the "Fuckwit" Iamascumma to legislate for driver drug tests

[couchman]

yep, torana's got the right idea.

 

Listening to talk back on friday, a call made to rooooozsendals office the day before this went public in the media, the comment made was that it was too hard to implement because of the legislation. A statement made after the release emphasised the impact this will make as a deterrent, which is all this will be.

 

So what does that mean? It means that when these clowns decide that this is in our best interest they have to determine if changes to legislation need to happen prior. This would be to eliminate torana's idea of keeping a hemp bar in the glove box.

 

An example of this with drink dirving now, you cant argue cough mixture put you over the limit. Sure you can try, but good luck.

 

They cant spend millions on implementing something if a loophole allows every potentially guilty person to be able to successfully get away with it by arguing out alternatives in court.

 

NSW has also only purchased 1 kit for this. and its in a booz bus. THe plan is to target areas where drug-driving is the most prevailent. So expect to see this piece of shit out in the west very soon, they should put it in the northern sub's id bet youd get more busts, and always chemicals... .

 

Sydney is a biiiig place, how many people you think they will get with 1 kit? That just re-inforces my theory that this is just a deterrent and a pre-election stunt rolled into a waste of our $$ again.

 

My guess is that if they do change legislation to support this that they will backup up police powers to allow for seach and seizure of car or the persons home. Couldnt see this happening straight away, they would only do this if they were very serious about cracking down on this. If that where the case they would be buying more than 1. The statistics of how many drug related car fatalities doesnt support it, and the public couldnt give a flying fuck about it....we got bigger probs in NSW to be wasting time and $$ on this shit.

[two2time]

as i said first aust then new zealand, well on tv tonight you guess it drug testing in aust why dont we have it here....

they are now calling for the same as aust testing for drugs in nz , this is a sad day.. were will this take us ...it was not so long ago when peps called nazi come in to power and changed things to suit them selfs . this does not mean they are right but it will not stop them stoping how rights...

 

 

NAZI thats another name for POLICE who carry out the ass hole laws...

 

 

tt

[souljah]

speaking of the radio - i heard someone from the HEMP embassy on JJJ on friday say they were fine with the driver drug testing, supported it. hopefully someone from there will defend this position.

 

not trying to open a can o woop ass but seems some people think we can trade little bits of our rights here (driver tests, no hydro) to gain other rights there (outdoor legal) but the thing is freedom aint like this. give them an inch and they will take a fucking mile. the best data i have heard says 1/3 of fatalities had pot in their system but 1/3rd of people smoke pot as pointed out. this is fucking blatant abuse of statistics.

 

i aint saying drive around khunt eyed stoned,not at all, but i am saying don't use bullshit stats and questionable testing techniqes (little callibration and no ability to discriminate a 10 hour ago session from 1/2 hour ago) to further an agenda that is all about making pot look bad.

 

//start rant//

 

HeMP embassy you should be able to see the govts' motives and agenda and should not support any of their drug policy as some sort of trade for your outdoor rights - aren't you even vaugeuly aware of the history of drug persecution the world over. this is about controlling plants ultimately, all of them - witness borage being illegal and heaps of other herbs- the companies want to own the seeds and the dna and strains to all our food and drugs so they can sell us infertile hybrids year after year and the ferts and pesticides that go with it. now thats a conspiracy to put you deluded 'hydro conspiracy' to shame. Hemp embassy you shouldn't support any attempt to demonise the herb. grow pot to save the planet and all.

End rant //

[torana2000]

speaking of the radio - i heard someone from the HEMP embassy on JJJ on friday say they were fine with the driver drug testing, supported it. hopefully someone from there will defend this position.

i wonder how much the HEMP embassy will support it when they set up there road side testing on the roads in and out of nimbin at next years mardigrass. well guess you cant have a mardigrass if everyone is locked up for drug driving, maybe then it might change there additude a bit.

[Guest niall]

Do you guys seriously think it is a good idea for people who have recently used cannabis and other drugs to be on the roads? I'm not talking about yourself and your driving abilities, think about the lowest common denominator here:

 

Imagine a 17 year old bloke who's used pot for the first time in his life, and he's just gotten behind the wheel. Imagine he just had a cone minutes before driving. Then imagine the same scenario but he's smoked 1 hour before driving. What about 3 hours, or 4 hours?

 

For some people, certainly inexperienced users, cannabis will have a dramatic influence on their ability to drive safely. How can our society best deal with this problem?

 

Forget the evidence on both sides for a moment guys, just use your common sense here. If you've got children or grand-children, think about them driving on our roads and one of our own is pulling buckets in his boot at a park, then hops in and goes for a drive. He kills your relatives, and cannabis is found to be a major contributing factor. Surely you guys realise that it's probably not a good idea to simply let anyone with any level of cannabis in their system to drive without penalty?

 

What is a safe level of cannabis in your system while driving? I do not believe that any non-zero amount is inherently unsafe, nor do I believe that everyone in our society can drive as safe as they can sober when they are really, really stoned. Laws like this need to take into account the lowest common denominator - what level of cannabis does not impact upon driving ability in 99% of people, how many hours should the average person wait before driving?

 

I can't believe that you guys believe that huge amounts smoked immediately before driving will have zero impact on driviing ability in the average person. It would be interesting to see research on the impact across a broad spectrum of the community - regular users, social users, non-users, teenagers, the elderly. There is no such research as cannabis is illegal, so we've got a bit of a catch 22 here. It may take years to figure out the right threshold just like our national 0.05 laws for alcohol took decades to get where they are now.

 

It's just common sense guys, I don't understand why you guys are so worked up about this as a principle. Sure, the threshold may be too low, we may not have enough evidence to conclusively indicate that cannabis has deleterious effects on driving in all cases, or a positive influence in all cases, but it's common sense to think that some levels will affect some people's driving ability negatively. This is why we have drink driving laws, it's got nothing about how much YOU personally can drink and drive safely, but what is a reasonable threshold beyond which it is too dangerous to allow ANYONE to continue driving. The Police and our Law need something objective to measure, and we've decided that 0.05 is the limit for EVERYONE - big guys, small guys, women, teenagers, the elderly...

[Ms Green]

Here Here Jess I'm 100% behind you its just a load of crap there is no scientific or medical evdencie that it does impair your driving.And it has proven it self down in Victoria so how is it going to be effective in NSW?Its just a waste of time and tax payers money when other things are more important then bloody gettin people for cannabis.Its shameful and you certainly got the name right Iemscuma fuckwit thats great considering he said that so he should be able to handle what he dishes out.

[Jess Stone]

What is it you don't understand Niall ?

 

1] Cannabis is NOT a central nervous system depressant,it does NOT slow your reflexes,unlike alcohol which is a CNS depressant which they test drivers for or what about heroin,methadone,valium,tranq's,barbs ,other presription drugs that depress the CNS which the peabrains are NOT testing for.

 

2] Unlike alcohol which clears the system rapidly with little residual effects after 24 hours (extreme intoxication) Cannabis remains detectable LONG after the intoxication is over,the Gov's say it will only detect up to about 4 hours after intoxication is over, for cannabis this is 2-4 hours yet metabolites which is what saliva tests test for ,THCOOH, which is a NON-active metabolite that ONLY indicates that your body has processed cannabinoids in the preceeding time span of hours to MONTHS. 2nd hand smoke does present the distinct possibility that a non-cannabis user could test positive.

 

3] Unlike alcohol tests ,RBT, which has a set level that the average persons reflexes become DEPRESSED at, cannabis R D/C T, tests only for metabolites which give NO indication of INTOXICATION or medicallly / scientifically set levels that indicate through research IMPAIRMENT.Infact very few studies have been conducted using non-active controls and double blind research methods ,the few that have indicate slight IMPROVEMENTS or slight impairment but so slight that the best spin they can put on the results to enable them to get more research grants is INCONCLUSIVE ,which is scientific double talk for "we think there should be an effect as its a drug,but we can't find negative results"

 

 

4] you niall have FAILED to check out the info at Drug Test Scam otherwise you would know the answers to some of your absurd questions and propositions.

 

5] There is NO relationship between ALCOHOL intoxication and Cannabis intoxication,there is NO common ground in how they interact with human psysiology,they are incomparable.

 

6] DO YOU NIALL USE CANNABIS?

[generic_hippie]

The only fact we need to remain safe is to know the law has been introduced, and what it entails.

 

Anybody moaning about the accuracy/reliability of the tests concievably currently drives around under the influence of cannabis, and there for has legitimate cause for concern.

 

Any true cannabis-warrior would be chomping at the bit to fail a drug test and fight it in court given the alleged inaccuracies and unreliability of the equipment.

 

Or you could just grow up and realise that when you are stoned and driving, (regardless of your ability), Joe Public is scared of you.

 

Joe Public is scared because the government told him to be scared while bombarding him with some meaningless statistics.

 

We have neither the funding, the organisation or the stick-to-it-tivness to change the law, (or we wouldn't be having this conversation about illegal substances), lacking the tools to fight the propaganda war begun by Harry Asslicker and carried to the world by the united stated of ameriKKKa, we find the infighting over irrelevancies accelerated...

 

We find people claiming their research superior to other people's research.

 

Got some news for you, as far as being scientific is concerned, well reading about it on the web hardly passes muster, I don't care how "genuine" the website seemed, it is still just reading without seeing, no empirical data for us, there for nobody has better research than anybody else.

 

 

All pointless and irrelevant.

 

Don't want to lose your licence, don't drive stoned. Simple.

[pipeman]

Do you guys seriously think it is a good idea for people who have recently used cannabis and other drugs to be on the roads? I'm not talking about yourself and your driving abilities, think about the lowest common denominator here:

 

It is absolute insanity to legislate for the lowest common demoninator.

 

Imagine a 17 year old bloke who's used pot for the first time in his life, and he's just gotten behind the wheel. Imagine he just had a cone minutes before driving. Then imagine the same scenario but he's smoked 1 hour before driving. What about 3 hours, or 4 hours?

 

well then he's a stupid idiot, but so are a lot of 17 year olds who get behind the wheel.

 

For some people, certainly inexperienced users, cannabis will have a dramatic influence on their ability to drive safely. How can our society best deal with this problem?

 

is it a problem? In theory it could be, but is it? Seems silly to me to introduce legislatation when there is no evidence to suggest we even have a problem to deal with.

 

Forget the evidence on both sides for a moment guys, just use your common sense here. If you've got children or grand-children, think about them driving on our roads and one of our own is pulling buckets in his boot at a park, then hops in and goes for a drive. He kills your relatives, and cannabis is found to be a major contributing factor. Surely you guys realise that it's probably not a good idea to simply let anyone with any level of cannabis in their system to drive without penalty?

 

If you cause a serious accident then you should bear the consequences, whether you were under the influence of a drug or not.

 

What is a safe level of cannabis in your system while driving? I do not believe that any non-zero amount is inherently unsafe, nor do I believe that everyone in our society can drive as safe as they can sober when they are really, really stoned. Laws like this need to take into account the lowest common denominator - what level of cannabis does not impact upon driving ability in 99% of people, how many hours should the average person wait before driving?

 

the solution is simple. Have a sobriety/reflex test. Anyone who thinks testing for levels of drugs in a persons system is the most important factor in driver safety is clearly ignorant.

 

It's just common sense guys, I don't understand why you guys are so worked up about this as a principle.

 

what is common sense? That a heavy regular stoner will show a positive test result even when they are not stoned? That driving stoned is nowhere near as dangerous as driving drunk? That there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that stoned drivers are having any kind of impact on road safety?

 

Its easy for you to get on your high horse niall, you don't smoke every day so to you its no big deal. Think about those that do. And your idea to legislate to the lowest common denominaotr is ridiculous. The most dangerous drivers on our roads on average are those below the age of 25, and its got nothing to do with drugs.

[Guest niall]

What is it you don't understand Niall ?

 

Well for one thing, your inability to respond to my posts. But I shall respond to yours anyway:

 

1] Cannabis is NOT a central nervous system depressant,it does NOT slow your reflexes,unlike alcohol which is a CNS depressant which they test drivers for or what about heroin,methadone,valium,tranq's,barbs ,other presription drugs that depress the CNS which the peabrains are NOT testing for.

 

I didn't say cannabis was a CNS depressant. I didn't say that it slows your reflexes. As for heroin, methadone, valium, tranqs, barbs and other prescription drugs - I'm not interested in those, but my logic stands for those as it does for cannabis.

 

2] Unlike alcohol which clears the system rapidly with little residual effects after 24 hours (extreme intoxication) Cannabis remains detectable LONG after the intoxication is over,the Gov's say it will only detect up to about 4 hours after intoxication is over, for cannabis this is 2-4 hours yet metabolites which is what saliva tests test for ,THCOOH, which is a NON-active metabolite that ONLY indicates that your body has processed cannabinoids in the preceeding time span of hours to MONTHS. 2nd hand smoke does present the distinct possibility that a non-cannabis user could test positive.

 

Again, I'm not sure of the relevence of this to what I've actually posted about, but regardless the Police need something to test for. If metabolites are they only way they can detect recent cannabis use, then that's what they're going to use. Is there an alternative, I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear from you.

 

3] Unlike alcohol tests ,RBT, which has a set level that the average persons reflexes become DEPRESSED at, cannabis R D/C T, tests only for metabolites which give NO indication of INTOXICATION or medicallly / scientifically set levels that indicate through research IMPAIRMENT.Infact very few studies have been conducted using non-active controls and double blind research methods ,the few that have indicate slight IMPROVEMENTS or slight impairment but so slight that the best spin they can put on the results to enable them to get more research grants is INCONCLUSIVE ,which is scientific double talk for "we think there should be an effect as its a drug,but we can't find negative results"

 

Agreed, you've clearly missed the point of my posts entirely Jess.

 

4] you niall have FAILED to check out the info at Drug Test Scam otherwise you would know the answers to some of your absurd questions and propositions.

 

So... you won't even respond to my points directly, only send me on my way?!?

 

5] There is NO relationship between ALCOHOL intoxication and Cannabis intoxication,there is NO common ground in how they interact with human psysiology,they are incomparable.

 

I didn't claim there was.

 

6] DO YOU NIALL USE CANNABIS?

 

Regularly, I'm high right now. How is this relevent?

 

Seriously Jess, I have actually read your posts and I disagree with you. If you would do me the same courtesy and actually respond to what I've written, instead of ranting about your own points and failing to address mine, I would really appreciate it.

 

HINT: INTOXICATION