Advertisement

Roadside drug testing comes ever closer

By 5 May 2010 158

The Liberal’s Jeremy Hanson is celebrating in principle support in the Legislative Assembly for his Random Roadside Drug Testing bill.

Apparently this is going to build on the “success” of the Victorian legislation in this area.

So what other random searches shall we start up in ever more panicked fear of ourselves?

Please login to post your comments
158 Responses to Roadside drug testing comes ever closer
#61
georgesgenitals7:57 pm, 08 May 10

Jim Jones said :

WTF are you talking about? Speeding contributes measurably to road deaths.

Could you drop the whole ‘speeding blah blah blah gummint blah blah blah’ crap for just one thread?

I know its a bit off topic, but why is it that when NT introduced a speed limit to the major north-south highway, deaths increased.

The point that I am making is that there are some topics where RiotACT posters seem to critically debate, and others where they sprout nothing but rhetoric.

And then there are posters like you, Jim Jones, who launch personal attcks when they disagree, then run away when shown to be wrong (eg the recent post on government housing).

How about we kick it up a notch, and debate the issue? Is it really that hard?

#62
vandam11:13 pm, 08 May 10

vg said :

I’d love to see you justify that comment to the families of people killed in motor vehicles accidents where drug affectation was a major factor.

Exactly how many is this? You seem to know the figures involved, and since they arent being published would you care to share your information? Or do you just like using the emotive arguments, without any real facts to back it up?

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50% and as frequent as drunk drivers.

It’s not rocket science to know that people are willing to drive under the influence of drugs, regardless of whether its Cannabis, Pills or Heroin etc. That is unless your the average publice servant who is oblivious to anything that doesn’t concern them.

I ask you this. How would you react if someone driving high on Cannabis, crashed into your wife/partner/kid/mum, and killed them? This has happened to other people and will keep on happening until it is policed.

The reason why it isn’t reported as frequently as drunk drivers is because at the moment it takes longer to test for drugs, and by the time the results come in, media aren’t interested in running the story.

It’s comments like this, that make people think it is acceptable to drive under the influence.

The community needs to step up and make it well known that they will not tolerate drivers, participating in stupid behaviour or driving under the influence.

#63
Jim Jones7:33 am, 09 May 10

georgesgenitals said :

I know its a bit off topic, but why is it that when NT introduced a speed limit to the major north-south highway, deaths increased.

Correlation is not causation.

This aside, you don’t think that the situation in the NT might be an unusual (and non-representative). There are plenty of stats that demonstrate the level of impact speeding has on motor-accidents. You don’t have to be a genius to find them.

georgesgenitals said :

The point that I am making is that there are some topics where RiotACT posters seem to critically debate, and others where they sprout nothing but rhetoric.

Yes. The blah blah speed gummint rhetoric is so pervasive it’s now being spouted in a thread that is about drug testing. Other issues somehow get debated rationally.

georgesgenitals said :

And then there are posters like you, Jim Jones, who launch personal attcks when they disagree, then run away when shown to be wrong (eg the recent post on government housing).

Shown to be wrong? I complained about a poster going on a massive ‘government housing tenants are vile creatures who ruin houses’ rant, and this was ‘shown wrong’?

If reacting negatively to pisspoor stereotypes of public housing tenants is ‘wrong’, then I suppose I’m wrong.

georgesgenitals said :

How about we kick it up a notch, and debate the issue? Is it really that hard?

Coming from someone who’s yet again introduced a pointless (and foundationless) whinge about speed limits in a thread about drug testing – a thread which is notable for having a decent amount of data and links used in it – this statement is particularly apposite.

#64
Jim Jones9:05 am, 09 May 10

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

#65
fgzk9:58 am, 09 May 10

“I ask you this. How would you react if someone driving high on Cannabis, crashed into your wife/partner/kid/mum, and killed them?”

I would react exactly the same if it was, a police chase, a stray bullet from a drug dealer or an elderly driver. Actually I would not be surprised if it was an elderly driver as they have seem to be involved in a lot of fatal crashes in Canberra. Elderly drivers have killed people I know in Canberra. I guess the media are just lazy in chasing up their toxicology reports too.

Its how you measure intoxication/incapacity that is the issue with the drug tests. When are you under the influence of the drug or just have a trace of it in your system? Bring BAC down to 0% if you support this legislation. It will have the same effect on the road toll.

If you spent the same money testing the elderly you would save more lives on the Canberra roads. Not just statistical abortions but real people. Actual knocks at the door. Being ageist would be political suicide as compared to kicking a drug user.

“The community needs to step up” The community steps where ideology tells it to step.

#66
vandam1:02 pm, 09 May 10

fgzk said :

“I ask you this. How would you react if someone driving high on Cannabis, crashed into your wife/partner/kid/mum, and killed them?”

I would react exactly the same if it was, a police chase, a stray bullet from a drug dealer or an elderly driver. Actually I would not be surprised if it was an elderly driver as they have seem to be involved in a lot of fatal crashes in Canberra. Elderly drivers have killed people I know in Canberra. I guess the media are just lazy in chasing up their toxicology reports too.

Its how you measure intoxication/incapacity that is the issue with the drug tests. When are you under the influence of the drug or just have a trace of it in your system? Bring BAC down to 0% if you support this legislation. It will have the same effect on the road toll.

If you spent the same money testing the elderly you would save more lives on the Canberra roads. Not just statistical abortions but real people. Actual knocks at the door. Being ageist would be political suicide as compared to kicking a drug user.

“The community needs to step up” The community steps where ideology tells it to step.

Yes and there are proceedures to have elderly drivers retested to make sure they are suitable to drive. There is nothing for drug users. Just like there are laws to get rid of drink drivers.

How you measure the drug is a fair question, however drugs are illegal, and shouldn’t be in your system to start off with. So if your the law abiding citizen, then there shouldn’t be any drugs in your system full stop!!!

#67
georgesgenitals3:47 pm, 09 May 10

Jim Jones said :

[Shown to be wrong? I complained about a poster going on a massive ‘government housing tenants are vile creatures who ruin houses’ rant, and this was ‘shown wrong’?

If reacting negatively to pisspoor stereotypes of public housing tenants is ‘wrong’, then I suppose I’m wrong.

georgesgenitals said :

How about we kick it up a notch, and debate the issue? Is it really that hard?

Coming from someone who’s yet again introduced a pointless (and foundationless) whinge about speed limits in a thread about drug testing – a thread which is notable for having a decent amount of data and links used in it – this statement is particularly apposite.

You accused a poster of a generalisation that simply wasn’t true, then when a number of posters queried you, you went completely silent, because you knew you were wrong.

If you have an issue with my point, fine – debate the issue.

Mods – can we get some guidance here? This sort of crapola makes RiotACT a lot less interesting for everyone. The ‘About’ section states that personally offensive comments may be moderated, but a lot still seem to get through.

#68
georgesgenitals3:50 pm, 09 May 10

Jim Jones said :

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Stats? Counterpoint? Evidence?

Clearly not.

#69
fgzk5:14 pm, 09 May 10

Vandam…”Yes and there are proceedures to have elderly drivers retested to make sure they are suitable to drive. There is nothing for drug users. Just like there are laws to get rid of drink drivers”

It will be difficult for you to get a clear picture of the issue when you have no idea. Why bother.

GG Carrots in the stomach contents does not mean carrots contributed to an accident. Just that a lot of people like to eat carrots. “Stats? Counterpoint? Evidence?” You will find them in the links throughout the thread. Cry baby.

#70
Voice of Reason5:33 pm, 09 May 10

vandam said :

How you measure the drug is a fair question, however drugs are illegal, and shouldn’t be in your system to start off with. So if your the law abiding citizen, then there shouldn’t be any drugs in your system full stop!!!

1. According to the government the legislation proposed is about road safety, not finding creative new ways to punish people for using certain illicit drugs.

2. This legislation will cause people who are not affected by drugs to be convicted of drug driving.

3. This legislation misses the opportunity to include many other drugs capable of impairing the driving of those taking them.

4. There is no evidence that the programme it seeks to replicate has made Victorian roads any safer at all. In fact the only available evidence suggests that in spite of all the money spent on testing for some drugs in Victoria, people continue to drive after taking illicit drugs at exactly the same rate as they did before the programme was introduced.

5. The proposed programme is expensive, and fails a rationality test on the basis that the government could do far more effective things with the resources that would have a meaningful effect on road safety.

6. Given that the opposition are calling for roadside testing for some drugs, and our neighbours have already introduced roadside testing for some drugs, the government thinks it’s better off politically introducing garbage policy than waiting for better science in order to introduce quality policy.

#71
Jim Jones6:41 pm, 09 May 10

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Stats? Counterpoint? Evidence?

Clearly not.

We should believe this made up figure that 50% of all fatal collisions involve illicit drug use, because … why?

#72
Voice of Reason6:47 pm, 09 May 10

vandam said :

Yes and there are proceedures to have elderly drivers retested to make sure they are suitable to drive. There is nothing for drug users.

Yes there is vandam. It’s called the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977. If police suspect that you’re intoxicated by a substance other than alcohol, they can test you.

#73
Jim Jones6:56 pm, 09 May 10

georgesgenitals said :

If you have an issue with my point, fine – debate the issue.

Yeah, right. The way you’ve so intellectually engaged with the issue of road side drug testing: by using it as an opportunity to whine about speeding fines and ignore any evidence that doesn’t support your point.

Such de rigeur internet logic.

#74
georgesgenitals7:44 pm, 10 May 10

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

If you have an issue with my point, fine – debate the issue.

Yeah, right. The way you’ve so intellectually engaged with the issue of road side drug testing: by using it as an opportunity to whine about speeding fines and ignore any evidence that doesn’t support your point.

Such de rigeur internet logic.

Both are directly related to road safety. But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to rant and rave about it. Calm down and get a life.

#75
georgesgenitals7:44 pm, 10 May 10

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Stats? Counterpoint? Evidence?

Clearly not.

We should believe this made up figure that 50% of all fatal collisions involve illicit drug use, because … why?

Provide a counter argument and cite your sources if you disagree.

#76
caf11:17 pm, 10 May 10

Provide a counter argument and cite your sources if you disagree.

It is up to the one making extraordinary claims to supply the extraordinary evidence required.

#77
caf11:42 pm, 10 May 10

Also given that possession of all of the drugs tested for is an offence in itself it is like catching you for possession after you took them. Basically what it is saying is taking drugs are bad mmkay.

Special G nails it – it’s not about road safety at all, it’s just about detecting and punishing drug use (if it was the former, it would also be testing for common legal drugs that affect driving ability, like benzodiazepines). So why don’t we search your whole car for contraband while you’re stopped at the RBT while we’re at it – check through the laptop lying on the back seat to make sure you haven’t got any illegally downloaded movies there (sure, it’s got nothing to do with road safety, but it’s illegal so you haven’t got anything to complain about).

#78
Jim Jones9:54 am, 11 May 10

georgesgenitals said :

Both are directly related to road safety. But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to rant and rave about it. Calm down and get a life.

Weren’t you the one complaining that people weren’t debating ‘the issue’?

How does going off on a tangent contribute to focusing debate on ‘the issue’?

Weren’t you also the one complaining about personal attacks taking the place of reasoned debates?

How does ‘get a life’ stack up, do you think: reasoned debate or personal attack?

Perhaps now I should make up some ludicrous figures and then dare people to prove me wrong, just to end this post on a high note.

#79
georgesgenitals11:00 am, 11 May 10

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Both are directly related to road safety. But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to rant and rave about it. Calm down and get a life.

Weren’t you the one complaining that people weren’t debating ‘the issue’?

How does going off on a tangent contribute to focusing debate on ‘the issue’?

Weren’t you also the one complaining about personal attacks taking the place of reasoned debates?

How does ‘get a life’ stack up, do you think: reasoned debate or personal attack?

Perhaps now I should make up some ludicrous figures and then dare people to prove me wrong, just to end this post on a high note.

*sigh*

Let’s go through it then:

1) How does going off on a tangent contribute to focusing debate on ‘the issue’?

Both drug use, as well as driver behaviour, are related to road safety. Earlier posts questioned the quantifiable impact of drug use on road safety. Speeding is also road safety related. The comment was that I was surprised how rational people were being about this, given that in other areas there’s a lot of emotive argument. I also gave a real life example in response to another post.

2) Weren’t you also the one complaining about personal attacks taking the place of reasoned debates? How does ‘get a life’ stack up, do you think: reasoned debate or personal attack?

Absolutely. But then I figured stuff it – I’ll join in with you anyway. I’m not trying to claim sainthood here.

3) Perhaps now I should make up some ludicrous figures and then dare people to prove me wrong, just to end this post on a high note.

Be my guest. Please note, though, that I haven’t asserted any ‘ludicrous’ figures. Statistics support my example above, which is why I gave it.

#80
dvaey11:09 am, 11 May 10

Jim Jones said :

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

We should believe this made up figure that 50% of all fatal collisions involve illicit drug use, because … why?

Well, think of the recent quadruple fatality on Canberra Ave. Of the 5 people involved, 4 had drugs in their system (probably even all 5 had some trace in their system). Only 1 of these 5 was at fault in the cause of the accident, and the addition of drugs to the whole equation doesnt make a difference when you consider every other aspect of the crash.

Also, the first quote was ’50% of people, involved in fatal collisions’, and is not ’50% of fatal accidents’. The stats can say whatever you want them to say.

#81
fgzk11:40 am, 11 May 10

GG give up. Statistical your comments have nothing to do with drug testing. Emotively your boring. Rationally …………Well I cant work out any rational argument/debate that relates to anything. Personally I think you smell like cheese.

#82
Jim Jones11:42 am, 11 May 10

The stats can say whatever you want them to say when you make them up out of thin air, I think that’s the real trick.

Interpretation of stats is another matter entirely: interpreting made-up stats is as pointless as … a really pointless thing.

#83
georgesgenitals12:46 pm, 11 May 10

Jim Jones said :

The stats can say whatever you want them to say when you make them up out of thin air, I think that’s the real trick.

Interpretation of stats is another matter entirely: interpreting made-up stats is as pointless as … a really pointless thing.

Ok, we better stop using stats then. Good call.

/JJ mode off

We all know stats can be manipulated. Take dvaey’s example above. Drugs and speed were both involved – somehow these and other factors have to be apportioned ‘blame’, including that a driver ran a red light. Drugs, speed and breaking the road rules were probably ALL to blame, though not equally.

Given that drug use is probably a factor in road accidents, then, is it actually a useful thing to drug test people? Possibly. The real question is whether such tests could determine the level to which a driver is actually impaired (compared with breath testing, where we have fairly clear science linking blood alcohol to driving impairment). Until that can can conclusively shown, I don’t think there’s much point implementing them.

#84
georgesgenitals12:47 pm, 11 May 10

fgzk said :

GG give up. Statistical your comments have nothing to do with drug testing. Emotively your boring. Rationally …………Well I cant work out any rational argument/debate that relates to anything. Personally I think you smell like cheese.

Good to see you’re interested and reading. You can fix the odour problem by changing your posture.

#85
Captain RAAF11:03 am, 12 May 10

Anyone that thinks these tests will be ‘random’ is living in lala land.

They will all be targeted tests, so expect to see them done at Summernats, Octoberfest, Skyfire and any other gathering of young people, because lets face it, pot heads are quite often piss heads and gravitate to these large social get-togethers.

Also, I expect you’ll see them in ‘known’ areas of drug users throughout the region but the odds of you (assuming you are like me, law-abiding john Q Citizen) getting random drug tested on the way to Bunnings on a Sunday arvo are non-existant.

The Police know who is using just like airport security know which demographic is a likely terrorist, it’s just that the political correct crowd won’t let them openly identify who they are targeting, but they’ll catch them anyway.

#86
fgzk12:07 pm, 12 May 10

Captain RAAF is on the money. This is how they have worked it in Vic. They have targeted Raves and festivals rather than tacking it on general road side testing. The next Bike and Tattoo show should be interesting.

#87
georgesgenitals1:24 pm, 12 May 10

Profiling is commonly used in parts of law enforcement in this country. I’d agree that certain times, places and people will be targetted.

I guess it comes back to whether using such profiling actually assists with identifying impaired drivers.

#88
Reality check9:10 pm, 13 May 10

Jim Jones said :

The active ingredient THC is detectable in the urine after 48-72 hours in a one-off or occasional user or up to 6 weeks in a heavy user.

http://www.passadrugtestingforall.com/long-does-marijuana-stay-your-system-a-4.html

So don’t take drugs and you won’t have any issues… It’s not rocket science.

As for stats – you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and no evidence to support your views. One death is one too many… Any illicit substances will affect your ability to drive – bottom line = not acceptable. Be it alcohol or drugs, consume them and then drive and there will be consequences. End of story. Wake up to yourselves…

#89
Jim Jones8:38 am, 14 May 10

Reality check said :

Jim Jones said :

The active ingredient THC is detectable in the urine after 48-72 hours in a one-off or occasional user or up to 6 weeks in a heavy user.

http://www.passadrugtestingforall.com/long-does-marijuana-stay-your-system-a-4.html

So don’t take drugs and you won’t have any issues… It’s not rocket science.

As for stats – you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and no evidence to support your views. One death is one too many… Any illicit substances will affect your ability to drive – bottom line = not acceptable. Be it alcohol or drugs, consume them and then drive and there will be consequences. End of story. Wake up to yourselves…

Drugs are bad … mmkay.

#90
Jim Jones8:52 am, 14 May 10

Reality check said :

As for stats – you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and no evidence to support your views.

I’m the one stating that we shouldn’t believe made up statistics. The ‘statistics’ presented were made up on the spot.

The actual data that exists is in relation to the Victorian experience of roadside drug testing (referenced in the OP) which show conclusively that road side drug testing had no effect whatsoever.

How is this ‘no evidence for your views whatsoever’?

I find it a little hard to believe that you called yourself ‘reality check’, and yet you believe that made-up statistics are so important that they trump actual data.

How about you use some logic and do some research rather than resorting to the reactionary attitude: “drugs are bad … mmmkay”.

You sound like Nancy Reagan.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.