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


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

Roadside Drug Testing....

Roadside drug test trial may get another run
By Farrah Tomazin
State political reporter
May 10, 2005

Victoria Police could be given the power to continue roadside drug tests until July next year - six months longer than the State Government had originally announced.

Under proposed laws introduced in Parliament, the original "sunset" date on random drug-driving tests would move from July 1 this year to July 1, 2006.

Superintendent Peter Keogh from Victoria Police's traffic support division said the change had been introduced "to allow a full 12 months of the program to be evaluated". The change means the roadside drug tests could be carried out until next July if necessary.

Police Minister Tim Holding yesterday said some form of the random drug testing would continue in Victoria after the 12-month trial ended in December.

Despite a controversial start, which was delayed six months - two of the first three drivers to test positive were later cleared - police figures suggest that of 4619 drivers tested for drugs until April, 63 tested positive.

The extension is contained in the Road Safety (Further Amendment) Bill 2005, introduced in Parliament last week. The bill also proposes that drivers found guilty of dangerous driving be disqualified from driving - even if they are not convicted.

From The Age
 
Sounds like they haven't got the results they are looking for. So it wouldn't suprise me if they intensify the use between now and then.
 
igyzigy said:
will what do we think people?

I just can't believe they are going ahead with it, the testing just doesn't work properly for a start. I'm also a little paranoid about them "stealing" samples of peoples DNA

A personal takes 2 rohypnol and washes it down with a couple of shots of wild turkey and is legally ok to drive 8o But a smoker has to worry..... this just sucks :X :X :X
 
Last edited:
MoeBro said:
I suggest not consuming drugs before driving. Make a cab fare an addition to your outing expenses

When certain governement sponsered tests have shown, people who smoke can be slightly better drivers, and keeping in mind its ONLY about road saftey, shouldn't it be mandatory to smoke before driving? ;)


Seriously though, cab fare is a great idea, can't go wrong.

I just worry about been pulled over and busted for smoking the weekend before. It will probably take me years to get to an acceptable level after smoking for 20 years.
 
Last edited:
MoeBro said:
I suggest not consuming drugs before driving. Make a cab fare an addition to your outing expenses

That goes without saying.

What i'm concerned about is the next day when i've slept my 8 hours and feel fine and rejuvinated that i get done.
 
The primary concern of almost all of us on BL is being busted for 'Drug Driving' well after we have stopped being 'high'. Just have a re-read of the earlier replies in this thread and the others on Drug Driving Testing in Vic. There's plenty of info about the hypothesised detection limits and timeframes after dosing with cannabis and speed.

BigTrancer :)
 
MoeBro said:
I suggest not consuming drugs before driving. Make a cab fare an addition to your outing expenses

That's a given, moebro, but that's not where the issue ends. The system is simply not solid enough to go unleashing on real motorists with real lives.
 
You'd think that all the media coverage, and the testing that proves anything but accuracy, you'd have to have resonable doubt if decided to fight charges like this in court.


But this is Victoria, where a person can be done for escaping legal custody for refusing to get out of the back of the police car.
 
Drug detection increases
Jeremy Kelly
14 May 2005

THE rate of drug-affected drivers is increasing but the detection rate for truck drivers is on the slide.

New figures show that one in every 67 drivers testing positive to either cannabis or methamphetamine compared with a rate last month of one positive for every 73 drivers.

Police Minister Tim Holding yesterday described the results as disappointing and very concerning.

While the rate of detection has increased for drivers, one in every 74 truckies is now being busted for drug-driving compared with last month's figures - 70 truckies for each positive.

Since the world-first trial started in December last year, 5598 drivers have been tested with 83 recording positive results, later ratified by independent laboratory tests.

Mr Holding said 27 drivers tested positive for both cannabis and methamphetamine, five had only cannabis in their system while the remaining 51 were positive to only methamphetamine.

"These results are very, very concerning and disappointing," Mr Holding told the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing.

Mr Holding said on average, the rate of drink-driving was 1-in-250 drivers breathalysed.

From Herald Sun

With a 1 per 67 driver rate compared to 1 per 250 for alcohol, I'm not sure just what better figures police are waiting to get?

At exactly what point will police have numbers they will want to take to Parliament to put forward a case to permanently enact drug-driving legislation?

1 per 1 driver? Surely if they "targeted" correctly they could achieve that statistic too... 8)
 
The media contantly compare it with alcohol, nobody bothers mentioning that the 2 drugs are totally different and certainly have totally different affects on someones driving skills. I've searched and searched and still can't find proof that smoking affects ones driving in a bad way.

I'm a smoker and hardly ever drink, When I do have a couple I can feel too drunk to drive but still be under the legal limit.
 
Drunk drivers avoid drug tests via loophole
By Farrah Tomazin
State Political Reporter
May 20, 2005

The State Government admits that motorists under the influence could be slipping through the net.

Hundreds of potentially drug-affected motorists are escaping punishment because of a loophole in the State Government's roadside drug-testing regime.

An apparent flaw in the system means that motorists under the influence of both alcohol and drugs can slip through the net and avoid hefty fines for drug-driving.

The Government and Victoria Police yesterday admitted that if a person is pulled over for a drug test but found positive for alcohol first, they do not go on to be tested for cannabis or methamphetamine - even if they have the drugs in their system. This means that people driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs can escape the drug-related penalties, which include having their licence cancelled or fines for a first offence.

The revelation came as Police Minister Tim Holding, speaking at a ministerial drug conference in Canberra yesterday, urged his interstate counterparts to introduce Victoria's testing regime.

But the State Opposition said the loophole contradicted the Government's message that it was tough on drugs.

"If people know that they can take drugs and still get in the car and drive, then you've got a real problem on your hands," said Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder.

Under the Victorian drug-testing trial, motorists pulled over for a random drug test must first be breathalysed for alcohol. They are then saliva-tested for drugs. If found to be positive, they are tested a second time. If another positive reading is found, their saliva sample is sent to a forensic laboratory for a third and final test before they can be formally penalised.

When asked why motorists under the influence of drugs and alcohol were not fined twice, for each offence, Assistant Commissioner (Traffic) Bob Hastings said it was unnecessary.

"If they're over the limit with alcohol, they're processed and they're off the road anyway. So in terms of eliminating them as a risk, that's dealt with as part of the alcohol-testing regime," he said.

Mr Hastings denied that the cost of drug testing - about $500 from the first saliva swab to the final laboratory test- was a factor. Nor was it the case that the drug tests were less accurate if people also had alcohol in their system, he said.

Mr Holding said the testing regime was only a trial and any "issues" would be reviewed before being introduced permanently next year.

"The drug-testing program that's now in place is a trial, and at the end of the trial, the results, as well as any issues raised during it, will be evaluated," he said.

Despite a controversial start, in which two out of the first three drivers to test positive were later cleared, the Government believes its drug-driving trial has since been a success.

While it is due to end in December, laws were recently introduced in Parliament allowing the trial to continue until July 2006, if necessary.

Police figures suggest that drug-driving is nearly four times as prevalent as drink-driving, with one in every 67 drivers testing positive for cannabis or methamphetamine-based drugs. This compared to one in every 250 drivers testing positive for alcohol.

Drivers who return positive laboratory tests are fined $307 and gain three demerit points for a first offence or are prosecuted. If the offence goes to court, the maximum penalty for a first offence is $614 and a three-month licence cancellation.

Subsequent convictions can attract fines of up to $1227 and a six-month licence cancellation.

From The Age

I know this is something that we've discussed here before as a way of getting around the drug driving tests. Perhaps now it's common knowledge we might see more people deliberately carrying a small vial of strong alcohol around with them when driving under the influence?

As bad as any sort of drug/drink driving conviction is, we all know that drink driving is far more common and socially acceptable than drug driving. I know what I'd rather have on my record given a choice between the two; especially considering that future employers might look such convictions up in a police record check.

DUI is the sort of thing some guys might raise an eyebrow over, then slap you on the back and have a chuckle with you about. Drugs on the other hand, people might not be so understanding.

:\
 
Perhaps now it's common knowledge we might see more people deliberately carrying a small vial of strong alcohol around with them when driving under the influence?

And if it were swirled quickly in the mouth and then spat rather than swallowed, you could safely demand a blood test and in all likelihood get off scott free ;)

There's also the issue of what alcohol you have in your system and how this could lead to successfully disputing the accuracy of the commonly used means of detection.

Effect of Eight Solvents on Ethanol Analysis by
Drager 7110 Evidential Breath Analyzer∗


Breath tests are widely used in screening and indicating drunken
drivers. The infrared absorption method (IR) is fast and convenient
to use for breath-ethanol analysis. However, some other volatile
compounds may absorb the infrared beam in the same wavelength
regions and, therefore, they may interfere the ethanol analysis. That
could be of practical importance, because a significant interference
may lead to an erroneous judgment for driving under the influence
(DUI). Moreover, even a possibility of interference may lead to
claims alleging that true analysis results are erroneous and hence,
not valid as evidence.
 
Any news on NSW testing, i mean one minute they're talking about starting in March and now it seems like they've completely forgotten about it, not that i would complain if forgot about it forever.
 
phase_dancer said:
And if it were swirled quickly in the mouth and then spat rather than swallowed, you could safely demand a blood test and in all likelihood get off scott free ;)

I wonder if just telling them you have had a drink would be enough, everytime I've had a breath test they have asked if I've had any drinks today.

You'd think it would be irresponsible for them not to test you for alcohol if you admit to drinking.
 
Last edited:
Thats quite a loophole, not something they wanted public knowledge I'm sure.
 
good loophole, BUT no so good if you are on your P's,

if you are found over 0.00 when on your p's you lose your licence
if you are found on drugs when on your p's you get 3 points & a fine.

i know which one i'd rather.

(not that i would do either).
 
I just wanted to get some second opinions on a theory I have. The last time I was tested and returned a negative result, I had been smoking meth all day and had only just put the pipe down an hour before being pulled over for the test. Considering that the week previous to this I'd been pulled over, tested and returned a positive result after consuming half an E five hours prior to driving it did my head in trying to figure out why I'd gotten away the second time.
After racking my brain I remembered that when I was pulled over for the second test had been in the middle of munching my way through a granny smith apple. It was a particularly bitter apple (I'm a sucker for all things sweet&sour) and if I recall correctly the officer had had to wait while I
finished the bite I'd just taken. So, perhaps the acidity of the apple affected the test? Is it possible that eating a bit of apple immediately before taking the testgives a false result?
perhaps I've accidently stumbled across the perfect way to foil the drug test! It's a cheap, easy and convenient way to avoid detection. Doesn't McDonalds even sell apples now?
Needless to say: I no longer drive anywhere unless i have an apple in my car, at the ready, for such an occasion...
 
Top