Greens’ home entry, dope-testing laws part of cannabis ‘witch hunt’

May I suggest to anyone who is at all interested in this issue, that you get hold of a book calledChasing The Scream – The first & Last Days of the War on Drugs by Johann Hari.
It is a brilliant insight into how this whole drug thing ticks.
Enjoy & be informed by a terrrific researcher.

as an adult , light recreational user of marijuana (and lifelong user) i’m always slightly worried about being pulled over for the pipe I had a few days ago, but home invasion (lets face it, thats what this is) is outright ridiculous !

before thinking about calling for legalization, have a read of this study on the effects legalization has had in Colorado from the medical use beginnings in 2006 to current day. it’s a long report but just reading the summary at the beginning is enough to give you pause for thought.

http://www.basesteencenter.org/documents/August2014LegalizationofMJinColoradotheImpact.pdf

A law that allows police to enter homes (without a warrant?) on ‘suspicion’ that someone has been drink or drug driving? Wow. Now, I dislike the dirty dysfunctional poor who live on welfare with all their intractable problems as much as anyone, but laws that will only be used as an excuse for police to bust in and keep an eye on them as they bong on in their (public housing) living rooms is going a bit far. I mean, to be fair many of these people have mental health issues, and subjecting them to that level of stress might be counterproductive.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

do you not also agree that the loophole whereby an impaired driver (be it alcohol or drugs) can make into their own home and therefore avoid being caught is a problem? Surely such a loophole encourages offenders that are close to home to refuse to pull over and instead seek out the safety of their home where they cannot then be charged for their crimes.

Fail to provide a sample is already an offence. So is fail to stop. If you make the penalties for these offences in the same range as the penalties for the offence you imagine somebody would try to dodge in this way, then there is no sugar on the table.

I completely disagree with the path the legal system in this territory is taking. They are still in denial over the comprehensive corruption and incompetence that led to David Eastman’s wrongful conviction, which indicates a system that is broken.

“The Act does not prescribe the ways in which a police officer may gain a suspicion of a drink or drug driving offence.”

Just out of interest, how do you propose one legislate exhaustively the grounds on which a police officer may “gain a suspicion of a drink or drug driving offence”?

“The colour of your car may well be reason enough for the authorities to force their way into your family home and demand that a swab be taken from your mouth.”

That is just plain alarmist. You’re talking about supposition, not suspicion. Say I have a red car. In my suburb there was a minor hit and run accident, the offending vehicle being red. Are you suggesting that the mere fact my car is red will allow the police to force their way into my house and demand from me a buccal sample? There is no way a court would entertain the submission that was ‘reasonable suspicion’.

I am greatly concerned about these new police powers. They could so easily be abused to gain entry to a POI’s premises without a warrant in an unrelated investigation.

I am also concerned about testing drivers for the presence of cannabis. Research indicates that it is possible to test positive from inhaling other people’s cannabis smoke:

http://www.newsweek.com/could-second-hand-pot-smoke-make-you-fail-marijuana-test-278913

And why the particular focus on cannabis? Surely other illicit substances (e.g. ice) are of greater concern. And what about the risks of driving while under the influence of prescription medications like Endone?

wildturkeycanoe said :

What if the police saw you driving along at say 4:30PM, had some suspicions about your driving due to perhaps swerving for a dog off a leash [but the cops didn’t see the dog] and you were not drinking. Due to an unexpected call, the officers get side tracked but take your number plate details. An hour later, after you get home and sink a few scotch and cokes, they knock on the door and breath test you. Obviously you blow over the limit but you were never drink driving. How can you prove you were sober whilst on the road?
This is why I believe this law is absolute nonsense and should be repealed.

It does seem strange they have a 2 hour window they can do it. How do you prove you only started drinking once you got home in that timeframe?

It doesn’t effect me so much as someone that doesn’t drive and doesn’t drink much but I would be interested in finding out how they determine whether you were intoxicated at the time you were driving.

As far as the laws are concerned, the way I see it is that if a drug is illegal it doesn’t matter how much of it you have in your system when tested, it’s illegal to take said substance so you should be dealt with in whatever way the law suggests.

My other concern of all these arguments about the impairment levels of people using the substance they all refer to the lack of research that has been conducted around it. They all say “well obviously we shouldn’t be allowed to drive drunk, there’s been decades of research done about that!” so therefore we should wait for decades worth of research to be done before we decide that it’s ok to drive while you have an illegal substance in your system? I would prefer a low tolerance now while we believe it may cause issues and then change the law later when we know for sure.

As for prescription drugs, why not include them in the law? They all have warnings about not driving on the box, so if caught driving while using them why not have a penalty in place? Or do we not have enough research on that either?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Then more people will be forced off the roads because they are presumed to be unsafe. Where does it end?

Perhaps this is the governments goal. The more people who are considered to impaired to drive may be reduced to taking public transport, and we all know how they feel about that.

Also, I would have no problems if less idiots were on the roads. It doesn’t scare you that at any moment you could be driving next to someone who is drunk or taken a bunch of drugs (illegal or otherwise)?

The cynic in me feels it’s not coincidence that RDT is not testing for cocaine.

Targeting the drugs the drugs of choice of the middle and lower classes (irrespective of impairment) really shows their hand here. It’s just another front on the failed war on drugs.

The argument against drink and drunk driving is a valid one, but proving someone is affected by drugs is not an easy task. I am certain that some drivers with 0.09 bac could have quicker reaction times and better depth perception than some tea-totalling elderly drivers. You cannot say that everyone has the same tolerance to prescription drugs, or even coffee and high sugar content beverages. Impairment can happen for many reasons but they seem to be targetting more causes of this, with little scientific evidence to back it up. Soon there will be testing for prescription drugs too, police access to medical records to weed out the pill poppers. Then more people will be forced off the roads because they are presumed to be unsafe. Where does it end?

John, social feel good issues like gay marriage aren’t going to give kids jobs in the future, nor make this nation any stronger.
Put gay marriage to the people and let’s see how they decide.
All of this majority of Austrians want gay marriage is based off nothing but cooked statistics, where by they sell a targeted survey to 1000 people being reflective of the wider community.
Stopping this stupid, money pit of light rail is Zed priority, and good on him, considering we have the worst performing hospitals in the country and the highest cost of living.