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

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

Roadside Drug Testing....

Originally posted by codez_raver
It's a proven fact that 87% of car crash victims have drugs in their system.


That figure is far too high.

Plus, when you say "carcrash victims", thats a very broad term. You're including drivers, passengers and pedestrians of all ages.

The only "official" statistic i can find regarding drugs is in the title post:

In 2003, 31 per cent of drivers killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs other than alcohol.
Click to expand...

but, i cant find any reference to that figure (or any other for that matter) anywhere on ATSB nor could i find any stats on VICroads

nevertheless, the law has already gone ahead :\ i'll try a few more searches, but i dont think i'll return with any
 
hoptis said:
Also, as for whether pills will return a postiive result, I can tell you for sure that they will. Thanks to Pop Popavich for bringing a few testing kits to the meetup @ [dance party in Ballarat] on Saturday night.

I tested positive about two hours after taking 1.5 red rolexes.

=D
Click to expand...

Then why aren't they advertising that fact? Why do the ads just talk about speed and pot?

I just don't understand why they wouldn't advertise the fact, unless they're being sneaky and are hoping to catch more people out to increase the success rate of the program.
 
^^^^ Pretty sure it's the fact that MDMA will show up as Amphetamine... Therefore it kind of doesn't test for it specifically. Also, I think I read that if you do test positive for MDMA not meth or pot, they can't charge you with the $300/3 demerit points...
Hope I'm not adding to the confusion. But I'm 99% sure I read that.....
 
So couldn't they cover themselves by saying they'll detect pot and all amphetamines, including MDMA?

Surely if you get done for MDMA they'll charge you with something!
 
codez_raver said:
It's a proven fact that 87% of car crash victims have drugs in their system.
Click to expand...

Damn those dwugfukt pedestrians and cyclists to hell where they belong 8o ... LOL
 
Can anyone confirm whether the public has access to these testers? Pop Popavich perhaps?
 
I managed to find out what the deal is with MDMA, dexamphetamine & saliva testing.

Apparently, dexamphetamine will not show up on the saliva tests - this is to prevent "legitimate" speed users from being busted.

BUT - MDMA will show up on the roadside test. This will mean leaving your vehicle for later pickup. The lab analysis will show negative for methamphetamine, and you WILL NOT be charged!! :) Note that the saliva sample can't be used for other drug related charges, or DNA testing, so you should be off the hook at that point.

Finally - there also exists a "Drive while impaired" charge (since 2000). If police believe you to be "impaired", they can take you back to the station and administer some standard impairment tests (nystagmus, walk and turn, stand on one leg) - if you fail these you get asked for a blood/urine sample - if you fail this you get charged with DWI - which is more serious than failing the saliva test.
 
Oh yeah - and THC.... unlike most drugs, THC is present in saliva mainly because of absorption into the mouth during smoking. Hence, it is POSSIBLE that eating cookies (particularly if you swallow them whole - don't choke!!) will mean that you won't fail the saliva test.

Also - for methamphetamine levels in saliva peak 5-6hrs after ingestion (I suppose at the shorter end for injecting - at the longer end for bombing). Again - it is POSSIBLE that you might pass a saliva test immediately after having meth (unless you smoked it...)
 
Cheers for the information ayjay :)

Interesting that the tests can differentiate between dexamphetamine and amphetamine but not amphetamine and MDMA.
 
what of such things as selegeline (l-deprenyl) metabolites?

afaik, selegeleine is not a scripted nor a scheduled med, yet primary metabolites are amphetamine and methamphetamine, they are bound to show up on the saliva test, if elimination profile for saliva is anything like for urine.

interested to see how the legislative nuances of this one would fall out...
 
quiet roar said:
Can anyone confirm whether the public has access to these testers? Pop Popavich perhaps?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they don't, unless you have contacts high up within the law enforcement/road safety community. Like BAC testing though, I'm sure that within time, companies which sell BAC-equivalent testers may move into the field of supplying drug testers.

Psychadelic_Paisly said:
^^^^ Pretty sure it's the fact that MDMA will show up as Amphetamine... Therefore it kind of doesn't test for it specifically. Also, I think I read that if you do test positive for MDMA not meth or pot, they can't charge you with the $300/3 demerit points...
Hope I'm not adding to the confusion. But I'm 99% sure I read that.....
Click to expand...

It seems ayjay has the answer over in the other Drug Testing thread (why are there two?).

BUT - MDMA will show up on the roadside test. This will mean leaving your vehicle for later pickup. The lab analysis will show negative for methamphetamine, and you WILL NOT be charged!! Note that the saliva sample can't be used for other drug related charges, or DNA testing, so you should be off the hook at that point.
Click to expand...

Here

I'm pretty sure Pop Popavich has stated the same thing previously. It seems that MDMA is detected by the first and second test but the final test, upon which charges are laid, cannot proceed if you only show MDMA in your system.
 
codez_raver

It's a proven fact that 87% of car crash victims have drugs in their system.
Click to expand...

Sorry kiddoe.... Australian Stats say the percentage of people found under the influence of drugs while driving (Including those involved in accidents) is 31%.

Still a high percentage... (if you'll pardon the the term)
 
yes, pills will show up....

i gave myself a test before leaving kryal on sunday morning (thanks pop popavich for the test..)

normally you have to wait 5 minutes for a result to show up...

i had taken a pill about 2.5 hours earlier, and i tested positive within a minute!!!!!!


so into the passenger seat for me...
 
hoptis said:



It seems ayjay has the answer over in the other Drug Testing thread (why are there two?).



Here

I'm pretty sure Pop Popavich has stated the same thing previously. It seems that MDMA is detected by the first and second test but the final test, upon which charges are laid, cannot proceed if you only show MDMA in your system.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this could be possible. If the MA in MDMA stands for Methamphetamine and they are testing for Methampetamine then how the hell can they distinguish between speed and MDMA? Methamphetamine is Methamphetamine is it not?

Could we have some info from someone in the know? PLEASE.

I see on number 19 it says that the SALIVA TEST results cannot be used as evidence against you in any case in a court of law. But does the result give them any kind of reason/authority to search you/your car and be subsequently charged with posession?
 
Really its quite simple - Don't take drugs and drive. It has been stated how long the drug will remain in your system and produce a positive test for so simply don't drive after taking drugs. Really its not that tricky. Everyone seems to be hung up on whether the tests will pick up MDMA which it appears it will. It sounds as though there is already a shift of users trying to find an alternative drug to use and not get caught.
C'mon people its not about getting caught or getting away with it, its about being safe.



Beech out
 
beech said:
Its people with a lack of knowledge and attitudes like yours Special TBK that fuck things up.
Do a bit of research and see if you still think that driving whilst under influence of speed or weed makes you a better driver.
There are plenty of threads on here discussing your view, use the search function and see what it turns up.

Beech out
Click to expand...

It's very easy to pick on un-pc opinions like Special TBK's but really the evidence is hardly conclusive that driving on ampethamines or marijuana signficantly impairs driving ability, sure they're are plenty of studies that show some impairment due to drugs but their are also plenty studies that show driving performance deteriorates with having passengers in the car, talking on hands free mobile phones or even listening to fast music so really its about the degree to which someone is impaired. The laws allowing experienced drivers to drive till their bac reaches 0.05 even though studies show having any alcohol in you effects your driving are another example of how society finds some impairment acceptable (appropriated point from someone else in the other thread). Also TBK isn't talking about driving perfectly fine vs on speed hes talking about driving fatigued vs on speed and from memory driving fatigued has shown in a study to be as dangerous as having a 0.05 bac, im not sure how speed would stack up to this.

I know this is far from hard or real evidence but i've been a passenger in cars driven by people who have been fatigued, people who have been on a moderate dose of meth and people who have taken repeated doses of meth and are at the point where they have the shakes. People who have the shakes aren't great drivers, i've never been scared for my life or anything but you can tell they are impaired. I would rather get a lift from who is fatigued than someone who has the shakes in most cases but fatigued people i have also seen noticably impaired and there have been times iv been pretty worried about reaching our destination. On the other hand i've never noticed someone as impaired when driving on a moderate dose of meth and would much rather get a lift with such a people than someone fatigued.

Don't get me wrong i don't advocate driving on drugs, i can honestly say if i had gone through the vic drug testing every single time i have ever driven a car i wouldn't of copped a fine once, when i was at my heaviest drug using stage i didn't drive ever and never got a car despite having a license because i knew i would be 'influenced' the vast majority of the time but i don't think we can start hanging people who suggest it might not be that bad to drive under the influence just yet...
 
Very interesting development.

Driver fights road drug finding
By Norrie Ross
December 15, 2004

A DRIVER identified as the first in the world to return a positive roadside drug test has vowed to clear his name.

John De Jong, 39, said he was devastated when he was identified to the media by Victoria Police as returning two positive drug samples.

Mr De Jong was just the fourth driver tested when police set up their new drug bus for roadside saliva testing in Whitehall St, Yarraville, on Monday.

He was stopped from driving his van and when he returned to his Ballarat home he found his two teenage daughters in tears and his wife distraught.

"I did not take any drugs. It is as simple as that. The test has to be wrong," Mr De Jong said.

"I've had many phone calls from my family and friends. They've all seen me on the TV.

"It doesn't look good for me. I've got to try and clear my name."

Mr De Jong was widely identified in the media as having returned two positive samples to marijuana and methamphetamines.

He was not charged and police say the new testing system is not complete until a third test is done in a laboratory.

Mr De Jong has contacted solicitors who are trying to find a lab capable of testing the sample provided to him in the drug bus.

After the first test was positive, he told police he smoked marijuana more than four weeks ago.

The only other drugs he had taken was two anti-inflammatory tablets the night before the roadside test.

Mr De Jong said he was not a regular marijuana smoker.

"I'm just about to have a nervous breakdown. I'm just a mess. I didn't know where to turn or what to do and that's why I went to a solicitor," he said.

Mr De Jong is a van driver and he has had no motoring convictions for 15 years.

Solicitor Katalin Blond, of law firm Slater and Gordon, said she was concerned her client was identified although he was not charged.

"There is the issue of the system being flawed and people not being given adequate information about what their rights are," Ms Blond said.

"This was a media bonanza organised by Victoria Police.

"Their public relations exercise has been at his expense."

Herald Sun
Click to expand...

From News.com.au
 
beech said:
C'mon people its not about getting caught or getting away with it, its about being safe.
Click to expand...
Bullshit.

If it's so easy tell me how long after a joint I have to wait before I can drive?

BTW. Excellent post dabb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top