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


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

Roadside Drug Testing....

The article above has been edited, I think, to include the following extra text:
Police also said the problems that dogged early testing had been ironed out. But they said the testing equipment was not the force's preferred technology. They had settled on the it because their preferred choice was unavailable.

The pilot project got off to a rocky start in December when the first driver tested returned a positive result. The finding was later proved to be incorrect and the motorist is now taking legal action against the police.

ROADSIDE DRUG TESTING
- Testing is random but targets truck drivers and rave parties.

- Saliva swabs can detect THC (marijuana) and methamphetamines (speed, ecstasy).

- 7207 drivers have been tested; 146 had positive results.

- Car drivers to test positive were 18 to 54 (68 per cent were in their 20s) while truck drivers were older (59 per cent in 30s).

- Truck and car drivers are testing positive at about the same rate.

- Police say the worst time for drug driving is 4am to 9.30am on Sundays.


From: http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...ers/2005/07/15/1120934368723.html">here</a> 0
At least they are publicising that the testing has been targeted, but nobody has really come out and admitted that this could skew the headlined "1 in 50 drivers on drugs" conclusion...

BigTrancer :)
 
^in fact I think Vic Police have actively denied the possibility of skewed results - on the basis that RBT is also targeted at times & places when people are more likely to drink. Of course, the big difference is "presence" of drugs v. "over the limit" for alcohol. What the article also failed to mention is that presence of ecstasy will not lead to XPCD charge being laid. Ecstasy will cause a positive saliva result for methamphetamine at the roadside test - that's all.

Actually - if they target people exiting raves, the 1 in 50 figure is low!! Just shows how responsible ravers are. :)
 
Drug drivers face ban
By Jason Dowling
State Politics
November 20, 2005

20ndrugs_narrowweb__300x345,2.jpg


MOTORISTS caught driving while under the influence of illicit drugs will automatically lose their licence under moves being considered by the State Government.

Roadside saliva drug testing is here to stay, and penalties are set to get much tougher, the State Government has said.

The range of drugs tested could also be broadened as the Government begins analysing the results of its 12-month trial of roadside saliva drug testing.

The trial, which will conclude on December 12, has tested more than 10,000 motorists, and more than 200 were caught with illicit drugs in their systems.

The positive roadside drug testing "strike rate" has indicated that motorists are five times more likely to be driving under the influence of an illicit drug than they are to be driving with a blood alcohol reading above .05.

"We thought we had a problem, but the problem is even more extensive than we thought it was in terms of the number of people who take drugs and drive a vehicle," Police Minister Tim Holding told The Sunday Age.

Mr Holding said part of the review of roadside drug testing would examine the proliferation of testing.

There would be more drug buses, combined drug and alcohol buses, and individual police vehicles might be equipped for saliva drug testing.

Mr Holding said the penalties for drug-driving had so far been light because it was a trial, but he warned that the public could expect much tougher penalties soon.

Although the trial finishes next month, police will still drug-test drivers under legislation that expires in July next year.

The Police Minister said an official announcement would be made early next year when the results and recommendations of the trial were evaluated.

"The evaluation will look at the technology, the testing process, where we have conducted drug-driving tests, the way it works in with existing drink-driving tests, it will look at public awareness and the current drugs we are testing," he said.

He said penalties would also be made a lot tougher, and said automatic loss of licence was likely.

At the moment, motorists who return positive laboratory results for cannabis or methamphetamines are fined $307 and lose three demerit points, or are taken to court.

Motorists caught drink-driving face automatic licence suspension.

"Penalties are one issue — there is the question of what existing penalties do you align it with," Mr Holding said.

He said the results of the trial indicated there were more motorists driving under the influence of drugs than alcohol, and this suggested that current penalties were not sending the right message.

"At the moment the penalty is at the softer end because of the trial, and at the conclusion of that it is a good time to look at a tougher penalty and its correlation to drink-driving penalties," he said.

Opposition police spokesman Kim Wells said tougher penalties were needed immediately.

"The penalties in the trial phase were far too light," he said. "The penalties for drink-driving were way above that of drug-driving, and that didn't make sense to the wider community."

Mr Holding said he had been astounded by the number of drivers detected driving under the influence of drugs.

For the 10 months to October, 10,546 drivers were tested throughout the state, with 214 drivers testing positive for drugs, including 49 truck drivers.

A police blitz on the morning after the AFL grand final indicated that 11 out of 26 drivers tested had either cannabis or methamphetamines in their system.

Mr Holding said the testing of other illicit drugs would be considered, but he said the process was "technology-driven" and had to prove to be accurate and timely.

The drug-driving trial began badly when two of the first three motorists to test positive were later cleared.

Mr Holding said there had been no false positives since then. He pointed out that other states had followed Victoria.

Tasmania had begun roadside drug testing, and NSW had indicated it would begin such testing next year.

Mr Wells said Victoria should increase testing.

"We support all moves to get drug-affected drivers off Victoria's roads. We are not convinced that enough drug tests are taking place," he said.

From The Age
 
ayjay said:
^in fact I think Vic Police have actively denied the possibility of skewed results - on the basis that RBT is also targeted at times & places when people are more likely to drink. Of course, the big difference is "presence" of drugs v. "over the limit" for alcohol.
Slightly OT: Actually I saw recently a report on a booze bus blitz on the Eastern FWY in Melbourne (I think it was the same night an L-plater was tester with 0.17 or so BAC and nobody else in the car) where a statistic of "approx 1 in 10 drivers" giving an alcohol reading... food for thought. If I locate the article I'll post it in here.

BT :)
 
alright so we know its coming so who knows how to beat a saliva test?
 
Sorry I haven't got any articles or references to back this up. But I believe I heard on the radio this morning that new tests could detect substances upto 48hours afterwoulds? I hope someone else heard this too or has a relevant link.
 
Guess NSW will have this fairly soon, this sounds right up there alley.

at the end of the day though.... its just like BT said, Dont operate a vehicle under the influence of drugs. That should be a gimme
 
What id like to know is what is classed as " DRUG - DRIVING ". For example lets say I go out last night had some pills, finish up go to bed sleep around 8 hours get up and take my car out for a spin at lunch time, i would believe that Im technically not under the influence but Im pretty sure drugs are still in my system. Would that still produce a positive report and therefore class me as a "DRUG-DRIVER" ?
 
Guys the subject of detection times has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread... no need to repeat the questions and info over and over and over and over, creating a 30 page thread out of a 15 page thread without any new info.

Try searching this thread for the terms "cannabis hours" and "amphetamine hours" and you might find what you're after.

BigTrancer :)
 
No false positives after first day?

The article quotes Tim Holding as saying there were no false positives after the first day of saliva testing. That is - no case when the roadside saliva tests were positive, but the lab results were negative. I find this slightly confusing, in light of the "straight from the horses mouth" info I was given on how the tests worked. I was told (by representatives from both Vic Pol and Vic Roads) that the roadside meth test would return a positive result for the presence of MDMA - but that the lab test would distiguish between meth and MDMA, and that people would only be charged for meth, not MDMA. Hence I would expect a number of false positives, from people who had taken MDMA only. This poses the questions:

1. Did people with only MDMA on board also get charged with XPCD? (Hence not a false negative..., but a contradiction of the advice I was given)

2. Does all Ecstasy contain at least some meth, leading to a true-positive saliva test?

3. Are the police counting MDMA presence as a positive result, even if the person was not charged?

Thoughts?
 
Editorial from The Age

Drugs, drive ... bloody unbelievable
November 22, 2005

WHAT a pity that a roadside test for stupidity has yet to be developed. It would eliminate the need to test drivers for drug and alcohol use. It might ascertain whether motorists have any idea of just how lethal a motor vehicle can be in the hands of someone who is not in full possession of their faculties and completely focused on the task of driving.

The disclosure by Police Minister Tim Holding at the weekend that a trial of drug testing found motorists five times more likely to be driving under the influence of illicit drugs as they are to be driving with a blood alcohol reading above .05 beggars belief. The finding comes from a 12-month trial of roadside saliva testing for drugs. Over that period, 10,546 drivers were tested throughout the state. Of them, 214 tested positive for drugs, including 49 truck drivers. The outcome of the trial has alarmed the Government sufficiently for Mr Holding to indicate that drug testing will become permanent and that tougher penalties, at least equivalent to those applying to drink-driving, will apply in future.

In the first years after random breath testing for alcohol was introduced in 1976, 49 per cent of all drivers killed on the state's roads were found to have a blood-alcohol level of more than .05. Last year, the figure was 23 per cent. In the interim a range of tougher penalties and graphic campaigns have been introduced. Even so, drink-driving remains one of the biggest killers on Victoria's roads.

Getting people to accept the stupidity of drinking or using drugs and then driving should be easy. Yet clearly it is not. And in the meantime, hundreds of lives are wasted on the roads and thousands are sentenced to a lifetime of ongoing suffering from serious injury. Tough penalties are just part of the answer. More intense education, especially for young drivers, is equally important.

From The Age

More young think driving on drugs OK
November 22, 2005

ONE in eight young drivers believes recreational drugs do not affect their driving.

The 13 per cent of drivers under 25 who believe using drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, speed or ecstasy before driving does not affect their motoring skills has almost tripled from about 5 per cent in 2001, according to a study commissioned by insurer AAMI.

This compares with about 6 per cent of other drivers who say drug-driving is acceptable.

The study is almost universally unfavourable for drivers aged 18 to 24, who account for more than one in five deaths on Australian roads.

Young drivers are more likely to admit to driving under the influence of drugs, less likely to think random drug testing of drivers is a good idea, and more than twice as likely to admit to constant speeding. Twenty per cent of young drivers say they exceed the speed limit "most of the time" compared with about 10 per cent of other drivers, and 27 per cent admit ignoring speed limits on suburban roads.

Young men have the worst reputation, said by 50 per cent of all motorists to be the poorest drivers on Australian roads.

Dr Jane Mallick, of the Australian Drug Foundation, said while it was a concern that more young people thought it was acceptable to drug-drive, the finding should be seen in context. "Young people use more illicit drugs compared to older people, take more risks and are more likely to feel invincible," she said.

"If we focus on young people, we need to be mindful not to marginalise them nor create a problematic youth self-fulfilling prophecy."

From The Age
 
ayjay said:
The article quotes Tim Holding as saying there were no false positives after the first day of saliva testing. That is - no case when the roadside saliva tests were positive, but the lab results were negative. I find this slightly confusing, in light of the "straight from the horses mouth" info I was given on how the tests worked.

Maybe Tim Holding means that there were no false positives after the first day that made it to the media?

The best way of finding out the answer to your question is to hear from some of the 214 people who have tested positive (and been prosecuted) during the trial and find out just what drugs they'd had prior to being caught (if they can remember).
 
ONE in eight young drivers believes recreational drugs do not affect their driving.

Lol.. enough talk and lets get to work proving this bitch Mr.Bracks. Oh wait.. we cant.. Drugs are bad and illegal lol.

I personally believe certain drugs at certain dosages have absolutly NO ill effect on driving. If people are allowd to drive under the influence of a depressant like valium or the mega-depressant anti-depressant avanza, i dont see how a stimulant like speed would make things worse. At the end of the day this is just a rightious bullshit revenue raiser that will annoy the living shit out of anyone that is caught.
 
Last edited:
and how do you propose I should go about trying to find some of the 214 people that tested positive to hear what drugs they'd taken? (other than catching a plane down to Melbourne and visiting random court cases)
 
ayjay said:
2. Does all Ecstasy contain at least some meth, leading to a true-positive saliva test?

3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine

im guessing that might have something to do with it....
 
^ No - you misunderstand. The saliva tests will return a positive result for methamphetamine, even if the only drug taken was MDMA. However, the lab test can distinguish between methamphetamine and MDMA, and you only get charged for the former (apparently). Hence, if you have taken only MDMA, you will record a positive roadside test, but a negative lab test (for meth). Hence the positive roadside test result is a "false positive".

"No false positives" raises the possibility that people were being charged with XPCD even if they had only taken ecstasy...
 
ayjay: Either that or people who DO test positive for drug-driving are not aware of this distinction. Therefore, they aren't exercising their somewhat expensive option to have their sample lab-tested because they are afraid that their ingestion of illegal drugs will be used against them, and bring further legal action as a result of more careful analysis of their saliva sample.

Example scenario: Someone takes pills at a club, drives home, sees the "DRUG BUS" set up and freaks out. Usually the bus is set up so you cannot drive evasively to avoid being tested, so ultimately they're tested for drugs in their system. The test indicates they are positive for methamphetamine, and they're hauled out of their car and subjected to the collection of further samples, and ultimately sent on their way with whatever notification and their own portion of the saliva sample.

They knew they were on illegal drugs, the saliva tester knew they were on drugs, they don't want ANYONE ELSE to know they got busted for drug driving so they shut up, pay the fine, and cop the demerit points.

Why wouldn't someone lab-test their sample? Perhaps they aren't convinced of or do not know about any distinction between MDMA and methamphetamine in the drug-driving law, maybe they aren't able to afford the lab-testing or associated costs of fighting what could be perceived as a losing battle in court ie. took drugs - drove - got busted - not about to fight it out in court on a technicality which may not exist or be applicable or provable in their case anyway given that "E" pills might contain ANY mixture of drugs... including methamphetamine as a common adulterant. Who knows what the saliva test could find - and there's probably no information given out that says you can't be further charged if they find other drugs in your sample.

Maybe they took ampetamine too but won't admit it to anyone else but are afraid the lab-test will expose them. I'm also not aware of whether people are fully informed that they can arrange for their sample to be lab-tested, but it's always at their expense, and it may not be clear where this can be done or who to contact, and any notification may be worded so it implies that further testing positive will bring further consequences or remove any reasonable doubt that is attached to the roadside testing procedure.

BigTrancer :)
 
I would suspect your right BT. People caught would probably be either on a cocktail of chemicals or not know their rights regarding the tests. Then theres probably more who do realise they are only on MDMA(or assume :\ ) but don't feel they can battle the police over a drug charge for what ever reason.
 
Top