ACT libs want roadside drug testing

As I understand it, they have no legitimate medical use

Really? Is your Google broken? You shouldn’t have a hard time finding research on the legitimate medical uses for all three substances.

fgzk: Some interesting ideas there, but you’d need a lot more police and start building extensions onto the Magistrate’s Court, which will start getting very clogged up.

Punter I think there is a way around that. Data matching medical records and police records.

The more I think about it there is a simpler and cheaper way. The government will want to remove from the road lets say 2000 drug users a year. There are far more drug users who have worked out for themselves that an accident isn’t a sure thing. So lets just say that 1500 people next year will lose there licence, jobs etc. from random drug tests. A lot of them could be recidivist drug drivers that the police already have information on ie drug addicts. You could still remove 1500 people from our roads with the present laws and technology for a considerable amount less than random testing.

How. Equip every RAPID car with drug tests. Pull over any car that has previous drug related issues and test them. Test every unlicensed unregistered driver caught. Target the roads around drug dealers, government flats, Kambah, Charnwood, dickson, peakhour, etc. You will get 1500 people a year easy. All drug users, most recidivists. If you data cross matching with medical records and emergency room records, you will pretty much be able to identify those most likely to be drug users and remove them from the road. No wasted tests and a huge saving on the community purse.

This will also have a huge effect on how drugs are moved around and traded. Once you start removing peoples ability to drive and confiscating their vehicle it will be a lot harder for the dealers/users to conduct business. They will have to catch a bus.

Safe roads, easy, cheap and doable right now. Why aren’t the police already doing this?

Truth is I had the link all along, I just forgot about it. You can be sure it’s the bible for the RTA assessing medical fitness to drive in the ACT and other states of Oz. The trouble is medical conditions can develop after an individual has already obtained a licence, so for the majority of those times it takes a car crash for medical conditions to be identified.

Great link. We all should have a professional license. Things would be simpler and our roads safer.

I think my comments about mind frame for dexamphetamine are spot on. They have a cop out clause. The effects listed would be for a fit person without ADHD.

“17.2.6 Specialist advice may need to be sought regarding drivers who have complex conditions such as ADHD or Tourettes Syndrome.”

Thanks fgzk, I have found some information about this issue here http://www.austroads.com.au/cms/AFTD%20web%20Aug%202006.pdf drawn straight from the TAMS website. It seems if someone is prescribed dexamphetamine for whatever reason, it falls to the relevant state issuing driving regulations whether or not a licence should be issued. Your comment about being in a better mindframe for driving while on the meds is not quite correct though. See chapters 6 & 7 of the link, particularly page 54 under the stimulants row for information on dexamphetamine. These chapters have already considered illicit and prescrition drugs in the issuing of licences.

Punter “Do Doctors prescribe amphets? ” Yes they do but not the kind you buy from the Tattooed monsters in the car park.

It is a good example of the effect this drug has on different people. If you have been prescribed dexamphetamine (or other stimulant) then you should be required to take your prescription whilst driving. If you are tested negative then you should be fined. On the medication you will be less likely to be distracted. This will help with maintaining the legal speed limit, and to drive more consistently. Not taking the drug may have already cost the “patients” multiple driving infringements and possibly accidents.

The OP not mentioning “meds” is probably a good indicator that they haven’t really considered the issue.

Nota, While I do see the point you’re trying to make, we are discussing the legal implications of drug testing and I will stick to the legal definition of culpable for that reason. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The study you’ve refered to appears to have made it’s conclusions based on information from crashes that have already occurred – 2500 blood samples from SA drivers. I haven’t had the benefit of reading the study, has it given any consideration to how said drugs affect drivers or is it statistic based only? If the term ‘likely’ is used throughout, it’s a good sign it is statistic based only. Just because the actions of a drug affected driver may not have caused a particular collision, doesn’t indicate whether or not the drugs in his system has altered his ability to drive safely. Try some of the research behind Victorias legislation, particularly the VIFM.

Fgzk, I’m not ignoring prescrition meds in these discussions but, the OP didn’t refer to prescription meds. I’m only staying on subject. I do, however agree that they can be a problem. You may find this link interesting. http://www.saferoadsconference.com/2006/papers/Morris%20Odell%20Full%20Paper%20Saferoads.pdf. Elderly drivers are a whole different kettle of fish.

Dvaey, I missed your link, thanks for that. Do Doctors prescribe amphets? Should this come with a condition not to drive as fgzk suggested in #36? I have a link for you too. http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/110847/Clinical_Forensics_ACT.pdf. The affects of of alcohol intoxication on two people to the same level can vary dramatically between them, yet it is legislated that .05 is the limit (licence dependant). There has been a line drawn in the sand and that is the tollerance for intoxication. Would people be outraged if it was a zero limit? probably, because alcohol is a legal drug, not required on prescription. Compare this to the three drugs the roadside testing intents to screen for, what arguement does anyone have to have these on board? As I understand it, they have no legitimate medical use.

Readers may notice the names of the VIFM and Dr Odell throughout these links. They seem to be deeply involved in the formation of drug driving legislation.

Punter said :

Caf #42, I don’t know the science behind how other states determine intoxication of drugs but I’m sure the methods we adopt would be sound. Additionally, if these laws are enacted, there is scope for argument on what ‘intoxication’ means through subsequent Court proceedings allowing case law to resolve this issue.

The point of it is road safety. Roadside drug testing is also an ideal tool to identify people in need of help. What incentives to addicts currently have to attend rehab programs? None I would think. Any subsequent Court action of roadside tests could include orders to attend such programs.

Firstly, in response to how other states determine ‘intoxication’, from my article linked above (#52): “A further limitation of current drug tests is they only detect the presence of illicit drugs and not whether a driver’s skills are impaired.” So, to answer your question ‘other states’ dont have any method to determine intoxication. Either the chemical is present in your system, and youve committed an offence, or the chemical is not in your system so you havent. This is part of why we currently dont have drug testing in ACT.

As for your second question, if someone tests positive to dexamphetmine prescribed by a doctor (or a specialist with potentially decades of knowledge of the drug), what gives the police the power to suddenly understand this individuals medical situation better than an experienced medical professional? Apparently, this proposed law does.

Ive got no problem with taking drivers off our road who really shouldnt be there, however simply saying youve had a drink last night or youve had a joint last month, is not good enough imho. If youre affected by something then you should be taken off the road, but if you do something which doesnt affect your ability to drive then why should it matter?

If you want to fairly take all drug-affected drivers off the road, fgzk has the right idea at #36, with requiring all patients on medications that affect driving, to have their licence suspended. It would keep a higher number of drugged drivers off our road than the proposed roadside testing, which will be great for finding people who have used drugs in the past, not so great for finding those intoxicated by drugs.

Punter “we’re talking about removing impaired drivers from our roads to protect the greater community.”

Yet you don’t want to refer to prescription drugs. Sooner prescription drug users and some of the elderly are off the road the better. If this government is serious, then it will include removing all impaired drivers not just the illegal drug users.

Punter said :

There is no mention in the Uni article that “drivers with cannabis in their blood were no more at risk than those who were drug-free” or “drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to have an accident than those who were drug-free”. What the Uni article does talk about is the relevance of cannabis to culpability in road crashes.

Argue semantics if you will, however to quote directly from the Uni link: “marijuana has a negligible impact on culpability”. In other words, drivers affected by cannabis were no more at risk of being culpable (see below) as those unaffected by drugs of any kind.

Admittedly I am advantaged by having read the study itself in full (which did indeed find the above conclusion) and invite you to do the same. Unfortunately I can only furnish media references towards it and not a direct link.

Your word of the day is culpability, which is a legal reference to the driving manner of a person at fault in a serious car crash (see section 29 (6) and (7) Crimes Act 1900). This definition applies to the more serious collisions where negligence and/or intoxication largely contribute to the collision. Since this post is discussing driving under the influence of drugs and not how they contribute to more serious road crashes, your links are irrelevant.

I tend to stick with the literal definition:

“culpability noun blame, blameworthiness, chargeableness, criminality, delinquency, dereliction, faillre in duty, fault, guilt, guiltiness, improbity, misbehavior, misdoing, peccability, peccancy, remissness, reprehensibility, reproachableness, transgression, wrongdoing
Associated concepts: culpable recklessness, culpably negligent
See also: accountability, blame, conviction, criminality, delinquency, fault, finding of guilt, guilt, ignominy, impeachability, implication, mens rea, misconduct, misdoing, onus, opprobrium, responsibility”

[b]Crash culpability studies[/b]
Studies of this sort involve classifying crash-involved drivers according to their degree of responsibility (or ‘culpability’) for the crash. The drug use of drivers culpable for their crashes is then compared with the drug use of drivers judged not to be culpable. If greater use of a drug is evident among drivers culpable for their crashes, then that drug is linked to a greater crash risk. Culpability studies treat crash-involved drivers who are not culpable for their crashes as a control group, based on the assumption that a driver’s likelihood of being involved in a crash as a non- culpable party is determined by the amount of driving they do. That is, involvement in crashes for which one is not culpable is treated as a measure of driving exposure (Bates and Blakely
1999).

Interestingly enough Victoria is about to make being drunk in public an offence in and of itself, I had thought this was not illegal anywhere in Australia, just like being under the influence of a controlled substance was not illegal but selling, possessing or using such a substance was. Guess this is changing literally as we speak though.

Quote: Police will get power to fine people for the offences of drunk and disorderly, disorderly conduct and for being drunk.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/police-to-have-power-to-stripsearch-at-random-20091128-jy0e.html

Folks, the media release in the OP names only three drugs to be tested – cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamine, not any prescription medication. It is these drugs and only these drugs to which I refer when I make my comments.

Fgzk #38, I’m not blind to the extent us drug use across all of our society; However, I am intolerant of their presence in drivers involved in car crashes. We are talking about road safety here, not how said drugs affect community as a whole. If we are still talking about the three first mentioned drugs, I fail to see valid argument in them being integral to any society.

Caf #42, I don’t know the science behind how other states determine intoxication of drugs but I’m sure the methods we adopt would be sound. Additionally, if these laws are enacted, there is scope for argument on what ‘intoxication’ means through subsequent Court proceedings allowing case law to resolve this issue. The ‘smoke’ in my analogy was a reference to a positive roadside test for drugs, giving reasonable purpose for a further search.

Piratemonkey #48, we’re not talking about the answers to all of societies drug problems, we’re talking about removing impaired drivers from our roads to protect the greater community. Sure there’s a problem with drug abuse in society but it’s not going to be solved at a roadside test. The point of it is road safety. Roadside drug testing is also an ideal tool to identify people in need of help. What incentives to addicts currently have to attend rehab programs? None I would think. Any subsequent Court action of roadside tests could include orders to attend such programs. I believe such orders are already made for other criminal matters.

And Nota #22, thanks for your reply, I did read both the links you supplied. The UKCIA article did not source its information from the research of the Adelaide Uni; rather it sourced information from two Australian newspaper articles about the research. The UKCIA article made a number of statements conflicting with the media release from the Adelaide Uni; kind of like Chinese whispers, only the UKCIA has motive to misquote information to fit their own “preconceived bias”. There is no mention in the Uni article that “drivers with cannabis in their blood were no more at risk than those who were drug-free” or “drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to have an accident than those who were drug-free”. What the Uni article does talk about is the relevance of cannabis to culpability in road crashes.

Your word of the day is culpability, which is a legal reference to the driving manner of a person at fault in a serious car crash (see section 29 (6) and (7) Crimes Act 1900). This definition applies to the more serious collisions where negligence and/or intoxication largely contribute to the collision. Since this post is discussing driving under the influence of drugs and not how they contribute to more serious road crashes, your links are irrelevant. That seems to fit my ‘preconceived bias’ just fine.

But just what bias do you think I have? I am someone who has been/is directly affected by death and serious injury through car crashes so, in that sense I am biased; but only in the interest of the community. Another bias arising from this discussion is the argument of someone who drives a vehicle intoxicated. Their bias is they don’t want to get caught and/or punished; which is only in their own interests.

A lot of people here are simply demanding that the ACT government pass these laws and enable the testing. However, it appears that very few know the history (or worse, know it and just dont care).

As detailed in this article, the ACT looked at roadside drug testing a couple of years ago, and found that its almost impossible to detect drug concentrations from a simple mouth swab, and the current testing devices were simply inaccurate. A reliable test could only be done by a laboratory, and was an expensive process. There are also no clearly defined thresholds for ‘impairment’, such as there are for alcohol with a .02 or .05 limit.

Ive read nothing at all about the testing issues being fixed, only that the opposition wants to rush into making some laws and hoping the technology might find a way to keep up.

nota said :

Punter said :

Nota (#22), UKCIA (or UK Cannabis Internet Activists) is a website which supports the use of cannabis. I would suggest any research conducted by these folk would be somewhat biased.

Might I suggest you properly read my post and/or the links provided. Then you woud realise the research was in fact a University of Adelaide study in cooperation with Transport SA and the SA Police, and believed to be the biggest of its type published in the world. It found that “marijuana has a negligible impact on culpability”. Sorry if this doesn’t fit your preconceived bias.

Depends how much marijuana is in the system.

nota said :

Punter said :

Nota (#22), UKCIA (or UK Cannabis Internet Activists) is a website which supports the use of cannabis. I would suggest any research conducted by these folk would be somewhat biased.

Might I suggest you properly read my post and/or the links provided. Then you woud realise the research was in fact a University of Adelaide study in cooperation with Transport SA and the SA Police, and believed to be the biggest of its type published in the world. It found that “marijuana has a negligible impact on culpability”. Sorry if this doesn’t fit your preconceived bias.

I think most of the participants in that study were on drugs at the time, to come to that conclusion …… oh, wait …. they were !!!!

Punter said :

Nota (#22), UKCIA (or UK Cannabis Internet Activists) is a website which supports the use of cannabis. I would suggest any research conducted by these folk would be somewhat biased.

Might I suggest you properly read my post and/or the links provided. Then you woud realise the research was in fact a University of Adelaide study in cooperation with Transport SA and the SA Police, and believed to be the biggest of its type published in the world. It found that “marijuana has a negligible impact on culpability”. Sorry if this doesn’t fit your preconceived bias.

Alternative society, #35 Punter?

What my rushed late night post was refering to, was people who are different from your average straight laced individual who sees the world within categories of black and white or right and wrong. The moral high ground “people”. These people usually miss the all important facts found in the grey areas of debates such as these.

Of cource driving intoxicated by any substance is dangerious and should be stopped. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, drug tests usually detect a drug long after its intoxicating effects have worn off.

Ultimately using road side testing under such circumstances, will simply become another tool of drug law enforcment used by programs that do almost nothing to combat the harms of drugs upon society.

Another thing that really annoys me is such legislation is nothing more then “knee jerk politics” to attempt to swing voters who are revolted by incidents like what happened with those 5 young adults who got killed on the road the other day.

Only a comprehensive and properly funded program of drug harm inimistaion which does tackle all the dirty subjects people want to avoid will help avoid such incidents. Sadly such a program is the exact opposite of what the naive masses will vote for because apparently even talking about drugs insights people to use them.

I agree, excellent post PB, puts some badly needed perspective back into the debate. At least I have more faith personally in the ACT policing to not abuse powers like this than I do in the NSW police force not to abuse many of the powers handed to them since 2000 that have never been removed from the books later as promised at the time, and have already resulted in abuses of the legislation, take as an example anything from the special powers from the olympics, to the strennghting of many of those powers for APEC as well as the christian world youth thing that was held in sydney, to the more recent laws to proscribe groups as illegal, only to combat the bikies of course though!

Anyway the point is that the ACT police are actually pretty good overall on the context of state/territory police australia wide, but in the end though the erosion of civil liverties always does lead inevitably to corruption, sooner or later. That communists line is a great one though!

Pommy bastard said :

Jim Jones said :

Nice post PB.

I’m completely with you on this one.

I’m not all bad see. 😉

Oh, and Budgie were wonderful!

I’m so very jealous!

Thumper (#44), that would be my main concern with it. If there was a way to measure the level of an intoxicating drug in a person’s system with a road-side test, then that might be the way to go.

Jim Jones said :

Nice post PB.

I’m completely with you on this one.

I’m not all bad see. 😉

Oh, and Budgie were wonderful!

Punter: By “we allow”, I meant “we as a society allow”, by having the legislation in place. I don’t disagree with this exception allowing a search-without-cause in the name of road safety – as you point out, it’s preferable to waiting for a crash to happen.

My point is that it’s an exception, specifically for road safety – so if you’re going to test whether people are intoxicated (on any substance that affects their driving ability, including housewives on Valium) and punish them for driving under the influence, that seems fine. What doesn’t seem fine is to take that road-safety exception, and then instead use it to punish people for the drug use itself, particularly when they’re not currently under the influence (and so haven’t committed the road safety offence). This is an issue, because the tests for many drugs don’t actually test for the drug itself – they test for the rubbish left over when your liver breaks down the drug, and these breakdown products persist in your system for a long time.

I also don’t disagree with a search when someone has given cause – ie blown over the limit or what have you. What I was talking about is such a search based on nothing more than a random stop – ie, no “smoke” in your analogy. Testing someone for previous drug use which isn’t currently impairing their ability to drive is a similar scenario.

Nice post PB.

I’m completely with you on this one.

ahappychappy said :

Why is it that we are always the last to move on these sorts of things?

‘Look, our legislation is different to EVERYONE elses common legislation. Let’s just leave it how it is, obviously they’re wrong, not us.’

Didn’t we only just catch up with the definition of murder recently?

We lag behind the pack on common sense, yet we’re the first to legislate when it’s making this place more dull/boring than it already is.

Not true… we were the first mob to enact Human Rights legislation, Civil Unions etc… we don’t play catch up, our Government just has a different agenda to others

I have little or no problem with any efforts to keep drivers drug and alcohol free. I never drink ANY alcohol within 12 hours of driving.

I have a couple of problems with these tests though. One is that they do not test for intoxication, only the presence of drugs in the system. Is anyone who smoked cannabis the day previous to driving more intoxicated than the person driving after a beer or two yesterday? If not, why should they be penalised?

Secondly, through my work, I come into contact with many young people in their 20’s. Which of them will the police stop and swab when driving? The respectable, suited and neat young business person, (who did a nose full of charlie before setting off), or the dreadlocked and pierced young black man( who happens to be a “straight edge” Christian, and never touches drugs, alcohol, meat, etc.) The random element gives potential for abuse.

Thirdly, I am all for random breath tests for alcohol. So why not for drugs? It depends on the context. If they were used in the same way as the “booze buses”, ok, I can live with that infringement of my right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, no worries.BUT, if it’s just going to be another trick that Joe Copper can pull out of his pocket if he doesn’t like the look of the person he’s just pulled over for breaking the speed limit, then that would bother me. Too much scope for abuse.

(I would like it known that I have the greatest respect for the AFP, I have dealings with them through work on a regular basis. But one bad apple, or someone too keen on results, can screw over many lives….)

Ok, I’m a respectable looking late middle aged man, who never drinks and drives, rarely breaks the speed limit, and who’s passing acquaintance with drugs ended in 1978, so I shouldn’t really be concerned about this.

Bu; “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist….”

“Perhaps you could explain how the more complicated and alternative parts of society works.”

Your showing your ignorance if you think that the drug issue is only part of the alternative society. It effects all of our society across the board. Some might say that its an integral part of our society. Its just the arbitrary boundaries that make a drug or drug user naughty or nice. That and the appalling behaviour of some drug users.

Tooks you seem to be the voice of reason. Maybe the government is also interested in what is happening in other states. Id hate to just copy Victoria in anything they do. Those of you who think we should just follow, could always just move there. Victoria has such lovely policing and politics.

“We as a society already have many avenues available for addicts to follow to help them, ”
Not as many avenues as you might think.

I would be happy with the .02% blood alcohol. Sounds great just stay off the drink and you will be all good.

If this is fair dinkum legislation then it needs to incorporate all drugs. That would include prescription drugs with the warning “Do not drive or operate machinery” printed on them. It would be easy to do. When you get a script your licence could go into suspension for the period of the medication. The RAPID system could then be used to catch medicated drivers.

Piratemonkey, how can any efforts to remove intoxicated drivers from our roads make the problem worse. People who have recently used drugs are not sober, they are intoxicated by that drug and if they choose to drive while intoxicated, they are commiting a criminal offence. They risk collsions, which does/has caused far more immediate and permanent harm than cigarettes. If you make this choice, perhaps it’s a far better lesson to suck it up and face the music.

We as a society already have many avenues available for addicts to follow to help them, I’m sure you’ve heard the term ‘rehab’ tossed around. These people who loose their jobs do so because they have made a conscious choice to break the law. Ironically, a number of offenders who front our Courts for drug related matters are referred by the Court to undertake rehab programs. Perhaps you could explain how the more complicated and alternative parts of society works.

Sadly durgs are a hysteria causing subject…

Zero tolerance policies only serve to make problems worse and to appease those who think they have the moral high ground. Those who propose such ideas have no idea how the more complicated and alternative parts of society works.

Road side drug testing does/will result in sober people who have recently used drugs being turned into criminals, when we as a society should be looking after them and attemping to teach them why drugs are a dangerious choice. These people loose their jobs for something that in some cases is arguably less harmful to society then “cigarettes, just because they are different.

The “so sad you have to laugh” point here is once these people loose their jobs they will likely turn to more dangerious and destructive drug related behaviour.

prhhcd said :

Driving on any drug is dangerous

Why would anyone drive on a drug when they can drive on a road…?

Panhead said :

If the Liberals and Greens pass the legislation to authorise drug tests would the cops then be obliged automatically to undertake testing?

They already undertake drug testing.

There’s a fair bit of hysteria coming out on this thread; Orwellian? Police state? It’s hardly the end of the world. Having said that, I’d like to read a bit about how road-side drug testing has gone in other states before saying I’m for or against it.

As long as they also setup down the road from the parliament house after all the late night parties, im sure there are a number of pollies they would catch as well, of all political persuasions.

Also last time I checked the supply, possession of, or use of controlled substances was illegal, but being under the influence was not, except if you are operating a motor vehicle, or you are tested at work or something similar to that. Even though you could only be charged in the motor vehicle case, anything relating to work testing would be a charge relating to liability or unsafe conduct or something.

Maybe the legislation has moved on from last time I checked, but can anyone point me to a law in any Australian jurisdiction where being under the influence of drugs, where not driving a vehicle or similar, is illegal in and of itself? Just like being drunk isn’t illegal unless you are driving, etc..

Caf, (#18) I don’t see what the issue is with that approach. If you refer to a drivers obligation to give a sample of breath or blood for the detection of alcohol, these ‘searches’ are legislated and drivers are legally required to supply such samples. It’s not for us to ‘allow’ it to take place. Sure, there may not be any prior evidence of wrongdoing, but this is a far better approach than to wait for a crash, which can and does result in serious injury/death. It’s natural to transfer this obligation to any drug testing legislation enacted.

As for the extention to searches for contraband, where there’s smoke there’s usually fire which is likely to turn up drugs, stolen property and other naughty things. I think a further search of a car driven by a drug affected person is validated and is probably an effective tool in interupting crooks in their dealings.

Nota (#22), UKCIA (or UK Cannabis Internet Activists) is a website which supports the use of cannabis. I would suggest any research conducted by these folk would be somewhat biased.

The above should read “taking a mouth swab” and not “taken a mouth swab”.

Thank you

One thing we have that other states don’t have is the Human Rights Act.

I wonder how compliant with the HR Act taken a mouth swab would be?

There might be a reason why we don’t have road side drug testing here?

If the Liberals and Greens pass the legislation to authorise drug tests would the cops then be obliged automatically to undertake testing? The Labor Party are still the Government and Corbell as the Police Minister could just say “Look thanks it’s really nice to have this legislation and we might use it in the future but roadside drug testing is not part of this Government’s strategy to reduce the road toll. We have more important priorities. And all those drunks we get at RBTs are placing huge demands on our resources”. So get stuffed Mr Hanson and Merry Xmas.

prhhcd said :

Driving on any drug is dangerous

Not according to what the Canberra Times reported as ‘the largest study ever done linking road accidents with drugs and alcohol’ being the findings by a pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide and Transport SA, which showed drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to be culpable for an accident than those who were drug-free.

http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving4.html

As to certain prescription drugs, however (from the same study) …

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news330.html

Tooks said :

So make the blood alcohol limit .02, which should cover anyone who’s taken certain medications (or brandy pudding…).

Good idea. Making it nice a clear where the boundaries are can only be a good thing.

ryza said :

Are they going to test for gunpowder too? Just in case you are carrying fireworks…
Maybe they should check your MP3 player to make sure you own every song…
Ensure that you have no knives or guns in the car…
Check that you are paying your taxes…
Are registered to vote…
Are not taking minors to R18+ rated films…

They could have a one-stop ‘gotchya’ stop!

Police State, here we come

and if you fart in the car, is that like taking gas?

fgzk said :

I take it that this will be a zero tolerance approach to drugs. Being illegal, any amount in the system would mean a charge regardless of driving impairment. I think this is a great way of reducing drug use in the community. If only the politicians had the balls to make 0% blood alcohol, we might go along way to addressing the problems alcohol is causing our communities. It would be a great way of reducing alcohol consumption.

Funky1 said :

fgzk said :

“So you’re saying if we don’t drink a drop of alcohol but eat a piece of brandied Christmas pudding and then get breathalysed on the way home, we should be charged?”

Yes that is what I am saying. I think you will find a decrease in the popularity of the brandied pudding. Not a great price to pay for less alcohol related crime and safer roads.

But what about folk who have to take Dexamphetamine? Or strong cold and flu medication? Or any other type of medication/s that may have a compounding effect when tested? I hope that the ACT is forward thinking enough to realise that it is an almost orwellian move to bring this in.

Tooks said :

So make the blood alcohol limit .02, which should cover anyone who’s taken certain medications (or brandy pudding…).

Not my auntys christmas rum balls, they got me smashed last year

Are they going to test for gunpowder too? Just in case you are carrying fireworks…
Maybe they should check your MP3 player to make sure you own every song…
Ensure that you have no knives or guns in the car…
Check that you are paying your taxes…
Are registered to vote…
Are not taking minors to R18+ rated films…

They could have a one-stop ‘gotchya’ stop!

fgzk said :

I think this is a great way of reducing drug use in the community.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha

I take it that this will be a zero tolerance approach to drugs. Being illegal, any amount in the system would mean a charge regardless of driving impairment.

The issue with this approach is that the “random breath testing” regime is an unusual suspension of the “innocent until proven guilty” maxim – we accept these “searches” without prior evidence of wrongdoing specifically for the purposes of road safety.

If you extend that to “any illegal drug use”, it’s not a bridge much further to search through your car for any contraband while they have you (hope you don’t have any pirated TV shows on that laptop!).

I seem to remember Johnboy had some eloquently-stated opinions on this matter once upon a time…

So make the blood alcohol limit .02, which should cover anyone who’s taken certain medications (or brandy pudding…).

fgzk said :

“So you’re saying if we don’t drink a drop of alcohol but eat a piece of brandied Christmas pudding and then get breathalysed on the way home, we should be charged?”

Yes that is what I am saying. I think you will find a decrease in the popularity of the brandied pudding. Not a great price to pay for less alcohol related crime and safer roads.

You do realise that some foods, toothpaste etc can give you a positive result on a breathalyzer?

Reply

fgzk said :

“So you’re saying if we don’t drink a drop of alcohol but eat a piece of brandied Christmas pudding and then get breathalysed on the way home, we should be charged?”

Yes that is what I am saying. I think you will find a decrease in the popularity of the brandied pudding. Not a great price to pay for less alcohol related crime and safer roads.

You will probably find that some cough medicines and other products traditionally not thought to be alcoholic, may contain enough traces of alcohol to trigger a reading. It would open a legal minefield.

Hank said :

I agree this is a good thing, never mind politics get it implemented.

Politicians putting aside politics to get something implemented? BA HA HA HA HA……..that will never happen!

“So you’re saying if we don’t drink a drop of alcohol but eat a piece of brandied Christmas pudding and then get breathalysed on the way home, we should be charged?”

Yes that is what I am saying. I think you will find a decrease in the popularity of the brandied pudding. Not a great price to pay for less alcohol related crime and safer roads.

Stanhope the man says (translated) “we don’t have truck drivers here so nobody does drugs and no need for testing” “we did a study last year, we’ll take a look next year when we feel like it”. I’d call him a moron, but his press release speaks for itself.

“Sounds good to me. There are no excuses”
“I agree this is a good thing, never mind politics get it implemented.”

Never let the politics stand in the way of a good idea. What exactly do the Libs want to implement?
Does it go far enough?

No mention of prescription drugs that effect driving. If this is about road safety then we really need to embrace a whole host of substances that impair your ability to drive. Have the liberals done this?

fgzk said :

I take it that this will be a zero tolerance approach to drugs. Being illegal, any amount in the system would mean a charge regardless of driving impairment. I think this is a great way of reducing drug use in the community. If only the politicians had the balls to make 0% blood alcohol, we might go along way to addressing the problems alcohol is causing our communities. It would be a great way of reducing alcohol consumption.

So you’re saing if we don’t drink a drop of alcohol but eat a piece of brandied Christmas pudding and then get breathalised on the way home, we should be charged? Not realistic to go for 0% blood alcohol level.

I agree this is a good thing, never mind politics get it implemented.

I take it that this will be a zero tolerance approach to drugs. Being illegal, any amount in the system would mean a charge regardless of driving impairment. I think this is a great way of reducing drug use in the community. If only the politicians had the balls to make 0% blood alcohol, we might go along way to addressing the problems alcohol is causing our communities. It would be a great way of reducing alcohol consumption.

So long as they’re actually testing for actual intoxication (I seem to remember that when Victoria introduced this, they were using it to bust people with metabolites showing that they’d smoked pot in the last 3 weeks but weren’t actually “under the influence” at the time).

uhhh ohhhh, munchies, munchies, does this mean no quickies to Maccas???
What is the world coming too!! 🙂

The Liberal Party’s policy to introduce random roadside drug testing lacks detail, glosses over the complexities, and pre-empts the Government’s work on a properly constructed suite of road safety initiatives, Chief Minister and Minister for Transport Jon Stanhope said today.

Are there any real complexities in taking an oral swap and sticking it into a hand held machine?

Mr Stanhope said the target groups for random roadside drug testing in some other jurisdictions didn’t appear to be such an issue for the ACT.

Hmmmmm, we don’t have bikies, pot heads, Toyota Prius drivers, ice fiends and smack addicts here in the ACT?

I think he is just slightly peeved that he didn’t think of it first.

Why is it that we are always the last to move on these sorts of things?

‘Look, our legislation is different to EVERYONE elses common legislation. Let’s just leave it how it is, obviously they’re wrong, not us.’

Didn’t we only just catch up with the definition of murder recently?

We lag behind the pack on common sense, yet we’re the first to legislate when it’s making this place more dull/boring than it already is.

Sounds good to me. There are no excuses

Bring it on! Never mind the politics, I’d love to see it happening. Driving on any drug is dangerous (pls, lets not get into a discussion about what a “drug” is), so they shouldn’t be on the road.