Advertisement

Roman wants tougher drug driving laws

By 30 June 2010 18

[First filed: Jun 29, 2010 @ 9:48]

The ABC informs us that the ACT’s chief police officer Roman Quaedvlieg has weighed in on the Liberal/Green roadside drug testing legislation and he wants it to be tougher:

In his advice to the Government, Mr Quaedvlieg says the Opposition’s proposal does not allow for adequate laboratory testing and only allows for testing of two illicit drugs.

He says it puts police in a precarious situation and could lead to failed prosecutions.

It remains to be seen if the Legislative Assembly takes any notice.

UPDATE: The CPO might be down on it, but the Australian Federal Police Association is circulating a media release (not online) that they support the Liberals’ legislation.

Introduction of this bill constitutes a significant win in allowing AFP police officers access to greater tools in their fight to keep the community safe from drug offenders whilst balancing the rights of individuals.

Throughout the process of drafting this Bill, the AFPA has been pleased with the constructive nature of consultation by the ACT Liberal Party. A number of recent amendments to the draft Bill, to be introduced by the ACT Liberal Party, are a direct result of successful consultation with the AFPA. The AFPA also supports the amendments recently introduced by the ACT Greens to improve on the draft legislation.

Please login to post your comments
18 Responses to Roman wants tougher drug driving laws
#1
Pommy bastard11:06 am, 29 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

Roman Quaedvlieg

That’s a Scrabble winner if I ever saw one…

#2
troll-sniffer2:02 pm, 29 Jun 10

hmmmm only a couple of ways I can see it occurring… LIE exists on its own with 6 spaces before it and one space free after it, or QUA with 7 spaces after it.

In an improbable universe you would find LIE available at the 12th, 13th and 14th squares along the top or bottom row, and you would put QUAEDV before it, thereby securing one triple word score, and by putting your fortuitous G after it, you would then triple the triple word score again, a total of 216 points in one go.

However, your opponent might rail most severely against the use of a proper name in the game and cause you to lose your points and your honour. You would then almost certainly bludgeon your opponent to death for denying you your all time highest score and you would be sentenced to develop your scrabble skills in the Alexander Maconochie Centre for the rest of your natural life.

#3
dvaey2:02 pm, 29 Jun 10

The crimes has (for a change) quite a detailed article.

Interestingly enough, it seems the issues that were raised by the chief police officer, were almost exactly those which were raised on this site. The liberals seem hell-bent on passing this legislation without listening to any advice on improving it, merely suggesting that they needed to brief the CPO, to make him come around to their way of thinking. This makes me think there may be some other motive behind the libs wanting to get this bill passed so quickly, without rectifying the problems people keep pointing out in it.

#4
buzz8193:03 pm, 29 Jun 10

troll-sniffer said :

hmmmm only a couple of ways I can see it occurring… LIE exists on its own with 6 spaces before it and one space free after it, or QUA with 7 spaces after it.

In an improbable universe you would find LIE available at the 12th, 13th and 14th squares along the top or bottom row, and you would put QUAEDV before it, thereby securing one triple word score, and by putting your fortuitous G after it, you would then triple the triple word score again, a total of 216 points in one go.

However, your opponent might rail most severely against the use of a proper name in the game and cause you to lose your points and your honour. You would then almost certainly bludgeon your opponent to death for denying you your all time highest score and you would be sentenced to develop your scrabble skills in the Alexander Maconochie Centre for the rest of your natural life.

Ha Hem…. This is Canberra, surely you mean you will be placed on a suspended sentence for at least 2 years with the prospect of doing community service? That is what you mean isn’t it?

#5
54-114:18 pm, 29 Jun 10

Well, I’m all for it. Anything to get impaired drivers off the road, other than the saturation use of speed cameras, which does nothing about dickhead drivers.

Then start catching dicks on mobile phones, those dicks dazzling other drivers with wanker lights, and those dicks that change lanes or change direction without indicating.

#6
Pork Hunt5:34 pm, 29 Jun 10

Damn you buzz819, you beat me to it.
In any case I doubt if the moronic, bogan population of the AMC would pose much of a challenge…

#7
Tooks6:52 pm, 29 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

Tooks said :

Roman Quaedvlieg

That’s a Scrabble winner if I ever saw one…

Extra points for being able to pronounce it ;-)

#8
dvaey7:59 pm, 29 Jun 10

54-11 said :

Well, I’m all for it. Anything to get impaired drivers off the road, other than the saturation use of speed cameras, which does nothing about dickhead drivers.

Surely, it would make sense to have legislation that actually targets impairment? Then, itd be nice to ensure the legislation allows police to take the drivers off the road, and finally allows those guilty of driving while impaired, to be punished appropriately, rather than being let off on technicality. So what you really mean isnt ‘Im all for it’, but ‘Im all for a working version of it’.

I also notice theyve cut the drugs (medicines) tested for down to marijuana and ecstasy. If you feel better about removing this tiny proportion of impaired drivers, while implementing laws which dont target users of other substances (both legal and not) that impair driving ability, then youre following the same idea of this government. Not to mention that in order to catch this tiny percentage driving on ecstacy/cannabis, they police will have to divert time and resources away from breath testing and other patrol activities which theyre barely able to sustain as it is at the moment

#9
cleo11:21 pm, 29 Jun 10

Just imagine how many Canberra people will be caught ha ha! May think twice before taking drugs.

#10
Jim Jones9:24 am, 30 Jun 10

cleo said :

Just imagine how many Canberra people will be caught ha ha! May think twice before taking drugs.

You haven’t been paying much attention have you.

The flaws pointed out with the proposed legislation include (but are not limited to):

- they fail to comply with the human rights act and would be overturned by any legal challenge
- there’s no evidence that drug driving is, in fact, a problem (Stanhope actually admitted this on the radio this morning)
- the testing mechanisms are woefully inadequate and fail to distinguish between someone driving impaired due to illicit drug use, and someone who has trace elements of illicit drugs in their system from previous use
- easily available figures from drug testing in Victoria (check previous RiotAct posts on this topic) demonstrated conclusively that the legislation had absolutely no impact on the amount of people driving with drugs in their system

People will ‘think twice before taking drugs’?

Nope.

#11
p19:50 am, 30 Jun 10

buzz819 said :

Ha Hem…. This is Canberra, surely you mean you will be placed on a suspended sentence for at least 2 years with the prospect of doing community service? That is what you mean isn’t it?

But you will have about four years out on bail to polish your skills before sentencing. And don’t worry if your bail conditions prohibit playing scrabble, those are just advisory anyway.

54-11 said :

…those dicks dazzling other drivers with wanker lights….

I sometime consider sitting next to a set of lights with a sling shot, shooting out the lights of any car with “driving lights” on without their highbeams, or “fog lights” on when it isn’t foggy.

#12
Tool10:54 am, 30 Jun 10

Stanhope is just stalling because he can’t afford the drug tests. All these issues are old hat that have been addressed and ignored time and time again. He has no intention of introducing this legislation if he can avoid it, its gonna be a lemon he flicks to Katy so she can find the money.

#13
dvaey12:00 pm, 30 Jun 10

Tool said :

Stanhope is just stalling because he can’t afford the drug tests. He has no intention of introducing this legislation if he can avoid it, its gonna be a lemon he flicks to Katy so she can find the money.

Maybe you missed the fact that Stanhope has proposed his own legislation, which isnt being supported by the greens (unlike the libs proposal). It’s not that Stanhope is stalling because of money, he’s trying to can this bill so that a non-crap writing of the bill can be implemented.

cleo said :

Just imagine how many Canberra people will be caught ha ha! May think twice before taking drugs.

A more scary thought, is how many drink-drivers on P-plates with BAC over 0.20 will get away with it, if police arent given extra resources for this drug-testing than they are already given for RBT. Im more worried about a driver whos had a few drinks than a driver whos had a few joints.

#14
harley10:20 pm, 30 Jun 10

UPDATE: The CPO might be down on it, but the Australian Federal Police Association is circulating a media release (not online) that they support the Liberals’ legislation.

Police Associations across the land exist for only 2 purposes: to cover up member’s misdeeds and to piss off the Commissioners.

#15
fgzk9:56 am, 01 Jul 10

” win in allowing AFP police officers access to greater tools in their fight to keep the community safe from drug offenders whilst balancing the rights of individuals.”

Another weapon in the war on drugs, is what I think he meant to say.

Police keeping the community safe from drug offenders. What a joke.

Laugh all you want cleo, its your taxes you are flushing down the toilet.

Like all “war on drugs” policy you will only increase harm in the community and waste your cash.

Good luck with that.

Good to see the Greens have cast off there virginity and entered into the politics of division. I guess the liberal party wont be circulating dodgy soft on drugs propaganda about the greens at the next election.

I raise my glass of vinegar for a job well done. Cheers.

#16
Tooks9:41 am, 03 Jul 10

fgzk said :

” win in allowing AFP police officers access to greater tools in their fight to keep the community safe from drug offenders whilst balancing the rights of individuals.”

Another weapon in the war on drugs, is what I think he meant to say.

Police keeping the community safe from drug offenders. What a joke.

Laugh all you want cleo, its your taxes you are flushing down the toilet.

Like all “war on drugs” policy you will only increase harm in the community and waste your cash.

Good luck with that.

Good to see the Greens have cast off there virginity and entered into the politics of division. I guess the liberal party wont be circulating dodgy soft on drugs propaganda about the greens at the next election.

I raise my glass of vinegar for a job well done. Cheers.

Of course, the real answer is to legalise all illicit drugs, isn’t it? Can’t see any problems going down that path.

#17
fgzk5:59 pm, 04 Jul 10

Tooks…Legalise all drugs is not an answer (as you already know), just like criminalising all drugs is not an answer to alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug issues. As far as I can tell, neither side of the debate wants to hear the evidence. That makes finding a reasonable answer impossible.

That is the propaganda anyway. Ultimately its the drug offenders problem and they will have to find the answer.

Just say no to driving.

#18
Tooks9:42 am, 06 Jul 10

fgzk said :

Tooks…Legalise all drugs is not an answer (as you already know), just like criminalising all drugs is not an answer to alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug issues. As far as I can tell, neither side of the debate wants to hear the evidence. That makes finding a reasonable answer impossible.

That is the propaganda anyway. Ultimately its the drug offenders problem and they will have to find the answer.

Just say no to driving.

Fair call.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement

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.