "radical new laws"
You think working for a paper they would have a thesaurus?

It's the West Australian... the tabliod with 98% market share...

The only problem i have with these laws is that i believe detection 10+ hours after ingestion is quite possible and i have questions as to the practicality of jailing/fining someone who gave it a good 4-5 hours after the comedown. Especially when it comes getting home from say [no i wont say that - substitute far away venues] or something like that.

 

[MasterVampire]

ah god gimmie a break

 

[yossarian_is_sane!]

The West Australian
Drug-test drivers face dealer probe
17th October 2006, 10:30 WST

Drivers who test positive in roadside drug tests will be asked to tell police where they got their drugs.

Assistant Commissioner John McRoberts said yesterday intelligence gathered from positive roadside drug tests could be used to crack down on drug dealers.

“Anything that police can use to lawfully gather intelligence is helpful and will be used,” Mr McRoberts said through a spokeswoman.

Police Minister John Kobelke will this week introduce the Drug Driving Bill into State Parliament.

The proposed laws will allow police to stop motorists for saliva samples to test for speed, ecstasy and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) — the active ingredient in cannabis.

Positive test results could lead police to ask the motorists to reveal where they got their drugs. That in turn could lead to drug investigations.

Drivers who test positive could be required to provide a further blood or saliva sample, which would be sent for further analysis. That test will tell police how much THC, speed or ecstasy was detected.

The reading will be proof that the driver was impaired.

Based on the results, the driver could be charged with driving while impaired by a drug and driving with a prescribed illicit drug in oral fluid or blood.

Drivers with a small amount of one of those drugs in their system will be fined $200 and three demerit points for a first offence.

Drug-impaired drivers will face a minimum $800 fine and sixmonth driving suspension for a first offence. Repeat offenders could be jailed for 18 months.

Mr Kobelke said the laws would not allow police to use samples gathered in roadside drug tests for comparison to evidence gathered from unsolved crimes.

Roadside drug testing has been plagued with problems in Victoria — the State which has led the charge on roadside drug testing.

In Victoria in 2004 and last year, several false positive results were recorded and just one of 283 drivers tested positive in the first nine days of operation.

On Sunday, Mr Kobelke said he wanted breath and drug buses in action on WA roads by July 1 next year.


Luke Eliot

This is interesting. I think this could get rather awkward, especially with a car of fucked up people.

Points of interest:

Definitions of things under the Misuse of drugs act:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/dmata1985256/s3.html#supply

Scheduling (amounts considered supply - schedule 5):
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/moda1981184/s42.html

The definitions for supply are interesting because carrying drugs for a friend could be considered supply. Theoretically giving rise to situations where person A could be charged with supply for carrying persons B&C's drugs...
(note: This is not legal advice, its my interpretation - see a lawyer for legal advice)

The article has no details on how they plan to enforce this but the bottom line is be fucking careful if they ask and get a goddam lawyer if they start pressing you!

 

[hoptis]

Positive test results could lead police to ask the motorists to reveal where they got their drugs. That in turn could lead to drug investigations.

That is one of the stupidiest things I have heard yet from a senior policeman.

The idea that people would roll over and provide their dealer's details for a drug driving bust is laughable.

Also, the use of such tactics only serves to enforce the point that the drug testing is not about road safety but really about law enforcement and chasing up pointless, bottom-of-the-ladder drug leads.

In Victoria the police have been quite careful about framing the drug driving legislation around the theme of road safety. Once it's obvious it's just another avenue to pursue the "war on drugs", the entire process loses a great deal of credibility in the eyes of drug users.

 

[m4dd0g]

It does beg the question about drink spiking as well.

Either an innocent being spiked (rough night) and driving, or someone legitimately being busted claiming no knowledge

 

[mepat1111]

That is one of the stupidiest things I have heard yet from a senior policeman.

The idea that people would roll over and provide their dealer's details for a drug driving bust is laughable.

I wouldn't put money on it, I reckon you put some young kid in front of a big scary policeman holding a test result saying they'd been on drugs and they'd be only too quick to cough up their dealers name. Remember not everyone is as informed as us bluelighters, not everyone who uses drugs knows their rights.

While I think anyone who drives under the influence of drugs is an idiot and deserves what's coming to them, I again raise the issue of the definition of 'under the influence'. Time after time with these drug vans we run into the problem that these tests only reveal that the user has taken drugs, not whether the user is currently under the influence of drugs or not.

Also m4dd0g raises a very valid point, how does one prove that their drink wasn't spiked? It's entirely possible, and there is no way to disprove it.

 

[hoptis]

I wouldn't put money on it, I reckon you put some young kid in front of a big scary policeman holding a test result saying they'd been on drugs and they'd be only too quick to cough up their dealers name. Remember not everyone is as informed as us bluelighters, not everyone who uses drugs knows their rights.

Yeah, good point. I guess I was thinking along the lines of people who were carrying more drugs than your average user. The average user isn't likely to cough up substantial leads.

If anything like this ever starts happening, I hope the message would get out to people that they don't need to answer any questions about where their drugs came from without a lawyer.

 

[lil angel15]

Libs push for tougher drug-driving laws
13th April 2007, 7:00 WST

Construction on the so-called BAD bus that will test motorists for booze and drugs has started as the finer details of the new drugdriver laws are debated in State Parliament.

While shadow road safety minister John McGrath claimed the proposed legislation was not tough enough, Alan Carpenter accused the Opposition of holding up the vital laws.

The Drug Driving Bill has passed through the Legislative Assembly and is at its second reading in the Upper House. Mr McGrath said the Opposition supported the Bill but had asked for an amendment that would require all motorists who tested positive to alcohol to also be tested for drugs.

As the Bill stands, drug-testing drivers who test positive to alcohol will be up to the discretion of police. “The Government is missing an opportunity to send a strong message to the community about drugs,” Mr McGrath said. “We think if you’re caught for alcohol, you should also be tested for drugs — and if you have both in your system you should get a stiffer penalty.

“We’re not talking about hundreds of people here who are going to be put through the process, it will be a small number of people.”

The Premier said drugs had been a factor in recent deaths on WA roads and the legislation needed to be passed as a matter of urgency but the Opposition was calling for changes that would make the laws less flexible and reduce the discretion of police.

“The Liberal Party have tried to amend it in a way which the police don’t support,” Mr Carpenter said. “We think (the amendments) will make it more ineffective, not more effective, and clumsier. It would require the police to drug test everybody they breath test and that would be a nightmare. The quicker we get this legislation through State Parliament, the better.”

Under the laws, drivers with a small amount of amphetamine, cannabis or ecstasy in their system will be fined $200 and hit with three demerit points for a first offence. A second offence attracts a fine up to $500 and three months licence suspension, while repeat offenders could face lifetime driving bans.

Drivers who are impaired by drugs face a fine up to $800 and six months licence suspension for a first offence. A second offence of driving while impaired attracts a fine up to $3500 or nine months imprisonment and a minimum of two years licence suspension. Subsequent offences attract a fine up to $5000 or imprisonment of 18 months and a permanent driving ban.

The West Australian

 

[Biscuit]

I hope the message would get out to people that they don't need to answer any questions about where their drugs came from without a lawyer.

There is no legal requirement in Australia for police to question people in the presence of a lawyer. However, everyone has the right to silence. Lawyer or not, the police cannot ever demand you provide information or answer questions of this nature. If they ask you, you just refuse to answer.

The definitions for supply are interesting because carrying drugs for a friend could be considered supply. Theoretically giving rise to situations where person A could be charged with supply for carrying persons B&C's drugs

That is precisely what it means! The definition of supply is extremely wide and it is designed to cater for this exact situation. Anyone who tells police they are holding drugs for a friend and is to return them in future or intends to share their drugs with friends will always be charged with possession with intent to sell/supply.

If you are ever caught with drugs you keep your mouth shut and no matter the quantity they were only ever, ever going to be consumed by you.


I also have major problems with the idea that they can determine the level of impairment based upon quantities found in blood tests. I doubt studies have been done in the same way they have with alcohol as to what levels of certain drugs will cause impairment.

As for the sobrietary tests, you would have to be really munted on MDMA to not pass one I would have thought and if you are driving in that condition then you deserve whatever is coming your way.

I really doubt anyone would fail a sobriety test on methylamphetamine unless they are complete tweakers who have been up for days. Of course it all depends on what these tests involve!

 

[cobaltdemon]

i would be really interested actually, to know exactly what an "impairment test" involves. i can't recite the alphabet backwards even when i'm stone cold sober.

does victoria have these impairment tests or is it something us special west coasters have dreamed up?

 

[hoptis]

Removed some off-topic chatter...

 

[lil angel15]

Truckies, clubbers targeted
Nicole Cox
June 09, 2007 02:00pm

TRUCKIES and nightclubbers will be among the first people targeted by police for roadside drug testing in an effort to stem WA's drug-driving scourge.

Traffic police have identified the groups as being among the most likely to be caught driving under the influence of drugs, particularly amphetamines and ecstasy.

While some truck drivers regularly use ``speed'' to stay awake on long hauls, doped-up partygoers drive with drugs in their systems, knowing there is only a slim chance they will be caught.

The WA Government had hoped random roadside drug testing laws would come into effect by July 1, but it is understood testing will now start in late August, after delays in finalising tenders for the kits.

Office of Road Safety figures show that about 23 per cent of people killed on WA roads had illicit drugs in their systems.

Inspector Neil Royle, from the traffic enforcement group, said police would concentrate on highways, entertainment precincts and high-profile dance events, such as the Big Day Out, Summadayze and Good Vibrations.

"Certain factions of the public are known to be involved in drug use and abuse and certainly there is an inference that some nightclubbers and long-distance truck drivers have a track record in those areas,'' Insp Royle said.

"Make no mistake about it, we site our booze buses at locations for a reason and it will be no different with the drug bus,'' he said.

"As part of our enforcement strategy, we will be looking to the major highways for long-distance truck drivers who might be abusing drugs.

"We'll also focus our attention on metropolitan areas -- such as nightclubs and dance party events -- any areas where we believe there would be a likelihood of drug abuse.''

Under the new laws, police will be able to take a sample of saliva as a preliminary roadside test. If the test is positive a further saliva or blood sample will be taken and analysed in a laboratory.

The testing kits will target THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, amphetamines and ecstasy.

People caught driving with illicit drugs in their systems face fines ranging from $200 and three demerit points for a first offence to $500 and three months' suspension for a third and subsequent offences.

Penalties for driving while drug-impaired range from $800 and a six-month licence disqualification to a $5000 fine, 18 months' imprisonment and a permanent licence disqualification.

Perth Now