Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Four weeks to have your say on random drug testing

By johnboy - 28 May 2010 95

[First filed: May 27, 2010 @ 10:12]

Exposure guide cover

Jon Stanhope is asking what you think about a draft drug driving bill and regulation.

“This Bill gives ACT police new powers to conduct random road side drug tests to detect the presence of illicit drugs such as cannabis, methylamphetamine and ecstasy using an oral fluid screening test,” Mr Stanhope said. “It also gives police the authority to request a driver to undergo a blood test if they have reasonable grounds to believe the driver is affected by a controlled drug that cannot be detected by the oral fluid screening test.

“Under the new laws, people involved in road accidents will also be required to provide a blood sample for testing.”

Mr Stanhope said the legislation supports existing laws that make it an offence to drive while impaired by a medicine.

“Many motorists are unaware that it is unlawful to drive a vehicle if their ability to drive safely is impaired by a prescription medication or an over-the-counter medication,” Mr Stanhope said. “This Bill makes it clear to motorists using such medications that they need to ensure they are fit to drive before they get behind the wheel.

Comments close on 24 June 2010 and should be made to:

Email:
communityengagement@act.gov.au

Postal Address
Community Engagement and Communications
GPO Box 158
Civic ACT 2601

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
95 Responses to
Four weeks to have your say on random drug testing
Woody Mann-Caruso 3:57 pm 27 May 10

Above average by what measure?

Measures. Lawfulness, safety, courtesy, competence. Compare and contrast with the measures preferred by most Canberra drivers: criminality, convenience, competitiveness and cluelessness.

p1 3:38 pm 27 May 10

“Who thinks they’re an above-average driver?”

Above average by what measure? I am an above average driver, and have the speeding ticket to prove it.

Woody Mann-Caruso 2:36 pm 27 May 10

At a recent course:

“Who thinks they’re an above-average driver?”

90% of the class puts their hands up.

“Put your hand down if you’ve ever been done for speeding …drink driving …if you’ve driven without being sure of your BAC …driven against the recommendation attached to a prescription drug …driven while under the influence of a mind-altering substance …driven when you’re falling asleep at the wheel …driven in a vehicle of questionable roadworthiness …driven without a seatbelt …lost control of the vehicle by skidding …been the at-fault party in a crash …there, that’s all of you.”

Resident smart-ar*e: “I did all them in one night but I’m still a f*ckin’ awesome driver.”

Ha. Ha.

caf 1:56 pm 27 May 10

They could all be replaced by laws that state the following. A person driving a motor vehicle who is found at fault for seriously injuring another person after driving dangerously will receive a minimum of 5 years prison. Kill a person, 20 years automatic minimum.

I don’t agree, because of one simple fact: Human beings are terrible at rationally evaluating risk.

No-one actually believes that they will injure or kill someone on the road, no matter how bad a driver they are: so they mentally discount the risk of going to prison to zero.

Cletus 3 1:49 pm 27 May 10

This is one way to solve Canberra’s road congestion problems.

Sgt.Bungers 12:22 pm 27 May 10

Don’t need it. Don’t need drink driving laws either. Nor speed limits.

They could all be replaced by laws that state the following. A person driving a motor vehicle who is found at fault for seriously injuring another person after driving dangerously will receive a minimum of 5 years prison. Kill a person, 20 years automatic minimum.

Watch how fast people seriously alter their driving… people like the person (professionally dressed, middle aged female) I witnessed tailgating other vehicles on William Hovell Drive last night… fog lights illegally blazing, flashing her beams to get people in other vehicles in the right lane to move out of her way (vehicles that were turning right at Coulter Drive)… when she got an open lane, 120+ in the 90 zone passing the passively controlled intersection of Coppins Crossing road, with vehicles sitting at the intersection waiting to cross her path.

She was heading towards Holt… no hospitals that way. What reason could she have possibly had for her horrendous driving other than absolute complacency… “I have right of way here… cross traffic must, and absolutely will, without any shadow of any sort of doubt whatsoever, stop for me to pass unobstructed, therefore I will drive as fast and agressively as I like, endangering as many lives as I like in the process… so I may get home in time to watch Today Tonight rattle about the dangerous street racers in Sydney.”

Statistically, it’s highly unlikey she was on drugs. She was however a person whom this sort of political policy is intended for. The very average, overweight, voting Australian.

dvaey 12:04 pm 27 May 10

PBO said :

Having had a flick through the legislation, there does not seem to be a reference to what amount is deemed to be imparitive to the person who is being tested.

From Page 8: “As the offence of driving while a controlled drug is present is a presence offence, it is not necessary to establish the concentration of that controlled drug in a persons blood or oral fluid – unlike the offence of driving while exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol”

So, to answer your question.. no, there is no reference to ‘what amount’, as this law is a blanket ‘drugs are bad’ (but only what we’re testing for) law. Funnily enough, the legislation refers to ‘drugs’ as ‘medicine’, but then notes that only 3 drugs are currently even able to be tested for, all of which just happen to be illicit drugs, hence there is no need to provide a quantative figure, only an present/not-present outcome.

Also, the legislation states that police are now able to force a driver to submit to a blood test to test for presence of ‘medicines’, especially after an accident. Now, Im no lawyer, but the only two times Ive had any involvement with an accident (both minor), everyone involved was subjected to a breath test and in one case was subjected to a blood test after voluntarily visiting the hospital some 8 hours after the accident.

georgesgenitals 11:43 am 27 May 10

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Here we go again.

I reckon we probably had a good enough barney in the last thread.

I don’t really remember … I was stoned outta my gourd the whole time.

Glad you enjoyed yourself 😉

gospeedygo 11:37 am 27 May 10

DRUG DRIVING DESTRUCTION DERBY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY!

I’ll stop now.

Jim Jones 11:34 am 27 May 10

PBO said :

If i had ten cones on tuesday night and then had 9 hours sleep would i be charged with driving under the influence on wednesday morning if i was booked?

Ten cones – you f^&ckin’ champ!

Hell, I was thinking along the lines of having a quiet rigger on a Saturday night, and hen testing positive weeks, or even months, later. But yeah, you’re right on the money.

As I’m sure people will point out: “drugs are bad … mmmkay.”

Jim Jones 11:10 am 27 May 10

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Here we go again.

I reckon we probably had a good enough barney in the last thread.

I don’t really remember … I was stoned outta my gourd the whole time.

Woody Mann-Caruso 10:59 am 27 May 10

I’m too stoned to fight, bro.

PBO 10:56 am 27 May 10

Having had a flick through the legislation, there does not seem to be a reference to what amount is deemed to be imparitive to the person who is being tested. This could be a real hinderence to investigations as who can say what is the amount needed to impare and what time limits is it effective for.

If i had ten cones on tuesday night and then had 9 hours sleep would i be charged with driving under the influence on wednesday morning if i was booked?

georgesgenitals 10:44 am 27 May 10

Jim Jones said :

Here we go again.

I reckon we probably had a good enough barney in the last thread.

Jim Jones 10:23 am 27 May 10

Here we go again.

1 2 3 7

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site