Roadside Drug Testing....

[charlesbronson]

Yeah I don't think it is just a matter of saying it's all about safety and that's that. If it were entirely about safety, I would think that the government organisations involved in this whole initiative would place more emphasis on developing and implementing a system which ensures that only drivers with THC/meth saliva concentrations that are indicative of impairment are actually prosecuted. If it is done for alcohol, why should there not be arbitrary impairment cut-offs for drug concentrations? After all, if they claim that the issue is road safety, then it is irrelevant that the drugs are illegal and that you have consumed them - this initiative is apparently not aimed at using public roads to detect any and all illegal activity - the only issue that should matter is whether or not your driving ability is significantly impaired as a consequence. I don't think detecting methamphetamine use up to 24hours after administration is still a matter of targeting impaired drivers....

Until the issues are explained, and the current methods are justified or changed, I will continue to express my dissatisfaction with the road drug testing initiative as it currently stands, and I think people who do the same are justified in their stance. If governments are not ready to do this, then they shouldn't rush at the citizens' expense, they should take their time and do it properly. I don't see why drug users should take shit in the name of proposed 'safety'....and I don't think we should all be prepared to simply justify the actions of legislators in the name of road 'safety', without having more of a say about their methods other than just "hey, just don't take drugs and drive!!!!". I reason that if safety were the only issue here, a better system that leaves less margin for errors which cause unnecessary trauma for unimpaired or non-drug using drivers should be developed. Be careful how quickly you jump on the bandwagon of a given idea just because it seems to have an honourable cause....without scrutiny the police and government will never bother improving their methods and laws.

On a different note, I really don't understand how a roadside drug test can detect methamphetmine, and supposedly via the same method detect MDMA, showing a positive result for methamphetamine, yet it can somehow avoid a positive methamphetamine result from detecting dexamphetamine and the even more common OTC drug pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine is structurally a more similar molecule to methamphetamine than is MDMA, and is such a common drug that I don't see how this testing kit could avoid a stack of false positives courtesy of drivers who use Sudafed, Demazin etc. Unless ofcourse it is true that the test can in fact identify MDMA and meth but not pseudo or dexamph. It would be interesting to conduct a saliva test on someone after they take a 120mg pseudo tablet....

 

[waspman⌐]

it looks like the authoroties in charge of this are just saying whatever they want, doing whatever they want and not giving a shit whose name gets dragged thru mud etc just for a dodgy PR exercise.

And about that whole 31% of crash victims or whatever having drugs in there system: think about this- at least 31% of ALL PEOPLE in the population would have drugs in there system, one stage or another at any given time. The coronor or who ever just takes a blood sample from the deceased, if youve smoked pot a month ago etc the figures are still going to show that you had drugs in your system. these facts surely have been twisted to scare the public again. when will people learn...

 

[beech]

I'm not picking on TBC's opinion because it isn't PC. I'm commenting on it because it is irresponsible.
Dabb I hate to break it to you but your backseat observations of somebody's driving abilities whilst under the influence of drugs to various degrees and that of sober drivers and fatigued drivers don't quite stack up to the more scientific measures used under controlled conditions in testing. I've both participated in and been involved in research looking into the effects of amphetamines on reaction time in unpredictable environments such as driving. I'll try and chase up the relevant section of the findings and post them here later but just to give you a brief general overview of the findings it was found that under controlled conditions where the participant under influence of amphetamines knew what was going to happen could react quite well and quickly to it. For example pressing a button when a light lit up. However under conditions where they did not know what was going to happen and would have to react with an on the spot reaction not something planned then they proved to be quite inefficient. For example picking out certain coloured lights comming from different parts of an illuminated board. These were basic tests performed prior to using a driving simulator. Predictably the control group who were not under influence of any drug performed the best. Those who were etremely fatigued and those under influence of amphetamines both performed poorly in general. To ensure the results were not biased by say the control group just being better drivers than the other groups, the fatigued group and amphetamine group were also tested when sober, rested and free from drugs and their results were compared.
Basically the long and short of it Dabb is that there is stong evidence that suggests that basic motor skills and reaction times in uncontrolled and unpredictable circumstances are significantly affected by the use of amphetamines.

People may think they can drive really well whilst under the influence of drugs and maybe they could if on a car track with no other cars and a controlled environment where all they need to focus on is the 1 objective of pointing the car in the correct direction. However on open roads with other motorists and any number uncontrollable variables one cannot safely pilot a motor vehicle.


Beech out

 

[Bent]

Its starting to get messy.... The Age - Contradictory drug tests

The first test he gets a positive result for speed...second test for pot...who knows what the 3rd test will reveal!

A police spokesman today confirmed the first test, conducted while Mr De Jong sat in his vehicle, indicated only that Mr De Jong had taken methamphetamine.

He said police on Monday told him the second of two saliva tests indicated he had smoked marijuana within the past two two hours.

 

[Perfection]

They don't have to. They are both illegal.

Did you read the quote above which the question was in reference to? Someone said that the although you test positive for methampetamines on the first test, if subsequent tests only show MDMA the charges won't proceed. My question is if this is the case and if so how is it that they differentiate between the "speed" and "mdma" given that they are both "methamphetamine".

 

[BigTrancer]

I think the point JB is getting at is that the onus is on you to prove you did not have methamphetamine in your system when you have tested positive while driving a car. They have in their hands two positive saliva tests from you, They don't need to prove anything more to charge you with driving while impaired.

BigTrancer

 

[Cowboy Mac]

Can anyone confirm whether the public has access to these testers? Pop Popavich perhaps?

There is no way you will have access to these testers. Were you hoping to get them from 7/11 and wait until you tested negative or something?

 

[Cowboy Mac]

I managed to find out what the deal is with MDMA, dexamphetamine & saliva testing.

...

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.

That sounds like bullcrap. The saliva based tests exist to catch people driving on drugs, drugs that it can detect.

Imagine this: you test positive for amphetamine on the first test and you are told to take a second more accurate test within the drug bus. This would also confirm amphetamine, or specifically MDMA depending on what equipment they have in there. A sample is taken and sent to a lab for the final and most accurate test which will be used as evidence in court. It returns MDMA and you are charged with drug driving... on MDMA. I don't understand why you think you can get off with a technicality. Where did you find out "what the deal is"?.

 

[quiet roar]

There is no way you will have access to these testers. Were you hoping to get them from 7/11 and wait until you tested negative or something?

I wasn't thinking of that but rather testing them to work out what the tolerances are.

Although wouldn't your suggestion be the most effective form of reducing drug driving (if that was what they really wanted to do)?

 

[Cowboy Mac]

Although wouldn't your suggestion be the most effective form of reducing drug driving (if that was what they really wanted to do)?

No, that would be the solution on how to beat the siliva based tests.

 

[ayjay]

^I found out "the deal" by questioning Inspector Martin Boorman (unfortunate name) at a conference last week. I can only hope that he answered my questions truthfully, but he specifically and unequivocally said:

1. Only THC and methamphetamine use are being targeted, and only the presence of one these two drugs in the lab analysis of your second saliva sample will lead to the charge of XPCD (drive with illicit drug present)

2. Significant effort was made to develop tests that would not react to drugs other than methamphetamine and THC. He specifically stated that dexamphetamine would not show up ("cross-react") with the roadside saliva test. One drug that will definitely cross-react with the roadside or bus test is MDMA. However, lab analysis of the second saliva sample (taken in the bus) will be able to distinguish between MDMA and methamphetamine, so you won't be charged

That's straight from the horses mouth, and in the short term, I believe it to be true. In the long run, I would expect the legislation and testing regimes to include other drugs, including MDMA.

Don't forget - this is a world first. I'm sure they're taking it slowly at first to remove teething problems. Just wait a few years until they introduce 0.00% blood alcohol and no (cigarette) smoking while driving!!

 

[quiet roar]

Not at all CM, it's likes pubs having breathalisers.

Say I've blown a spliff and after an hour or so I want to drive. Sure I feel ok but I am not sure if I am still registering. I take the test, it says I am still unfit to drive - fine, I'll wait another hour. Another hour passes, I test myself again, this time it says I am ok so I jump in my car and go. How the hell else am I going to know when I can drive?

If I wanted to beat the test, I would gargle listerine after my joint and then check to see if that has worked.

 

[beech]

I can see some benefit to having testers available to the public in a similar way that BAC testers are available. This way one would be able to test one's self to see if it was acceptable for them to drive at some point later in the day after having consumed drugs. Obviously as with the BAC testers they wouldn't be of garaunteed but could give some indication.


Beech out

 

[beech]

with regard to the mdma thing it could possibly be a moot point unless you feel the pills you are taking are pure mdma. I'd say it would be a very bad idea to drive after taking pills apart from it being danderous but also the pill you have consumed may very well contain some methamphetamine hence resulting in a positive test.

beech out

 

[charlesbronson]

But the trouble is that the police don't seem to be too active in giving us an indication of when we are able to drive after using the targeted drugs....they seem to reason authoritatively and simplistically that driving under the influence of illicit drugs will not be tolerated. Yet their perspective on what being 'under the influence' entails is pretty cloudy. They use this to their advantage in an attempt to scare all drivers from the road who use illicit drugs, perhaps in an attempt to deter people from drugs, people for whom driving is a necessity. you never quite know eh....

So the tests are not necessarily an indication of impairment, so much as they are of drug use and subsequent driving - which is not dangerous so long as the driver is no longer impaired. i.e. the test won't necessarily tell you whether or not it is safe to drive, but whether or not the police can get you - they don't want you driving if you've had the drug at all; better yet, (their ultimate goal) they don't want you taking the drug.....so they won't release these testers because perhaps their presence on the road is not motivated by safety concerns but a deeper issue of ridding society of drugs by promoting social intolerance of their use in combination with a normal life.

Or is it just another idea under the policy of harm minimisation that will actually save lives? leaving me pissed off because I hate public transport....

 

[Fry-d-]

Don't quote me on this but I recall earlier in this thread that 4 hours was mentioned as a dection period, I think pop popavich was testing this out? The detection period would obviously be longer if you have consumed more drugs. I beleive the idea is to detect impairment not just simple usage, am I wrong?

It would take a certain amount of the drug to indicate a positive just the same as a blood alcohol test. A lot of questions and confusion but I'm sure the answers will come in time, this is all new to everyone.

 

[Pleonastic]

In regards to the public having access to these testers for personal use, I think that is actually a good idea and doesn't at all fly in the face of what these tests are supposed to achieve. If you can sit there and test yourself and wait until you show up as negative again before waiting to drive, then that should technically mean you are allowed to drive because you're no longer "impaired".

If these tests are only supposed to determine when you're impaired, then waiting until you test negative is probably the only sure way to know if you actually have the drugs out of your system. Without being able to test yourself you have to make that judgement by guess work, and as the cops say - these drugs can actually leave you impaired for a lot longer than you think.

Beating the test by using some sort of mouthwash to mask the result is an example of abusing the system. But beating the test by using the same test at home to indicate when you're finally clear is OK. Unless of course these tests show up as negative when you're still impaired - but that'd defeat the entire scheme's credibility so that's not very likely.

 

[dabb]

I saw part of the ACA or TT (i forget which one) report on the guy that was the first to be booked and he swears he wasn't under the influence of marijuana but it seems like his story has changed from the article posted in this thread where he claimed to have not smoked weed in the past month to saying he smoked some 4 weeks ago, so assuming he wasn't misquoted in the article the guy seems a little dodgy but a legal test case should still be interesting.

Dabb I hate to break it to you but your backseat observations of somebody's driving abilities whilst under the influence of drugs to various degrees and that of sober drivers and fatigued drivers don't quite stack up to the more scientific measures used under controlled conditions in testing.

Yeah i know thats why i preceeded those comments with "i know this far from hard or real evidence" i wasn't trying to indicate i think my observations are useful to the overall arguement just explaining how my personal opinions have been formed.

Other than this i wasn't trying to argue that driving under the influence of amphetamine is safe i just don't think its been so conclusively proven to be dangerous that its reasonable to ridicule (well this was more Pleonastic than you) anyone with the opposing viewpoint, the study you mention is very interesting though.

 

[charlesbronson]

Sure if the tests are truly indicative of impairment then it is great if they are released to the public, so that users may ensure that they are no longer impaired according to these tests, and may then get behind the wheel with more safety. But as yet it is unclear whether they will only be used to prosecute people who are impaired, as opposed to users who drive without concentrations of drugs sufficient to warrant a charge of impairment. If the police do not elaborate on the procedures and relevant laws, and then do not give the public access to these testers, it becomes fairer to assume that this is an intimidation tactic targeting drug users, moreso than being a road safety initiative.

Not to mention that the test kits are pretty pricey, and are single-use disposable units I think, so it would probably be financially impractical for most people to try out on themselves before driving.

And as for abusing the system by avoiding detection....well, if they are solely detecting that you are a drug user, as opposed to detecting impairment, and are then punishing you as though you are putting your life and other lives in danger, then the system is unfair. And I don't see too much wrong in abusing an unfair system.... It is the fault of the state governments that people are trying to abuse their system, because of their rush to begin testing and their failure to explain to the public how it will all work.... it sends us all a message that this whole thing hasn't been thought out very well and we may be the next victim of an unfair sham, and so it pushes us to think of ways to avoid becoming victims, rather than encouraging us to consider the issue of drugs and driving and the choices we make.

I don't think most people are ready to just accept what police/legislators tell us about drug driving....for some of us it is based on our personal experiences, but if they are going to initiate something like road side drug testing then an education (not scare) campaign to affect attitudes about drug driving isn't too much to ask for.

 

[Psychadelic_Paisly]

he claimed to have not smoked weed in the past month to saying he smoked some 4 weeks ago, so assuming he wasn't misquoted in the article the guy seems a little dodgy but a legal test case should still be interesting.

A month = 4 weeks