the "Fuckwit" Iamascumma to legislate for driver drug tests

[generic_hippie]

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.

 

I predict that if you keep assuming I'm stupid, we are going to have cross words mo-fo.

 

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.

 

You want to have your (illegal) cake and eat it too.

 

Even though you ignored my valid point about everything being legislated to the lowest common denominator, the truth of the matter is you've got bigger things you (perhaps) should be concerned about than whether you can continue to drive stoned.

 

How about obtaining some sort of legal status for the past-time of being stoned in the first place before ranting and raving about being allowed to drive stoned???

[Tom]

MODERATION POST.

 

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.

You guys are only a post or two away from having this topic closed, you are all very aware that personal insults and flaming are not permitted on this site.

 

[pipeman]

GH wrote:

 

Even though you ignored my valid point about everything being legislated to the lowest common denominator,

 

the law should reflect the accepted norms of society. As soon as you start legislating for a minority (lowest common denominator) and then applying that same legislation to the majority thats when the law becomes unjust. Society is moving away from a common sense approach to problems to a politically correct covering your arse approach to problems. And I think it sux.

 

How about we stick the police outside mcdonalds measuring peoples body fat and giving them a fine if they're over 10%. That will probably be a better service to the general health and well being of our society than testing for stoned drivers.

[generic_hippie]

the law should reflect the accepted norms of society. As soon as you start legislating for a minority (lowest common denominator) and then applying that same legislation to the majority thats when the law becomes unjust.

 

Everything is legislated for the minority pipeman, let us be perfectly clear on this. Everything.

 

Do you get it yet?

 

Everything.

 

From the mass druggings of childhood immunisation with the aim of preventing one or two childhood afflictions which can leave devastating consequences for a handful of people, to the flouridisation of our water supply to reduce dental problems in people too lazy or uneducated to brush their teeth, everything is legislated for with the minority in mind.

 

Racial equality has been legislated and you can still try to tell me we don't legislate for minorities?

 

Dude, seriously, you are confused about the way society works...

 

The government delayed T3 until concerns about the minority of consumers in rural Australia was adressed, (not rectified but at least adressed).

 

Everything.

 

What you should be asking for is recognition of your personal minority, those smokers with enough experience to operate machinery baked.

 

What you are asking for is for society to ignore the very real risk of a newbie smoker with attitude getting behind the wheel and thinking less like a safe-stoner-driver, and more like a playstation-2 maniac with nought to lose...

 

Society is moving away from a common sense approach to problems to a politically correct covering your arse approach to problems. And I think it sux.

 

IS society moving away from common sense? Or are you expecting just a little too much freedom...

 

How about we stick the police outside mcdonalds measuring peoples body fat and giving them a fine if they're over 10%. That will probably be a better service to the general health and well being of our society than testing for stoned drivers.

 

Why don't we begin a campaign to test people behind the wheel for unacceptable levels of anger?

 

Better yet, why don't we leave the police to policing crimes which can be clearly shown to have a victim?

Edited September 12, 2006 by generic_hippie

[pipeman]

What you are asking for is for society to ignore the very real risk of a newbie smoker with attitude getting behind the wheel and thinking less like a safe-stoner-driver, and more like a playstation-2 maniac with nought to lose...

 

no, I'm asking for society to adjust the law to address the major risks. For every new law we give up some freedom, so therefore its important IMO to only introduce laws which have enough merit to outweigh that loss of freedom. I see drug driver testing as not only a money waster, but a major intrusion into personal freedom and privacy with very little benefit in road safety. And thats why I think this new legislation is compeltely fucked.

 

But at the end of the day this is just a stoner on a stoner site expressing his point of view. I'm a realist I don't expect anything to change.

[Guest niall]

You've both got good points, but pipey are you talking about how existing laws work or how you would like them to work? Drug driving laws, like all new laws, will be based upon how our existing laws work. If we already legislate for the LCD, then that's what will happen - regardless of whether this is just or what we want to see.

 

I'm with GH on this, these are how our laws (in general) work. Any new law about driving safety simply has to take into account the sheer stupidity and irrationality that can occur when you mix 18 year olds with cards. That's just life. The Police need a clearly defined threshold for which they can test and charge people, that's simply what they require to do their job. I'm all for debating the level of these thresholds, the validity of testing for metabolites over field sobriety tests and other testing targetting actual impairment, but as a society (and just from basic common sense) we don't want people driving while intoxicated by cannabis. Same goes for lots of other drugs, emotional states of mind, sleeplessness, certain prescription drugs, even driving with kids in the back seat can be fucking dangerous.

 

The law has many contradictions and is inadequate and inconsistent in many ways. But this does not invalidate the need to test for cannabis impairment. Ensuring the safety of our roads and our drivers is a major concern for our society. It doesn't matter what they're on, or why they're driving dangerously (I agree!) but as a general rule, regardless of the evidence for and against, society believes that driving while intoxicated by ANY recreational drug is simply crossing the line. I agree, despite the fact that I'm aware of many studies showing a positive influence in driver safety, and many more being unable to show a negative influence - but in principle I still believe that it is a bad idea. I believe that the vast majority of Australians would agree, and so there we are.

 

Drug driver testing is going to happen whether we like it or not. The most constructive thing that we can do is to make sure that the thresholds are appropriate - talk to your local MP, join a Political party like the Greens (Go Qld Greens!), and get involved at a social and political level. Write letters. Talk to your friends and family. Convince 1 person each week, do whatever you can - but disagreeing with ourselves, and abusing each other for no good reason while refusing to explore each other's point of view... it's a waste of ALL of our time.

[pipeman]

I don't think time wastage is the number one concern when you log into oz stoners.

 

well its not mine anyway

 

PS - I disagree.

[Jess Stone]

How on earth could you possibly re-interpret any thing I have written to come up with I don't agree with RBT ? I am mystified how this could be possible ? I have little tolerance for drunks,have never been much of a drinker,don't drink at all anymore,the road toll has dropped during the period of RBT,its not the only factor for the drop in road fatalities.

 

It would seem the NHE has pulled there collective heads in on this issue.Its more than annoying to keep having to repeat the FACTS on this issue over and over ,NOT my opinion but the facts !

 

1] NO scientific or medical evidence thats demonstrates that cannabis causes reflex or driving impairment.

 

2] No proof that cannabis is a leading cause/contributing factor in road fatalities

 

3] Cannabis unlike alcohol remains in the human system a long time after consumption

 

4] Cannabis consumers who drive risk losing their license despite the fact that none may have been consumed recently and infact are straight not stoned.

 

5] Can ANYONE here seriously believe that say 8 hours after you got wacked that you are still wacked? But its very likely you will test positive.

 

6] From the Northern Rivers Echo -

“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.”(quote by NHE)

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....further

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.

N.B. the contradiction between Scully's statement and Hogans statement,I would say that Scully is implying that it will be like RBT but Hogans understanding is closer to the truth and the cause for extreme concern.

 

It is not my opinions being aired here but collective researched facts! The links are all at drug Test Scam so I would say the onus is on the writers who disagree with the prevailing consensus of factual research at the moment, so don't say it, prove it with factual research that demonstrates your OPINIONS.

 

ps Why oh why would ANYONE here care what I call politicians? Demonstrably they are not the friends of cannabis.

 

edit:What Niall still fails to understand is that there is NO SET LIMIT - there is no comparable equivalent of 0.05 - there never will be - this drug testing SHIT is just another flawed AMERICAN way of thinking - its just a racket so some CUNT can make millions out of fucking peoples lives over for no reason - just like killing Iraqi kids so Dick Cheney and cabal can make a few more bucks - these politicians are lackies of big business and they don't give a flying fuck how much they fuck peoples lives over to make a buck - keep talking to yourself Niall but this is a fact - there will never be a limit set unless its legalised as its not about impairment its about control - identifying and vilifying cannabis users , wake up and smell the bong Niall, consensus of opinion does not make something a fact . The level for detection is set for between 30-50 BILLIONTHS of a GRAM of metabolites and manufacturers where urging for as low as 10 billionths of a gram of metabolites !!!! (you would probably register positive at that level just by looking at some pot ) Its a scam or a sham or both as its really about making MONEY and a renewal of reefer madness hysteria by wowsers,rightwingers and religowackos.

Edited September 12, 2006 by Jess Stone

[generic_hippie]

1] NO scientific or medical evidence thats demonstrates that cannabis causes reflex or driving impairment.

 

2] No proof that cannabis is a leading cause/contributing factor in road fatalities

 

3] Cannabis unlike alcohol remains in the human system a long time after consumption

 

4] Cannabis consumers who drive risk losing their license despite the fact that none may have been consumed recently and infact are straight not stoned.

 

5] Can ANYONE here seriously believe that say 8 hours after you got wacked that you are still wacked? But its very likely you will test positive.

 

1] NO scientific or medical evidence thats demonstrates that cannabis causes reflex or driving IMPROVMENT.

 

2] No proof that cannabis is NOT a leading cause/contributing factor in road fatalities

 

3] Cannabis unlike alcohol remains in the human system a long time after consumption - agreed

 

4] Cannabis consumers who drive risk losing their license despite the fact that none may have been consumed recently and infact are straight not stoned. - wait a minute, isn't cannabis illegal? Shouldn't you be concerned with making it legal before you worry your pretty little head over whether you can drive stoned or not?

 

5] Can ANYONE here seriously believe that say 8 hours after you got wacked that you are still wacked? But its very likely you will test positive.

 

Well, you say its very likely, but have you seen a machine? Have you used a machine? Do you even know what company won the contract for producing machines?

 

No, no and no?

 

The cart goes behind the horse dude...

[Tom]

NO scientific or medical evidence thats demonstrates that cannabis causes reflex or driving IMPROVMENT.

No, I am one of those people that refuses to drive stoned, however I also know someone that is a terrifying driver unless she is wasted. I support RBT and drug testing but not enough research has been carried out how any of the illicit drugs can effect your driving and what would be a safe level to have in your system while doing so, until that is done I feel that roadside testing is just another revenue raiser and a way of busting more users and growers.