TWO new drug buses will hit NSW roads next month

[MadamePandora]

Drug bus will swoop 'anytime, anywhere'

 

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26098774-29277,00.html

 

TWO new drug buses will hit NSW roads next month as part of a blitz aimed at high-risk parolees. The buses will be used to conduct 30,000 random urine tests across the state each year, randomly turning up at workplaces, parolees' homes or parole offices to make sure offenders are meeting the conditions of their release.

 

Each bus will be staffed by a team of 10 Corrective Services officers, who will test up to 40 high-risk offenders each day for drug or alcohol use.

 

The initiative will boost testing capacity tenfold, with just 3000 tests undertaken last year.

 

"Not only do the buses mean we can test more offenders, but ... they can be tested anytime, anywhere," NSW Corrective Services Minister John Robertson said in a statement.

 

"Our officers can turn up unannounced at home or work, or test offenders as they arrive to report at a local Community Offender Services office.

 

"If you break the rules, you will get caught and risk being sent back to prison."

 

Last year more than 700 released offenders had their parole revoked for a breach of conditions, including drug or alcohol use, Mr Robertson said.

 

"Last year around 1000 offenders on parole tested positive for either drug or alcohol use in contravention of their court-ordered conditions," said Mr Robertson.

 

"Serious offenders or habitual drug users will most often end up back behind bars, while others can be compelled to participate in treatment and drug and alcohol counselling."

 

Each bus, which is equipped with a toilet, refrigerated storage and sterilisation equipment, cost the state $100,000.

[OrbitTime]

While there's a number on parole with non-violent records and unfairly incarcerated by the system for substance use, there's also a significant number on parole having served terms for violence-related crimes (rape, armed robbery, grievious bodily harm ect). It is the latter group that is of concern as they lack the necessary self-control of their aggression and impulse to violence. Add in substances and they'll be recidivists. That alone justifies the substance testing. The community, who is paying for these people to have a second chance by their taxes, deserve to be protected. The 100k per bus in financial outlay per annum is dwarfed when pitted against the life long costs imposed on victims of violent crime.

[DarkSpark]

I still haven't seen or been tested by a drug bus around the gold coast.. wondering if they exist at all...

[jabez]

While there's a number on parole with non-violent records and unfairly incarcerated by the system for substance use, there's also a significant number on parole having served terms for violence-related crimes (rape, armed robbery, grievious bodily harm ect). It is the latter group that is of concern as they lack the necessary self-control of their aggression and impulse to violence. Add in substances and they'll be recidivists. That alone justifies the substance testing. The community, who is paying for these people to have a second chance by their taxes, deserve to be protected. The 100k per bus in financial outlay per annum is dwarfed when pitted against the life long costs imposed on victims of violent crime.

 

Are you seriously justifying the government for treating people like children?

 

Explain to me how someone using drugs (excluding alcohol, which we all know causes violence and risky behavior) causes these people to recidivist?

 

Drugs don’t cause recidivism, but trying to take their drugs off them does. Seriously what do you think would happen if it was possible (which it’s not) to go to some prison and take all the drugs out of there and leave it dry? You’d get a riot! I bet most the prison guards that bring the drugs into prison justify it; because it would help the prisoners chill out and help the guards to control the prisoners.

 

You know this is how most non-violent offenders would end up in jail in the first place. Just say a person who might not even have a drug problem gets busted for a few plants, at first it’s no big deal and no one cares, since no one goes to jail for growing a few plants, right. But a do gooder judge might still convict the person and order them to drug tests. Then if they fail they might end up in jail.

 

Yeah mate a 100 K, well spent on making sure people don’t get high. We need to protect people from them self’s and there evil desire to get stoned.

I can see that you’ve really thought this whole thing though.

[OrbitTime]

Are you seriously justifying the government for treating people like children?

 

Explain to me how someone using drugs (excluding alcohol, which we all know causes violence and risky behavior) causes these people to recidivist?

 

Methamphetamines and steroids can cause aggression. While heroin and the need for a fix can lead to violent armed robbery.

 

Drugs don’t cause recidivism, but trying to take their drugs off them does.

 

Depends on the drug. Cultivation and use of Cannabis, if legal, would not see to a crime surge or a resulting recidivism. However, methamphetaines and steroids would be disastrous to legalise. Both drugs are known to induce rage.

 

 

Seriously what do you think would happen if it was possible (which it’s not) to go to some prison and take all the drugs out of there and leave it dry? You’d get a riot! I bet most the prison guards that bring the drugs into prison justify it; because it would help the prisoners chill out and help the guards to control the prisoners.

 

The inmates in prison, often with substance problems, would be better off clean of drugs so they can get skilled. They need to be reeducated. Many are illiterate, lack people skills and are unemployable. To dope them to keep them sedate is not rehabilitation. If prison guards get caught profitting off such vulnerable people they should be doing time on the other side of the bars.

 

You know this is how most non-violent offenders would end up in jail in the first place. Just say a person who might not even have a drug problem gets busted for a few plants, at first it’s no big deal and no one cares, since no one goes to jail for growing a few plants, right. But a do gooder judge might still convict the person and order them to drug tests. Then if they fail they might end up in jail.

 

You've confused parole (which this article is about) with bail/bond. The drug testing is on high risk parolees, meaning people who have already been in gaol and are out on parole. The convicted with bail and/or bond are not in gaol (as yet), so I'm not sure what your example is driving at. Read the article again before you rant.

 

Yeah mate a 100 K, well spent on making sure people don’t get high. We need to protect people from them self’s and there evil desire to get stoned.

I can see that you’ve really thought this whole thing though.

 

Certainly more than you have. It's actually 200k, as there's two buses at 100k each. Money well spent: it's about removing high risk people with poor self control from using substances which, all too often, can lead to violent crime.

[MadamePandora]

Interesting to see that people assume they will only use the busses for their stated purpose, to chase up and test people on parole.

 

I think that they will end up being used as additions to the random breath test fleet also, over time.

 

Or they could park one outside large events, and harrass people who are not displaying signs of being affected by drugs, yet have drawn the attention of a sniffer dog?

 

I see it as an extension of the nanny state, where the government tells us what is good for us, and wat isn't and then proceeds to enforce their attitude on everyone.

[Budman2012]

Damn straight ...

I see it as an extension of the nanny state, where the government tells us what is good for us, and wat isn't and then proceeds to enforce their attitude on everyone.

I also see it that way ... although I think Drug testing for employement is a worse example.

 

I recognize that these buses are for people on Parole ... possibly related to more serious crimes than just drug use ...

Even still , Imagine the anxiety and uncomfortableness if you WERE on Parole knowing that at any time and any place the authorities could be coming for you ... you'd almost HAVE to use drugs to calm the stress

 

There are small percentages of people who when intoxicated on certain drugs will do some crazy and sometimes terrible things ...

Just take alcohol for a well known example of this ...

It seems always a side-thought that in actual fact , most people who partake in common Drug use are quite stable ... if not even responsible (Gasp , SHock Horror )

The statistics damn the minority as negative and rarely dwell on the outcomes of the opposed positives ... that is the way of selective science I suppose.

 

I will most likely never be in the situation ... but I can say that without a doubt ... There Is No Way On Earth that I would give a urine sample or any damned sample of me to these corrupt pigz ... I would rather die in jail.

That's no small statement , but it is just a personal view on the matter , ofc most will submit ...

If People had just said "NO" to start with , we wouldn't be seing the slow incremental shifting of of such a Nanny (Police) State ...

I fear that if people won't stand up for their basic rights to privacy and Freedom in the current impending time ... that these types of personal invasion are going to get much worse ... and at a much more accelerated rate.

The outlook is bleak , but remain vigilant and things can change I think ... Hold True and Hold Strong.

 

End of Rant.

 

Cheerz,

 

Budman

[jabez]

Methamphetamines and steroids can cause aggression. While heroin and the need for a fix can lead to violent armed robbery.

 

I know the media over the last few years have been trying to drill it into our heads that meth causes aggression and violent psychotic episodes. I’ve never used it myself so I can’t really say with any authority what it does. But I have known a few meth heads and have never seen anyone actually flip out for no reason, like people tend to do with alcohol. It was when they didn’t have it that you don’t want to be around, just like heroin, but it would be oxymoron to blame the drugs for that, you can only really blame prohibition. Which is why we don’t have the same problems with benzodiazepines and pharmaceutical opiates as we do with their illegal counter parts.

 

Depends on the drug. Cultivation and use of Cannabis, if legal, would not see to a crime surge or a resulting recidivism. However, methamphetaines and steroids would be disastrous to legalise. Both drugs are known to induce rage.

 

What, you think to take meth out of our schools and off our streets and to have it so only doctors can prescribe it, rather than any one who’s got the cash, would be disastrous?

 

BTW, I’m positive steroids are used medically in australia and I know for a fact that meth is legal (medically) in the USA. So I think, like most people in our society that you’ve been conditioned to think of 'certain' drugs with an ignorant mind set. If these dangerous synthetics were made so doctors could prescribe them, the crime rate would drop in half.

 

The inmates in prison, often with substance problems, would be better off clean of drugs so they can get skilled. They need to be reeducated. Many are illiterate, lack people skills and are unemployable. To dope them to keep them sedate is not rehabilitation. If prison guards get caught profitting off such vulnerable people they should be doing time on the other side of the bars.

 

In a little fairy tale world what you say seems totally reasonable. But in reality it just don’t work bother.

 

Some might just need a little push and quitting drugs might be the push a few of them need. But there’s a lot of people in prison that have a serious mental illness or who are just plian fuck ups! There never going to be employable and are just going to live the rest of their lives like that, no matter what you say or do, that’s the reality. So why not just let them get high, if it’s going to make them better and easier to be around, which would make it safer for society.

 

You've confused parole (which this article is about) with bail/bond. The drug testing is on high risk parolees, meaning people who have already been in gaol and are out on parole. The convicted with bail and/or bond are not in gaol (as yet), so I'm not sure what your example is driving at. Read the article again before you rant.

 

Yeah, I guess I did. But I stand by it that drug testing people is inhumane and goes against everything our society (is meant to) stands for.

 

Certainly more than you have. It's actually 200k, as there's two buses at 100k each. Money well spent: it's about removing high risk people with poor self control from using substances which, all too often, can lead to violent crime.

 

Ok, so this drug bus goes to some bloke’s work place to surprise him with a drug test, just say he tested positive to MDMA. He has now not only lost his job but will now be dragged back though the system once again. Do you really think this will stop him from taking drugs? Of course it isn’t, in fact in the long run it will cause them to do more drugs. Since they got nothing better to do in jail, he’ll also meet follow criminals in jail and he will become more alienated and angry with society. Once he gets out again, you now have a man that is more dangerous to society than when he went in. Not only does the criminal end up worse for it, but so does society, GOOD WORK!!!

 

peace

[OrbitTime]

I know the media over the last few years have been trying to drill it into our heads that meth causes aggression and violent psychotic episodes. I’ve never used it myself so I can’t really say with any authority what it does. But I have known a few meth heads and have never seen anyone actually flip out for no reason, like people tend to do with alcohol. It was when they didn’t have it that you don’t want to be around, just like heroin, but it would be oxymoron to blame the drugs for that, you can only really blame prohibition. Which is why we don’t have the same problems with benzodiazepines and pharmaceutical opiates as we do with their illegal counter parts.

 

I've seen speed rages - not pretty. As for phamaceutical drugs, they're a problem when a stash is stolen and distributed. Fortuneatly that's the exception to the rule. But what is true is synthetic opiates, such as methadone, are actually worse than heroin. Irony is heroin came to be to get people off morphine. Morphine came to be to get people off opium (the latex). To think pharmaceuticals are some how safer because they're legal is spurious at best. As for prohibition, while I don't agree with it in regards to Cannabis, the fact is it's here and not going to go away - certainly hasn't in the 20+ years I've been a grower. I have learned to just be quiet, be polite to neighbours and don't be a yob.

 

What, you think to take meth out of our schools and off our streets and to have it so only doctors can prescribe it, rather than any one who’s got the cash, would be disastrous?

 

It would be. More people would be doing it. It's fortuneate our doctors don't prescribe methamphetamine. Meth, which I have tried recreationally, has a highly adictive pull on people. Not that it 'got' me, as I didn't imbide to any great extent. But it was sad for the people I knew who did. I'm surprised you would be in support of open use of it. It's actually worse than heroin, which sadly I saw destroy people's lives in the 1980's. HIV, gaol and dead - that's what heroin is.

 

BTW, I’m positive steroids are used medically in australia

 

They are and are used on people to build wasted muscle i.e., on people who have been sedentry due to injury. Under medical supervision steroids can be good.

 

and I know for a fact that meth is legal (medically) in the USA.

 

If so that's abritrary as the topic here is in Australia. Read the article. It's in NSW.

 

 

So I think, like most people in our society that you’ve been conditioned to think of 'certain' drugs with an ignorant mind set. If these dangerous synthetics were made so doctors could prescribe them, the crime rate would drop in half.

 

Well, you used the term dangerous synthetics, which they are. If doctors were to prescribe them there'd be definite societal problems with addiction in a percentage of users. It wouldn't be free of warts. In the ACT there's some 300 morphine users who are opaite addicts cared for by the state (at the taxpayers permanent expense). That's not a solution. Morphine, at risk of repeating, is worse than heroin.

 

 

In a little fairy tale world what you say seems totally reasonable. But in reality it just don’t work bother.

Some might just need a little push and quitting drugs might be the push a few of them need. But there’s a lot of people in prison that have a serious mental illness or who are just plian fuck ups! There never going to be employable and are just going to live the rest of their lives like that, no matter what you say or do, that’s the reality. So why not just let them get high, if it’s going to make them better and easier to be around, which would make it safer for society.

 

I agree that there's a percentage who are beyond redemption, for reasons of mental illness or simply sociopathic scumbags. But a significant number can be rehabilitated. I went to uni with a guy who did time and he was perhaps the brightest guy in chemisty. He certainly topped it for the year. It was going sober in prison that pulled him out of his poly-drug abuse so he could make it.

 

 

Yeah, I guess I did. But I stand by it that drug testing people is inhumane and goes against everything our society (is meant to) stands for.

 

Depends. I don't want parolees with violent records to become recidivists on account of drug use where they go and do an armed robbery so they can score. I also don't want pilots on planes to be high or coming off a high, likewise police who carry glock pistols, or medical surgeons where stone cold sober is the only acceptable level. Same with cab, bus and truck drivers. Testing people for drugs, in such circumstances, is for the greater good of the community.

 

 

Ok, so this drug bus goes to some bloke’s work place to surprise him with a drug test, just say he tested positive to MDMA. He has now not only lost his job but will now be dragged back though the system once again. Do you really think this will stop him from taking drugs?

 

What was his (hypothetical) job?

 

If he was sacked as a school teacher that would be grossly unfair. If on the other hand he was a firecheif and on call over a period of high fire danger in urban-bush interfaces (which is pretty much all suburbia near or in bushland), then sack his uncaring/reckless arse.

 

 

Of course it isn’t, in fact in the long run it will cause them to do more drugs. Since they got nothing better to do in jail, he’ll also meet follow criminals in jail and he will become more alienated and angry with society. Once he gets out again, you now have a man that is more dangerous to society than when he went in. Not only does the criminal end up worse for it, but so does society, GOOD WORK!!!

 

It's not that black and white. While the scenario you paint is possible, there's also the scenario that two cops high on coke and MDMA from the night before, shoot dead a French schizophrenic man armed with a knife on a beach - which happened. There's also the chance that a pilot coming down off methamphetamines can put at risk the lives of the crew and passengers on an airliner and lord knows how many in a city if it were to crash. The list of disastrous outcomes from people in high-responsibility jobs is too many to list. Do you seriously want it a free for all?

 

Listen, you've digressed from the topic at hand and so have I in response. The thread is on the use of drug testing on high-risk parolees so they conform to the agreement of their parole. To draw a long bow and insist that it will be extended to every corner of society is tenuous at least and perhaps even paranoid.

[jabez]

We do need drug testing 'in some cases' to see if there high at that point in time. But it is just wrong to test someone to see if they have been high in the last few weeks.

 

BTW, I don't want it to be a free for all (with dangerous synthetics) and I hate meth probably as much as I do alcohol, which is the reason I want it regulated and off our streets