Roadside Drug Testing....

[Bent]

My brother got pulled over on sydney road....2 weeks ago i think. He said he was off his head on louie and eccies

Your brother is a lucky idiot. And let me guess, he's so sure a breath mint will protect him he'll continue to drive off his head?

 

[Pleonastic]

I've noticed the media have stopped talking about the success rate of the testing, I wonder how many more people have been proved innocent or guilty with independant testing.

Neil Mitchel did a thing on them less than a week ago. And before everyone automatically gets angry cos I mentioned a radio talkback show, he's actually against the testing until it can be proven they're reliable. Although he does still tow the "nobody should use drugs" line, but that's to be expected given the demographic of his audience.

 

[peakn7]

Thanks for all the info Pop Popavic, that's great info!

Just wondering, what do you mean by the several hours after tesing it came up as positive? How much is several hours? So far, what's the longest after consumption of either drug that a test result has come up positive?

Also I know it's alot to ask, but would it be possible to get some stats on the people you are testing?

Eg.. Sex, Height, Weight, ask them what there metabolism is like etc. What/How much they've consumed, what time was last consumption, basically I would just like to know on say an average male who had say 3 pills in a night (of decent strength) or say like the equivalent amount in speed etc. what was the longest amount of time after final consumption that it showed up as positive, I honestly don't really care if it's UP TO 12 hours - but if it's been any more, that's pretty shocking I mean it's probably unlikely to cop the drug bus but say you get tested on a Monday morning on your way to work and you last had drugs at like 4AM Sunday.

Have you tried a test yet where someone has tried the pocket pak Listerine before the test?

I would gladly be a guinea pig if you need anyone, to try a range of tests? Is the tester re-usable like breath testers where they just change the straw thing? Do you just change the equivalent on the drug swipe and go again? How many more tests would you be able to do? Alot?

Sorry for the amount of questions, but I know alot of my mates and alot of people on here would love to know the answers to as many as possible if possible.

Does anyone know much about metabolism and drugs? Like I think I have a very fast metabolism, as in if I eat, I get hungry again VERY QUICKLY after my last meal. If I have a massive meal where I feel bloated, I could start getting hungry again like 2-3 hours after that meal and eat again, is that right? Is that a fast metabolism?

Does that affect how long drugs stay in my body or does it not matter one bit and the amount stays in everybodies body the same amount of time?

 

[AussieRaver]

thats why u catch a cab home, id perferr to pay the price of cab then get done by the drug bus heh.
safe and responsible....

EDIT: i only read the first post so dont blame me if someone else has written the same thing, im lazy

 

[deano]

Thanks for all the info Pop Popavic, that's great info!

Just wondering, what do you mean by the several hours after tesing it came up as positive? How much is several hours? So far, what's the longest after consumption of either drug that a test result has come up positive?

Test number1 came up positive for smoking 8 weeks before the test. Depending on the test and how often you smoke, THC can show up for many weeks as its not water soluble like alcohol.

Prescription drugs like valium are far more of a problem than weed, and they don't test for anything made by pharmaceutical companies.....funny that8(

 

[hoptis]

News update, the position of the new Minister for Emergency Services, Tim Holding.

Drug testing to stay
Peter Mickelburough and Tanya Giles
26 Jan 2005

ROADSIDE drug-driving tests will not change under new state Police Minister Tim Holding.

Premier Steve Bracks ruled out any review of the controversial saliva testing system just hours before his repackaged ministers were sworn in by Governor John Landy.

"We're committed to the drug-driving test," Mr Bracks said.

The world-first roadside testing system started badly when the first driver to return a positive saliva test was paraded in front of the media on day one of the tests but later cleared.

In December police changed the procedure for roadside tests to ensure greater accuracy when taking and processing saliva swabs.

Mr Bracks was confident the system was now accurate and failsafe.

...

(Rest of article about Bracks cabinet changes)

Herald Sun

 

[killarava2day]

One in 100 drivers found taking drugs
By Jason Dowling
State Politics
January 30, 2005

One in 100 of the drivers tested by Victoria Police's world-first drug bus has returned a positive result for driving while under the influence of drugs, The Sunday Age believes.

This is 2 times the rate for drivers returning a positive result for driving while under the influence of alcohol when breath tested.

Police had planned to announce the staggering results for the drug bus last week, but delayed doing so because of the Bracks Government's ministerial reshuffle, which saw Tim Holding elevated to the Police Minister's portfolio and Andre Haermeyer relegated to Manufacturing, Export and Small Business.

The announcement, now expected to be made within days, is likely to show that more than one in every 100 drivers drug tested by police returned a positive result after laboratory analysis.

The yearly average strike rate for motorists caught drink-driving is about one in every 250 tested.

In one operation alone, targeting the Summerdayze dance festival on January 1, police sources said almost one in 10 drivers tested returned initial positive results.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Sources have told The Sunday Age that about 1500 motorists have already been tested under the drug-driving testing program, with more than 15 returning positive laboratory results.

In 2003, almost a third of drivers killed on Victoria's roads had drugs other than alcohol in their system, and in a number of recent years, more people have been killed with drugs other than alcohol in their system than those killed with a blood-alcohol reading above .05.

Since the introduction of random roadside drug testing in Victoria on December 13, a number of drivers had already been issued with penalty notices for a first drug-driving offence.

If a driver returns a positive result from a roadside drug test, he or she is then taken to the police bus for a second test. A second positive result is then sent to a laboratory for testing, which can take up to 14 days. Only after a positive laboratory result is a driver prosecuted for a drug-driving offence.

A first drug-driving offence incurs a $307 fine and the loss of three demerit points.

Second and subsequent drug-driving offences carry a fine of $1227 and up to six months' licence cancellation.

The random roadside saliva tests detect the presence of THC (the active component in cannabis) and methamphetamine (speed). The stunning results by police are understood to have been caused by the specific targeting of high-risk areas for drug-driving.

A number of truck drivers are believed to have been issued penalty notices for driving while under the influence of drugs.

Victoria's world-first road-side drug testing got off to a shaky start in December when two of the first three drivers to test positive were later cleared by laboratory tests.

After advice from university researchers and scientists who helped test the drug-testing equipment, police adjusted their roadside testing technique. The accuracy of the roadside drug tests is believed to have improved dramatically, with more than 95 per cent of positive roadside drug results now being confirmed by the laboratory tests.

Professor Olaf Drummer, of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, the body responsible for conducting many of the laboratory tests, said yesterday that he was unable to comment on the success of the drug-driving tests but said he expected Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner (traffic) Bob Hastings to make an announcement soon.

Opposition police spokesman Kim Wells said the Opposition strongly supported the drug testing of drivers.

However, the Opposition was still not convinced the method being used by Victoria Police was 100 per cent accurate and it would be monitoring closely the drug-driving scheme in coming months.

"There is scepticism in the Victorian community on its accuracy," he said. The Opposition would also request a briefing from the new Police Minister about the latest results of the random roadside drug testing.

TESTING
Dec 13, 2004: Roadside drug screening begins in Victoria. Fourth driver stopped returns two positive samples.

Dec 22, 2004: Lab tests return negative result for two of the first three positive roadside drug tests.

Jan 24, 2005: Andre Haermeyer dumped as police minister with roadside drug testing problems said to have contributed to his fall.

March 2005: NSW to begin roadside drug testing in a 12-month trial.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/29/1106850163853.html

 

[Psychadelic_Paisly]

^^^^^^ Those figures don't surprise me at all. The amount of people driving with both 'psycho-active' concentrations of drugs along with residual amounts (2hrs/24hrs for THC/meth). I'm sure a lot of people actually forget that they've even done speed within the 24hr 'cut-off' they seem to have made.

Obviously, another reason for the high results that they mentioned was the use of the drug bus in 'high risk zones' such as the clever cookies driving home from Summerdaze.

If the accuracy has improved dramatically, good on them. However, I think there are always going to be issues related to this processes.

 

[Pleonastic]

After advice from university researchers and scientists who helped test the drug-testing equipment, police adjusted their roadside testing technique. The accuracy of the roadside drug tests is believed to have improved dramatically, with more than 95 per cent of positive roadside drug results now being confirmed by the laboratory tests.

Has anyone else noticed how they never say exactly how they adjusted their technique? They don't even seem to hint at it. This leads me to believe that the adjusted "technique" is more related to who they target rather than how they test them. If you set up your testing station outside a major event and then selectively choose who to pull over you're obviously going to increase your hit rate. There's also a greater chance that the people you test will be genuine positives, and there's probably also a smaller chance that any false positives will generate much negative publicity (after all, they were at the rave party so they must be bad kids anyway, bad luck for them). You could just as easily set up the drug bus in an area that will get 10 positive readings, as you could set it up in an area where nobody would even register.

So the results of this "ramdom" selecting is causing a much higher percentage of positive results than the actual percentage of all motorists who drive under the influence of drugs. Which all helps the propaganda that these tests are working perfectly, which couldn't be further than the truth. The government themselves now claim 95% of positive tests are confirmed at the lab - but another way to say that is that 1 in 20 people are falsly accused of being drug users, and have to wait weeks to have their name cleared. These innocent people also are prohibited from driving their car or truck after the initial test, which in many cases I'm sure will affect their jobs. And there's nothing they can do about it because there's a clause in the legislation which stops anyone getting any compensation for this.

I've always said that the random testing is a good idea, but it needs to be done fairly. So I fall in with the Liberal camp on this one (as much as it pains me to say it, because Robert Doyle is a tool of the higest order). The sunset clause of the legislation is coming up in only 5 months, and given the pace (or lack thereof) that parliment moves at, the debates will begin soon on the continuation of the tests. With control of both houses though, the government can pretty much do what they want. Thank god it's an election year though - that might be our only hope!

 

[Psychadelic_Paisly]

^^^ The contents of the drugs still get into your saliva if the drugs don't physically touch your mouth. That's not how the tests work.

*warning* ad-hoc physiology ahead!!! (correct me if I'm way off)

The reason you get traces of the drugs in your saliva is due to the drugs passing through you blood stream. Due to the high concentration of capillaries in your mouth region, a lot of the substances in the blood can/will pass back into the saliva.

If this is wrong I'll edit it straight away, but that's what I was thinking...

 

[ayjay]

^the only exception *may* be THC - being a lipid, the main reason it is detectable in saliva is probably from absorption into the mouth during smoking - this I got from an info seminar just prior to the commencement of saliva testing in Vic

 

[hoptis]

Two articles from Monday based on the official release of drug testing results by Victoria Police and political comments.

Drug tests alarm, safety the target
By Farrah Tomazin and Melissa Marino
January 31, 2005

The State Government and Victoria Police are alarmed that almost one in 100 drivers tested positive for drug-driving in six weeks, but they believe the controversial testing could be a deterrent that results in safer roads.

The figures, released by police after they were revealed in The Sunday Age yesterday, showed that of 1855 random roadside tests taken since mid-December, 18 were confirmed positive by laboratory analysis. The rate was 2½ times higher than that of drivers caught drink-driving.

The drug-driving trials were widely criticised after two of the first three motorists to test positive were later cleared, but new Police Minister Tim Holding said the figures showed the testing was working.

"We have every confidence that the technology is right (and) we have confidence that the operators are using the technology properly," Mr Holding said.

Mr Holding and Assistant Commissioner (Traffic) Bob Hastings agreed it was disturbing that tests had revealed such high numbers of drug-affected drivers.

Coroners Court figures showed that 31 per cent of drivers killed had illegal drugs in their systems, Mr Hastings said.

"I think as a community we ought to be really taking this problem seriously because all of us use the roads and if people are out there loaded up with this sort of stuff, potentially it's a disaster," he said.

The tests found 11 drivers tested positive for methamphetamine (found in speed), two to tetrahydrocannabinol (found in cannabis) and five to both. Three were driving trucks and 15 were driving cars. More detailed analysis of the drivers is expected in coming days.

Mr Hastings said the tests were designed to respond to a growing culture of drug-taking and driving similar to the drink-driving culture of 30 years ago.

Testing focused on locations where there was evidence of high drug use, including New Year's Day dance party Summerdayze.

All drivers tested at the drug bus are tested first for alcohol, then drug use. Drivers are not prosecuted for drug offences until results have been confirmed by laboratory testing.

If convicted, drug-drivers face fines of $307 and lose three demerit points for a first offence. People caught a second time face a $600 fine and three months' loss of licence, while subsequent offences will cost drivers up to $1200 and the potential loss of licence for six months.

The State Opposition yesterday questioned the penalties, saying motorists caught "pilled up to the eyeballs" should lose their licences immediately if fines were found to be not enough deterrent.

Opposition spokesman Kim Wells said: "It makes more sense to me that if you were tested positive under the influence of drugs, that you would lose your licence. The issue of demerit points and a fine just simply doesn't stack up when you compare it to the penalties we hand out for alcohol."

Mr Wells said the Liberal Party supported testing for drug-driving, but he was still sceptical about the method and accuracy of the program.

He would seek an urgent briefing from Mr Holding to prove the data and technology were reliable, he said.

The State Government ruled out tougher penalties for drug-drivers.

Mr Holding said: "We think we've got the balance right in relation to penalties."

From The Age

Call to get drug drivers off road
Peter Mickelburough and Paul Anderson
31 Jan 2005

DRUGGED drivers should be taken off the road and not just fined, the State Opposition said yesterday.

The get-tough call came as police released figures showing 18 of 1855 drivers given roadside saliva tests had taken drugs.

Senior police said a disturbing number had high levels of methamphetamines in their system.

Police Minister Tim Holding said the results showed the much-maligned system, which was still on trial, was working.

"The Government was right to be concerned about drug-driving on our roads, with something like one in 103 positive tests, which compares to a one in 250 positive rate for drink-driving on our roads," he said.

Mr Holding said he was concerned, and a little surprised, by the high levels of methamphetamines detected, but believed the balance of penalties was correct.

The world-first saliva testing regime had a rocky start in December, when the first positive test proved negative in the laboratory after the driver had been paraded before the media.

Police said there had been no false positives since the first two days of testing, when three positive roadside saliva tests proved negative in the lab.

Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings said changes to the method of saliva testing had seen all subsequent positives backed by laboratory tests.

"People have been properly tested and the results have been properly analysed," he said.

"No one's prosecuted . . . no one's charged until we get the lab result."

Mr Hastings said he was disturbed by the levels of methamphetamine in those tested.

"All of us use the roads, and if people are out there loaded up on this sort of stuff then potentially it's a disaster," he said.

Opposition police spokesman Kim Wells said he strongly supported drug-drive tests but wanted an urgent briefing from Mr Holding to address continuing concerns.

"We are still not confident the method for testing drivers for drugs is accurate," Mr Wells said.

"The Government told us that the (faulty) speed cameras on the Western Ring Rd were 100 per cent accurate, so we have a great deal of scepticism about the accuracy of drug testing."

As a third of drivers killed on Victorian roads were found with drugs other than alcohol in their blood, Mr Wells said the existing penalties appeared inadequate.

A first offence incurs a $307 fine and the loss of three demerit points; subsequent offences a $1227 fine and up to a six-month loss of licence.

"It would make more sense to me that if you tested positive under the influence of drugs, that you would lose your licence," Mr Wells said.

"The issue of demerit points and a fine simply doesn't stack up when you compare it to the penalties we hand out for alcohol. If you are pilled up to your eyeballs, of course people like that we want off the roads."

Between December 13 last year and January 27 this year, 1518 car drivers and 337 truck drivers were randomly drug tested.

Eleven tested positive to methamphetamine, two tested positive to THC (the active component of cannabis), and five tested positive to both drugs.

From Herald Sun

 

[BigTrancer]

They should compare the percentage of drivers with alcohol present at ANY DETECTABLE LEVEL with the percentage of drivers tested positive for drugs. After all, any detectable level of a drug signifies impairment, right?

BigTrancer

 

[Pop Popavich]

The government themselves now claim 95% of positive tests are confirmed at the lab - but another way to say that is that 1 in 20 people are falsly accused of being drug users, and have to wait weeks to have their name cleared. These innocent people also are prohibited from driving their car or truck after the initial test, which in many cases I'm sure will affect their jobs.

They are only restricted from driving until they return a negative test, then they are free to drive home from the drug bus, however, their results are still sent off for final testing and they are neither charged nor cleared until the lab results are in.

BT, when they say that any detectable level signifies impairment, that is any level detectable by these test. They can use other tests to test more acurately for the use of drugs in the recent past, but they have developed these tests with the intention of only detecting a part of the substance, the presence of which would signify impairment.

That said, these tests are far from perfect, out of the dozens I have tested with, there have been a fair number that didn't work properly, or returned negatives when I know full well that the testee was off their dials of the respective substances.

 

[ohthreetwo]

less than three weeks to go now for NSW drivers ....

 

[deano]

less than three weeks to go now for NSW drivers ....

Lets hope the NSW government has a better approach than "suck and see"like Victorians have to put up with. The Bracks government has basically said, we are commited (whether it works or not)

The new procedures are mainly better handling procedures, maybe the testers own positive thc content was positive factor in the false positives.


On the plus side, this type of testing is an admission they have lost the WOD

 

[Rustyfred84]

Hey m8 im from w.a jus heard theyr not bringing in the saliva testing in over hear because its too in accurate. Jus havta hope that ppl stay of the roads while fried out. Roll on n on!!!

 

[ohthreetwo]

bah! lets hope NSW sees the light as well

 

[deano]

Hey m8 im from w.a jus heard theyr not bringing in the saliva testing in over hear because its too in accurate. Jus havta hope that ppl stay of the roads while fried out. Roll on n on!!!

I'm certainly all for drug free, safe driving, but this revenue raising in victoria is really getting out of hand, for example there is evidence that the fixed speed cameras are faulty.... they still use them ..... road side dope testing, experts say its far too inaccurate.... they still use them, even after they are proved inaccurate..... they say its not revenue raising, although 95% of people polled believe it is. If its ONLY about road saftey, why not only take points from peoples license + costs if they take it to court ?
It will get the offenders off the road just as fast.

 

[ohthreetwo]

less than two weeks till it starts now .... no mention of it anywhere in the news ... they're keeping a low profile indeed