Four weeks to have your say on random drug testing

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

F*cktard.

Why is it your signature doesn’t align with your user name?

My point that you obviously missed relates neither to death camps nor murder. Furthermore I don’t consume Maccas soft cones or any other types of cones for that matter.

My objection to Stanhope’s drug driving legislation is based on the many points I’ve detailed in this thread and the last. Unless caffeine at normal levels of consumption is a drug capable of impairing my driving, I’ve personally got nothing to fear from a roadside drug test any day of the week. In short, you’re wrong in your assumption that my position has anything to do with my own drug use.

How about you stick to the subject on hand instead of resorting to personal attacks. Personal abuse in an online discussion is basically the same as waving a little white flag. When you go there, it’s because you’ve got no other way to make a point.

A yellow star perhaps?

Yeah, it’s a short and slippery slope from getting dangerous drivers off the road to putting people in death camps. Your appropriation of the murder of six million people to support your desire to drive to Maccas for a soft serve cone after your other cone is apt and justified. F*cktard.

ex-vectis said :

Drug driving just as dangerous as Drink driving.

… and twice as fun.

Drug driving just as dangerous as Drink driving. Nothing more dangerous than a hippy driving along the parkway in a smoke filled car at 10Kmh thinking they are driving fine.

But a stoner driving in ACT would probably be safer than all the other crazy drivers (my driving, obviously, is perfect. Its all the others…. lol).

Ok, serious hat on. Yes, random drug testing of drivers may be a good thing as long as it doesnt trap those who are innocent of ‘drug driving’. What are the ‘limits’ for drug-driving? We have limits for drink-driving, so what are the limits for drug driving? If someone is at a dinner party and has a cone, does it mean that if they are tested anytime in the following week, will it be positive and they be charged?

(Just to go totally off-topic….) The worlds drug laws, as dictated by the US, are a total farce anyway. All they have succeeded in doing is wreaking lives and pumping money into the hands of organised crime and terrorist groups. Personally (and controversially!) I advocate the total legalisation of ALL substances, but with the appropriate ‘government warnings’, punitive tax and regulations. Yes, an adult (or even Over 21 only) could pop into their local Bottle, Weed and Powder Shop and buy 5 grams of Skunk Anise and 500mg Cocaine. But if caught driving under the influence of either (IE. More than 45ug THC per litre blood, or 50ng Cocaine per litre of blood – numbers i just made up as examples) then the person would a very heavy penalty! It would also mean that people who developed problem’s/addictions would be able to be seek help easier (as they do with tobacco or alcohol). But most of all, the huge tax $$$$ levied would help enormously. I do not disagree with anyone who says ‘drugs are bad’ – in the same way as I dont disagree with folk who say tobacco is bad or that alcohol is dangerous. All of them – the illegal and legal – carry their own risks; you may stick cocaine up your nose and drop dead or have a beer and kill yourself in a driving incident that may not have happened had you not had that beer which slightly affected your reaction time.

And ‘fgzk’, I have seen more road accidents in ACT than in the rest of Australia or the UK. Read what you like into that….

Wow, now there was a pre-9:00am rant – I may go back to bed and try getting out the other side 🙂

One said :

Bag me but dont pick out the following Myth of BS that having your head in the sand is a legal defence

“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”

THIS BILL IS A LOAD OF CRAP – WHY NOT FIRST AUDIT MEDICAL RECORDS AND LICENSE DETAILS OF THE RICH!

Yeah, the previous legislation made that clear too.

If lack of awareness is really the problem, then an awareness raising campaign would make better sense than new laws.

Stanhope is full of it.

Bag me but dont pick out the following Myth of BS that having your head in the sand is a legal defence

“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”

THIS BILL IS A LOAD OF CRAP – WHY NOT FIRST AUDIT MEDICAL RECORDS AND LICENSE DETAILS OF THE RICH!

PrinceOfAles said :

As I was skimming over the proposed legislation I came across one nasty and dangerous part. The part where it says a police officer may detain you for a blood test even if you come up clean on an oral test. It is my contention that this is a breach of civil rights. What about the many people in the Berra that may suffer from some sort of psychological condition that could possibly mimic signs of drug use. People who have every legal right to drive. I`m all for people being blood tested after an accident or whatever, but to just be able to pluck people off the street and say to them “you`re gonna have to come down to the hospital for a test because I don`t like the look of you” is a travesty against humanity. Police are unable to detain you if you test negative for alcohol on the side of the road so what is different about drug driving? I will be writing to every MLA I can think of rallying support to oppose this piece of the legislation. Don`t get me started on a “presence” based conviction either.

Yes, alarming to say the least.

For police to “suspect on reasonable grounds” is pretty open-ended and potentially fraught.

What if police pull over a person who is on their way to a syringe disposal bin to responsibly and appropriately dispose of used syringes? If that person has a zero alcohol reading and screens negative for drugs, will the presence of a box full of used syringes amount to “reasonable grounds” for a blood test? What about a box full of used syringes plus the person being known to police as a drug user? Sounds like a pretty big disincentive to appropriately dispose of syringes if doing so risks drawing attention to yourself for a blood test. May as well just chuck them in the creek or re-use the ones you’ve got rather than take the risk.

What about no box of syringes but the person being known to police as a drug user? Is knowing a person’s drug history enough to reasonably suspect? If so, this gives police the power to demand blood tests based on who people are rather than the result of a process that’s applied to all drivers. Scarey. Perhaps we could make it a little easier for police and have known drug users wear some kind of identifier so that they get the kind of attention they deserve? A yellow star perhaps? Maybe we could maintain some kind of register and tattoo a number on their forearms to help keep a track of everyone? That’s worked well in the past apparently.

As I was skimming over the proposed legislation I came across one nasty and dangerous part. The part where it says a police officer may detain you for a blood test even if you come up clean on an oral test. It is my contention that this is a breach of civil rights. What about the many people in the Berra that may suffer from some sort of psychological condition that could possibly mimic signs of drug use. People who have every legal right to drive. I`m all for people being blood tested after an accident or whatever, but to just be able to pluck people off the street and say to them “you`re gonna have to come down to the hospital for a test because I don`t like the look of you” is a travesty against humanity. Police are unable to detain you if you test negative for alcohol on the side of the road so what is different about drug driving? I will be writing to every MLA I can think of rallying support to oppose this piece of the legislation. Don`t get me started on a “presence” based conviction either.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Here’s what some amateur Googling turned up:

– profiling can be effective if it’s purely focused on behaviour
– in practice, this can be difficult because it requires the observer to shed or supress a range of other social, cultural and political biases; the costs and effects of badly-done profiling can outweigh the benefits of any successes
– profiling people in airports isn’t actually much different to profiling boxes after all – it’s all about origin, destination, timing of visit, length of stay etc
– profiling is vulnerable to probing – an attacker (terrorists, drug mule syndicate etc) can repeatedly send people through (or simply observe) to see what triggers additional attention, then adjust their behaviour accordingly
– profiling with ‘permanent memory’ is bad; for example, no targeting a person because they were previously clear
– racial profiling is worse than random targeting for border security, counter terrorism and police work
– unless your people are highly skilled and preferably defending an asset or position (say, a trained officer watching a security gate) rather than roaming looking for people, you’re probably better off with random targeting
– random targeting isn’t anywhere near as easy as it sounds, either, because it’s easy to construct what appear to be neutral selection criteria that inadvertently segment the population, and even if they are truly neutral, people will fail to apply them neutrally

Fascinating stuff!

You forgot “Face Control” at nightclubs (Academy, Cube I am looking at you two), why do you think that there is only two fat girls in those clubs at any one time?
legal reasons…….

Here’s what some amateur Googling turned up:

– profiling can be effective if it’s purely focused on behaviour
– in practice, this can be difficult because it requires the observer to shed or supress a range of other social, cultural and political biases; the costs and effects of badly-done profiling can outweigh the benefits of any successes
– profiling people in airports isn’t actually much different to profiling boxes after all – it’s all about origin, destination, timing of visit, length of stay etc
– profiling is vulnerable to probing – an attacker (terrorists, drug mule syndicate etc) can repeatedly send people through (or simply observe) to see what triggers additional attention, then adjust their behaviour accordingly
– profiling with ‘permanent memory’ is bad; for example, no targeting a person because they were previously clear
– racial profiling is worse than random targeting for border security, counter terrorism and police work
– unless your people are highly skilled and preferably defending an asset or position (say, a trained officer watching a security gate) rather than roaming looking for people, you’re probably better off with random targeting
– random targeting isn’t anywhere near as easy as it sounds, either, because it’s easy to construct what appear to be neutral selection criteria that inadvertently segment the population, and even if they are truly neutral, people will fail to apply them neutrally

Fascinating stuff!

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Bugger. I’ll see if I can find anything.

Sorry mate, it’s not that I don’t want to, but relevant information available can’t be posted up. If you can turn up anything in the public domain, that would be terrific.

Bugger. I’ll see if I can find anything.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Classifying a parcel based on its origin, destination, size, weight etc is nothing like profiling people.

I agree 100%.

As for the rest of your comment, I can’t provide any information.

Classifying a parcel based on its origin, destination, size, weight etc is nothing like profiling people. Do you have any evidence that human profiling is commonly used by law enforcement officials in Australia, or research showing that these techniques are effective? Preferably from somebody a little more authoritative than the Sporting Shooters Association?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

The following link takes you to a public page with some high level information about law enforcement in Australia using profiling.

Did you post the right link? The page you linked talks about profiling shipments of goods, not people; in a Customs environment, not a police environment; by a system, not by individual officers.

The same approach applies to people. Obviously, the details are not publicly available. I posted the link simply to illustrate the point that profiling is commonly used. I’d also suggest that Customs and Police are both within the law enforcement space.

The following link takes you to a public page with some high level information about law enforcement in Australia using profiling.

Did you post the right link? The page you linked talks about profiling shipments of goods, not people; in a Customs environment, not a police environment; by a system, not by individual officers.

If they want to stop people taking drugs, change the drug laws.

Considering we haven’t managed to get the whole ‘drink driving’ thing under control as yet what makes them think that putting further legislation relating to consuming other drugs would be an affective measure for road safety?

What might be better than targetting drug users would be to target ROAD users. As previous comments have mentioned:
– The middle aged housewife with three kids in the back of the 4wd pretty much driving on top of the car in front – that is danger.
– The businessman driving down tuggeranong parkway literally leap frogging cars to get home five minutes earlier
– The tradie running late for work at the Russell construction precinct deciding that roadworks and a 40km speedlimit does not apply to him

In all three circumstances the person may have been under the influence of drugs, but would it have stopped them if they were completely sober? I think not. People get behind the wheel of the car, and they become arrogant, selfish and in a hurry. Nothing to do with drugs.

How about using the same money they would put into the drug testing operations, facilities and administration to improve inter-suburb public transport – i.e. more buses, more often, more hours of the day.

That way there would be a viable option for Canberrans. At this point, there is no option for Canberrans but to drive – the taxi system is crap, and the bus system is archaic.

Voice of Reason – thank you.

Tooks said :

One said :

vg said :

Drug tested 6 times in the last 3 years and RBT’ed 3 times

I guess you owe me $2,000,000

lol – I hope the u dont count the cheque before the Government can cash it to cover your expenses.

lets see how it goes once a law comes affect but given the fact its one sided to never arrest any thug who goes about bashing people because they are legaly intoxicated then I think that your perhaps pushing crap up the hill.

I think that once the law creates some murders because a dumb cops pulled over the wrong car you may see some results in testing. I know there will be far less cops willing to stand on roadsides without real protection.

So were you tested with a broken leg on pain relief (I know police have worked on so called light duties with sidearm).

Can you please re-write that in English?

Gotta agree, am a bit lost with this one no matter how sober. Now after ten cones, I still cannot understand it. Rephrase please?

One said :

vg said :

Drug tested 6 times in the last 3 years and RBT’ed 3 times

I guess you owe me $2,000,000

lol – I hope the u dont count the cheque before the Government can cash it to cover your expenses.

lets see how it goes once a law comes affect but given the fact its one sided to never arrest any thug who goes about bashing people because they are legaly intoxicated then I think that your perhaps pushing crap up the hill.

I think that once the law creates some murders because a dumb cops pulled over the wrong car you may see some results in testing. I know there will be far less cops willing to stand on roadsides without real protection.

So were you tested with a broken leg on pain relief (I know police have worked on so called light duties with sidearm).

Can you please re-write that in English?

If anyone understands the posts from One can you please explain them to me. I’m lost.

PS: How long do you think it would take to replace and retrain a single police officer in a place where police are already understaffed because of a Government the police allowed to litter?

Each bit of political litter that is not officaly placed by the RTA on a roadside is worth $1000 or $5000 each unless you write a law to trash Australia? Take a guess what the Pigs in Government did?

Is this really the Government without responsibility for anything. If this law comes to affect – then the Government should be made by force (thats what police are for) to be held to account for murdering people while the same Government sat back in secret rooms taking donations of support from Grog, Pokie, and Medical testing companies or their lobby groups.

vg said :

Drug tested 6 times in the last 3 years and RBT’ed 3 times

I guess you owe me $2,000,000

lol – I hope the u dont count the cheque before the Government can cash it to cover your expenses.

lets see how it goes once a law comes affect but given the fact its one sided to never arrest any thug who goes about bashing people because they are legaly intoxicated then I think that your perhaps pushing crap up the hill.

I think that once the law creates some murders because a dumb cops pulled over the wrong car you may see some results in testing. I know there will be far less cops willing to stand on roadsides without real protection.

So were you tested with a broken leg on pain relief (I know police have worked on so called light duties with sidearm).

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Profiling is a very effective means of identifying possible criminals

Is it? I’d be interested to see any studies you’ve read.

The following link takes you to a public page with some high level information about law enforcement in Australia using profiling. There are no specifics, but it makes for interesting reading nonetheless.

http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2010/2010-03-01_australian-customs-and-border-protection-service.html

I suspect the use of profiling within road drug testing would be used for wider purposes than simply to determine whether a driver is impaired. I’d be surprised if other traffic testing (eg breath testing) wasn’t also used for such purposes. Although I’m not always a fan of some of the things the police do, this is one area in where I think they are getting it right.

Profiling is a very effective means of identifying possible criminals

Is it? I’d be interested to see any studies you’ve read.

Voice of Reason said :

georgesgenitals said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Funny that – Random seems to target a group in society.

Is that group ‘criminals’?

Why wouldn’t you use a profiling approach so as to put the effort to best use? Other law enforcement in Australia does, why not this?

What do people who use drugs look like GG?

When you consider that people who use drugs probably look exactly like more than 90% of the population (‘cos evidence shows that about 50% of the Australian population has used an illicit drug, and I’m guessing here but I reckon only a small percentage has never used a medicine capable of impairing a person), it’ll be a bit hard to profile won’t it?

Disagree. Profiling is a very effective means of identifying possible criminals, and is used in this country already. It doesn’t pretend to be a silver bullet solution for catching all offenders, but it’s definitely effective.

The real question is whether it’s general ‘drug users’ who would be being targeted. I suspect not.

This is one area in which we should let the cops do what they do.

[url]http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7311225/drug-driver-testin[/url]

One in five drivers who this year tested positive to drugs in police roadside analysis was later exonerated, according to figures that show the accuracy of drug-driver testing has fallen dramatically each year since its launch.

The WA Law Society called yesterday for the immediate suspension of drug-driver testing after figures obtained by _The West Australian _revealed that of the 141 confirmed positive roadside drug tests to May 21 this year, 28 were found to be negative once analysed by a laboratory.

Although a review of WA’s drug-driving regime in February last year by Adelaide University’s Centre for Automotive Research recommended that police closely monitor the accuracy of their roadside analysis, the rate of false positives has increased from one in nine in 2008 to one in seven last year and one in five this year.

Police gave no explanation why testing was becoming more unreliable, saying only that they would continue to monitor the technology.

Law Society president Hylton Quail said he was shocked by the increasing unreliability of roadside testing. He said it should be suspended until police improved its accuracy.

Police traffic commander Michelle Fyfe said WA had the most thorough roadside drug testing in Australia but conceded it “current technology provides a guide only”.

Shadow police minister Margaret Quirk and Civil Liberties Australia director Tim Vines criticised the testing, saying it was resulting in innocent drivers being treated like criminals.

Under WA’s drug-driving laws, motorists stopped for a drug-driving test must do a saliva test. If positive, the driver is asked to complete a questionnaire and do a second saliva test, which takes up to 30 minutes.

If the driver registers a second positive result, they are stopped from driving and their second saliva sample is sent to chemical laboratories for a final analysis, which determines whether the driver will be charged.

At this stage the driver can continue to drive until found guilty of the offence in court. Ms Quirk said it was appalling drivers were being forced to spend up to an hour at the roadside and told they cannot drive home based on unreliable testing procedures.

“Police have not done anything at all to improve the accuracy of this system, even after they were advised that that was necessary,” she said.

Police Minister Rob Johnson said yesterday that WA Police would “continue to monitor more advanced technologies as they become available

it’ll be a bit hard to profile won’t it?

Whew! I thought you said that the police were going to go around targeting drug users, but now it seems that’s not possible, and they’ll have to settle for targeting everybody but only arresting those who’ve actually broken the law. I’m glad that’s all settled now.

vg said :

“I was once rammed from behind by an old man.”

Keep your sex life out of it

Gosh, did you think that one up all by yourself? Ooops, no, you needed a little tip off, just like in the very next post down from the one you quoted.

Pommy bastard said :

I’ll rephrase that if I may, it sounds dodgy..

My car was once rammed from behind by an old man, who was driving despite having poor eyesight. So that justifies banning everyone over the age of 60 from driving.

vg said :

Drug tested 6 times in the last 3 years and RBT’ed 3 times

I guess you owe me $2,000,000

Well that presumes that anyone at all would believe you. But it probably just says more about you than anything could ever imagine.

Did these come before or after you discovered the “Listerine myth”?

georgesgenitals said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Funny that – Random seems to target a group in society.

Is that group ‘criminals’?

Why wouldn’t you use a profiling approach so as to put the effort to best use? Other law enforcement in Australia does, why not this?

What do people who use drugs look like GG?

When you consider that people who use drugs probably look exactly like more than 90% of the population (‘cos evidence shows that about 50% of the Australian population has used an illicit drug, and I’m guessing here but I reckon only a small percentage has never used a medicine capable of impairing a person), it’ll be a bit hard to profile won’t it?

V of R +1.0

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Funny that – Random seems to target a group in society.

Is that group ‘criminals’?

Why wouldn’t you use a profiling approach so as to put the effort to best use? Other law enforcement in Australia does, why not this?

There does seem to be some terrible inconsistencies in this proposed legislation. I wonder what people will make of these, for example:

The reason an oral fluid or blood test is undertaken is in order to secure evidence relating to two offences under this legislation:
– driving with controlled drug in oral fluid or blood
– driving whilst impaired by medicines.

Why then does section 21 (6) (d) allow a blood sample to be taken from a pedestrian for the purposes of testing for the presence of drugs? What happens if it’s positive? That person can’t be charged with an offence under this legislation? For what reason is it necessary to determine the presence of a controlled drug or medicine in a pedestrian?

The reason there’s a presence offence (i.e. controlled drug present in oral fluid or blood) rather than an offence relating to impairment is apparently because it’s not reasonable to determine, nor is there a reliable method for the police to use to do so, whether a driver is impaired. Therefore in the absence of a method for determining who’s impaired and who’s not, anyone with even a mere trace presence is guilty of drug driving. But:

Section 45 (1) (b) allows a police officer to direct a person not to drive a motor vehicle for a period not longer than 12 hours if that police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely is impaired by a medicine or controlled drug.

Section 45 (5) allows the chief police officer on request by the person to revoke the direction to not drive if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person’s ability to drive a motor vehicle is no longer impaired by a medicine or controlled drug.

What are the reasonable grounds that a police officer can use to direct me to not drive? Is it the mere presence at any concentration of an oral fluid detectable controlled drug or suspicion of the presence of a non-oral fluid detectable controlled drug or medicine? What are the reasonable grounds that the chief can use to say that I’m no longer impaired?

How might this play out?:

I’m driving along, I’m screened at the roadside, my initial screening is positive to ecstacy so I’m detained for an oral fluid sample test. Half an hour later my oral fluid sample indicatively tests positive to a trace presence of ecstacy. The sample is sealed etc and later sent off to the lab for confirmatory analysis. The police officer may then decide to tell me that I cannot drive for a period up to but no longer than 12 hours. It’s 24 hours since I took the drug and I’m as straight as an arrow. I’ve come down, slept, eaten, drunk some water, gone to the gym, swum some laps, had a nap and am getting on with life.

If I’m not impaired, how can a police officer direct me to not drive?

If I am impaired, why am I not charged with driving whilst impaired and why is the police officer not required to establish that I am impaired? Surely if the police officer has reasonable grounds to say I’m impaired, then that police officer would be able to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

If a trace presence of ecstacy is detected 24 hours after taking the drug, and the officer directs me to not drive for 12 hours on the basis of that positive screen, and I dutifully not drive for that 12 hours but am tested 15 hours later, what happens if that same trace presence is detected again (which is quite likely by the way)? On what basis is the period 12 hours? Surely if there’s some evidence behind the determination that a driver would be safe to drive 12 hours later, then that evidence should be used to fix this terrible draft bill so that drivers are charged with drug driving on the basis of impairment.

Surely, if police officers are able to determine whether someone is impaired and therefore direct that person to not drive, then it is possible for the police to pursue drivers who are actually impaired rather than this steaming pile of … ummm … draft legislation that will ensure drivers who are in no way impaired receive a conviction for drug driving.

Similarly, if the chief police officer is able to determine that a person is not impaired then the same method of determination could be used by any police officer to determine that someone is not impaired. If it is true that the chief police officer can determine non-impairment, then it is feasible for any police officer to do so and therefore they should have the discretion to not charge a driver who has screen positive to an oral-detectable controlled drug but is not impaired and is therefore no greater road safety risk than a driver who screens negative.

I can hear some of the predictable responses already:

“But taking drugs is illegal, so it doesn’t matter that a driver who is not impaired in any way is convicted of drug driving. They brought it upon themselves by taking drugs in the first place.” (

or

“It doesn’t matter that some people will be unfairly convicted because this legislation will save lives. Even given the evidence that it doesn’t save lives anywhere else, and that the roads are not safer in Victoria for example and that Victorian’s self report to drug drive at the same rate as they did prior to the VicPol programme’s introduction … none of that matters because if it saves a single life the expense and the human rights compromises will be all worth it.”

Remember folks, this legislation is about improving road safety. The government has said that it’s about road safety, not punishing people for taking drugs. So, yes, a person may have take drugs, but that doesn’t mean that they should be convicted of an offence in the name of road safety if there is no evidence suggesting that the are an accident risk. If it’s about road safety and not political convenience like being seen to be tough on drugs, then whatever offences a person commits that have no bearing on their ability to drive safely should have no bearing on what road traffic offences they are charged with.

Furthermore, if the police are able to determine who is impaired and who is not, then let them charge or not charge motorists on that basis. Similarly, if 12 hours is a reasonable and evidence based period of time after which it is safe to drive after taking a controlled drug or medicine, then the legislation should be framed accordingly and that evidence should be made publicly available. Currently it appears as if someone in the government has plucked that figure out of their backside.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Funny that – Random seems to target a group in society.

Is that group ‘criminals’?

Depends how you define ‘criminal’ I suppose.

If you mean one of the 50% of Australians who has ever used an illicit drug, then I suppose you’d be correct.

Drug tested 6 times in the last 3 years and RBT’ed 3 times

I guess you owe me $2,000,000

“I was once rammed from behind by an old man.”

Keep your sex life out of it

So with medicine that reads “may cause drowsiness and increase effects of alcohol. If affected do not drive a motor vehicle or operate machinery” mean that person should never drive if they have to take it every day, not illegal drug but still who determines the “if affected”…

“ConanOfCooma said :

Bet you the cops don’t test each other.

Especially in Canberra.

Money where your mouth is Conan.

I bet you $1,000,000 they do”

Ill double that if you have the figures and outcomes. Id also be interested in the level of prescription medication. If only the police didn’t operate the same unspoken rules of dobbing as criminals do. Its hard to trust either group. The Queensland police have a policy of least harm and have a diversion program for positive cannibes tests. I take it they don’t lose their job and license. Would they if they had driven to work? Fairs fair. No more least harm for any of us. If you are a policeperson and test positive you should immediately lose your license.

Police can legally take drugs and commit minor crimes under the right controlled operations. For the greater good. I wonder if that includes drug driving. Do they have guidelines on driving while under cover and on drugs?

Funny that – Random seems to target a group in society.

Is that group ‘criminals’?

VR…….. VICTORIAN estimate of purely the cost of proving a positive test that will stand up in court. The rest that you mentioned would be extra costs. I think you also missed another important cost. The current offenders driver education courses are specific to drink driving. New courses will have to be devised for drug offenders. Also court ordered drug rehabilitation places will have to be created and financed.

The figures are from “Hoskins B 2005 “Roadside detection of drug impaired driving” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Clinical Forensic Medicine of the World Police Medical Officers,
May 13, 2005.”

How about mobile speed cameras?

And when the traffic comes to 0km the Government should be made to pay up.

A car has more rights than a human that is assaulted by a drunk that is permitted to walk the streets looking to pick fights.

Its amazing at what secret donations from Grog Lobby groups can really achive.

Can anyone find me 1 case where the police have booked a driver at a RBT for being impaired while medicated on perscribed drugs?

If not, can anyone find me a reason why the police have a law and have Never charged any person that has a Exibit a) medicare card b) Drivers license c) perscribed drugs while using their new toy called RAPID.

Funny that – Random seems to target a group in society.

So what do people die from in the ACT? Who gets the funding to save lives?

2004-2005 ABS

Fall related deaths = 43
Suicide = 26
Car accident = 17
Poisoning (inc unintentional poisoning by drugs overdose) = 15 (12)

We have the safest roads in Australia if not the whole OECD. We have the highest rate in Australia for Falls. Living in the ACT you are far more likely to fall over and die from your injuries than any other state.

fgzk said :

The cost of administering saliva-based tests to a driver and the completion of all evidentiary testing and administrative steps required to confirm the presence of drugs is calculated at approximately $833 per detection.

Roughly what equation have you used fgzk?

In your total costs have you factored in the investment required to commence this programme?

For example, I’d be very surprised if the Government’s Analytical Laboratry has the equipment, current expertise, capacity and resources required to even commence testing. What of ongoing costs, staffing, sample security and ongoing storage, training, reporting, etc? Let’s pull a figure out of thin air and say that it’ll cost the Lab a million dollars to set up and run.

What of police costs? Have you factored-in police salaries for the time spent training, planning, testing, reporting and giving evidence? Training and equipment?

What about the expense of the intense lobbying and political manouvering that has gone on for the last couple of years. The sham consultations? The time and resources expended by Stanhope’s office, the Transport department, their legal types drafting and re-drafting, the time and resources spent by other departments in analysing and commenting on draft legislation and discussion papers. I reckon there’s been many people behind the scenes that have done a lot of work over a long period of time on this. Already there would have been a lot of taxpayers dollars spent.

The government is saying it’ll cost $40 per test, but I’d bet London to a brick that they’re not counting the above expenses. If they screen me and I’m negative, $40 and I’m on my way. If they screen you and you’re positive, then you’re detained for half an hour while your oral fluid sample is collected and analysted. If that’s positive, then the rest of that sample is securely transfered to the Lab where part of it is analysed, while the other part is securely stored in the conditions necessary to maintain its integrity. The Lab then has to offer you reasonable assistance in handing over the sample should you wish to have it independently analysed. Same with blood samples, except that the police officer at the side of the road won’t be collecting it so you can add the expense of a medical professional.

Where’s the evidence, any single piece of credible evidence, that shows that this kind of investment returns any measureable improvement in road safety or reduction in drug driving? There is none Mr Stanhope, and you know it.

fgzk said :

The cost of administering saliva-based tests to a driver and the completion of all evidentiary testing and administrative steps required to confirm the presence of drugs is calculated at approximately $833 per detection.

OK-It’s simple,If you get done for The presence of drugs,increase the penalty by $833.
Or should we just say OH! it is to expensive.Lets look the other way.You should run for a senate seat.

The cost of administering saliva-based tests to a driver and the completion of all evidentiary testing and administrative steps required to confirm the presence of drugs is calculated at approximately $833 per detection.

Tooks said :

Cops are subject to random drug testing anyway, you clown.

This is part of the issue, the whole ‘random’ thing. In places like the US, they have breath-testing booze-buses, but the difference is in Australia the police have discretion as to who they test. In the US, they setup a ‘roadblock’ and test 100% of people, in Australia, they generally setup a patrol car on the side of the road and pick and choose who they will pull over.

Whats wrong with doing 100% testing? The rare times the police actually do 100% testing, it makes the news (Ive read it once or twice in the news before). If only 0.1% of people are DUI, and you only pull over every second car, then your odds are 0.05% of getting someone who tests positive. The same with ‘random’ testing of officers on the job, Im sure some officers would get targetted for testing far more regularly than other officers, depending on how ‘random’ the tester decides to be, and the rank and friendship of those involved in the testing.

Ceej1973 said :

The sooner the better. I have know people who brag about driving under the influence of drugs and “how fun the challenge is”.

How many people that you know who say this, have been killed or injured in an accident? How does this number compare to the number of people killed/injured in alcohol related accidents? Do you believe its worth taking resources away from alcohol breath-testing, in order to catch the even smaller number of people who might test positive to drugs. Then again, if you go out to the city on a weekend, theres a good chance you’ll find a higher number of drivers with residual traces in their system.. After all, remember, theyre not testing for impairment, theyre only testing to see if someone in a certain situation (parying on a saturday night) has any drugs, or any traces of drugs in their system, for which there is a good chance.. Probably about as good as doing a breath test on the parkway on monday morning, to see if anyone has had a drink all weekend, sure you might find some alcohol users, but unlikely to find many impaired.

I’ll rephrase that if I may, it sounds dodgy..

My car was once rammed from behind by an old man, who was driving despite having poor eyesight. So that justifies banning everyone over the age of 60 from driving.

Ceej1973 said :

The sooner the better. I have know people who brag about driving under the influence of drugs and “how fun the challenge is”. These are the sort of people who (from my thread 1 yr ago) intentionally rammed my car in motion off the road just for fun. If it were not for my evasive measures there would be another 4 deaths to last years road toll – Road safety goes back to the drawing board “JB 28 May”.

Ah yes, the old “because some people did it, and it affected me, then everyone should be banned…” nonsense…

I was once rammed from behind by an old man. So that justifies banning everyone over the age of 60 from driving.

The sooner the better. I have know people who brag about driving under the influence of drugs and “how fun the challenge is”. These are the sort of people who (from my thread 1 yr ago) intentionally rammed my car in motion off the road just for fun. If it were not for my evasive measures there would be another 4 deaths to last years road toll – Road safety goes back to the drawing board “JB 28 May”.

ConanOfCooma said :

Bet you the cops don’t test each other.

Especially in Canberra.

Money where your mouth is Conan.

I bet you $1,000,000 they do

Tooks said :

ConanOfCooma said :

Bet you the cops don’t test each other.

Especially in Canberra.

Cops are subject to random drug testing anyway, you clown.

Have a mate who works as an AFP “civilian”. He gets tested.

ConanOfCooma said :

Bet you the cops don’t test each other.

Especially in Canberra.

Settle petal-of cause they do.

Sgt.Bungers said :

There are two types of drivers on the road… First, the idiots. They’re the ones who are travelling too slowly… they’re the ones we catch up to and must overtake as soon as we can. Then we have the morons, they catch up to us as we’re driving at a reasonable speed, and for some reason, must always overtake us at the soonest possible opportunity.

That’s pure genius!

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

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 (snip) …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.

Nail head… contact.

The average driver believes they’re an above average driver. We receive little to no constructive, negative feedback when we’re driving. We praise ourselves for narrowly avoiding a crash… never have a go at ourselves for winding up in a situation where we nearly had a crash.

There are two types of drivers on the road… First, the idiots. They’re the ones who are travelling too slowly… they’re the ones we catch up to and must overtake as soon as we can. Then we have the morons, they catch up to us as we’re driving at a reasonable speed, and for some reason, must always overtake us at the soonest possible opportunity.

The average driver believes they’re almost infallible… that everything is always someone elses fault.

Statistically, the safest and best drivers on the road, are the ones that do not believe they’re good drivers.

Learner drivers have fewer crashes where a person is killed or seriously injured, than any other road user group.(1) (2) Simple reason; they have no confidence. They’re more likely to be 100% focused on the task at hand than any other road user group.

The instant that any person believes they’re a good driver, they become more relaxed, they take more “calculated risks”, they’re more likely to drive impaired… and are more likely to end up in strife.

New drivers should be learning the risks associated with piloting a potentially deadly 1-3 tonnes of metal machinery in a public place… not just learning how to pass a driving test.

ConanOfCooma said :

Bet you the cops don’t test each other.

Especially in Canberra.

Cops are subject to random drug testing anyway, you clown.

hetzjagd1 said :

Can someone type up a form letter we can mail in?

Just print out this thread and post it…

Bet you the cops don’t test each other.

Especially in Canberra.

Can someone type up a form letter we can mail in?

Voice of Reason said :

I ask again. Are these programmes about road safety or are they about perceptions and political purposes?

Pure Willy waving by a bunch of people who care not for what they do, but what they are perceived to be doing; “Look at us, we’ve made you safe from the nasty drug users on the road”

They care not one jot for the science, nor the ethics or morality of this idea, they care about the amount of “votes from the stupid” it will gain.

Morelia, your Byron experience isn’t that surprising.

When NSW trialled their roadside drug testing programme, ‘false positives’ were seen as the greatest risk politically. i.e. a person screens positive at the roadside, is detained for 30 mins in order to secure a large oral fluid sample, is required to leave their vehicle by the roadside unless someone else is on hand to drive it for them, has to wait some weeks with a drug driving charge hanging over their heads, and ultimately tests negative after the lab has analysed the sample. The NSW politicians were frightened that false positives would annoy the community to the degree that a political backlash would occur.

The likelihood of false positives is determined by the sensitivity level that the equipment is set at. High threshholds = few false positives. Low threshholds = many false positives but detection of minute traces.

NSW went ahead with a trial their drug testing programme. They set the threshholds very high in order to reduce false positives and sent the vehicle off to Nimbin. The Nimbin trial was very successful in that it failed to produce even one single false positive. On that basis the programme was implemented. What’s funny is that the Nimbin trial failed to produce any positives at all. Imagine that. A drug testing programme found noone positive at Nimbin and was considered to be successful.

I ask again. Are these programmes about road safety or are they about perceptions and political purposes?

lol, that should read “14 hours later” musta been some good stuff.

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?”

I’ll relate my experience, for what it’s worth.

Up in Byron Bay, I had a few cones one night (don’t remember how many) and got pulled over at a RBT about 14 hours earlier. They did the “count into this device” test and asked if I’d had any drugs. I wasn’t going to lie, so I said yes. They then gave me a spit swab, made me wait about 5 min, then sent me on my way.

Maybe they were testing for concentrations more typical of Byron, or maybe it didn’t show up, I don’t know. Just my experience and not to be taken as advice.

We get drug tested all the time in the Oil and Gas industry and the one that gives people the most hassle or worry and also gets people fired is Marijuana. Because it gets absorbed in the fat cells of the body and has a half life of 3 days or so. And the drug tests pick it up in Urine samples a month or so after having smoked a few.

The other drugs such as cocaine and speed are removed from the body a lot faster and not such a hassle for the offshore workers as most of the tests are usually done at the end of a swing offshore so if you were taking drugs on the break before usually only Marijuana shows up. If this is the case for the on road testing its possible they will be able to detect the drug a few weeks after smoking. Even if your completely safe driving having not smoked anything for weeks.

I am in favour of drug testing-as long as we do not have another “Dräger” incident.

Just as predicted in the other thread, Stanhope’s introducing the Victorian model of roadside testing for some drugs despite the fact that he knows there is no evidence that shows that the Victorian programme has made the Victorian roads safer and no evidence that shows that the rate of drug driving has decreased.

In fact, the published evidence on self-reported rates of drug driving in Victoria shows the rates have not budged despite the introduction of the programme five years ago. And what does the ACT bill describe itself as? “A bill to deter drug driving”, that’s what.

Will the ACT programme deter drug driving? As above, there is no evidence that shows a reduction in the rate of drug driving under similar programmes elsewhere. This begs the question, “What is different about the ACT that suggests that this programme will deter drug drivers here when it has failed to do so elsewhere?” Good question that, and one that has not been addressed in any way.

So if this programme elsewhere has failed to improve road safety as measured by accidents, deaths and self-reported drug driving, what is so successful about it that Stanhope seeks to replicate in the ACT?

Well, that’s the million dollar question. It has been politically very successful elsewhere, and Stanhope seeks to capture those same benefits. It’ll get the Stanhope government out of a jam that’s been created by the introduction of the Hanson bill and the fact that other states have the same ineffective legislation already. It’s pretty shakey ground for the Stanhope government when the opposition has introduced a bill, the neighbours have all gone down that road already, and vocal community groups are turning up the heat.

What the bill will do pretty successfully if the government can ever find the millions of dollars it needs to activate there powers is convict people of drug driving offences in the absence of any evidence of impairment. Yes, some will be impaired and deserve to be sanctioned. But what of the others who have not driven while impaired and later take to the road only to be convicted because a slight residual trace was detected?

Remember that this government told us that drug driving legislation would be introduced to make the roads safer, not to punish people for using drugs. With that fresh in your minds, consider these examples:

Kim takes a couple of ecstacy pills on a Friday night whilst clubbing with friends. On the Monday morning Kim is driving to work and gets drug tested. Two and a half days have passed since Kim’s drug use. Kim has had two big sleeps, half a dozen meals, a few coffees and softdrinks, and maybe even a few beers in that time. Is Kim’s driving impaired because of Friday night’s ecstacy use? Obviously not. Will Kim test positive and get charged with drug driving? It’s very likely.

Will convicting Kim of drug driving make the roads safer or is it punishing Kim for using drugs?

Fred and Mavis both take some benzos. They take the same amount at the same time. Mavis was given hers by a friend. Fred has a prescription for his. Both are drug tested by police and required to give a blood sample under this legislation. Both have exactly the same concentration of medicine in their blood. Therefore both pose the same risk in road safety terms. Fred shows evidence that he was taking his meds in accordance with his prescription, that he was not impaired, and is not charged. Mavis with exactly the same concentration of medicine in her blood as Fred is charged for drug driving.

Will convicting Mavis of drug driving make the roads safer or is it punishing Mavis for using drugs?

Fred and Mavis both take some benzos except this time Mavis takes hers the night before Fred and takes less than Fred takes. At testing, Mavis has a residual trace of benzodiazepines in her blood. Fred has a much higher concentration. Fred shows evidence that he was taking his meds in accordance with his prescription etc and is not charged. Mavis despite having a much lower concentration is charged with drug driving.

Will convicting Mavis of drug driving make the roads safer or is it punishing Mavis for using drugs?

This is long overdue legislation. Just driving on a Canberra road is dangerous enough with the frequent speeding, tailgating, reading various electronic devices while driving and unrestrained domesticated animals of one sort or other (I even saw a llama in a car once but Michael Jackson wasn’t driving). It’s not hard to comprehend people. Driving under the influence of drugs (including alcohol) puts peoples; lives at risk. The problem to me is that generally the penalties are too low for convicted ratbags. Driving suspensions should be much longer. The loss of the drink driving offence column in the Canberra Times has been an unfortunate change too.

Rawhide Kid No 2 said :

But he (Mr Hamilton) only drives in one direction with every one else going the same direction.How hard can that be?

Because, lots of major roads in Canberra are at risk of having a head-on accident with another vehicle at 100km/hr.? I dont know where you drive, but on most roads in Canberra, everyone in your lane is (generally) travelling the same direction as you, with either a grade-separated embankment or a concrete barrier between traffic flowing in any different directions.

A better argument would be that even a completely sober race-car driver, can lose control of their vehicle, without the assistance of drugs, alcohol, bad weather, or many other real-world problems.. accidents sometimes just happen.

georgesgenitals said :

Depends what you mean by ‘good driver’. Lewis Hamilton dropped a burnout at the F1, which is illegal, but he’s a better driver than 99.99999%* of the world driving population, if vehicle control is anything to go by.

* Statistic invented for effect, but you get my point.

But he (Mr Hamilton) only drives in one direction with every one else going the same direction.How hard can that be?

Depends what you mean by ‘good driver’. Lewis Hamilton dropped a burnout at the F1, which is illegal, but he’s a better driver than 99.99999%* of the world driving population, if vehicle control is anything to go by.

* Statistic invented for effect, but you get my point.

Heard some talking head on Radio satan (666 Canberra)state that these random roadside tests would “only test for recently consumed illegal drugs”.

That’s clever.

She wasn’t able to say how, or how come the rest of the testing industry hasn’t come up with a way of doing this. Nor did she say what “recent” was.

This year perhaps….

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 😉

DRUG DRIVING DESTRUCTION DERBY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY!

I’ll stop now.

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.”

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.

I’m too stoned to fight, bro.

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?

Jim Jones said :

Here we go again.

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

Here we go again.