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


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NEWS: The Mercury 23/01/03: Lib push on drug-drivers

SeveredPsyche

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2001
Messages
329
Lib push on drug-drivers
23jan03
A DEVICE that can test for illegal drug use could help police combat people driving while under the influence of drugs, the State Opposition said yesterday.
Infrastructure spokesman Brett Whiteley said the device, which only needs a swab of saliva, could hold the key to testing drivers suspected of being under the influence of illegal drugs.
"The Cozart RapiScan, or a similar device, may be applicable for testing drivers who police reasonably believe may be under the influence of drugs such as marijuana," Mr Whiteley said.
"Clearly the technology is available, or at least is on the horizon, to enable police to accurately and easily test drivers who they suspect may be under the influence of drugs."
Mr Whiteley said the State Government must continually investigate new responses to drink and drug-driving to complement existing strategies such as random breath testing.
"The Labor Government has a duty to protect Tasmanians on the roads but drug-driving is an area where it has clearly failed," he said.
Meanwhile, Police and Public Safety Minister David Llewellyn has expressed disappointment at the high readings returned by some drivers who were breath-tested during the Christmas-New Year holiday period.
"For 175 drink-driving offences to be detected in the 14-day period should be of major concern to the entire community," Mr Llewellyn said.
"The high blood-alcohol readings of some of the drivers indicate they are still ignoring their responsibilities to other road-users.
"When 0.05 per cent is the legal limit, for a driver to return a reading of 0.306 per cent is staggering, to say the least."
He said driving was a privilege not a right.
From The Mercury. The testing device was initially reported a couple of days ago in the article Tassie workers face new saliva drug test.
[ 23 January 2003: Message edited by: SeveredPsyche ]
 
I think we need to remember that they're not trying to do you in... they're just trying to stop people who are affected by drugs from being in control of motor vehicles by placing huge deterrents on being caught doing so. Driving on drugs is DANGEROUS - if you always pick a sober designated driver, then the police will never be able to detect drugs in your driver if pulled over.
Expect to see heaps of test cases with these devices to establish precedents, "affected" limits, testing protocols and penalties...
For the record, I think that booze buses and drug testing drivers are very necessary harm minimisation steps by the government. We always try to say that drugs are a 'victimless crime' because you're only hurting yourself, or 'can't the police just leave people alone to have a pill in peace' - but if a drunk, or drug-affected driver causes, or by omission of action fails to prevent, an accident - they're hurting someone else. That is a consequence of drug use that none of us want to have to deal with... so if the fact that there will be breathalysers and drug testers out in force doing random breath/swab tests should be enough to act as a deterrent.
Random Breath Testing in the State of Victoria, Australia
Inspector Michael Moloney
Traffic Alcohol Section, Police Traffic Centre, 20 Dawson st, Brunswick Vic 3056, Australia

ABSTRACT
Random Breath Testing in Victoria has established itself as an outstandingly successful method in preventing "alcohol affected driving". Since its introduction in 1976, but particularly since its re-structuring in 1989, we have witnessed a dramatic reduction in drivers killed over the legal blood alcohol limit which in Victoria is 0.05 per centum. In 1977, 49% of all drivers killed were found to be in excess of 0.05%. In 1992 that figure was reduced to an all time low of 21%.
The Victorian RBT programme has focused its entire campaign on the basis of the principles, as espoused by Prof Ross Homel, namely that it must be: highly visible; rigorously enforced so as to ensure credibility; must be sustained; and it must be well publicised. All principles are vital to its success.
From: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s29p1.htm
BigTrancer :)
 
^^^^^
Agreed. My only concern (and this has been my concern ever since this idea was first suggested) is that they'll make the test a blanket "positive/negative" one rather than a graded measure of impairment. If this is the case, people could be convicted of driving stoned or something long after the physical effects of the substace has worn off. I fear that because drugs are illegal the attitude that nobody should be doing them anyway will be taken and the roadside drug tests will just become another weapon in ignorant anti-drug war propaganda.
However the idea behind stopping people from driving while impaired is one that I fully support, so I have to admit that even a harsh blanket test will have its merits...
 
I read somewhere recently that some professor said that people driving under the influence of marijuana were more cautious drivers. Dunno about other drugs but sounds like a good idea. Might keep some of my dumb-ass mates off the road.
 
I agree Pleonastic, but the earlier article seems to address this. Ambiguous reporting aside, I understood it to mean that it only detects drugs taken in the previous 24 hrs. Without testing directly for impairment, I think this is a reasonable minimum time.
 
Top