I suppose the issue for me with all the sensationalist media around roadside drug testing is that these measures don’t test for impairment. They merely test for the presence of the drug in question. That in itself does not mean an individual is impaired. To state the obvious, impairment effectively means an individual cannot perform the task at hand that they could do under normal circumstances. Bla bla bla, you know the drill.
In this situation, worst case scenario, the consequences of driving while impaired have the potential to kill. So the question could be asked if you have the presence of one of these 3 testable substances in your system does that mean you’re impaired? We know that there is a statistical relationship between the amount of alcohol consumed and the subsequent impairment levels one experiences as the amount of alcohol consumed increases. But this does not run true for the testable drugs in question: MDMA, Cannabis and methylamphetamine, impairment levels vary for each individual and from drug to drug.
To put it simply, if 4 people were busted in a roadside blitz, one for alcohol, one for MDMA, one for cannabis and one for meth. The individual with the blood alcohol reading is assessed by a fairly accurate school of science that we know works. There is a measurable cut off point of 0.05 (BAC), if you have an open license. If you’re under you’re fine if you’re over you’re busted.
The other three are guilty based solely on the presence of the substance, no measures, no cut offs and interestingly no differentiating between how each of these substances effect each individual relative to the other substances. You may be completely trashed or fine to drive, the test doesn’t measure for this either way.
On closer examination we have the various state governments making grand statements,
“Police put drug-drivers on notice: you will be caught!”, bla bla bla.
Stories wiped up by the various government media departments. To achieve what? If it was to reduce the incidence of drug related carnage on the road you have to question is this an effective strategy? When you consider;
“Since the introduction of RDT, 34,335 motorists have been screened for drug use – 757 tested positive for illicit substances”
It doesn’t take a statistical genius to ascertain that the numbers aren’t that good. Even I can calculate the numbers. (I’m flat out running a bath let alone a budget) The strike rate is dreadful. Particularly when you consider the costs of such a campaign.
If nothing has changed over the last few years, the police are still using the same saliva tests. I could be wrong. (Phase – Dancer, I think you would be up on the current science around this and possibly costs?)
A couple of years back the initial, in your car test cost $40 each. Do the numbers, @ $40 a hit, multiply by 34,335, this makes it roughly 1.3 million dollars for the first test alone. The second test, after you’ve tested positive on the first one is about $80. I can’t speculate on how many of these $80 tests would have been used. On top of this you have the costing on these operations, plus the costs of the precious drug buses. This is a multimillion dollar operation, to achieve what?
What we have are 750 individuals testing positive for the presence of a substance, not impairment. Remember this is not a scientifically sound, evidenced based initiative that definitively measures for impairment but an operation that pretends to be founded on good science. It’s amazing what good media teams can throw together. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Just tell the public it works and no questions asked. Outside of the issue of how many of those 750 individuals would not have been impaired, how many individuals beat the test when maybe they should have been prosecuted?
I know I’m asking a lot of questions that clearly don’t have answers and I must stipulate that I am completely opposed to people driving when they are impaired. The point I’m getting to is this, is it ethical to run such a campaign when it could be speculated that it’s a witch hunt? Does the prosecution of random individuals, act as a means to an end. Or is this effectively, The Drugs Misuse Act, through the back door, after all, they’re being busted for the presence of a substance and not impairment? Effectively for using illegal drugs?
I did try to do a Bluelight search on some local northern NSW research posted approx. around 2007 that answers a lot of the above questions about time frames after using etc. and when is it safe to drive. Couldn't find it though.
What i do rememeber is that with one test subject he had his morning joint and cuppa and was tested an hour later and tested negative. The same individual 2 days later, same routine, same cannabis, same morning cuppa and he tested positive up to if I remember correctely 4 hours later.
These guys did the testing:
http://www.hempembassy.net/hempe/testaliva.html
I do know for a fact that the testers were not trashed, just the subjects.
