Urgent thinktank required for drug-driving tests.

[tribesman]

This certainly maybe true, but that doesn't mean that the entire system should be dismantled altogether. Remember that the system is still in its very early stages, I'm sure many changes are still to come.

Although the way in which "drug drivers" are targeted and punished should be challenged, attacking the whole system altogether is as bad as drinkers saying that drunk driving laws should be abandoned.

 

[ilikeacid]

GABAlover

The point is that drug users are being uniquely and aggresively targeted here

.
That's essentially my point too. Discussing this issue and ways around it shouldn't be blacked flagged as an innapropriate discussion topic!

tribesman

Remember that the system is still in its very early stages, I'm sure many changes are still to come.

^Yes, but when drink driving penalties came into effect they didn't start handing out penalties anywhere near as severe as the ones we're facing... what was the initial illegal BAC for drivers? .07, .08?
I'm not going to roll over on this issue, I know its contentious but there are serious grounds for questioning here! The new drug testing (penalties) have seemingly been just shoved in our faces without, IMO, adequate research covering all aspects of the drug driving dangers!
If the system was created a bit more fairly and had sufficient research - not just statistics pulled from a TAC archive - then, sure, there is no grounds to challenge it and I wouldn't. However, I can't see adequate research being conducted here! And it is because of this fact that many otherwise responsible drivers, who may on the odd occasion smoke a j before leaving a mates place in the evening, will face severe, un-fair and disproportionate consequences and forever have them tagged as drug users, is why I support ways to subvert the whole system!

 

[Fry-d-]

.
^Yes, but when drink driving penalties came into effect they didn't start handing out penalties anywhere near as severe as the ones we're facing... what was the initial illegal BAC for drivers? .07, .08?

But I think when they started handing out fines for Drink Driving it didn't actually stop people doing it so maybe they are starting with massive fines and penalties to discourage people from doing it at all. Once burnt, forever shy.

Don't get me wrong I'm not in complete favour of the system, far from it, but theres 2 sides to it.

 

[zaineaol.nu]

Do you know ? I don't and I am willing to admit that. The point is that drug users are being uniquely and aggresively targeted here.

the point is that drugs are ILLEGAL period. no matter how okay you assume them to be, the law says differently. That being said - it should be evident if you use drugs, you are of the police's concern? right? I don't think it's a matter of targetting out a specific group like they are a fucking minority. I think it's quite simple. You do the crime, you'll do the time.

Alcohol is legal, thus laws are put in place in accordance with the legality of the said chemical.

If you're stupid enough to risk driving under the influence of drugs, you're also stupid enough to accidently KILL someone, yourself and/or lose your license or wind up in prison.

The moral of the story is not how to defeat the governments GREAT attempt to fuck idiots who put other peoples lives in danger off the road - it's to agree and not fucking do it.

This is harm minimisation. And coming from me, i've been in accidents where drugs/alcohol are involved (not the driver) and have almost been killed once, luckily i was very small, and the crushed roof of the car didnt cave in enough to kill me.

as stated by Fryd above, im also not in favour with some of the policies in regards, but i think the idea itself puts alot towards harm minimisation. I believe some laws should be abided as per the health and safety of other people. I also don't think that this will stop every fuckwit from doing it - but it will stop a few, that much is a guarantee - and that few is enough to save a few innocent lives from being taken - and that in itself makes the whole endeavour worth it in my mind.

It pains me to see how ignorant some people are to the safety of others on this forum. get a fucking grip - please!
just my two cents.

 

[dls]

The point is that drug users are being uniquely and aggresively targeted here.

I don't doubt this but it's for the fact that DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL. I feel like everyone almost forgets this because they are such a massive part of our lives. Unfortunately I don't think we really have a foot to stand on with this. If the police were ever to give us a legal limit (a BDC!!!) or put more research into this whole damn thing then it'de almost be like they were condoning drug use...

Anyway that's my thoughts. I think everyones arguments are valid just keep in mind the legalities of drugs.

 

[xcidium]

Yes, taking drugs are against the law,
but so is drink driving.....

 

[static_mind]

I thought possession of drugs was illigal but haveing drugs in your system wasn't (correct me if im wrong).

Since this is a mouth swab I would have thought that something like mouthwash would have destoryed any "evidence" as its not on your breath like alcohol. Perhaps something alkali maybe like bi-carb?...

But really I don't care too much. I don't risks peoples lives with this behavour anyway.

 

[zaineaol.nu]

^Taking drugs is illegal.

xcidium: Drink driving is illegal, drinking is not. Thats what you're missing.

Anything to do with ILLEGAL drugs is for the most part illegal, i think that makes perfect sense, no - i think thats common sense.

 

[severed_synapse]

what has me worries about the new legislation is the possibility of warrents being issued as a result of a possitive test. what is stopping police from using the info to do such a thing? a possitive test would prove that you use illegal drugs and perhaps this is enough to get a warrent.

does anyone here know if the info can be used to obtain warrents? or do they need more evidence to have grounds for suspision?

any ideas?

thanks

 

[hoptis]

Is this not what we do every time we light up a joint, visit our drug dealers, go to raves, trip for days on acid, live how bl'ers generally live? Face it, there is a general agreement between ppl like us that subverting laws we don't believe in is acceptable- at least to an extent.

Sure, and I'd love nothing more than to personally feed MDMA to every single non-user in this country who is even slightly curious, but smoking a joint or taking a pill is a very different act to spreading information about how to get around a saliva test.

While you might think it's about making government accountable through research for the laws they implement, for the public and anyone who uses your information the only message they'll be getting is that drug driving is okay, and in fact, you're going to help them do it.

These laws just seem too harsh and seemingly a veiled way to penalise a specific section of the community- if this wasn't so, why are alcohol penalties so low in contrast?

The laws represent what the community at large believe. Unfortunately, in the current prohibitionist climate, it's much easier for politicians to score points by scapegoating drug users and the majority of the public not only agree with the drug driving laws, but they also support harsher sentences for drug driving offences.

Unfair or not, that is how democracy works.

In such a society, the best hope we have of affecting public opinion is by presenting an image of who we are and what we stand for as a community. Choosing to try and get around the drug testing technology instead of trying to fight the laws through the court system only shows to the public that we're the criminals they always made us out to be.

Since when did any of us care of the majority view anyway?! ^ Unfortunately this has been our social tag for ages, how is discussing ways of subverting these laws worsening our already "dirty" image in the eyes of a general public that has little compassion to ppl like us?

By choosing to take the fight outside the system we only seperate ourselves further from the mainstream. In doing so we make ourselves bigger and ever easier targets for politicians and law enforcement.

Don't you see that by trying to circumvent the technology we effectively justify everything the police ever say about us? We just give them more excuses to come up with even more draconion drug laws. The cycle continues until we end up with drug laws like Singapore... where the police can march into a club, drug test and bust every person inside.

In the long term, exposing the flaws and inaccuracies in the system through the courts and media is far more effective than finding ways of getting around it.

Still how is this thread, sharing information on ways to subvert roadside testing rules, any different from the thread that shares ideas on ways to conceal drugs while traveling to and from venues where potential searches are conducted?

I (and this website) believe you have the right to consume illicit drugs, that it's your business what you take and we'd rather not see you busted for possession of personal amounts of drugs.

On the other hand, no where does it say you have a right to drive with drugs in your system.

While I can understand where you guys are coming from, I can't agree with the methods you're suggesting.

 

[phase_dancer]

While I can understand where you guys are coming from, I can't agree with the methods you're suggesting.

Likewise

If you wish to avoid getting caught, then as I've suggested in another thread, obtain a few drugwipe kits and test yourself. If you do not register after x hours, then I'd suggest adding a safety window (say, an extra hour) and you then should be able to drive safely [?] and with confidence.

If you're looking for someone to blame over the implementation of roadside drug testing then look no further than the insurance companies. They are the real instigators, as they stand to lose the most in insurance payouts. It happens in the workplace all the time so it may have simply come down to the companies saying "introduce the tests, or we'll triple costs for 3rd party cover"

 

[Slateroz]

How about we try to work out some kind of time frame guidelines like we have with drinks?

We all know how many beers we can have and stay under the limit or how long we have to wait before we can drive.

So why not try coming up with a time frame for being able to drive again after say 1point of meth? At what point (how many hours) is the average person below the testable limit? That seems more responsible

 

[ilikeacid]

Hoptis

is a very different act to spreading information about how to get around a saliva test.

Don't you see that by trying to circumvent the technology we effectively justify everything the police ever say about us? We just give them more excuses to come up with even more draconian drug laws.

How is this think tank of ideas much different to web pages that have up-to-date speed camera locations, or the fact that there are many Aus companies out there that develop radar technology to sell to drivers that warn of speed camera areas? Speeding - which is also extremely dangerous, and causes as many road deaths as drug driving deaths - has, at least some, public opinion behind it.. I know first hand every time someone driving towards me flashes his lights to warn me of a speed camera/booze bus ahead. Have these attitudes by large sections of society who actively attempt, and succeed, to circumvent government enforced technology and procedures led to a more draconian system? I don't see any evidence of this..

The laws represent what the community at large believe. Unfortunately, in the current prohibitionist climate, it's much easier for politicians to score points by scapegoating drug users and the majority of the public not only agree with the drug driving laws, but they also support harsher sentences for drug driving offences

Yes couldn't agree more. However, isn't through the lack of comprehensive scientific information, and the disheartening lack of people like us to highlight this fact - via subversive means if needs be - that has allowed public opinion to be swayed in this way, and therefore affect the shape of our democracy? The general public will take their ques from the authorities, which are backed up with solid facts and reports to then apply democratically accepted laws, that’s the system. In this case the authorities have simply flashed news headlines of extreme drug driving fatality statistics, appealing directly to the publics sense of fear, then, rushed through laws that do not address all the issues already discussed on this thread.

In the long term, exposing the flaws and inaccuracies in the system through the courts and media is far more effective than finding ways of getting around it.

This is what we're doing to an extent. BL is a form of media, one that may effect others to become angry about the hypocrisies of the situation and write letters to the media, or better yet some independent investigative journalist could read posts like this and analyze the extent of some of our outrages to these new policies- its not like we're advocating driving wasted - well at least I'm not. I think it's just the the injustice of such an issue that deserves disobedience, and a think tank dedicated to fighting it seems to me to be a perfect avenue. And who knows the court system is where my fight may lead me..

dls

don't think we really have a foot to stand on with this. If the police were ever to give us a legal limit (a BDC!!!)

Unfortunately I agree totally. These changes will never happen as long as the stigma of illegal drugs continues to have the connotations connected with it that it has in today’s society..
Doesn't change the fact that, IMO, these laws are un-fair, a clever election stunt to prove Labor is "tough on bad driving/criminals/drugs", and a way to stigmatise individuals as drug users - even if they test a false positive - though one must admit they will certainly save many lives.

If the main issues I've indicated through my rants had been examined properly by relevant authorities before implementation of laws that have the potential to cause massive disrtption to individuals lives, I'd have no problem with the new laws and sentences. However, this does not seem to be the case..so subversion should be definitely an option, and therefore, a discussion topic on this forum.
p.s I've finished arguing now.. it's probably better I've gotten my frustration out here rather than on the road.. also sorry for the rants guys, just thought that if there was anywhere that would even barely listen to an opinion such as mine and get a response it'd be here

 

[dls]

By choosing to take the fight outside the system we only seperate ourselves further from the mainstream

I agree with you totally but I don't believe there is any chance the governing bodies are going to be swayed on these laws if we did fight them in court. They are not going to spend money on research that may happen to prove them wrong. They have got their facts, they've used fear tactics to implement harsher drug penalties to the general public and I don't blame them. I have been through the legal system fighting drug charges and you are extremely hard pressed to come across a judge that is compassionate to these causes. Most of them are happy to throw you into jail rather than rehabilitation and seeing the grey of the situation.

I am all for education and I am personally looking at at buying a drugwipe machine so I can test myself. Even though I can see the problem in having a live website telling us where drug and booze buses are I still this it's information the public are entitled to know.

 

[GABAlover]

We really don't have many other options than fighting outside the system. Every year, the hysterical fear fuelling persecution becomes stronger. Too much damage has been done in the name of the law.

The proposed aim of this thinktank is to remove road-side drug testing altogether, not allow people to cheat the tests.

 

[phase_dancer]

The proposed aim of this thinktank is to remove road-side drug testing altogether, not allow people to cheat the tests.

What's the chance of that occurring?

I can't think of another example where a health and safety based law/ regulation has ever been completely revoked. On that reasoning, I'd say these tests are here to stay. IMO you'd have a better chance of completely legalizing drugs than you would removing a test designed to save the lives of innocent travellers. Personally, I have no problems with a procedure that tests only for intoxication (as opposed to trace metabolite, DNA profiling etc). I'd even endorse an accurate test for lack of sleep, or even driver crankiness

As said, there are powers other than just government that want these tests introduced. Unless the tests can be proven to be highly inaccurate - and aside from a few initial false positives, I think the tests have been shown to be fairly reliable - then there's Buckley's chance you'll see them removed.

Even if they are shown to be inaccurate, there are several alternative brands of roadside testers available. However, the others I've looked at have even lower cutoff values, meaning they are more sensitive. IMO, drugwipe or an equivalent 2-4 hour sensitive test is not so bad. At least they are not yet looking to book drivers for any trace of drugs/metabolites in their system. But, I've little doubt that unless some shift in political reasoning comes about, one day such tests will also be introduced.

Bluelight is about harm reduction. Whether that's applied to your wellbeing or to others, no-one can disagree that driving while under the influence can for some, alter perception and reaction time, which increases the chance of having an accident. Just because some people might be somewhat inconvenienced - i.e. actually have to think ahead, be responsible and arrange their own transport - roadside testing needn't automatically signal an end to any and all partying.