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

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

News: 21/07/2003 : Vic Drivers risk visit to the 'drugs bus'

wazza

wazza

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
4,619
taken from here

Well, it finally looks like it's coming for sure.

VICTORIAN motorists will soon face random kerbside drug testing under a plan to remove drugged drivers from our roads.

New figures show almost 85 per cent of drivers picked up on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs return positive results.

Police Minister Andre Haermeyer and senior police say the system will operate in a similar way to breath-testing and booze buses.

Under the plan, which could be launched within months, drivers would be pulled over and asked to give a saliva sample, which would be scanned for drugs by a hand-held device.

If the two-minute process returned a positive reading, the motorist would undergo another test in a "drugs bus".

If that test was positive, the motorist would be banned from driving and the results sent for laboratory analysis.

Police have subjected 550 erratic drivers to drug impairment tests since the introduction of random testing laws in 2001.

Under that laborious system, the driver is interviewed at the roadside and must undergo a horizontal gaze test, walk and turn, and be able to stand on one leg.

If police believe the driver is drug affected, he or she is taken to a police station for further assessment, which is video-taped, and the person is charged and a blood or urine analysis is taken.

Tests on the 467 drivers detected a variety of drugs in their systems, including marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines and ecstasy.

Most have been charged with driving while impaired by a drug and another 39 are being charged with other offences.

Penalties handed out to some of the drugged drivers include 12 months' loss of licence and $1200 fines, and 24 months' loss of licence, $2500 fines and three months in jail.

Drivers who have refused to supply blood or urine samples have lost their licences for two years and have been fined up to $2500.

To get back on the road, drugged drivers have to attend an education course, be assessed for fitness to hold a licence and appear before a magistrate.

Mr Haermeyer said the random testing powers, which operated nowhere else in the world, had removed hundreds of potential killers from the roads.

He said removing drugged drivers from the road was now a Government priority.

"Drug driving is a major problem and it's not confined to Melbourne or Victoria, and I think these statistics show it is much more widespread than many people imagined," he said.

" . . . We are looking to new technology to deliver that and, if needed, will legislate to ensure the test results can be used as evidence in court."

Almost one-third of drivers killed on Victorian roads last year tested positive to illicit drugs. Studies show young people aged 18 to 34 believe it is safer to drive after taking drugs than after drinking.

Superintendent Peter Keogh, from the Traffic Support Division, said a few testing systems were being considered, with saliva testing the preferred option.

"We're close to deciding which is the best option," he said.

"Under the new system, the public will see police at the kerbside, get the message and change their behaviour . . . just like they did with booze buses."

Police are considering the Cozart RapiScan and a portable drug-testing device developed by Melbourne firm Bio-Mediq DPC - both scan saliva.

The RapiScan is used by police in Britain and Europe and has also been used to randomly drug-test employees of major Australian companies. The Bio-Mediq DPC device, which sells for about $8500, identifies illicit drugs taken in the preceding 24 hours.
Click to expand...
 
As an idea I don't see it as a bad thing, however how will it be implemented?

If the machines detect traces in your system from 24 hours ago, you may not be under the influence at that time (cocaine for example). Will you be charged regardless of whether you're actually under the influence or not, simply because they've now got proof you've ingested illicit substances at some stage?
 
^^^ This is the exact issue that I've got a problem with. Sure, driving under the influence of anything is a "bad" thing, but it's UNDER THE INFLUENCE, not IN THE SYSTEM.

If they've got a system that can detect if the driver is under the influence, and not just in the system, then I'm all for it. But being charged for previous drug use is ridiculous.
 
i think the blood test will be able to show the concentration of the chemical (or its metabolites) in the blood and be able to ascertain whether someone was driving under the influence of drugs...
 
The exact reason why drug testing will not work. What determines prior use compare to under the influence? How will they determine the concentration of chemicals?

Someone may have had a week long bender, two days later there sample still reading above the accepted limit(?), altho not under the influence. Someone else might have just racked a line of very impure gear 2 minutes before being tested, so under the limit(?)

I don't agree with this. Driving under the influence of drugs is stupid. Testing for drugs and charging people for prior consumption is stupid.
 
They won't have to prove that you're under the influence of anything if saliva tests become widespread, IMHO. All it takes is for legislation to be put in place that says it is illegal to drive a vehicle while you have these particular drug metabolites in your system. If you get tested positive, then you've broken the law, and that's all that needs to be proven AFAIK.

Given the prevailing community attitude toward illegal drugs, I seriously doubt that 'acceptable' metabolite levels will be established at all. The reason I feel this way is that establishing limits (I do believe that a study of marijuana and driving is under way at Monash University, but have not really checked any further to see if illicit drugs and driving are being investigated anywhere) would require research and money that otherwise do not have to be allocated in a broad brush 'zero tolerance' approach to drug driving testing. Why go to all the trouble of introducing potentially problematic 'legal limits' for illegal drugs, when it's easier to put more pressure on the users by making it illegal to drive with any trace of illegal drugs in your system? If you think about it from one point of view, it's almost the perfect way to test and prosecute people for personal drug use, under the guise of keeping the roads safer. If users are worried about being drug tested while driving for up to 3 days (!) after they've had drugs, then it clearly puts a lot more pressure on the bottom line drug user/consumer, at very little cost or effort on the behalf of the law, imho. Just about every time you get stopped by police while driving your car these days you're obliged to perform a breath test. If that carries over to saliva testing, then it essentially means you must not drive for days after having drugs, or risk continually exposing yourself to prosecution for your personal drug use.

BigTrancer :)
 
I heard this on the evening news and they said the test takes two minutes to obtain a reading. This means that it is too slow to have a highway style patrol stopping many random cars, but it would be used in a more targeted fashion. i.e. driving to a rave or bushdoof using roads that police will know those under the influence of drugs will use will be targeted. Stopping short of catching cabs everywhere or having a drug free designated driver, you might want to start parking away from the venue and catch a cab to the party.

Cozart Rapiscan 5-Panel Drug Test information - is this the unit that Victoria Police will use? It looks like it doesnt pick up LSD...

edit: Technical Cozart Rapiscan Information [pdf] includes trace amount detection figures. The one on the news didnt look like this one but there might be some more information there about them on the site.
 
Last edited:
The Bio-Mediq DPC device, which sells for about $8500, identifies illicit drugs taken in the preceding 24 hours
Click to expand...
While I appreciate the idea behind making the roads safer, I was worried about this "thick brush" approach. I wonder if some brave soul with a lot of money will try and fight this in court if the get stung 23 hours after a puff on a joint?

Edit in response to Cowboy Mac: I was going to say something similar but couldn't find the right words to express what I meant. I agree - hopefully police won't set up random testing stations and will only use this in response to erratic driving or sketchy behaviour once pulled over.
 
I wonder if a positive saliva test would also represent grounds to search/snifferdog your car too...

BigTrancer :)
 
"Studies show young people aged 18 to 34 believe it is safer to drive after taking drugs than after drinking. "

More naiveness on the fact that alcohol is in fact a drug?
 
bt: Considering that cars using the Western Highway on the way to Kryal Castle was enough suspicion to warrant a car search I dont think you have a good case if you test positive to one of these tests..

jewbob: on the news one guy interviewed did say, "but lets not forget that alcohol is the most dangerous drug.." so there is an awareness and not everyone is nieve.
 
jewbob said:
"Studies show young people aged 18 to 34 believe it is safer to drive after taking drugs than after drinking. "

More naiveness on the fact that alcohol is in fact a drug?
Click to expand...

Regarding the paragraph you quoted your comment from:

Almost one-third of drivers killed on Victorian roads last year tested positive to illicit drugs. Studies show young people aged 18 to 34 believe it is safer to drive after taking drugs than after drinking.
Click to expand...


I'd say they meant, safer after taking illicit drugs as opposed to alcohol (a legal drug).
 
I think that studies which ask people "Do you think it's safer to drive after taking drugs than after drinking?" give vague and unhelpful results. There are WAY too many variables and that question is ridiculously vague. If you think about the average dose of each chemical people will assume the interviewer means, it can vary wildly from person to person.

One person might answer in the affirmative because they assumed the interviewer implied 'after drinking' to mean 'drunk', or be thinking about a puff or two of a joint being safer to drive on than several glasses of alcohol... compared to the next person who assumes eg., eating 12 trips vs a bourbon or two...

BigTrancer :)
 
im so suprised that 1/3 of killed drivers tested postivie for illicit drugs. wow
 
From a user/driver perspective. If I go out on a Saturday night and sleep at a friends place near the club on Sunday afternoon instead of driving straight home, but wake up seven hours later and drive home (in control of my faculties), but can still face the same penalties as if I had driven straight home from the club... what's the point?

I find this proposal really worrying.
 
Last edited:
they comment how they would make people stand on one foot and do eye test. i think they are after the people who look and act as they are on drugs and are obviously not fit to drive, rather than the occasional drug user who may have traces in their body from the night before, but are clear headed and fit to drive.

in my experience it's always the person taking speed/pills who end up driving, also being guilty of doing this my self. but, i would never drive if i feel i'm uncapable or cant drive to my best ability.

i don't disagree with this new "drug test" as there are people out their who drive pretty fucked on what ever drug their on, including alcohol.
the problems i have with this is the harsh penalties, it is proven that alcohol causes more deaths and accidents yet the penalties are more leniant for drink driving.

i'm just hoping they don't go overboard and do what you all have stated above about testing who ever and prosecuting sober people with small traces in their body. you probably want see to many 'p platers' on the roads if this happens.

i feel rather confident though they are after the obivioulsy way too high people driving.
 
hoptis said:
From a user/driver perspective. If I go out on a Saturday night and sleep at a friends place near the club on Sunday afternoon instead of driving straight home, but wake up seven hours later and drive home (in control of my faculties), but can still face the same penalties as if I had driven straight home from the club... what's the point?
Click to expand...
Interesting point! This new procedure may in fact increase dangerous driving, because if people are going to be busted in the same manner anyway, then they're less likely to bother waiting until they "sober up".
 
Just what I was about to say Pleo... if you know that for 3 days after taking drugs you may be at any time saliva tested while driving and get busted, then what's the difference between driving while you're off guts, and driving two days after, from a legal standpoint? None... so it sends a great message - that impairment while in control of a vehicle is immaterial, and consumption is punishable well after the fact.

BigTrancer :)
 
im sure that police will implement some level of discretion via the standardised "line walk test" etc. if you cant walk straight and your found postive, they'll book you, but if you appear convincingly sober but return a positive result, they'll buy accept your explanation. but i dont like discretion in the hands of police, who in the righteous name of "protection" often appear a tad over-zealous in their application of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top