beating the drug driver tests

[Pickle]

If you fail the test you are required to undergo a more rigorous saliva test back at the station or in the mobile van

 

 

And on a completely unrelated matter, doesn't mouthwash give you a positive result for alcohol? Sounds like another reason for the cops to take you home for more 'rigorous' testing.

[pipeman]

The mouthwash thing is complete garbage IMO and comes from the incorrect perception that the swab is somehow testing for some type of residue in your mouth. This is not the case, its testing secreted saliva. So whatever is in your saliva is in it, washing your mouth out before hand isn't going to change that.

 

I haven't actually done any testing on this. Although the test kits are easy to get hold of if anyone wants to try some experimentation. The HEMP Bar has test kits the NSW cops are using, or at least they did a few months back.

[iamnotacop]

I think a copper would need to charge me before I went anywhere with em

........

 

...and I wouldn't be offering up samples of anything until I'd spoken to a lawyer

 

But unfortunately they would just handcuff you and take you against your will. They are allowed to detain "with reasonable force", for questioning, before charges being laid. To forcibly take samples at a hospital, I believe in Tasmania anyway, that they need court order.

 

Also the pricks got me one night. They was trying to pin a burglary on me and a mate, that just happened down the road. I had a cut on my finger so they assumed that it was me and my mate that did it. The copper asked for a blood sample and I refused. He said OK, but the asked me if I wanted a bandaid. So I said yeah, why not, and he went to his car and got a bandaid. He then proceeded to put the bandaid on my finger and then pulled it off and thanked me, and put it in a baggie.

 

I have to give him credit, it was a pretty good way of getting a sample from someone who refused a sample. Nothing ever happened about it so I don't know if they sent it off to be tested, or if it was just another mind game.

[67Special]

Nothing ever happened about it so I don't know if they sent it off to be tested, or if it was just another mind game.

They try VERY hard to bluff you into admitting to crimes/offences because it makes their job sooo much easier.

 

One night 2 cops interrupted a session we were having in a parked car.

When we denied any connection to the bong that they found a few metres from the car(still warm ), they tried scaring us with threats of fingerprinting it.

We laughed in their faces and told them to call us when they got the results back, which they never did, surprise surprise

Just as well, because they have my prints and I was the 2nd last one to touch bong.

 

On another occasion of an interrupted sesh on the side of the highway at about 11pm, the dopey copper couldn't find the 50 bag sitting on the dash, but scrounged up some spilt crumbs on the floor. With less than a cone in his hand, he's saying "C'mon boys I know it's here somewhere, if you don't tell me where it is I'll have your car towed to town(50k's away ) and torn apart till we find it"

Mate and I stood firm(ripped to the eyeballs) and after another 10mins of searching he let us go, 50 and all

 

My point is, admit nothing until they've got you fucked.

Silence is often your best defence.

 

Out of at least a dozen raids/interrupted sessions I've only been charged twice, so the score is my favour as far as I'm concerned

 

Nowadays I just find it easier to smoke at home and wait for them to come to me

[Al B. Fuct]

The mouthwash thing is complete garbage IMO and comes from the incorrect perception that the swab is somehow testing for some type of residue in your mouth. This is not the case, its testing secreted saliva.

 

Depends on the type of test being used. The Drugwipe brand actually does test directly for THC in the mouth, not for metabolites in saliva. If this is the type of test encountered, rinsing the mouth with ethanol-containing mouthwash (and spitting) is a useful mitigation. Little alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream in a short exposure to ethanol in mouthwash which is spat out.

 

The NAPNT tests found wild inconsistencies in the swabs they tested. I'd plead not guilty and hire some competent counsel without hesitation if accused on the basis of Drugwipe or any other swab test.

 

It's been mentioned in the thread that there's no standard for blood concentration of cannabis components which demonstrates acute intoxication. Cannabis intox charges are highly subjective, often dependent on the police officer's observations or an admission of cannabis use from the suspect. Cannabis influence accusations are nowhere near the precision of alcolyzer measurements in practise or in legal proscription, and are thus more easily legally defensible.

 

Doesn't mean it won't cost you a motza anyway... *sigh*

[Al B. Fuct]

Well done, 67s.

 

The part about keeping it at home is particularly good advice but sorta kills the joy of sparking up in wonderful places like beaches & whatnot. I guess you pitch a tent or bring a designated pot-allergic driver, eh.

[bufo marinus]

The NAPNT tests found wild inconsistencies in the swabs they tested. I'd plead not guilty and hire some competent counsel without hesitation if accused on the basis of Drugwipe or any other swab test.

 

It's been mentioned in the thread that there's no standard for blood concentration of cannabis components which demonstrates acute intoxication. Cannabis intox charges are highly subjective, often dependent on the police officer's observations or an admission of cannabis use from the suspect. Cannabis influence accusations are nowhere near the precision of alcolyzer measurements in practise or in legal proscription, and are thus more easily legally defensible.

 

I find it incredible that there is no 'prescribed amount' of thc in regards testing.

50 nanograms per millilitre is the indication point 'apparently' for employment urine 'dip' tests, from the literature I have read about them.

I do believe pathology urine testing indicates thc as low as 15 nanograms?

This is info I was given whilst jumping through the hoops of an initial and second failed urine test

[Al B. Fuct]

I find it incredible that there is no 'prescribed amount' of thc in regards testing.

 

Yeah! Amazing.

 

A lot of that comes from the fact that zero-tolerance regimes largely refuse to do or actively block research on cannabis. The US DEA is responsible for providing cannabis for US-based research but has traditionally denied all requests. Every time they have allowed independent research to be done, the evidence has come back contradicting the govt claim that cannabis is dangerous. The govt prefers the results they get from the studies they fund and control.

 

When there's no reliable research available, pollies are able to say with some (obfuscated) truth that 'there's no evidence cannabis has medicinal properties' etc. Also, just like you say bufo, there's no agreed standard for what constitutes cannabis intoxication. Drug testing drivers is going to eventually force some case-law precedent. Despite cannabis prohibition, it's known to govt that a lot of ppl smoke dope- and will want to know how long they should wait after cones before driving, just as we know one has to wait an hour per standard drink before driving.

 

Govt knows the whole cannabis prohibition thing is a house of cards. When govts start accepting medical evidence about cannabis and making laws accordingly, I do think it'll eventually be legally and commonly commercially available under the alcohol style control-and-tax model.

[loylty gets u nothing]

today is the start of the tests in qld

bugger

bil

[67Special]

Thanks for the reminder bill

 

The police tests pale in comparison to the policy that my employer hopes to implement in the new year.

As a union we're currently attempting to block our employers efforts to implement a drug & alcohol policy based on urine testing.

I find it incredible that there is no 'prescribed amount' of thc in regards testing.

I don't find it that incredible bufo, what amazes me is that people conform with these invasive tests when there is NO relationship between what's detectable in your urine and any level of intoxication at the time of testing. Urine tests only indicate what WAS in your system.

 

Two main shortfalls of urine testing with regard to 'Fitness For Work' are

A: A positive test result is possible long after intoxication has ceased, especially for THC

 

B: If someone has clean urine, but smokes/ingests cannabis shortly before providing their urine sample, they will return a negative result ie. pass the test, despite being intoxicated at the time

 

Other issues include false positives from prescribed medicines, no cutoff levels for certain prescribed medicines that will in fact render the user Unfit For Work and the obvious invasion of privacy(especially when employees are expected to disclose details of ALL medications they use).

 

Professor Steve Allsop, Director and Project Officer of the National Drug Research Institute had this to say at the 'Adelaide Conference on drugs/alcohol in work place' in 2006...

In the USA, the Council for Scientific Affairs (CAS) had officially pronounced that there is no association of drug screening tests with impairment. There was also little evidence of any benefit of drug testing. An example was pre-employment testing as a predictor of later workplace performance (including dropout): one study showed drug use was associated with poorer later workplace performance, but so too were black race and female gender. Another found a negative association for earlier school leaving age. Should these too be grounds for exclusion from work?

Professor Allsop also said he would personally refuse a random drug test: if police need a warrant to search his house, they should certainly require one to test his body.