Drivers face random drug checks

[postman]

Drivers face random drug checks

 

By Ainsley Pavey

 

September 17, 2006 12:00am

Article from: The Sunday Mail (Qld)

 

Font size: + -

 

Send this article: Print Email

 

QUEENSLAND drivers will face random drug tests from the middle of next year.

Transport Minister Paul Lucas revealed laws were being drafted to enable roadside testing for drugs.

 

Under the test, a saliva swab could establish whether a driver had used marijuana within two hours, or heroin, cocaine or amphetamines within five hours.

 

A survey last year by insurer AAMI found almost one-quarter of young Queensland drivers have taken drugs including marijuana, cocaine, speed (amphetamines) and ecstasy before getting behind the wheel.

 

Mr Lucas said: "Random drug testing on Australia's widest range of drugs will be in place by the middle of next year.

 

"Legislation is currently being drafted for this important road safety initiative."

 

But the Government has been attacked by the state's peak motoring body for being slow to introduce drug testing.

 

Saliva testing of Victorian motorists started two years ago and New South Wales this month will introduce laws to test road users' blood for drugs.

 

RACQ external affairs manager Gary Fites said Queensland was taking a long time to come up with a suitable test.

 

"Any delay in any road safety initiative . . . has the potential for loss of life and cause serious injury," Mr Fites said.

 

"The urgency of it is reflected in the Victorian experience in terms of the incidence of detection of drug drivers, compared with drunk drivers and the reported contribution to the road toll."

 

In 2003, 31 per cent of drivers killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs other than alcohol.

 

Victoria has recorded 436 positive drug results after testing 21,000 people, including 6000 truck drivers, since December 2004.

 

Drug testing there followed a year-long trial that revealed one in 46 drivers tested was found positive for cannabis or amphetamines, compared with one in 250 drink drivers.

 

Of more than 13,000 tests during the trial, 199 drivers were positive to amphetamines, 19 for cannabis and 69 for both amphetamines and cannabis.

 

Mr Fites said results were still unknown from a similar test in north Queensland, but it was

 

expected to show the drug-driving rate there was on a par with Victoria.

 

Queensland's trial began last November, with 2000 participants given legal indemnity and paid $20 to take part in the survey.

 

Mr Fites said Queensland's overall detection rate for drink drivers already stood at one in 100, higher than in Victoria.

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20425789-1248,00.html

[stonedstump]

Un-fucking-believeable.

 

DIE.

[Ruen]

Come off it its not like smoking weed impares your driving serriously i dont drive but all my mates smoke while they drive and they drive safer when they are toking then when they are not.

[ozsmoka]

Hey all - my first post here

 

I want to know what happens if ya pig out on cookies for breakfast - will that show in a saliva test at lunchtime?

 

Im quite happy to have a hearty canna cake breakfast if thats what it takes..

 

And what about a swig of vinnegar in the car just before you wind down the drivers side window?

 

Of course the ridiculousness of these drug driving laws has to be pointed out to Joe Public- they cant detect smack!!! So they are going to turn (some) pot smokers onto smack because it cant be detected. The pigs and the government and the public want to think about wether they want cars on the road being driven by ppl using smack to avoid drug tests...

 

This is a recipe for disaster.

 

Ive got nothing against poppy btw I enjoy a little smoke now and again- but driving around on the shit is not a good look.

 

cheers all

[Guest niall]

I want to know what happens if ya pig out on cookies for breakfast - will that show in a saliva test at lunchtime?

 

Most probably, ingesting cannabis with sufficient fat or alcohol triggers your liver to start producing bile which emulsifies the THC laden oil and ensures that it's digested thoroughly. A side-effect of this method is that delta9 THC undergoes a chemical reaction resulting in a conversion to a higher potency form of THC (THCV? Can't remember exactly). The high lasts for many more hours, it's processed by the body more slowly and thoroughly given the right circumstances (empty stomach, sufficient fat/alcohol to maximise elmusification and absorption.

 

You'd be better off smoking it, but it would depend on what they're testing for. If you need to come down from a cookie high your best bet is to eat more.

[Skyhigh-64]

Hey fellow stoners, you should be jumpin with joy that it's only 2 hours

 

For a while there the laws were going to be based on a US zero tolerance model (if there's ANY THC detected in your system, you're busted!)

 

And 2 hrs is fair I reckon. Saying it's OK to drive when cut might be alright for some strains, conditions, peeps etc, but not for the heavy duty stuff. Hard enough to walk, let alone drive.

[420Downunder]

Hey fellow stoners, you should be jumpin with joy that it's only 2 hours

 

For a while there the laws were going to be based on a US zero tolerance model (if there's ANY THC detected in your system, you're busted!)

 

And 2 hrs is fair I reckon. Saying it's OK to drive when cut might be alright for some strains, conditions, peeps etc, but not for the heavy duty stuff. Hard enough to walk, let alone drive.

 

That's the problem for me, see just don't believe the gov when they say 2 hours. Until I see an unbiased test with at least 50 subjects of varying age/weight etc showing that I can have cones 3 hours before being tested and not have it show positive. Also it's only a matter of time until police will gain the right to get a search warrant based on you testing positive (don't forget this isn't a legal substance like alchohol), just the amount of rights we've lost under this gov should be enough to prove this.

[Bundy]

Under the test, a saliva swab could establish whether a driver had used marijuana within two hours, or heroin, cocaine or amphetamines within five hours.

2 hours?

 

*cough*Bullshit*cough*

[happypuffy]

"In 2003, 31 per cent of drivers killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs".

 

Doesn't that mean that they were tested for drugs after their death, which means that the drugs weren't active in their system? Do you know what I mean guys? How do they know that the driver was 'duid' at the time of the crash? Surely a blood test only indicates that they had drugs in their system.

 

Any thoughts on that guys?

 

Cheers

 

Happy Puff

 

[Bundy]

Bah!

 

soon they will not have to answer to anybody

 

and then you will only have to look at drugs to be locked up

Edited September 27, 2006 by Bundy