the "Fuckwit" Iamascumma to legislate for driver drug tests

[Jess Stone]

So Niall thinks that the patronising "hint" is a winning point in an arguement,heres a hint for you , I DISAGREE with every piece of drivel thats emanated like electronic diarrhoea from your pc,seriously are you a thick head or suffering from a mental condition? Why do I ask you this? Because you seem incapable of comprehending that I answered your ORIGINAL questions with " I disagree" What is it you don't understand about that , you have a complete lack of understanding on the way cannabis acts on the human body,you through some perverted fantasy think the extremely powerful and lethal drug ALCOHOL is in some way comparable to THC a non-lethal and relatively benign drug. Compared to alcohol,nicotine,caffeine,aspirin cannabis truly is benign ,drinking coffee /tea could accurately be described as "caffeine intoxication" ,have any studies ever been conducted into, does caffeine cause impairment to drivers? or withdrawal from the LETHAL drug caffeine cause impairment? The answer to the best of my knowledge is NO, yet fuckwit governments actually PUSH this drug onto drivers ,Stop,Revive and Survive COFFEE REST STOPS . Heres another hint, any smoker/user of cannabis KNOWS that compared to other drugs like alcohol or LSD or heroin its barely more than a mild buzz,hardly what you would call intoxication, in reality not much more effective a buzz than strong "real" coffee and additionally any cannabis smoker / user who drives KNOWS (not thinks or their opinion ,no, KNOWS) that it has little to no effect on your ability to drive nor does it impair your reflexes MILLIONS of video gamers are a testimony to that.

So in conclusion its very hard to actually believe you are a cannabis consumer Niall or should I say DENIALL(sic) and there seems little point in being polite to a forum troll like you.And if you really are a cannabis consumer I would have to conclude you do not drive, but these are just speculations or intelligent guesses what I know as a fact is you clearly are a wanker and maybe a cop?

 

Are you a COP DENIALL? Don't be shy,tell the truth(if your actually capable of it) DENIALL.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Jess Stone

[Jess Stone]

Seen the thread about NHE supposed statements acquired from Northern Rivers ABC about "Cautious approval of RCT " has been closed and this thread is about the same core subject RCT I'll post it here.......

from the Northern Rivers Echo print/online

 

Drug testing to ‘net’ cannabis users, says Hemp Embassy

 

President of the Nimbin Hemp Embassy, Michael Balderstone, says new random roadside drug testing will have a ‘drift net’ effect, snaring anyone who has used cannabis within 60 days prior to the test. Speed, ecstasy and THC (cannabis) are the drugs that will be screened for when the drug testing comes into force in November.

“Cannabis is fat soluble and stays in the body much longer than any other drug,” he said. “It’s all or nothing. There’s no 0.05 like there is with alcohol.”

However, Police Minister Carl Scully claimed only recent drug use would be detected by the testing devices, which would meet stringent criteria on accuracy and reliability.

Initially there will be just one drug testing truck for the whole of NSW, and 5000 motorists will be tested in the first year.

An initial saliva test will show whether any drugs are present, and a positive result will require a second test in a roadside testing truck with a more sophisticated and calibrated machine.

Richmond crime prevention officer, Michael Hogan, said it was envisaged that eventually all police cars would have the drug testing kits and all major police stations would have the portable drug testing machines.

“Policing across Australia is now rolling out drug testing because the technology is allowing us to do that,” he said. “Ten years ago we never had this ability.

However, Michael Balderstone said just because cannabis was detected it didn’t necessarily mean motorists were stoned while driving.

“Half the Nimbin population would register,” he said. “Whether that means you had a joint four days ago or four hours ago. It’s got the potential to catch a lot of cannabis users. This is going to have huge consequences for people. Losing your licence, that’s huge.”

Senior Constable Hogan said as far as he knew there was no four-hour limit in terms of drug detection as it would all depend on the speed with which the body metabolised the drug.

“If you come up with a positive reading, you have failed the test and you will be charged,” he said.

Mr Balderstone said it was “extraordinary” that police weren’t going to be testing for cocaine or heroin and the policy could lead to people switching to more dangerous drugs.

 

Well its hard not to accurately comprehend what the NHE and Bauldy are saying in this article,I see NO "cautious approval" in this press statement !

[Guest niall]

So Niall thinks that the patronising "hint" is a winning point in an arguement,heres a hint for you , I DISAGREE with every piece of drivel thats emanated like electronic diarrhoea from your pc,seriously are you a thick head or suffering from a mental condition? Why do I ask you this? Because you seem incapable of comprehending that I answered your ORIGINAL questions with " I disagree" What is it you don't understand about that

 

Well, without addressing any of my points directly, disagreeing in general, your position seems ludicrous. You disagreed to questions that I posed to you? How can you disagree to a question? All I can do here is assume that you disagree with the following topics:

 

1. You think that calling people names is good for our cause. (nice abuse above by the way, you don't seem capable of having a polite, rational discussion?)

2. You disagree wth RBT for alcohol. (this is jaw dropping, and I can't really take anything else you say seriously because of this)

3. You think that it's a good idea that people drive after recently using cannabis, speed and other illicit drugs.

 

Is that right? You don't believe in RBT for alcohol and that anyone should be able to drive after recently using cannabis, speed and other drugs? Sounds absurd to me, but then you're the one not not responding to these questions so please don't start calling me names again if you think I'm trying to trap you here or something.

 

you have a complete lack of understanding on the way cannabis acts on the human body

 

Well actually I have a fairly good knowledge of this, but nothing that I have said has covered this topic so I'm amazed that you can deduce this from what I have posted here. Do you do magic tricks too? What did I say that demonstrates this "complete lack of understanding"?

 

you through some perverted fantasy think the extremely powerful and lethal drug ALCOHOL is in some way comparable to THC a non-lethal and relatively benign drug.

 

Actually, no, I do not think that. Where did I write that Jess? You're not even reading my posts, and you're starting to look even more foolish than you did at the start of this thread.

 

Compared to alcohol,nicotine,caffeine,aspirin cannabis truly is benign ,drinking coffee /tea could accurately be described as "caffeine intoxication" ,have any studies ever been conducted into, does caffeine cause impairment to drivers? or withdrawal from the LETHAL drug caffeine cause impairment? The answer to the best of my knowledge is NO, yet fuckwit governments actually PUSH this drug onto drivers ,Stop,Revive and Survive COFFEE REST STOPS . Heres another hint, any smoker/user of cannabis KNOWS that compared to other drugs like alcohol or LSD or heroin its barely more than a mild buzz,hardly what you would call intoxication, in reality not much more effective a buzz than strong "real" coffee and additionally any cannabis smoker / user who drives KNOWS (not thinks or their opinion ,no, KNOWS) that it has little to no effect on your ability to drive nor does it impair your reflexes MILLIONS of video gamers are a testimony to that.

 

And here you're just rambling off-topic. Please respond to what I have posted, don't just make shit up and put words in my mouth and expect me to take it. You're not addressing any of the points, all you're doing is rambling and adding more and more tangents into this discussion. Go back and read the thread from start to finish, or even my posts and your responses. It's difficult reading, you're really not making any effort to actually discuss this topic you're just ranting and abusing anyone who disagrees with you. Just like you did in your first post.

 

If you want to vent and take your frustration out on people, go for it, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you've got nothing to add to the debate but insults and obfuscation.

 

So in conclusion its very hard to actually believe you are a cannabis consumer

 

What a leap of logic? In conclusion? What on earth led you to this conclusion, that I disagree with your name calling, that I posed questions that you were unable to answer, or that I called you out on it? Or am I simply lying - I did tell you that I use cannabis regularly. What good faith you show, bravo Jess I think you'll win many people to our cause!

 

Niall or should I say DENIALL(sic) and there seems little point in being polite to a forum troll like you.

 

Gee, never heard that one before Jess. Good one. Please point out 1) where I have trolled this forum; and 2) why there is little point in being polite to me? I have been extremely polite while you have made an absolute ass of yourself.

 

And if you really are a cannabis consumer I would have to conclude you do not drive, but these are just speculations or intelligent guesses what I know as a fact is you clearly are a wanker and maybe a cop?

 

Are you a COP DENIALL? Don't be shy,tell the truth(if your actually capable of it) DENIALL.

 

*sigh*

 

The saddest part is that people are cheering you on and congratulating you on your posts. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[generic_hippie]

When you dismiss something said because of the language used, you are being bigoted.

 

FFS, this is Australia, we swear here in Australia, get over it.

 

Strange position I find myself in here, I find myself disagreeing with Jess Stone whilst at the same time appreciating his linguistic skill set a whole lot more than the bland PC drivel of others...

 

It seems certain OZstoners members have chosen to become Australia's speech-pattern police, "If you say (insert profanity) my own bigoted attitude will disregard your post, and I will instantly assume I am more intelligent, and more in touch with the world than you..."

 

 

 

Stop worrying about how people say shit and at least have a sniff, cop a smell of what they are speaking...

[Bundy]

FFS, this is Australia, we swear here in Australia, get over it

 

i fucken concur

 

however i agree with jess

[generic_hippie]

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

 

After you kill or seriously injur somebody, how are you going to bear their consequences?

 

More drugs I expect...

 

Personally I believe the responsible thing to do is lobby for testing on the issue of driving impediment and cannabis use, or acknowledge the possibility that maybe being stoned 24/7 may require a rethink, (on both our parts probably.)

 

 

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.

 

Who do you suggest implement this reflex test? The officer currently responsible for persecuting anybody allegedly suspected of being stoned? Assuming for the moment he'll do it fairly and without bias, even with the knowledge of temporarily inactive powers of arrest burning a painful hole in his pride, you'd be happy with them judging whether you're affected by reefer madness, their very worst mightmare, beyond your capacity to drive or not?

 

Um, wow...

 

what is common sense?

 

Not that reflex test/subjective opinion excuse for bigoted behaviour...

 

 

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.

 

I smoke every day, I also drive every day, given my location and the penchant of the authoritarian enforcers of alcohol's recreational mind altering monopoly to over-police this particular geography, clearly I will be required to adjust one or other aspect of my life if I intend to carry on in my life, unmolested by the law.

 

Everything is legislated to the lowest common denominator. Everything. It is the sole purpose of legislation in most cases, to define what is and isn't acceptable, or the lowest common denominator...

Age to drive, age to drink, age to vote, tax-brackets, speed limits, means-tested this, assetts-tested that, age to fornicate in both a hetero and homo-sexual manner, species of fornication is even legislated to the lowest common denominator FFS, for crying out loud... (I didn't want you to disregard what I had typed because of the shocking language implied by "FFS" so I crossed it out and added something more suited a G rated audience...)

 

Fair would be perhaps an acknowledgement of your habits by you, your doctor and the servants of oppression, then the ability to sit the driving test in your preferred state of adjustment and to be rated on your licence as able to drive with x amount in your blood, with the requirement to go a blood test on demand a pre-requisite.

 

But who's going to pay eighteen billion percent tax to fund such a ludicris idea? Who's going to consign themselves to the parliamentary process for long enough to effect the required change in the ameriKKKan driven prohibition of cannabis?

 

Not me, I'm just going to make some adjustments to my lifestyle is all, hoping to remain obsequious as the trundle through life continues...

 

trundle on...

[dev0]

im gonna have to agree.

 

after about 4 cones i can play Guitar Hero like nobodies business.

[Guest niall]

When you dismiss something said because of the language used, you are being bigoted.

FFS, this is Australia, we swear here in Australia, get over it.

 

I haven't dismissed Jess because of her abuse, I've only suggested that she try a more constructive approach. And answer my questions - I really couldn't give a fuck about the language anyone uses here but it sure does make it more difficult to take someone seriously if all they can do is call people names and not offer any real substance.

 

It seems certain OZstoners members have chosen to become Australia's speech-pattern police, "If you say (insert profanity) my own bigoted attitude will disregard your post, and I will instantly assume I am more intelligent, and more in touch with the world than you..."

Stop worrying about how people say shit and at least have a sniff, cop a smell of what they are speaking...

 

Fuck that, I couldn't agree more. Focus on the content, I keep trying to bring us back to the topic at hand here but everyone is skimming the surface here, no-one seems prepared to truly discuss these issues. Just complain and swear and abuse anyone who disagrees, why discuss the issue when you can hide your head in the sand and hope they'll go away?

[pipeman]

Fuck that, I couldn't agree more. Focus on the content, I keep trying to bring us back to the topic at hand here but everyone is skimming the surface here, no-one seems prepared to truly discuss these issues. Just complain and swear and abuse anyone who disagrees, why discuss the issue when you can hide your head in the sand and hope they'll go away?

 

what a load of shit niall, I've written at least two lengthy replies in this thread which you have completely ignored.

 

GH wrote:

 

After you kill or seriously injur somebody, how are you going to bear their consequences?

 

Its very simple. If you are responsible for the accident then you will have to suffer the prescribed punishment under the law. However we should not take whether or not you have drugs in your system as the standard to determine whether or not your are responsible. People should be equally responsible for their actions no matter what their level of intoxication is IMO. If you've chosen to take a drug, then you're responsible for whatever you do under its influence. If you are able to drive safely without causing accidents while stoned then you should be free to do so. Similarly if you are a reckless idiot who has mowed down an innocent because you were doing something stupid then you should be sent to jail, irrespective of whether you were intoxicated or not.

 

Who do you suggest implement this reflex test? The officer currently responsible for persecuting anybody allegedly suspected of being stoned? Assuming for the moment he'll do it fairly and without bias, even with the knowledge of temporarily inactive powers of arrest burning a painful hole in his pride, you'd be happy with them judging whether you're affected by reefer madness, their very worst mightmare, beyond your capacity to drive or not?

 

It would be a simple test just to show you still have resonable reflex, balance and co ordination. As long as you can demonstrate that you should be good to go. And yes the police would be responsible for it and it could also be legislation that if they wanted to book you they must take a digital video of you failing the test.

 

A common sense solution that is not easily open to abuse.

 

GH I predict your acceptance of this testing will change when you realise that obstaining for a day will not be enough for you to pass the test.

[Guest niall]

what a load of shit niall, I've written at least two lengthy replies in this thread which you have completely ignored.

 

I've read your posts and I agree with most of what you've said - you seem to agree with the core issues that I've raised, so there was nothing for me to reply to. Let's let the others speak.