Pot-driving tests to stay and go national

[Pa-uul]

February 28, 2006:

 

The Vic govt's serious penalties to be introduced

 

The Age article: Drug-drive testing to become law

Random roadside drug testing will be made permanent in Victorian because of the high proportion of drug-affected drivers nabbed by police in a 12-month trial.

 

From July, officers will also be able to test drivers for ecstasy - along with marijuana and methamphetamines - as a result of legislation introduced today by the State Government.

 

Police Minister Tim Holding said: "We want Victorian motorists to get the message that if they take drugs and they get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle - a car or a truck - they are a danger to themselves and to other road users."

 

Police tested more than 13,000 drivers in the 12 months to December 12 last year, with 69 of the 287 drivers caught testing positive to marijuana and methamphetamines.

 

The proportion of drivers that tested positive - one in 46 - was more than five times the average number of drivers caught by booze buses.

 

Mr Holding said this may be skewed because police targeted rave parties and long-haul truck routes during the trial, but acknowledged the extent of drug-driving may have been underestimated.

 

"In the past, I think people recognised we had a problem. I don't think anybody realised just how significant the extent of the problem has been," he said.

 

Victoria Police assistant commissioner of traffic Noel Ashby welcomed the decision to introduce permanent drug testing, and said it would form an important part of police strategy to curb the road toll.

 

"We have said that drugs are one of the core causes of crashes in this state - fatal and injury collisions - and that they rate drugs alongside alcohol, speed, seatbelts and fatigue as one of the causal factors for crashes," he said.

Author: JESSE HOGAN

Date: February 28, 2006

Source: theage.com.au

Copyright: © 2006, The Age

 

If you're caught drink driving for a second time there's a chance to avoid court and a licence suspension if the level is above 0.05 blood alcohol concentration but below 0.07 blood alcohol concentration. For drug users it's different - there's no third chance, it's automatic court proceedings only, which is likely to entail a conviction and then a mandatory three to six-month suspension of your licence plus thousands of dollars in fines.

 

The Victorian govt drug driving fact sheet states that:

Research shows that a driver who has recently consumed cannabis or an amphetamine based substance is at the same risk of having a crash as a driver with a blood alcohol concentration above 0.05

If that's true why does the US Air Force administer dextroamphetamine to its pilots before combat sorties as a mandatory policy like they did during the 2003 Iraq war?

 

Cannabis does not impair driving in my opinion, at least not like alcohol could, and neither do amphetamines. To me this is just an extension of the war on drugs.

 

The methods for identifying drug users were previously limited to arrest for possession or as the result of a search warrant, for example. The random drug testing of the public (whether you use drug-driving as the excuse or no) will be a major advance for drug prohibition. Cannabis users or distributors are already subject to some of the toughest laws in the country like the confiscation of all of their property and possessions. They have restricted access to employment and stiff jail sentences making them more despised in the eyes of law-makers than pedophiles (who are not subject to confiscation laws or certain limitations in employment opportunity). Taking away people's licences will be a devastating blow to the average cannabis user. Just as wickedly I suspect, it will facilitate a plan for a national database of drug users.

 

World first: Australia will be the pioneer of this new policy of drug-driving testing. We will get to be the test bed of this new phase on the war on drugs.

 

Crystal Nacht was a night of rampage and destruction against the Jews by the Nazis on November 9, 1938. It was a portend for much worse but even that night didn't alert the Jews to the prospect of concentration death camps. It's hard to stay vigilant today, in the pogrom against the pot users but we should take serious note of John Howard's increasing anti-marijuana campaign. Make no mistake about it: drug prohibitionists are some of the most heinous bigots on the planet. Their goal is nothing less than the utter destruction of our lives.

[WantDaChronic]

i actually think that people shouldnt drive if their concentration is impared by any form of drug wether its marijuana, alcohol, methamphetamines, etc. because it puts others at risk :thumbdown

 

what gets me is, how can they positively test for marijuana considering it stays in the body for around 28 days, not only that, will there be a limit like there is with alcohol?

[nitram]

The Myths about Drugs and Driving

 

Myth 1 – Drugs don’t affect my ability to drive

 

Illicit drugs can affect your driving ability by causing impaired coordination, muscle weakness, impaired reaction time, poor vision, an inability to judge distance and speed, and distortions of time, place and space.

The active component of cannabis called THC impairs mental function and reduces attention and concentration on the driving task. THC significantly increases crash risk even when there are no extreme outward signs of impairment.

Speed, ice or crystal meth (methamphetamines) increase risk taking and aggression. They are often used by drivers to temporarily allow them to continue to drive even though they are too tired to do so safely.

 

Myth 2 – I’m safe when I drive under the influence of drugs

 

Increasingly drug use is associated with road crashes and driving fatalities. You might think you’re safe, but the statistics tell the real story.

Drug driving is a major cause of road deaths in Victoria . In 2003, a total of 31 per cent of drivers killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs other than alcohol.

Research shows that a driver who has recently consumed cannabis or an amphetamine based substance is at the same risk as having a crash as a driver with an alcohol concentration above 0.05.

 

Myth 3 – Drink driving is a much bigger problem

 

Drink driving is a major community issue, but so is drug driving.

In 2003, 28 per cent of drivers killed had a blood alcohol content of 0.05 or more. In the same year, 31 per cent of drivers killed tested positive to drugs other than alcohol.

Myth 4 – It’s not illegal to drive under the influence of drugs

 

Yes it is. Victoria Police is now conducting random roadside saliva testing for illicit drugs. This will detect the recent consumption of methamphetamines (speed) and THC (the active component of cannabis)

There are drug impaired driving laws which have been in place since 2000 which can be used by Victoria Police to detect drivers impaired by other drugs, such as heroin.

Myth 5 - Drugs can’t be detected and I won’t get caught

 

Wrong again. Victoria Police is now conducting random roadside saliva testing for illicit drugs. Anyone can be tested at any time. And the testing may target high risk areas, like trucking routes and entertainment precincts.

Saliva screening is an accurate and reliable method for detecting recent consumptions of THC (the active component of cannabis) and methamphetamines (speed).

 

 

Testing Procedures

 

Random drug driving tests will be conducted in a similar way to current random breath tests. A drug bus similar to a booze bus will be used.

 

Step 1:

 

Drivers will be required to provide a saliva sample by placing an absorbent collector in their mouth or touching it on their tongue until a sample is collected. The sample will be screened at the roadside, with the result determined within approximately five minutes. Drug tests will be conducted by specially trained and authorised police officers.

 

Step 2:

 

Drivers who return a negative drug test will not be detained further. Drivers who return positive test results will be required to accompany police to a drug bus and provide a second saliva sample.

 

Step 3:

 

Drivers who produce a positive result to the second sample will be interviewed according to normal police procedure, and the sample sent to a laboratory for analysis. The driver will be provided with a portion of the second sample, which they may choose to have independently analysed.

 

Step 4:

 

Once the process is complete, the driver will be allowed to leave, although they will not be permitted to drive their vehicle. No infringement will be issued or charge laid until the results of the laboratory analysis are known. Drivers will be informed within a few weeks if the laboratory analysis confirms an illicit drug was present and they are to be fined or prosecuted for an offence.

 

Step 5

 

Do a runner by step 2 completion

 

I don't drive a vehicle - Prices became too much 8 yrs ago.

[mull]

I shouldn't probably write this up, as it's hearsay. But the fella who told me is pretty solid.

Apparently they also have mobile units now, not just the drug bus/s. They are using 'yellow pursuit cars' and doing random roadside screenings with them now too. This is still only in Vic. They are like the old canary cars but now for drug screening.

 

I guess this is how drinkers felt when RBT came in eh.

Although the sight of that drug bus could cause any stoner to drive a little bit erraticly.

 

And yep it looks like the gov found out how to make revenue out of drugs, without taxing and still continue prohibition

[Stoney]

so how many of these buses are out there and does anyone know how far away it will be untill they have them in any cop car. if i remember correctly when they started the alcohole tests they only used the buses then about 2-3 years later they were in every police car.

this would suck abit and does anyone know times for drugs to wear off enough to not get a reading???

this would be handy they should make a sign and hang it next to the standard drinks sign at clubs ha ha one point or joint every 5 hrs

 

keep token

[mull]

Not sure how many buses they have but not many yet. They are only metro mainly and regional every couple of months.

 

More speculation about the test from other stoners, is to carry a beer in the dash. If you see the bus, open and take a quick swig. Then you can only be breathalized for alcohol, of which will be a high reading, but will reside in the 10min wait.

I don't know for sure, but the word is they wont test saliva if they get a positive for alcohol.

 

As for cannabis in your system, they said on the ad's it was only testing for 4 hours prior to you driving.

 

Your billy mate? Nah I better not.. gotta drive... in four hours..

[WantDaChronic]

As for cannabis in your system, they said on the ad's it was only testing for 4 hours prior to you driving.

 

how are they able to tell between leaf, buds and hash? also what would be the limit, eg. .05 for alcohol?

 

sounds a bit suspect to me, but imo the best thing vic drivers can do is keep a bottle of listerine handy

[naturalmystic]

Yes id like to know how they get there sample readings and what time frame they use to gauge wether the person is stoned or just has it in there system . Also i have to say that when im stoned i can honestly say im a more cautious driver plus my night vision is improved and my anticipation is enhanced . Edited March 1, 2006 by naturalmystic

[mull]

Oh the limit would be zero Wantda, they'd just say its illegal. The next question is do they database the positives and use the info to bust users at home later on?

[jonx]

I have no problem with testing for people who are actually stoned. I personally never drive after smoking, but that's cos I'd rather chill than have to deal with dickheads on the road.

 

The real problem is if they can't distinguish if you smoked within the last 4 hours or 24 hours. It's one thing to bust someone who's genuinely affected, another to bust someone who is completely straight. I'm no lawyer, but I can't understand how they can have these laws without making such a distinction. Seems totally absurd.

 

I heard from a friend that you shouldn't get a positive reading if it's been more than 6 hours, but I dunno if that applies to a heavy smoker. Certainly the cutoff for a positive reading would have to be high enough for them to be sure they weren't wasting their time. (?)

 

As for using a positive result to search you / your house, the website says "Legislation prevents the evidence of saliva testing being used in court proceedings for non road safety offences."

 

So I guess that's one 'positive'...