12 May 2011

Drink and drug driving laws kick off tomorrow

| johnboy
Join the conversation
46

Territory And Municipal Services are advising that new drink and drug driving laws are coming into effect tomorrow.

The stuff on drug driving is particularly new and goes like this:

What about drug driving?

— The ACT Legislative Assembly passed new laws to permit roadside drug testing of motorists for the presence of cannabis, methamphetamine and ecstasy.
— Police are now conducting random drug testing operations in the ACT.

What is the process for drug testing?

— Drug testing is a three-step process. The first step is an oral fluid (saliva) screening test, usually conducted at the roadside using a disposable testing device.
— If this test is positive, you will be required to provide a sample of saliva for analysis. This sample will be divided into two parts.
— One part will be analysed immediately by an oral fluid analysis instrument and the other part will be sent to a laboratory for confirmatory analysis.
— If the laboratory analysis confirms that a drug is present, you will be prosecuted for a drug driving offence.
If you cannot provide enough oral fluid for analysis, you may be required to give a blood sample for analysis.

What are the penalties for drug driving?

— The maximum penalty for drug driving is a fine of 10 penalty units for a first offence, or 25 penalty units and up to 3 months imprisonment for a repeat offender.
— A court can also order a period of licence disqualification.
— It is an offence to leave the test area before testing is complete and it is also an offence to refuse a drug test.

Where do I go if I need help to address drug use and driving issues?

— The ACT Department of Health’s Alcohol and Drug Program 24 Hour Intake and Helpline can assist in referring drug drivers with drug dependence issues to treatment providers. Please select the following link: ACT Health
— One phone call is all it takes to access help – the phone number is 6207 9977.

Join the conversation

46
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

luckily if caught drug driving you can go to Canberra jail and shoot up safely and get free tattoos. yeah !!!

Yep, throwing my hat into the ‘How stupid’ ring. As most folk on here, I’m all in favour of laws that help reduce road accidents. If there was a roadside drug test that showed how much THC/CBC/Opiates/Etc was in the person and there was a strict scientific limit – as per Alcohol – then I’d wear sandwich-boards outside the Legislature calling for the test. But to charge someone if they had a fat-one 48 hours ago is just politians gone crazy. But remember, we voted for them.

maybe the lunatics really are taking over the asylum.

Adarian said :

Civil Liberties A.C.T tested the swab tests and found them to be around 78% accurate with a high count of false positives and false negatives…… Random Drug Testing is a violation of your Human Rights and Civil Liberties…… Innocent Until Proven Guilty…… Pedophiles are more protected than road users….

What a load of crap. Where’s your source for that?

Civil Liberties A.C.T tested the swab tests and found them to be around 78% accurate with a high count of false positives and false negatives…… Random Drug Testing is a violation of your Human Rights and Civil Liberties…… Innocent Until Proven Guilty…… Pedophiles are more protected than road users….

fgzk said :

P1 “On many over the counter products it actually says “May cause drowsiness, if affected do not operate machinery…”, the implication being that you may or may not experience those side effects. “

Much the same as say pot may, or may not, effect your driving ability to the point of being a threat to others. Yet if we follow the same logic being applied to the present drug laws the effect of the drug on your driving is less important than the actual presence of the drug. If the warning appears on the bottle then it should be illegal to drive.

I assume you are supporting a zero BAC since any alcohol impairs you? And that all drivers keep a signed a witnessed logbook of how much they work and sleep, since fatigue impairs you? And lets not forget removing all phones, GPS’s and radios from cars, and binding and gagging and children, since distraction is a major cause of road accidents?

Police can get away with the ol’ “any pot is baaaddd…” approach because it is illegal anyway. If they try and introduce an “any codeine is baaadddd…” approach then pharmacies will have to change the way they sell the stuff.

P1 “On many over the counter products it actually says “May cause drowsiness, if affected do not operate machinery…”, the implication being that you may or may not experience those side effects. “

Much the same as say pot may, or may not, effect your driving ability to the point of being a threat to others. Yet if we follow the same logic being applied to the present drug laws the effect of the drug on your driving is less important than the actual presence of the drug. If the warning appears on the bottle then it should be illegal to drive.

fgzk said :

If it says on the bottle “do not operate machinery”, then regardless of what the testing officer suspects you should be tested and charged with the same zero tolerance as say pot smokers.

On many over the counter products it actually says “May cause drowsiness, if affected do not operate machinery…”, the implication being that you may or may not experience those side effects.

As to the opiates, I failed a drug test once because of over the counter codeine based pills giving a positive, and had to give a sample for proper lab testing to determine exactly what I was on. But I was under the impression that opiates were not on the list the ACT Police are testing for, since smack addicts are not a danger on the roads like those evil pot smokers.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Cheap – A lot of OTC drugs have psuedoephedrine [amphetamine ingredient] and codeine apparently converts to morphine and may test positive for opiates. The web advice from police on prescription drugs is that you can be found guilty for drug driving if the officer “suspects” you are impaired – exactly how they determine this I have no clue. That’s a big loose end and cause for alarm for regular medicine users, or anyone who falls ill for that matter.

The only loose end is that a large number of drugs that cause impairment are not tested for. If it says on the bottle “do not operate machinery”, then regardless of what the testing officer suspects you should be tested and charged with the same zero tolerance as say pot smokers.

Felix the Cat said :

You people seem to be forgetting one small factor. It’s actually illegal to consume ANY quantity of these drugs, let alone drive under the influence of them so I think it’s irrelevant that some of them can be detected in your system x days later. If you don’t want to be busted for illict drugs then DON”T TAKE THEM!

Exactly. It’s the same as with speed cameras. Regardless of the arguments around safety you know it’s illegal so if you’re caught you have no one to blame but yourself.

wildturkeycanoe6:19 am 19 May 11

Cheap – A lot of OTC drugs have psuedoephedrine [amphetamine ingredient] and codeine apparently converts to morphine and may test positive for opiates. The web advice from police on prescription drugs is that you can be found guilty for drug driving if the officer “suspects” you are impaired – exactly how they determine this I have no clue. That’s a big loose end and cause for alarm for regular medicine users, or anyone who falls ill for that matter.

Felix the Cat said :

You people seem to be forgetting one small factor. It’s actually illegal to consume ANY quantity of these drugs, let alone drive under the influence of them so I think it’s irrelevant that some of them can be detected in your system x days later. If you don’t want to be busted for illict drugs then DON”T TAKE THEM!

It’s not irrelevant at all. There is a vast difference in the severity of the two crimes. It is true that a person who smokes a joint on the weekend is guilty of an offence, but it is not an offence of the same magnitude as that of a person who drives under the influence of drugs. To have a drug driving conviction against your name if you were not actually drug driving would be a pretty terrible thing to have happen to you.

wildturkeycanoe said :

No, not unless they contain cannabis, methamphetamine or ecstasy.

wildturkeycanoe9:27 pm 18 May 11

Can anyone tell me, do the prescription and OTC drugs provide positive results – ie. if you take Nurofen, Panadeine Forte, hayfever pills or cough medicine, does that mean you could get done for drug driving while taking innocent and lawful medications? If so, I’ll probably be taking a LOT of time off work from now on.

Solidarity said :

I’d rather someone under the effects of Ecstacy or Cocaine behind the wheel than that of someone under the effects of Marijuana/Alcohol….

The only person that i would feel safe behind the wheel with would be the pot smoker as they would be calm and in no hurry. The person on ecstacy would be very easily distracted as would the cocaine user who would be driving fast and in an aggressive manner. And i shouldnt have to explain the drunk behind the wheel. But thats just my opinion.

Felix the Cat4:55 pm 13 May 11

You people seem to be forgetting one small factor. It’s actually illegal to consume ANY quantity of these drugs, let alone drive under the influence of them so I think it’s irrelevant that some of them can be detected in your system x days later. If you don’t want to be busted for illict drugs then DON”T TAKE THEM!

I’d like to throw my hat in the ‘This is truly ridiculous’ ring. Can’t understand how this could possibly work – if they’re going to charge everyone they catch who has partaken in a spliff in the last ___ days, they’re going to have half of Canberra off the roads before too long. And not even because they’re actually under the influence at all! This makes ZERO sense to me.

I’d rather someone under the effects of Ecstacy or Cocaine behind the wheel than that of someone under the effects of Marijuana/Alcohol….

SgtSlaughter4:05 pm 13 May 11

At this stage there are only 2 count that 2 police Officers that have been cleared to do these tests, apparently it is quite difficult to put a cotton swab in someones mouth and then place in a tube which contains a reactant, if it turns brown?? your stuffed and then off for more thorough test.

mooo_cow said :

It amazes me how the ACT Government can introduce this legislation (and include Cannabis) based around an inaccurate testing method that can not determine the difference between an impaired driver that may have smoked two hours ago or an unpaired driver that smoked two days ago.

Surely they were aware of this from their advisors; it would make for an interesting FOI request.

Im fairly sure other states have had this issue and that there was a previous RA thread about this issue. Im also fairly sure that this isnt the first time the legislation has tried to be passed in the ACT and in the past it has been rejected for exactly those reasons (unable to determine impairment). What it will all boil down to is whether a high priced lawyer can find a loophole in the law. If the police are smart theyll only bother setting up drug testing units in high risk areas at high risk times, rather than setting up for drug testing on a monday morning rush hour to catch those who smoked over the weekend.

Personally Im more worried about drivers hyped up on caffeine, energy drinks and other prescription drugs than I am about a couple of stoners driving a bit slow in the left hand lane.

Cheap said :

Total bullshit. Mid range drink driving (blowing between .07 and .15) will get you 3.5 penalty units, while a few puffs of a joint before you drive will net you 10.

Where did you pluck that from? There is no such thing as “mid range” in the ACT and 3.5 PU (penalty units) is completely incorrect.

Level 1 – under 0.05, upto 5 PU 1st offence
Level 2 – 0.05 – 0.08, upto 5 PU 1st offence
Level 3 – 0.08 – 0.15, upto 10 PU 1st offence, 6 months imprisonment or both
Level 4 – 0.15+, upto 15 PU 1st offence, 9 months imprisonment or both

Jim Jones said :

SgtSlaughter said :

The fatter you are the longer the drug (THC & it’s Metabolites) are detectable because of they stick to fat cells so another reason to get off your arse and do some exercise people.

Have you ever tried to go for a run after a couple of bongs?

Once, but i forgot why and i stopped. And then it hit me…..

SgtSlaughter1:41 pm 13 May 11

Jim Jones said :

Have you ever tried to go for a run after a couple of bongs?

Now that’s just plain funny, thanks Jim ‘Got any Cool Aid?’

georgesgenitals1:31 pm 13 May 11

Jim Jones said :

SgtSlaughter said :

The fatter you are the longer the drug (THC & it’s Metabolites) are detectable because of they stick to fat cells so another reason to get off your arse and do some exercise people.

Have you ever tried to go for a run after a couple of bongs?

Depends how paranoid you are.

SgtSlaughter said :

The fatter you are the longer the drug (THC & it’s Metabolites) are detectable because of they stick to fat cells so another reason to get off your arse and do some exercise people.

Have you ever tried to go for a run after a couple of bongs?

SgtSlaughter12:55 pm 13 May 11

Chop71 said :

High Ho Silver

I stand corrected and happily so
Metabolites may be detected in the saliva for 12 to 24 hours to a maximum length of up to 3 days after marijuana use.
Some THC metabolites have an elimination half-life of 20 hours. However, some are stored in body fat and have a elimination half-life of 10 to 13 days. Most researchers agree that urine tests for marijuana can detect the presence of the drug in the body for up to 13 days.

The fatter you are the longer the drug (THC & it’s Metabolites) are detectable because of they stick to fat cells so another reason to get off your arse and do some exercise people.

It amazes me how the ACT Government can introduce this legislation (and include Cannabis) based around an inaccurate testing method that can not determine the difference between an impaired driver that may have smoked two hours ago or an unpaired driver that smoked two days ago.

Surely they were aware of this from their advisors; it would make for an interesting FOI request.

Well I suppose they won’t amend the legislation unless members of the legislative assembly (not implying any member is) are being done for smoking cannabis the week prior to them being randomly tested.

dvaey said :

Chop71 said :

ahhh as a follow up. The laws come into effect tomorrow but they said they won’t start testing till they have the authority to detain.

Surely all they have to do is hold you on ‘suspicion’ of being guilty, isnt that good enough normally? How do they get away with ‘detaining’ while currently doing breath tests?

They don’t detain you as the result is immediate, yet the swab test can take 5 mins.

In this instance this kid got busted on Wednesday (well he was doing 170km/hr and .052 BAC)

http://www.police.act.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/act/2011/may/Police%20arrest%20youth%20after%20early%20morning%20pursuit.aspx

Chop71 said :

ahhh as a follow up. The laws come into effect tomorrow but they said they won’t start testing till they have the authority to detain.

Surely all they have to do is hold you on ‘suspicion’ of being guilty, isnt that good enough normally? How do they get away with ‘detaining’ while currently doing breath tests?

Chop71 said :

ahhh as a follow up. The laws come into effect tomorrow but they said they won’t start testing till they have the authority to detain.

So don’t fret just yet people

Still time to smoke up and drive about randomly then.

ahhh as a follow up. The laws come into effect tomorrow but they said they won’t start testing till they have the authority to detain.

So don’t fret just yet people

The police were saying on the radio just a week or 2 ago that they had the power to stop people for drug tests but not to detain them waiting for the result.

So in theory you could do the test and drive off without waiting 5 mins for the result.

I would hope they have sorted this out before they start testing.

SgtSlaughter said :

This really is a farce. I have every objection to people driving whilst under the influence of anything but testing of this nature is NOT I repeat NOT in any way testing for people driving whilst impaired. If I decide too i can on a Saturday night consume a gram of Cocaine or Speed or take a dozen eccies even partake in Heroin and on Moday morning if tested will be negative, however if I have a joint on Saturday and a week later if tested will be positive. These tests are idiotic in the extreme, if tested for PCA (prescribed consumed alcohol) a week after having your last drink, irrespective of how much you drink you will be negative. These tests are supposed to aid in the reduction of road trauma, prosecuting someone because at some stage in the last three weeks they had a joint or worse still were in the vacinity of someone smoking a joint they will be prosecuted for drug driving when clearly their ability is NOT in any way impaired. THESE TESTS ARE A JOKE but unfortunately those prosecuted for smoking what is a decriminilised drug in the ACT. You can grow two plants (naturally) not hydroponically and the Police can issue an on the spot fin of $100 but drive three weeks later and face 3 months in prison WTF

High Ho Silver

SgtSlaughter11:28 am 13 May 11

This really is a farce. I have every objection to people driving whilst under the influence of anything but testing of this nature is NOT I repeat NOT in any way testing for people driving whilst impaired. If I decide too i can on a Saturday night consume a gram of Cocaine or Speed or take a dozen eccies even partake in Heroin and on Moday morning if tested will be negative, however if I have a joint on Saturday and a week later if tested will be positive. These tests are idiotic in the extreme, if tested for PCA (prescribed consumed alcohol) a week after having your last drink, irrespective of how much you drink you will be negative. These tests are supposed to aid in the reduction of road trauma, prosecuting someone because at some stage in the last three weeks they had a joint or worse still were in the vacinity of someone smoking a joint they will be prosecuted for drug driving when clearly their ability is NOT in any way impaired. THESE TESTS ARE A JOKE but unfortunately those prosecuted for smoking what is a decriminilised drug in the ACT. You can grow two plants (naturally) not hydroponically and the Police can issue an on the spot fin of $100 but drive three weeks later and face 3 months in prison WTF

dvaey said :

fgzk said :

It will be interesting to see how unreasonable pot smokers will be with police, when confronted with their “evil habits”.

It will be interesting to see how reasonable police are when the driver explains their ‘evil habit’ occured a week ago. Also to see how the courts feel about the whole issue.. at least some lawyers will make a bit of money.

Along similar lines, does this mean that police will be randomly drug/alcohol tested during their shift or before they drive their vehicles too?

They already have to undertake breath analysis at the request of a senior officer, so I guess drug testing will be the same?

Pommy bastard10:57 am 13 May 11

So the idiocy continues.

fgzk said :

It will be interesting to see how unreasonable pot smokers will be with police, when confronted with their “evil habits”.

Yeah, pot smokers are notorious for being violent and aggressive.

BWA HA HAHA AHA HAH AHHA AHA HA A HA AH … : snort :

fgzk said :

It will be interesting to see how unreasonable pot smokers will be with police, when confronted with their “evil habits”.

It will be interesting to see how reasonable police are when the driver explains their ‘evil habit’ occured a week ago. Also to see how the courts feel about the whole issue.. at least some lawyers will make a bit of money.

Along similar lines, does this mean that police will be randomly drug/alcohol tested during their shift or before they drive their vehicles too?

PBO said :

It will be very interesting to see how the courts decide to charge as there seems to be no differentiation in detection between three minutes ago and three weeks ago.

I believe that’s called zero tolerance “differentiation”. How did the courts go with the recent case with the 4wd drive rollover, out at the cotter? He argued he had not smoked that day.

shadow boxer10:19 am 13 May 11

Do they have these kits in all the cars or is it a bus type set up ?

PBO said :

It will be very interesting to see how the courts decide to charge as there seems to be no differentiation in detection between three minutes ago and three weeks ago.

I’m genuinely interested in this aspect of policing the new laws. My partner is an occasional weed smoker, once a month max, only smokes at home and never drives under the influence. I have read that cannabis can remain within the human system for up to 3 months depending on the metabolism of the individual. So say my partner was pulled over and tested a week or two after he had enjoyed a spliff on the porch, could he conceivably test positive and be charged with driving under the influence?

2.0 said :

Damn, Im gonna have to stop smoking crack and driving…

That’s right. Messages from health agencies make it very clear that smoking is bad for you.

It will be very interesting to see how the courts decide to charge as there seems to be no differentiation in detection between three minutes ago and three weeks ago.

2.0 said :

Damn, Im gonna have to stop smoking crack and driving…

Whoa………………let’s not get too carried away!

2.0 said :

Damn, Im gonna have to stop smoking crack and driving…

No, you do not have to stop smoking crack as crack is not being tested for. Switching to crack as your drug of choice along with the other drugs will now be encouraged.

It will be interesting to see how unreasonable pot smokers will be with police, when confronted with their “evil habits”.

Damn, Im gonna have to stop smoking crack and driving…

Total bullshit. Mid range drink driving (blowing between .07 and .15) will get you 3.5 penalty units, while a few puffs of a joint before you drive will net you 10. The saliva tests are completely flawed too – depending on individual metabolism there can be traceable amounts of cannabis in your saliva up to SIX HOURS after you last smoked even a small amount.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.