Driver Drug Tests-Your PERSONAL experiences?

[Shithappens]

my mates gathered all of our 1 cent and 2 cent pieces and i put them all in my mouth and swished them around for a good 20 minutes,when the cops tested me nothing showed up\

 

Ahh thats why they stopped using them it cost them 2 much in fines!!

[Jess Stone]

This story is interesting ,if 7893 drivers were tested for drugs and alcohol to net only 7 for drugs and they are non-specific about how many were caught for cannabis,as per usual all drugs(except booze and ciggies,of course ) were lumped together ! Any way IF 7893 were tested for drugs for only 7 it sounds like good news for us? But is this naive? as the article is vague,were the bulk of the tests actually for alcohol only? If so ,how many drug driver tests were conducted?Who knows but on the surface it sounds like good news and that drug testing drivers is a massive waste of time and taxpayers money.

 

Breath test blitz nets 62

 

 

MORE than 60 drunk drivers were caught in just 12 hours as part of a random breath testing blitz which ended this morning.

 

From 6pm yesterday until 6am today, 7893 drivers were tested, with 62 drivers reported for drink driving, four arrested and 26 having their licenses instantly disqualified.

 

Another seven drivers tested positive to cannabis, ecstasy or methamphetamine when drug tested during the blitz.

 

About 200 police targeted 64 sites across the state as part of efforts to keep roads safe this long weekend.

 

As part of the blitz, 18 people were cautioned, 27 cars were defected and 59 people were arrested or reported for other offences.

 

Police seized three cars for hoon behaviour.

 

A man at Ardrossan had his car impounded and was charged with misuse of a motor vehicle after he was caught – for the second time, after being given a warning on the first occasion – doing burnouts.

 

The highest blood alcohol reading was recorded by a man caught on Montefiore Rd in the city, with .166 per cent.

 

An unlicensed driver travelling on Main North Rd, Salisbury North, recorded a reading of .11 per cent.

 

The overall strike rate was .87 per cent, with a nine per cent strike being recorded at James Congdon Rd, Mile End, between 3 and 5am, when nine of 100 drivers tested returned a positive test.

 

The blitz was part of a major operation this Adelaide Cup weekend as police work to combat the traditionally high fatality and serious injury toll for March.

 

Much to my surprise they published my comments here

Breath test blitz nets 62

Edited March 13, 2007 by Jess Stone

[freddie]

The latest RACQ mag "On the Road" (QLD) has an article on the introduction of drug tests. It says:

 

"The tests can detect the presence of cannabis that has been in someone's system for between 2 and 6 hours and amphetamines for up to 12 hours, although this varies between individuals."

 

I'd like to know how much this "varies between individuals"? Initially i thought they said the test would only detect cannabis for up to 4 hours. Now it is 6, maybe? Why do i get the feeling the goalposts keep moving? I don't drive stoned. My main worry is it being detected the day after and as i am a nightly toker i probably have it my system most of the time.

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

Auspamp, I did a bit of a justice dimploma before things forced me to drop the course. Lots of trainee cops and crap in the course.

One of the lecturers, a detective who was speaking one day about drving under the influence of substnces in general that can alter the bility to perform well, told an interesting story.

 

He was saying how before he got into the detectivebranch, he was often doing to friday nigth/sat morning game of road side breath tests. he said he got sick to the back teeth of people claiming they had chewed some cough lollies or sucked down some syrup, and it must have altered their reading, because they swore blind they might have been close to being egally disalowed to drive, but honestly didn't think they should be over. So they blamed the cough medicine.

 

He reckoned it made all the cops laugh, cry or anger; but not one of them beleived it.

 

years past and he was racing off to court as a detective, to give evidence. he's never drunk booze in his whole life, not at all aparently. He had however just had a cough lozenger, and was pulled over almost immeiately for a breath test.

 

He didn't go over the limit, but he did make a reading apparently.

 

I thought it was interesting.

 

cheers

rob

[Jess Stone]

Has any one posted a link to this little gem on the HEMP Embassy website about tests they conducted with Drugwipe Twin ,the one Vic police use and probably NSW as well ? Heres the link

 

HEMP Embassy TESTS DRUGWIPE TWIN

 

I'll wait until a few of you have scoped it out before commenting but

[freddie]

WOW. Thats actually a pretty decent experiment. Must be a lot of x-students out Nimbin way. This must be the first HEMP embassy update in years.

 

You'd have to think that if you got busted that you would have a real chance of fighting this in court assuming that someone apart from the hemp embassy has done research like this. Such experiments are easily replicated.

 

I am looking to consume most of my cannabis by eating it in the future and all the hash chocs were negative.

 

Although i don't smoke and drive it is a worry that a test may prove positive over 6 hours after you last took cannabis.

Edited March 16, 2007 by freddie

[Al Fish]

To perform roadside drug tests the Police have to rely on legislation. To get a Bill of Law into an Act of Law requires that the Bill be given Royal ascent – for State Acts, by a Governor and for Commonwealth Acts, by the Governor-General. Now although these Governors and Governors-General are chosen by Premiers or the Prime Minister respectively, they are and can only be appointed by Elizabeth II. Now Lizzy can’t make any appointments unless she’s told to do so by her Privy Council (see http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5278.asp). If anyone’s interested I can post the relevant sections of ‘Halsbury’s Laws of England’ which cite the relevant UK law.

 

As an examination of the annexure hereto shows, anyone raising the argument that the State or Commonwealth constitutions have not been complied with, in as much as the vice regal appointee hasn’t been appointed by the ‘Queen in Parliament’ and therefore can’t give Royal Ascent to roadside drug testing legislation, is on solid ground. Although (if their case doesn’t suddenly disappear) they’ll lose in an Australian court, a number of London based legal firms and Counsel are preparing for the compensation claims to emanate from Australia. These will begin anytime now and will be handled on a spec basis (although there's nothing speculative about these claims). The last figure I heard was a ten percent cut to the lawyers.

 

So if anyone’s charged and is interested in submitting a written argument to this effect to a court I’d only be too happy to supply same – gratis.

 

And you really should check out the damages regime of the Human Rights Act, 1998 (UK). Wow!

 

Ps. You might want to get a second opinion from Ruen though.

Paul_Perrett_Orders_in_Council_Statement.doc

[Jess Stone]

I basically understand what your saying Al but observation over the years tells me these type constitutional cases notoriously favour government , like people attempting to use the Magna Carta as there basic tennet of law and attempting to force the issue through the High Court of Oz ,now I know theres monkey busines still inregards to our constitution and the British Crown but once again the status quo usually wins but really these issues are way beyond my understanding and in the end all I can say is "you'll never know unless you try your luck" but this stuff takes MAJOR dinero's !

 

I was thinking ,what really pisses me off about testing drivers for cannabis is the assumption :since alcohol major-ly effects ability to drive mainly due to impairment of reaction time due to alcohol depressing the central nervous system hence reflex reaction time is slower,now I am sure this is the main reason alcohol and driving don't go well together and this is despite the gov. ads promoting the concept of complex reasoning ability is depressed etc but really it slows your reflexes and thats the main danger . But in a curious twist of logic the belief that since alcohol causes accidents then other substances must cause accidents as well towit so must cannabis yet the anti-cannabis propaganda seems to say that cannabis depresses the central nervous system and effects reflex time but there vague on the issue,clinical explanations do claim CNS depression but say stimulation so which is it,obviosly they make this up as they go along ,talk about an each way bet ,stimulant and depressant yet millions of PS2/3,XBox and pc gamers who are wacked seem to be on the ball, so reflexes seem mostly to be unaffected and you also get the standard fare of ,it alters perception of time? But whats that crap really mean ? That like most people stoned or not,when your having a good time, time just flies by ,but somehow if your wacked it gets twisted into "alters the perception of time" instead of "shit the movies over already!Damn I enjoyed it I wish it had of went longer" . Whats the other one thats popular : "the user experiences EUPHORIA,but what is euphoria? Websters dictionary defines it as : a feeling of well-being or elation ,Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, from euphoros healthy, from eu- + pherein to bear ,so euphoria sounds like the perfect remedy for the sick and it is .I suppose I am saying the same thing in the end I'm sick of the lies!

[Al Fish]

"...but once again the status quo usually wins but really these issues are way beyond my understanding and in the end all I can say is "you'll never know unless you try your luck" but this stuff takes MAJOR dinero's !"

 

 

"...they’ll lose in an Australian court, a number of London based legal firms and Counsel are preparing for the compensation claims to emanate from Australia. These will begin anytime now and will be handled on a spec basis (although there's nothing speculative about these claims). The last figure I heard was a ten percent cut to the lawyers.

 

"So if anyone’s charged and is interested in submitting a written argument to this effect to a court I’d only be too happy to supply same – gratis.

 

"And you really should check out the damages regime of the Human Rights Act, 1998 (UK). Wow!"

 

Most of the people who have used the constitutional defence were only too pleased to lose because:

1. It was all done by written submission

2. Becasue they didn't waste the court's time the legal costs imposed upon them were low.

3. Shortly they'll be able to make a claim for the human rights offences they've suffered and they won't have to pay for that.

4. Leoline Price Q.C. is probably the most highly respected legal counsel in the Common Law world and he's old and he's not in the habit of tarnishing his reputation with hopeless cases.

(And just quietly, the shit is about to hit the fan - BIG TIME!)

 

Al Fish

[Jess Stone]

ROSITA - RoadSIdeTestingAssessment

 

 

Rosita-2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

* The Rosita-2 project was carried out in 2003-2005 in order to evaluate the usability and analytical reliability of the onsite oral fluid (saliva) drug testing devices.

* The study was carried out by National Institute for Criminalistics and Criminology in Brussels, Belgium, the National Public Health Institute in Helsinki, Finland, the Institute for Legal Medicine in Strasbourg, France, the Institute for Legal Medicine in Homburg/Saar, Germany, the Division of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Abuse, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway and Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. It was coordinated by Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

* The study was performed in cooperation with the Unites States, where it is funded by The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), US Department of Transportation and the Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President. The US part is coordinated by The Walsh Group (Bethesda, Maryland). The study is carried out in the following states: Florida (Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Manatee County Sheriff's Office), Washington (Washington State Police, Washington State Toxicology Lab), Utah (Salt Lake City Police Department, Center for Human Toxicology) and Wisconsin (12 Police Jurisdictions, Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene).

* In the US, the study continues until the end of 2006. The complete results for the European part and the partial results of the US parts are presented here.

* 2046 Subjects were included in the study and 2605 device evaluations were performed.

* Nine devices were evaluated: American Biomedica Oralstat, Branan Medical Oratect, Cozart Bioscience RapiScan (only in the USA), Dräger/Orasure DrugTest/Uplink, Lifepoint Impact, Securetec Drugwipe, Sun Biomedical Oraline, Ultimed Salivascreen and Varian OraLab.

* The devices had tests for the following drugs: amphetamines, methamphetamine, cannabis, cocaine and opiates. Three devices also had a test for benzodiazepines.

* During the study, two devices were withdrawn form the market: Dräger/Orasure DrugTest/Uplink and Lifepoint Impact.

* Subjects for whom a suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs existed were asked to participate in the study on a voluntary basis. In most cases the following samples were taken: a blood sample and an oral fluid sample with the Intercept™ sampler for analysis in the lab with reference techniques (gas or liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry, sometimes after screening with an immunoassay), and one (or two) oral fluid sample for analysis with the onsite device.

* For some devices, a very high percentage of failures was observed. Depending on the type of device, this was apparently due to too little or too viscous saliva (the fluid didn't migrate until the control line, or it caused smears), or to a malfunctioning of the instrument that read the results. For six devices (Varian Oralab, Lifepoint Impact, Branan Oratect 2nd generation, Sun Oraline, Ultimed Salivascreen and Branan Oratect 1st generation), more than 25% of the devices failed to run. For the other devices, the number of failures was less than 10 % (American Biomedica Oralstat and Dräger DrugTest/Orasure Uplink) or less than 5% (Cozart Rapiscan and Securetec Drugwipe). The evaluators considered that a failure rate of maximum 5-10% was acceptable.

* The number of evaluations per device varied widely, with two devices evaluated more than 500 times, one 190 times and 6 less than 50 times. The explanation lies in the large number of failures for Branan Medical Oratect, Ultimed Salivascreen and Varian OraLab, which led to their exclusion from the study and the late start of the evaluation of the American Biomedica Oralstat, Lifepoint Impact and Sun Biomedical Oraline.

* The percentages of positive samples were: amphetamines (including methamphetamine, ecstasy and analogues) 20 %, benzodiazepines 32 %, cannabinoids 36%, cocaine 19% and opiates 8%.

* The analytical evaluation of the amphetamine and methamphetamine tests (in comparison to the reference method in oral fluid) showed a sensitivity (percentage of the true positive samples that tested positive with the onsite assay) varying between 40% and 83% and a specificity (percentage of the negative samples that tested negative with the onsite assay) between 80% and 100%.

* The analytical evaluation of the benzodiazepine tests (in comparison to the reference method in oral fluid) showed a sensitivity varying between 33% and 69% and a specificity between 85% and 94%.

* The analytical evaluation of the cannabis tests (in comparison to the reference method in oral fluid) showed a sensitivity varying between 0% and 74% and a specificity between 70% and 100%. Detailed analysis of the data for cannabis showed that some devices (e.g. Drugwipe) gave a negative result even when very high concentrations of THC were found with the Intercept. The reason is unknown, but one hypothesis is that with an improved (more thorough) sampling technique more THC could be captured, resulting in more positive results.

* The analytical evaluation of the cocaine tests (in comparison to the reference method in oral fluid) showed a sensitivity varying between 0% and 97% and a specificity between 91% and 100%.

* The analytical evaluation of the opiate tests (in comparison to the reference method in oral fluid) showed a sensitivity varying between 51% and 100% and a specificity between 86% and 100%.

* No device met the criteria proposed during the Rosita-1 project (sensitivity and specificity > 90%, accuracy > 95%) for the amphetamines, benzodiazepines and cannabis. The Varian Oralab met these criteria for cocaine and opiates, but it gave 26% failures, so it cannot be recommended.

* The operational evaluation of the Drugwipe showed that the sampling technique was well accepted by the police and the subjects, but the results, particularly for cannabis, were difficult to read. There were also problems when using it in cold weather.

* The operational evaluation of the Dräger DrugTest/Orasure Uplink showed that sample collection was easy and hygienic, but that the procedure was long and complicated. The test must be read by an instrument, so it cannot be used in remote areas or when no instrument is available.

* The operational evaluation of the American Biomedica Oralstat showed that the collection stick lost one of its collection sponges in some cases. This test could also be read with or without the reading unit, but the scanning of the test strip by the electronic reader was sometimes difficult.

* The operational evaluation of the Branan Medical Oratect showed that the test was liked by the police officers, because it is very small and portable and no additional equipment is needed, but the sample collection was too complicated, it could be outsmarted by the tested persons and it took too much time. The number of failures was too high.

* The operating procedure of the RapiScan was fairly direct, but was found to intimidate officers if they were not able to use it soon after training. Many officers were uncomfortable using the instrument, stating that it was difficult to remember the procedure.

* The operational evaluation of the Lifepoint Impact showed that in many cases the collected sample volume was not sufficient because the instrument stopped the sampling automatically after a preset time.

* The test procedure of the Sun Biomedical Oraline was simple with few steps but a rather large sample volume was needed and it took too much time. There were problems to use it in cold and rainy weather. The lines indicating positive or negative results were too pale.

* The operational evaluation of the Ultimed Salivascreen showed that the device gave more invalid than valid tests. Officers reported smearing of the result bands or not enough saliva collected by the device to give a reading.

* The operational evaluation of the Varian OraLab showed that subjects were often unable to provide sufficient oral fluid during specimen collection, resulting in many invalid tests. Officers also experienced difficulty observing the presence or absence of the test lines making interpretation of results inconsistent.

* At the end of the study, no device was considered to be reliable enough in order to be recommended for roadside screening of drivers. However, the experience in the state of Victoria in Australia shows that random roadside oral fluid testing of drivers for methamphetamine and cannabis (using the Securetec Drugwipe followed by the Cozart Rapiscan and chromatographic analysis in the lab) has a deterrent effect. Government officials should carefully weigh the pros (deterrent effect) and the cons (risk that drivers will realise that they often test negative after having used drugs due to the limited sensitivity of the test) of introducing random drug testing with the currently available devices.

 

Drugwipe II Twin is JUNK and you should contest it in court better still REFUSE TO TAKE THE RUBBISH FLAWED TEST and contest those charges.... Jess

Edited March 25, 2007 by Jess Stone