Roadside Drug Testing....

[zaki]

^^ indeed, i really do believe the research needed more deapth to cover the varying levels of use, similar to having the .05 laws, in my opinion half a spliff would be somewhere near .05 but not more dangerous than. also i think 24 hours is a long time to wait after speed use, for example what if you have been home and slept 6 or so hours and then gone off to work the next day or something, you can still find yourself copping a fine and being late for work. I am a very regular user of speed and have become more adjusted to sleeping/eating/generally living with its effects. I dont drive whilest i am "racing" "dialled" and i dont drive while i am fatigued or coming down. yet i am certain i will still test positive on 3-4 days of the week. most of those occasions i will have slept for around 4-8 hours and eaten at least 2 full meals in the 12 hours prior to the test and not consumed any speed, would i test positive or maybe i would of metabolised it faster with the food and sleep?

 

[hoptis]

Take drugs and driveand you're likely to be nabbed
December 11, 2004

A new saliva test can detect speed, marijuana and some party drugs, writes Lorna Edwards.

After an all-night marathon of nightclubbing fuelled by speed and ecstasy, 19-year-old Jack crashed his car driving to a "recovery" party the next day.

But the young St Kilda bartender does not believe drugs were a factor in the accident seven months ago, in which he misjudged a right turn and was hit by an oncoming car.

"It was seven o'clock in the morning and the drugs had pretty well worn off," he says. "It was just a plain and simple accident and just a matter of me choosing the wrong time to do something."

While he says he would never drink alcohol and drive, he thinks driving under the influence of drugs such as methamphetamines is a different matter. "If anything, it actually makes you more alert with faster reflexes," he says.

With the state's motorists about to face random drug testing for methamphetamines and cannabis for the first time on Monday, Jack thinks the new laws are unreasonable, but admits he would change his drug-driving habits if he got caught.

And that is what the State Government is aiming for when police start pulling motorists over on Monday, armed with new saliva drug-testing machines. Motorists who return a positive reading for cannabis or methamphetamines (commonly known as speed and ice) will get a $300 fine and lose three licence demerit points. For a second offence, they will go before the courts and face fines up to $1200 and a six-month loss of licence.

Among club-goers The Age spoke to who admitted to frequently driving under the influence of drugs, there is anger at the new penalties. "If I'm trolleyed (drunk), I don't have the same reaction time, but when I've had drugs, I have my wits about me, so I'm still in control," says 29-year-old Lucy of Chadstone.

Most interviewed believe that drink-driving is dangerous, but see the new penalties for drug-driving as unfairly targeting them for using illegal substances. Hamish, 31, a marketing manager from St Kilda who regularly smokes marijuana, says the new laws will penalise drivers who have minimal levels of drugs in their systems. "The hypocrisy is they will penalise you just for having used illegal substances, rather than being too impaired to drive, and they will take away demerit points from your licence," he says.

But Inspector Martin Boorman, who heads the police traffic alcohol section technical unit, says many drug users are naive about the effects of methamphetamines and cannabis - even at minimal levels.

"There's research that shows that people that use those drugs are impaired, although the impairment features perhaps aren't the same as you would normally see with drunkenness," he says. He cites recently released figures showing that 31 per cent of drivers and riders killed on Victorian roads last year had drugs other than alcohol in their systems.

Malcolm, 36, a dance-party devotee and office worker, says he does not believe driving under the influence of drugs is as dangerous as drink-driving, but if it is, he says, the State Government and police need to educate the community. "Under alcohol, you have been educated on what time is needed for your blood-alcohol level to be acceptable, so perhaps with drugs there is some education that needs to be done and they need to prove people wrong," he says.

Inspector Boorman says the tests are designed to pick up recent drug use, but the length of time during which drugs can be detected will vary according to the dose and frequency of use. Cannabis can be detected for two to four hours after use, he says, and methamphetamines for eight to 24 hours.

He warns that people using other drugs, such as esctasy and cocaine, are likely to get caught in the net, too. "There's a high likelihood that other drugs have been cut with methamphetamine, and most of the MDMA (ecstasy) that people are purchasing in this state contains it," he says.

He also warns that police can resort to existing drug-impairment laws to charge drivers under the influence of other drugs, such as heroin.

From The Age

 

[starlet_girl]

"13. What if I am unable to provide a saliva sample?"


What do they mean by this?
"Sorry Mr Police Officer, I've actually got the pasties at the moment and don't have any saliva to spare!"
????

 

[Bent]

However if you have had drugs immediately before driving a car, a lethal weapon which could kill you, your friends, and many people have never met, such testing is important.

Couldn't agree more, and I'm glad that this has come in - several younger friends of mine would never dare drink drive as they're on the P's, but have no problem driving from one club to the next completely fucked....and this has thankfully scared them enough that they're thinking twice.

My only issue is the 24 hour detection limit for speed - if MDMA testing comes in, this could be an indicator of the detection time - so if I have a big night, but come home, sleep for hours, etc, blah, blah and have effects from the drug (and therefore are not driving under the influence) I can still be detected the following night....

 

[johnboy]

And as I said the system isn't perfect and will require much tweaking. They are overhauling a similar system Germany right now because of this very issue, and are focusing on impairment as opposed to intoxication. VicPol have already given assurances that it is the former they will be concentrating on.

One good thing about this is that laws to do with drink driving tend to be vigourously tested by the court system as many of those who fall foul of them tend to be the sort of person with the money and the connections to go all the way in testing the limits of the laws in court. Know what I mean? Apparently the same applies with drug driving, as the European experience is beginning to show.

 

[Cowboy Mac]

One good thing about this is that laws to do with drink driving tend to be vigourously tested by the court system as many of those who fall foul of them tend to be the sort of person with the money and the connections to go all the way in testing the limits of the laws in court. Know what I mean?

may the coked up lawyers pave the way..

 

[Sllip]

Well looks like I'll have to start using coke, heroin, and 1,4B now when I go out!

And it's interesting that they said the procedure is saliva test, then taken to a drug bus for another saliva test. Does this imply that the tests will only be conducted in a booze bus style road block and won't be used on motorists that are pulled over at random?

 

[elevhein]

also i think 24 hours is a long time to wait after speed use, for example what if you have been home and slept 6 or so hours and then gone off to work the next day or something, you can still find yourself copping a fine and being late for work.

Same goes for people that drink a lot the night before, go to bed and drive to work the next day, the can be done for drink driving. This just supports the need for a .05 equivalent.


Drivers who produce a positive result to the second sample will be interviewed according to normal police procedure

What can the extent of this interviewing be?

I hope this sees more people using public transport.

 

[Leprechaun]

Since its only detecting Meth-amphetamine and THC does that mean MDMA will not be detected? Does anyone know if Methamphetamine is a metabolite of MDMA?

Cheers.

 

[Cowboy Mac]

lep: as MDMA is a type of amphetamine it has been mentioned in previous news articles that it will be detected.

 

[beech]

I'm a little unclear on the penalities in regard to 1st Offence Infringement Notice and First Offence Court Penalty. Do both of these apply in every case. So if I get caught drug driving (not that i will because i dont do it) I recieve an Infringement Notice of $307 fine and 3 demerrit points and then go to court where I will receive a $617 fine, 3 months licence cancellation and possibly a conviction recorded if found guilty which I assume you would be found since there is solid evidence in the test result. So is it both of these penalties or 1 or the other?

I think this is a good step in the right direction and when the legislation and system is ironed out and refined like the drink driving laws then all will be better off. I can understand why there is no limit for drugs like the .05 for alcohol. If they were to make an acceptable limit then they are almost condoning the use of an illicit substance. This is all still a significant step in the right direction that the treating the drug issue as an legitimate issue and not treating those found guilty as 'dirty druggies'. I guess they could have just as easily made it legal through legislation that anyone who tests positive will have their car and person searched and then possibly face further convictions.


Beech out

 

[Pleonastic]

I think with the first offence thing it's kinda like a choice - you get sent an infringement notice similar to a speeding fine or other traffic ticket, and if you pay it on time then you get hit with 3 demerit points and the matter is done with. But if you choose to dispute the infringement notice in court and end up losing, then the "court penalty" will apply. I think it's designed to keep these things out of the courts - otherwise there'd be a flood of new cases and the system couldn't keep up.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[beech]

^^^Makes sense to me. If that is correct then thanks. I think you'd be stupid to persue it in court unless there were some really major extinuating circumstances. One of the last things I'd want was any sort of drug conviction on my record, even if it is a "only" a drug driving conviction. Still wouldn't look good to an employer if a police check is conducted prior to employment.



Beech out

 

[quiet roar]

I don't think the point is to have drugs, take the wheel, and use a masking agent to alter the test result. If you plan on having drugs use public transport, split a cab to a friends house where you can all sleep it off, encourage event organisers to provide free shuttle buses to and from train stations, have a designated driver, or be picked up in the morning. You should all take this a wake up call and create safer organised alternatives which reduce the possible harm caused to yourself, and other drivers.

I never drive while I am wasted, and until I know what kind of tolerances there are for the THC test, this is an important point for those of us who consume pot regularly.

 

[quiet roar]

[Bit doesn't change the fact that there is no excuse for driving when you are impaired by anything, be it drink drugs or lack of sleep. [/B]

It is not that black and white and you should know that. I can have some beers and drive, no problem as long as I am under the limit. Tell me what the limit is for smoking pot and I will stick to that also. But don't tell me that I cannot drive a car a couple of hours after having a joint because that is bullshit.

I take your point that it will take a while to iron out the bugs, but until they do that I am going to take it upon myself to make the call whether i can drive or not (which I have done all along). And consequently I will try to circumvent the tests whenever necessary.

 

[Joop]

It's started...

Roadside drug tests get early results
Victoria Police's operation to randomly test drivers for traces of drugs had a dramatic start today, as two motorists out of the first 16 tested returned positive samples.

Police say that within minutes of starting the tests in Yarraville today, two motorists tested positive to traces of cannabis.

If secondary samples also prove positive, those drivers face fines of $300 and licence demerit points.

Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings says officers had no idea the initial tests would produce results so soon.

"We had a driver test positive within our fourth driver into the queue and that was somewhat surprising so early on," he said.

"As I said, we had no real expectation of what we were going to find out on the roads but it was a surprise."

Today is the first day Victorian motorists can be tested for illegal drugs under new state measures to drive drug users off the roads.

The new laws enable police to conduct saliva tests for cannabis and methamphetamines.

Assistant Commissioner Hastings says the program should act as a good deterrent.

"At the moment they'll face an infringement notice for $300 and then subsequent offences that goes up to something like $1,200," he said.

"They're comparable with drink-driving penalties at the moment and they'll be evaluated, as will the program as we move into 2005."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1263880.htm

2 out of the first 16!

 

[Tabernacle]

Seen the massive traffic congestion caused by these tests near seymore on Sat banked up out of site at least 30min delays.

Some good discussion here. Couple of points that interest me are that these tests could potentially more dangerous shifts in drug use as sllip said heroin and coke. MDMA a shift towards 2Cs. I'd much rather be in a car (if i absolutely had to) with a meth user rather than somebody all G'd up. Also there's the problem with limits- i can't see the authorities promoting '2 bongs in the first hour and then 1 every hour after that' type campaigns. Drug driving needs to be stopped but i still think these tests while making allowances for problems concerning impairment still target use rather than impairment because of the problems in defining impairment and constructing acceptible limits.

 

[jammeth]

So the I just heard on the radio, that they have just started tests today and within the first 15 min a man in the western suburbs was done like a dinner, they didn't say what for but preliminary tests came back positive, they r now waiting for the second test before imposing fines.

WTF? How can they be targeting party goers and long distance truck drivers in the western suburbs at lunch time on a Monday?

 

[eccitude]

One of the last things I'd want was any sort of drug conviction on my record, even if it is a "only" a drug driving conviction. Still wouldn't look good to an employer if a police check is conducted prior to employment.

I think you will find that it would be registered as a traffic conviction and hence wouldn't show up when you request a police clearance. In Western Australia at least, a police clearance only shows criminal convictions.

From the media reports in Western Australia over the weekend, it sounds that when these drug driving tests are trialled over here, it won't be long before the validity of the saliva tests will be tested in court by someone with deep pockets, as the science behind the actual test appears dubious.

So the I just heard on the radio, that they have just started tests today and within the first 15 min a man in the western suburbs was done like a dinner, they didn't say what for but preliminary tests came back positive, they r now waiting for the second test before imposing fines.

I think this is referred to as spin doctoring. Of course the police media office is going to come out with crap like this to reassure the mums and dads in the suburbs what are great success this next step up the ladder to a police state was. I bet if you actaully tried to get any detail out of them about this supposed catch then it wouldn't be so forthcoming. But then I'm feeling rather cynical today ... lol

 

[chugs]

just a concern, and/or a question for someone to answer

i don't smoke & drive (hardly smoke anyway) however my mates do like to light up when i'm over (and it can certaintly get a bit smoky) and i'm worried if i accidentially inhale some of their 2nd smoke whether or not this would put enough THC into much system to be detected?