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

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

SA's "Don't drive on drugs" campaign.

peaked

peaked

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
711
As most are well aware, the vast majority of anti-drug related media from both the government and mainstream publications tend to be completely absurd. Sensationalist claims, blatant misinformation, discrimination - you name it, they've got it covered.

I was slightly surprised then, to see a semblance of logic in the latest drug driving campaign from the Motor Accident Commission here in South Australia. The ads are clever, but also very precise in countering the common arguments people use to justify driving on drugs. Not only that, but they manage to carefully avoid condemning drug use in general, instead solely focusing on those who drive while intoxicated.


The advertisements in question are as follows.

Radio ad: The Pilot
http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/popup/radio_campaign.php?id=154

Radio ad: The Surgeon
http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/popup/radio_campaign.php?id=153

TV ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfkA_bMgAP0&feature=player_embedded



I'd like to get the opinions from some fellow users on this. Is this a rare case of a campaign done right, or do you feel it is still going to be ineffective at what it's trying to achieve? If the latter, what do you think would be a more effective method? Is it going to have any effect on your driving habits? Did the humor mask the serious nature of the issue?

What are your thoughts?
 
Yeah I remember seeing those adds and being pretty impressed, kept the propaganda to a minimum and just pointed out the common sense argument against drug driving.
 
its a tough one.. i do not condone it in anyway but id prefer to be in a car with someone on stimulants than i would someone on alcoholl. just my opinion.. weed thats a different question, both got positives and negatives but as i dont smoke it im not phased to that
 
I pointed this out to a friend when the ads first aired. It is quite an amusing irony. That said though, the amounts they are given are very small (5mg if I recall correctly) and so the level of intoxication would likely be minimal than compared to, say, smoking a point of meth.

When I first got my full drivers license, around the time I joined Bluelight, I was prescribed dexamphetamine. I made transport SA aware of this, and inquired about whether it was okay to drive while on it. They told me that it was up to my doctor, whom told me that it was fine as long as I felt capable (the only catch being that, if I'd ever had a serious crash, and the substance was in my blood at the time, that could have potentially been used against me in a court situation). So small amounts of prescription amphetamine seem to be tolerated in regards to driving. Don't take that as fact though, as the laws may have changed in recent years.

I'm not really sure what hard studies have been done re: speed and driving, but from my own experience with meth I'd say for me personally it definitely impairs my ability to drive (to the extent that I avoid all driving when on it). Overly confident while on the peak, and overly spaced out when it wears off. While it may not impair actions as much as say, alcohol, in it's own right it could certainly have a negative effect on driving.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do agree with punishing drug drivers, but I have a serious problem with the way things are being done now.

When you look at breathilisers and the alcohol content they measure, they have a specific guideline to say X amount of drug does cause impairement to the point you shouldn't drive, but if you only use X amount of this drug it doesn't really impair you. I don't have a problem with science based approach like this, it is based on solid evidence and there is clear logic behind it.

The problem with drugs is just the positive result fucks you, and its really irrelevant how much or how little is in your system, to me that just sucks. If you take the example of alcohol and acknowledge some level of substance can be present without causing impairment to the point you can't drive, then why is there no such guideline for illicit drugs?

Atleast someone has bothered to show when you blow this much you are this much more likely to crash. When it comes to drugs they just say its a fact drugs impair driving, but they say something to the effect of "you are X amount of times more likely to crash on X drug" but there are so many variabes there not being taken into account the statement is almost meaningless.

I am all for structured drug testing policy that aims to remove impaired drivers from the road, I am not however, in support of the current system where they have just come up with yet another way to raise revenue and persecute people solely on the basis that their DOC isn't legal.
 
Yeah, a lot of people are quick to say how amphetamines are given to fighter pilots and shit but you have to keep it in perspective. A highly trained pilot on a therapeutic dose of a milder amphetamine, flying around with no traffic, is not quite the same as someone who has been up for 3 days on meth driving around on busy roads.

Probably the stupidest thing to me, is they don't care if you are actually even affected by the drugs so long as metabolites are in your system. This seems beyond unfair that you can get nicked on monday morning for your Friday night pingers. There would be fucking OUTCRY if they started detecting metabolites of alcohol (assuming this is possible) and charging people with drink driving on the basis they drank 2 nights prior, and that really isn't any different to what our current drug testing is doing.
 
In WA at least I think there are two different charges. Driving while impaired by a drug and giving a positive saliva sample. I'm not sure how they apply these two different categories but at least they make some distinction.

I think the penalties for the positive saliva sample are worse than if you had given a low level alcohol reading though.
 
I still think that these drug driving tests are for identifying who the drug users are in society, not just for driving safety.

Why arn't they testing for all the different OTC and Perscription drugs that are handed out DAILY to drivers that cause drowsiness etc????

Why the focus on amphetamines and pot?

Maybe they are scared of public backlash. *shrug*
 
If one were to be frequently taking codeine on a regular basis and it would get picked up after a few days of usage can they differentiate the types of opiates? Are u even allowed to drive whilst u have consumed the doctors/pharmacists recommended dosage?
 
Sustanon said:
If one were to be frequently taking codeine on a regular basis and it would get picked up after a few days of usage can they differentiate the types of opiates? Are u even allowed to drive whilst u have consumed the doctors/pharmacists recommended dosage?
Click to expand...

Saliva tests don't even look for any opiates. They only detect cannabis, meth and MDMA (presumably because they are the most prevalent drugs in society). Theoretically, you could drive through a drug test smashed out on H and it wouldn't detect anything (not that I'd condone such a reckless action).

However, if you had a serious crash, and a blood test was taken, then it would definitely be able to show codeine in your blood. I'm not sure if they would also check the amounts to see if it was a high dose, but it's certainly possible. I'm fairly confident that they can also determine (at least, to some degree) which type of opiate was consumed, so you probably wouldn't get done for "morphine" if you only had codeine.

What I'm not sure of is how a positive result of codeine would be perceived. Would it be viewed as someone who merely had a headache, or would they consider it to have had an impairing action on driving? Provided that they calculated the quantities of the substance in the blood, the latter certainly seems like a possibility.

For what it's worth, as someone who once used codeine daily for over 18 months, I'd highly recommend avoiding driving while under the influence. It can be very deceptive in that you feel perfectly confident, which masks the fact that reaction times are significantly reduced. Also, if you consume enough to get contracted pupils, that can also be a great hindrance when driving at night. You can't see very well, as your eyes are meant to naturally dilate in the dark to allow more light to be perceived.

But then, for what it's worth, I'd recommend avoiding regular (as in daily) codeine use all together. It led me to stronger opiates, and the thought of what will happen when I inevitably stop taking them sends a shiver down my spine. It's not going to be pleasant.
 
I'm fairly confident that they can also determine (at least, to some degree) which type of opiate was consumed, so you probably wouldn't get done for "morphine" if you only had codeine.
Click to expand...

Except that codeine metabolizes to morphine, so wouldn't that show up to? It would come down to whether they accept the codeine metabolites and proof that the morphine is just from the codeine, and not another drug you were taking in it's own right. How much is there would come into it as well I guess.
 
Let me tell you all something.


These saliva tests are complete crap. My dad has just gone into a new partnership using his company to do some things that other companys cannot do. He was approached by people that are trying to get an online 1 hour course set up so that any company can train any worker to do tests for them.. At the moment its quite expensive to get a 3rd party to come in and superivise/do the test.

SO..

He told us that its basically total crap. The saliva tests are total bullshit and there is no real science behind them.. AND they have a 1/4 FALSE POSITIVE! And THIS is how we are "catching" drug drivers. Its total crap... of course they are going to make big money by selling alot of these and the course along with them. They don't smoke or do drugs (bar grog) so there is no issue for them..as far as they are concered users need to be caught.

I have a moral issue with this, my dad knows im a fairly heavy pot smoker as he once was! And i feel its wrong to catch out citezens who are forced to be a criminal just because our stupid governments make NATURE illegal. By the way my dad is the boss of the company approached to help get this all going...

Anyways..

Just thought id say as an insider, the tests are crap.

Ah... isnt it nice to be a FREE Aussie!

Gotta love the smell of freedom! Ahhhhh! That's some good freedom!


The diggers would be rolling in their (some shallow) graves...

:-(
 
Crankinit said:
Except that codeine metabolizes to morphine, so wouldn't that show up to? It would come down to whether they accept the codeine metabolites and proof that the morphine is just from the codeine, and not another drug you were taking in it's own right. How much is there would come into it as well I guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the morphine produced from codeine is only about 10%, so theoretically if there was a large amount of codeine and only a small amount of morphine present, they'd be able to deduce that it was the codeine responsible.

That, of course, would rely on them performing quantitative analysis. If they hadn't, then it might be a different situation. It is a very interesting point that you raise though. To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure how it would end up.

However, given the prevalence of codeine in society, I'm relatively confident that they'd be able to determine the difference between it and stronger opiates. Heroin, oxy etc .. they all end up as morphine too (as you're probably aware) but surely, in the interests of accuracy, drug tests would need to be able to differentiate between them?

Then again, if poppy seeds can trigger a false positive, then maybe the quantity isn't always taken into consideration. Kinda scary to think what sort of repercussions could happen to an innocent victim as the result of inaccurate results!
 
Last edited:
The saliva tests are total bullshit and there is no real science behind them.. AND they have a 1/4 FALSE POSITIVE! And THIS is how we are "catching" drug drivers.
Click to expand...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the saliva tests were simply used as a preliminary indicator and once a positive reading via a saliva test was given you would be given a bloodtest or something similar? I thought a positive reading on a saliva test was not enough to instigate any penalties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top