5 May 2010

Roadside drug testing comes ever closer

| johnboy
Join the conversation
157

The Liberal’s Jeremy Hanson is celebrating in principle support in the Legislative Assembly for his Random Roadside Drug Testing bill.

Apparently this is going to build on the “success” of the Victorian legislation in this area.

So what other random searches shall we start up in ever more panicked fear of ourselves?

Join the conversation

157
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Voice of Reason7:23 pm 24 May 10

Unfortunately Reality Check, the ACT gvernment isn’t interested in implementing “the right system”. Instead, in all likelihood it’ll simply adopt a system from Victoria. The same Victorian programme that has failed to improve road safety or reduce the rate of drug driving.

Roadside drug testing is being introduced in the ACT for political purposes. It has nothing to do with improving road safety.

Stanhope knows the Victorian “evidence” (and I use that term loosely) is flawed. He knows there is zero evidence suggesting that the Victorian programme has been successful. Regardless, his discussion paper refers to such evidence in terms that could only be described as misleading at best or otherwise downright dishonest.

Reality check9:37 pm 23 May 10

Voice of Reason said :

Voice of Reason said :

From that comment and your previous posts, it sounds like you’d support it if the testing established levels of drugs present so that drivers who were impaired were charged.

Is that correct?

If so, and if roadside drug testing is implemented that tests only for a presence however significant or insignificant, will you be prepared to oppose it publicly?

RC, where’d you go?

I agree the right system needs to be implemented.

Having said that, if testing could only find presence of drugs in the system, not quantity (which I believe they actually can determine using blood/urine tests) I still believe it would be a useful tool for Police to target known offenders – if “hard” drugs could be tested for, even better. It could be used in situations other than simply road-side testing. That’s just my opinion…

Voice of Reason8:56 am 22 May 10

Voice of Reason said :

From that comment and your previous posts, it sounds like you’d support it if the testing established levels of drugs present so that drivers who were impaired were charged.

Is that correct?

If so, and if roadside drug testing is implemented that tests only for a presence however significant or insignificant, will you be prepared to oppose it publicly?

RC, where’d you go?

Pommy bastard10:31 am 21 May 10

vg said :

ExFeds said :

Do you think any members of the ACT Police have bothered in the past to drag a motorist to the hospital for drug tests (bloods) in the event that a PBT failed to show over 0.050 BA? DUI

Yep, I know so

You also “knew” about the “Listerine mouthwash urban myth”.

Reality check said :

The report I read online …. included cannabis, methylamphetamine and ecstasy as the drugs to be tested for. There was no mention of further tests to determine quantity – but as far as I can see – the legislation has NOT been drafted, ideas are being thrown around…

The explanation I heard, is that the technology simply doesnt exist to quantatively test for impairment. Its not like alcohol which is metabolised in the body within an hour or two. Also, with alcohol the effects can be gauged and a concentration of .05 is accepted as intoxicated. With other drugs, especially for long-term users, these values can be much more variable.

Voice of Reason10:03 pm 20 May 10

Reality check said :

The report I read online (March 2010 – http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/186549/Drug_Driving_in_the_Territory_an_overview_of_issues_and_options.pdf) included cannabis, methylamphetamine and ecstasy as the drugs to be tested for. There was no mention of further tests to determine quantity – but as far as I can see – the legislation has NOT been drafted, ideas are being thrown around… Happy to be proven wrong if someone has a actual source of verified information.

RC, it’s the Victorian model that has been adopted.

Reality check said :

fgzk and Woody Mann-Caruso – you seem to know more than we do about what’s in store – cite your source or direct me to where they have listed their full intentions for this testing.

There is no intention to assess the level of drug in the sample, just as there is no intention to even attempt to establish a level of intoxication or impairment.

I do agree that drug testing needs to be implemented – very much so – but I agree it has to be done right or it will not be an effective tool to remove impaired drivers from our roads.

From that comment and your previous posts, it sounds like you’d support it if the testing established levels of drugs present so that drivers who were impaired were charged.

Is that correct?

If so, and if roadside drug testing is implemented that tests only for a presence however significant or insignificant, will you be prepared to oppose it publicly?

Reality check5:51 pm 20 May 10

Voice of Reason said :

Reality check said :

If you read my posts again – you’ll see I was proposing a comprehensive road side testing program – encompassing all illicit drugs, and a test of quantity. I have not, at any time, proposed that the Victorian policy should be adopted here.

So you’re not supportive of the ACT government’s proposed model for roadside drug testing then?

The report I read online (March 2010 – http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/186549/Drug_Driving_in_the_Territory_an_overview_of_issues_and_options.pdf) included cannabis, methylamphetamine and ecstasy as the drugs to be tested for. There was no mention of further tests to determine quantity – but as far as I can see – the legislation has NOT been drafted, ideas are being thrown around… Happy to be proven wrong if someone has a actual source of verified information.

fgzk and Woody Mann-Caruso – you seem to know more than we do about what’s in store – cite your source or direct me to where they have listed their full intentions for this testing.

I do agree that drug testing needs to be implemented – very much so – but I agree it has to be done right or it will not be an effective tool to remove impaired drivers from our roads.

ExFeds said :

Do you think any members of the ACT Police have bothered in the past to drag a motorist to the hospital for drug tests (bloods) in the event that a PBT failed to show over 0.050 BA? DUI

Yep, I know so

Do you think any members of the ACT Police have bothered in the past to drag a motorist to the hospital for drug tests (bloods) in the event that a PBT failed to show over 0.050 BA? DUI

Voice of Reason5:49 pm 19 May 10

Reality check said :

If you read my posts again – you’ll see I was proposing a comprehensive road side testing program – encompassing all illicit drugs, and a test of quantity. I have not, at any time, proposed that the Victorian policy should be adopted here.

So you’re not supportive of the ACT government’s proposed model for roadside drug testing then?

Pommy bastard4:53 pm 19 May 10

johnboy said :

But where’s the advantage in giving yourself an artificially high reading?

Time to metabolise or excrete, take a piss, jog on the spot etc, anything that will enable you to lower your blood alcohol concentration. Also a chance for the adrenaline hit from being pulled, knowing you are over the limit, to have an effect and speed up your metabolism.

It could make the difference between a lost license and a slap on the wrist.

To counter this, officers are not supposed to administer a PBT for 15 minutes after the subject eats, vomits, or puts anything in their mouth. In addition, most instruments require that the individual be tested twice at least two minutes apart. Mouthwash or other mouth alcohol will have somewhat dissipated after two minutes and cause the second reading to disagree with the first, requiring a retest.

In another study, reported in 8(22) Drinking/Driving Law Letter 1, a scientist tested the effects of Binaca breath spray on an Intoxilyzer 5000. He performed 23 tests with subjects who sprayed their throats and obtained readings as high as 0.81—far beyond lethal levels. The scientist also noted that the effects of the spray did not fall below detectable levels until after 18 minutes.

georgesgenitals2:48 pm 19 May 10

johnboy said :

But where’s the advantage in giving yourself an artificially high reading?

If you thought you were over the limit, you could trot out the listerine as you’re being pulled over, pleading a sore throat. Gargling would then elevate your breath test, but the police would know about the listerine, which would have tainted the breath test. They would then either:
a) let you go; or
b) detain you for a period of time before reperforming the test, during which you would continue to sober up, bearing in mind that there is still the time taken to get you back to the police station to perform the authoritative test.

FWIW, I don’t advocate this, and don’t drive if I’ve had more than 2 standard drinks. In fact, I’d be surprised if the police haven’t dealt with this sort of system before.

VR I am an idiot as you rightly pointed out. It was “Reality Check” RC I was writing to. Thats twice I have made that mistake. I do appologise for any ofence I crerated.

Sorry
fgzk

Please change all the above posts from VR to RC “Reality Check”. Sorry for the confusion.

But where’s the advantage in giving yourself an artificially high reading?

I guess you would insist that you were not really that drunk and they need to take you to the station and conduct a more accurate test, thus giving your body more time to eliminate the alcohol actually in your blood. This would only be to your advantage if you thought you were over the limit, but also thought that your BAC would be below the limit in the time required to organise the retest.

I suggest such a limited set of circumstances would be somewhat unlikely to happen on the same day you have your mouthwash with you.

Pommy bastard1:18 pm 19 May 10

vg said :

I love how the old Listerine mouth wash urban myth finally got trotted out

VG; Listerine can be used to give a person more time to metabolise the alcohol in their system. Using it as a moyuth wash when pulled over, a perfectly legal thing to do, means teh police will get a way wrong reading.

So my point stands. Change it to sherry trifle if you want to be a pedant.

This was clearly illustrated in a study conducted with Listerine mouthwash on a breath machine and reported in an article entitled “Field Sobriety Testing: Intoxilyzers and Listerine Antiseptic” published in the July 1985 issue of The Police Chief (p. 70). Seven individuals were tested at a police station, with readings of 0.00%. Each then rinsed his mouth with 20 milliliters of Listerine mouthwash for 30 seconds in accordance with directions on the label. All seven were then tested on the machine at intervals of one, three, five and ten minutes. The results indicated an average reading of 0.43 blood-alcohol concentration, indicating a level that, if accurate, approaches lethal proportions. After three minutes, the average level was still 0.020, despite the absence of any alcohol in the system. Even after five minutes, the average level was 0.011.

But where’s the advantage in giving yourself an artificially high reading?

georgesgenitals said :

johnboy said :

Or maybe we should get smart and just test for impairment?

It’s a wonderful idea, but I fear many of the public would fail a test with sensible thresholds, meaning that any politician that introduces it will be known as ‘the person who stopped me driving’. I think we can join the dots from there.

Well, there’s all sorts of interesting things you could do in such a system. For people who test as “borderline impaired” in their base state, you could allow them to apply for a special class of license which requires them to show red “unskilled driver” plates and comes with restrictions (eg. speed restrictions).

So the current system proposed is not going to work and should be scraped until we can find a comprehensive test. Agreed.

Reality check12:05 pm 19 May 10

fgzk said :

VR You need to know the harm that an unbalanced testing system will bring to the community.

The testing system proposed seems to be tailor made to cause the most damage to the community. I suppose its the most effective means for your campaign of vengeance. You are testing for the least harmful drugs but not there more harmful alternative. Drug use will shift to using drugs that allow them to drive and not lose their licence and jobs. This shift is a true nightmare. Like any new thing people will make mistakes. Some mistakes could be with them for the rest of their lives. Some mistakes will be fatal.

Amphetamine to Dexamphetamine. Brings with it a host of medeical issues but more importantly ADHD suffers may end up taking less of their medication or running out. Neither a pretty sight. More importantly ADHD people may be exposed to criminals and criminal behavior that an increase demand will bring.

MDMA to Cocaine, Meow….or something new. Meow is more likely as its in the price range and an establishing market. Relatively new we are still learning about it. Cocaine is more expensive and a lot messier. The FARQ will appreciate the added income. Increased level of funds required. You know how that works.

Pot to Heroin or pills………….The scary one. “If you smoke a little heroin the cops cant bust you for driving”. “ok Ill try that”. Sounds pretty dumb I know, but that’s how teenagers are. Then there a whole lot of medical pills out there, whilst untested for, will effect your ability to drive way more than pot. They also are messier in behaviour.

VR from your attitudes I guess this is just part of your master plan to make as many “drug users” suffer and die to avenge your dead relative. It will be effective.

Most of your comments have been derogatory towards a lot of people who are working hard to save lives, rebuild lives and reduce the harm drugs cause. 5 million dollars spent to possibly save a low statistic on the roads, increasing an already very high statistic of death and harm elsewhere. Sounds reasonable to you.

How many dead kids do you need to save the life of a road user? Sounds a bit emotive doesn’t it. Must be all the PR books I read. Its a dumb question. But its more likely to be asked by GG than your “how would you feel”.

If you read my posts again – you’ll see I was proposing a comprehensive road side testing program – encompassing all illicit drugs, and a test of quantity. I have not, at any time, proposed that the Victorian policy should be adopted here. That’s not what this is about. It’s about considering road side testing for illicit substances Your claims of people turning to other drugs showsme your lack of experience dealing with drug users. As for kids choosing to smoke Heroin as opposed to cannabis – you’re an idiot. Those with ADHD will have a certificate from their Dr in relation to medication they can take – this will obviously have to be addressed in the legislation. I say test for all illicit substances, and then a quantity test. Don’t try to put words into my mouth or twist what I say. I’m not trying to “avenge” my family member – I’m trying to stop it happening to anyone else.

vg said :

I love how the old Listerine mouth wash urban myth finally got trotted out

Yeah, and only 100 posts after the “if you oppose drug testing then you should have to justify yourself to the families of people killed in car accidents” post.

georgesgenitals11:36 am 19 May 10

Plain listerine is about a quarter pure ethanol (alcohol).

vg said :

I love how the old Listerine mouth wash urban myth finally got trotted out

What is the Mouth wash urban myth? It does contain alcohol, that isn’t a myth. Does it hide the existence of other drugs or something?

VR You need to know the harm that an unbalanced testing system will bring to the community.

The testing system proposed seems to be tailor made to cause the most damage to the community. I suppose its the most effective means for your campaign of vengeance. You are testing for the least harmful drugs but not there more harmful alternative. Drug use will shift to using drugs that allow them to drive and not lose their licence and jobs. This shift is a true nightmare. Like any new thing people will make mistakes. Some mistakes could be with them for the rest of their lives. Some mistakes will be fatal.

Amphetamine to Dexamphetamine. Brings with it a host of medeical issues but more importantly ADHD suffers may end up taking less of their medication or running out. Neither a pretty sight. More importantly ADHD people may be exposed to criminals and criminal behavior that an increase demand will bring.

MDMA to Cocaine, Meow….or something new. Meow is more likely as its in the price range and an establishing market. Relatively new we are still learning about it. Cocaine is more expensive and a lot messier. The FARQ will appreciate the added income. Increased level of funds required. You know how that works.

Pot to Heroin or pills………….The scary one. “If you smoke a little heroin the cops cant bust you for driving”. “ok Ill try that”. Sounds pretty dumb I know, but that’s how teenagers are. Then there a whole lot of medical pills out there, whilst untested for, will effect your ability to drive way more than pot. They also are messier in behaviour.

VR from your attitudes I guess this is just part of your master plan to make as many “drug users” suffer and die to avenge your dead relative. It will be effective.

Most of your comments have been derogatory towards a lot of people who are working hard to save lives, rebuild lives and reduce the harm drugs cause. 5 million dollars spent to possibly save a low statistic on the roads, increasing an already very high statistic of death and harm elsewhere. Sounds reasonable to you.

How many dead kids do you need to save the life of a road user? Sounds a bit emotive doesn’t it. Must be all the PR books I read. Its a dumb question. But its more likely to be asked by GG than your “how would you feel”.

I love how the old Listerine mouth wash urban myth finally got trotted out

Pommy bastard4:00 pm 18 May 10

I’ve no problem with these tests being introduced, targetted or not targetted.

As long as the introduce a test which would show if you’ve consumed any alcohol at all in the past four days (including Listerine Mouth wash).

Providing they target hypocritical bullshit filled right wing pollies with it. And deny them the right to drive if proved to have consumed any at all, and publiclly name and shame them if they fail the test.

Goose / gander.

Isn’t it funny that those who espouse “freedom and liberty,” as virtues and values to be upheld,those complete bollox on the right wing, are always the first to try to curtail other people’s liberty if they do not like what that liberty entails?

Davey…..”what about a person diagnosed with ADHD,”

I would not worry about them. They will turn a tidy profit as drug users shift over to drugs that are not being tested for. We might even see a resurgence in heroin. Now that’s something to look forward too.

fgzk said :

Jim “As long as passion doesn’t overwhelm reason.”

Passion always overwhelms reason unless your a Vulcan.

I respectfully beg to differ.

Jim “As long as passion doesn’t overwhelm reason.”

Passion always overwhelms reason unless your a Vulcan.

Tooks said :

That’s my main problem with drug testing. At what levels does a person’s driving become inhibited due to their drug use? How much heroin, cocaine, meth etc needs to be in the system?

The roadside drug-testing proposed (from memory) only tests for cannabis, amphetamine and mdma. There is no plan for testing for heroin, cocaine, valium, tranquilizers, etc, as far as Im aware.

Also as I commented above, what about a person diagnosed with ADHD, who is a more dangerous driver if they DONT have their prescribed amphetamine medication in their body? What about a driver who ‘passively’ smoked marijuana? All youd have to go is go into a pub, light up a joint and everyone around you could then possibly test positive if they get pulled over at some later stage.

The ACT government has so far been responsible with this legislation by keeping an open mind and waiting for other states to fix the testing problems, before passing their own laws. I believe there should be some form of impairment test, but (as shown by the ACTs lack of any new laws) this sort of accurate testing doesnt currently exist.

…which he treated with homeopathic remedies, including many derived from psychoactive plants like aconite and belladonna.

It’s a good thing that homeopathic remedies have no active ingredients in them then, isn’t it?

fgzk said :

Its good to have a passion from a personal loss.

As long as passion doesn’t overwhelm reason.

VR…….Sadly – wrong again. I lost a family member to a man affected by illicit drugs just over a year ago

Sad to hear of your loss. Maybe you could share the details of the accident as an example so we could gain a better understanding. Its good to have a passion from a personal loss.

I recently got my father into snuff, he remarked back in the 60s “Coke Snuff” was sold in jut about every head shop. Don’t see it around much now.

Resolved QuestionShow me another »
Was the author of alice in wonderland on acid?
1 year ago
Report Abuse
by Lizard Member since:
February 03, 2009
Total points:
127 (Level 1)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Best Answer – Chosen by Voters
I don’t really believe that Lewis Carroll’s work was inspired by experiences induced by hallucinogenic drugs, but it well could be. And because there is not enough factual information available to either prove or disprove it, I think we should keep our minds open to all possibilities. This could also be one of those things the truth about which most likely will never be unrevealed (kind of like the Liddell riddle).

As we all know, opium, cocaine, and laudanum (an opium-based painkiller which was very popular in Victorian era – prescribed for everything from headaches to tuberculosis) were used for medicinal purposes at the time and could be obtained from practically any pharmacist, so Carroll very likely has had experience with one or more of these drugs and probably more than once during his lifetime. But these substances couldn’t possibly have much to do with his creative work.

As to hallucinogenic substances, psychoactive mushroom species (the infamous Psilocybe semilanceata or Liberty Cap, eye catching Amanita muscaria or Fly Agaric etc.) are the only true hallucinogens Carroll could have possibly gotten his hands on in Victorian England as they grow plentifully across the forests, moors and pastures every autumn.

There is plenty of evidence that medication and unusual states of consciousness exercised a profound fascination for Carroll, and he read about them voraciously. His interest was spurred by his own delicate health, insomnia and frequent migraines which he treated with homeopathic remedies, including many derived from psychoactive plants like aconite and belladonna.

Come on down Jim Jones

And recieve your gold star, ten out of ten!

Voice of Reason7:28 pm 17 May 10

Reality check said :

Voice of reason – we’re talking about proposed testing in the ACT, not any models already in use

Given your interest in this issue, I would respectfully suggest you take a closer look at what has been proposed, just so you know what you’re actually supporting. Stanhope is seeking to reproduce the Victorian programme here in the ACT. That’s why the Victorian programme is such a useful model for considering our future legislation in action … and, of course, what outcomes we can expect (or not).

Reality check said :

– I’m suggesting we should have a system similar to the testing of alcohol – ie my suggestion to have quantities tested.

Then you’re going to be disappointed.

Reality check said :

As for having the power to test for drugs – person says they’re fatigues and you’ve got enough proof to arrest to obtain blood tests? Where’s the line? And when it comes back as negative – who’s going to wear that? Police need more well-defined powers to ensure people are dealt with quickly and effectively – ie a system developed to deal with these situations.

Yes, in practice the current legislation has its limitations. I’d be surprised if there was more than a handful of convictions for drug impaired driving each year (testing after a car crash excepted).

And I agree with you. Police need at their disposal legislation that allows them to determine those driver who are intoxicated on alcohol, illegal drugs and prescription drugs and to pursue sanctions against those drivers in order to improve road safety and to reduce the incidence of driving whilst intoxicated.

The proposed legislation clearly is not the answer however. Someone else said it perfectly above “Something needs to be done. This is something. It needs to be done.” Well, no. Before we introduce anything we need to accurately understand the extent of the problem, what our proposal is likely to achieve, what it won’t achieve, what it will cost, what we won’t be able to do (or do as much of) if we commit to this, what the alternatives are, what the unintended consequences are, and whether or not on balance it’s the best thing we can do.

Reality check said :

If you don’t take drugs, you have nothing to fear by the introduction of this initiative.

Half the Australian population has used illicit drugs at some point in their lifetime. I say that to counter the implication that people who take drugs are somehow different from the rest of us. Clinton, Bush, Gandhi, Obama, Abbott … and half of those who will debate this legislation. Half of those who will draft this legislation. Half of those who will enforce this legislation.

Put it another way, if you do take drugs and you’re sensible enough to not drive while you’re impaired, why is acceptable that you could be convicted of drug driving the next day? Why is it reasonable for the community to accept legislation that could allow a person driving to work on a monday morning to be convicted of drug driving after having taken ecstacy on a Friday night? Your position seems to be “it’s OK to convict you of drug driving because you should not have taken the drug in the first place, even though you didn’t drive for two days so as not to be a road risk”. Afterall, it’s only those evil druggies that have got something to lose here? Right? That evil half of the Australian population.

How come they don’t just use the road side test in the same way they do a breathalizer, then for any positive reading take you in a do a blood test? Surely that would keep everybody happy?

Reality check4:36 pm 17 May 10

fgzk said :

Reality Check
We may never know, but I would suspect that a newbie who only post on a single issue may have a interest in the out come of that issue. Reality Check are are you speaking from personnel experience or personal gain? Do you have a financial interest in this issue?

My mistake VoR

Actually I’ve commented on numerous issues – take a closer look and get your facts straight…

Voice of reason – we’re talking about proposed testing in the ACT, not any models already in use – I’m suggesting we should have a system similar to the testing of alcohol – ie my suggestion to have quantities tested. As for having the power to test for drugs – person says they’re fatigues and you’ve got enough proof to arrest to obtain blood tests? Where’s the line? And when it comes back as negative – who’s going to wear that? Police need more well-defined powers to ensure people are dealt with quickly and effectively – ie a system developed to deal with these situations. If you don’t take drugs, you have nothing to fear by the introduction of this initiative.

Reality check4:32 pm 17 May 10

fgzk said :

Reality Check…I think its important we identify who the snake oil peddlers are, especially when their product is paid for buy the public purse and will effect some of the most vulnerable parts of our society.
Reality check your posts are increasingly reading like a marketing pitch. You have a good understanding of how drug testing will take place. You are using general emotive arguments that are applied only towards selling your product. Peddling fear whilst offering your product as the solution.

Best of all I like the way you personalised GG losing a family member to a drug driver. Shame on you.

Reality Check….More like a real cheque in the mail from a Bio Medical testing company. “Personal experience” my ass. Another snake oil salesman peddling misery. You don’t want to make a safer world. You don’t want to save GG parents from death. You just want to make a quick buck out of other peoples fears and misery before they get wise.

Sadly – wrong again. I lost a family member to a man affected by illicit drugs just over a year ago – this issue is very personal. Illicit drug taking is an offence – and I support all targeting measures to get them off our roads. Those who think they can take drugs and not drive with a measure of impairment, are kidding themselves. Research has shown that the ability to respond to emergency situations is compromised by alcohol, DRUGS and fatigue. You shouldn’t be taking these drugs at all – so I say charge the lot of them, traces or no traces. It won’t bring my loved one back – but it might save someone else.

Voice of Reason4:09 pm 17 May 10

It lost a bit in moderation.

Woody, let’s be clear about this. Very few people would have a problem with introducing a programme in the ACT that has been shown to make the roads safer.

I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with that. Many people who use drugs wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Show me some evidence that the Victorian programme makes the roads safer and / or reduces the rate of drug driving, and I’ll reconsider. If you are aware of any evidence that shows the Victorian programme has sucessfully achieved its aims, it’d be great if you could cite it.

Voice of Reason4:03 pm 17 May 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

How come Voice of Reason gets to wave away the 31% stat by making claims without offering any evidence of his own? ‘Logical elucidation’ indeed. I mean, seriously, is this all he has?

I’m sorry you didn’t follow my argument. Perhaps if you read for context the post I was responding to, the points I made will become clearer as will the reasons I made them.

1. [citation required]
2. Who cares if it is targeted, so long as it gets drugged-up drivers off the road?

To be fair to you, many hold the same simplistic view. To answer your question though, there are two main groups who’d care.
1. Those who are convicted of drug driving whose driving is not the slightest bit impaired. They’d care. Furthermore, those same people would probably support in great number any program that “gets drugged-up drivers off the road”. Most of us would.
2. Those of us in the community who take issue with being lied to by the government. We care. If the government thinks that a targeted programme is the way to go, let them say so. If however the programme is to be heavily targetted and called “random”, they it’s reasonable to ask questions why.

I’m particularly interested in seeing stats on the number of people who have tested positive to trace concentrations of illicit substances who’ve gone on to be convicted of an offense.

You won’t. They don’t test for concentration, just presence. If they tested for concentration and provided that information to the driver, they’d be in some cases providing the driver with a defence against the charges that the driver could rely on in court to prove that they weren’t impaired and therefore shouldn’t be convicted of a drug driving offence.

This piece of seventh-grade amateur hour debating might have some weight if the claim was that VicPol test to detect all illicit drugs, but they don’t. They just say ‘illicit drugs’. Guess what ‘some illicit drugs’ are? Illicit drugs. Venn diagrams – you fail at them.

And comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. Go back and read what I was responding to, consider my comments as a whole in that context, and then ask yourself whether the point I made was valid. Sure, the last example is hardly a hanging offence, but my point is real and irrefutable.

I’m not coming out for or against roadside testing. I’m just calling bulls.it on some seriously poor ‘arguments’ here. And I love the way you wrapped it all up in a riddle obscured by a conundrum. I can imagine you thoughtfully stroking your chin, eyes piercing the camera: “Who actually benefits from roadside drug testing? For whom does it actually “work”? For whom is investment worthwhile?” You’re practically Leonard F*cking Nimoy.

Well come on, super genius, do let us all in on your conspiracy theory. Is it something like “people who think drugs are bad”? Do I get a gold star? I’ll give you one if you can explain why somebody thinking drugs are bad automatically invalidates any claims they might make that getting drug-influenced drivers off the road makes them safer.[/quote>

I have not said that somebody who thinks drugs are bad is automatically invalidated. I have said that a bogus argument that relies on lies and manipulation is hardly the argument you’d want underpinning your new legislation.

I’ve not said that getting drug-affected drivers off the roads or making roads safer is a bad thing either. Let me state here and now that I would fully support any programme that has been shown to make roads safer and / or reduce the incidence or drug affected driving.

In fact, I would support any reasonable initiative that made roads safer (though obviously not something like walking a red flag in front of a moving vehicle).

I do not support governments lying to the people. I do not support laws that have and will continue to convict drivers who are not impaired. I do not support governments that commit large amounts of taxpayers funds towards initiatives without measuring the effectiveness of those initiatives against their stated aims.

I am a bit of a fan of the evidence though. If you have any evidence that shows that the Victorian programme that we will reproduce here has had any measureable effect on road safety and / or rates of drug driving then feel free to cite a reference. I’d like to see that.

Voice of Reason3:08 pm 17 May 10

Reality check said :

I think you’ll find that it will resemble alcohol testing – saliva testing being the “indicator”, followed by a blood test to measure quantity of substance in the blood. This will ensure those who have traces of illicit drugs and no visible impairment will not be “unfairly” prosecuted

No, sadly you’re wrong. There will be no measurement of “quantity of substance in the blood”. The “indicator” will be a screening of saliva, and the evidence will be a test of oral fluid to simply determine presence or otherwise of some drugs in that oral fluid.

That’s why the offence will be “driving with a detectable quantity …” as opposed to “driving whilst impaired …”.

– though I’m all for targeting them and getting them all off the roads… There is an offence for persons driving in a manner implying impairment, despite being under the legal alcohol limit. The same should apply for drug testing. The option SHOULD be available to Police. What if they pull over a car that’s all over the road and the person provides a negative breath sample? Without the power to do a roadside test for drugs – what options do they have? Let the person go on their merry way?

Already the Police have the power to drug test (via a blood test) anyone they reasonable expect to be “all over the road … with a negative breath sample”. Panic averted. They’ve got it covered and have had for years.

It willl obviously be more successful with targeted as opposed to random testing – and I personally have zero issue with that. You choose to break the law, you wear the consequences, simple as that.

The only problem I have with targeted testing is doing it and calling it “random”. If it’s to be targeted testing, and it will be just as it is in Victoria, then why tell lies by calling it something else?

Reality Check…I think its important we identify who the snake oil peddlers are, especially when their product is paid for buy the public purse and will effect some of the most vulnerable parts of our society.
Reality check your posts are increasingly reading like a marketing pitch. You have a good understanding of how drug testing will take place. You are using general emotive arguments that are applied only towards selling your product. Peddling fear whilst offering your product as the solution.

Best of all I like the way you personalised GG losing a family member to a drug driver. Shame on you.

Reality Check….More like a real cheque in the mail from a Bio Medical testing company. “Personal experience” my ass. Another snake oil salesman peddling misery. You don’t want to make a safer world. You don’t want to save GG parents from death. You just want to make a quick buck out of other peoples fears and misery before they get wise.

Reality Check
We may never know, but I would suspect that a newbie who only post on a single issue may have a interest in the out come of that issue. Reality Check are are you speaking from personnel experience or personal gain? Do you have a financial interest in this issue?

My mistake VoR

georgesgenitals7:37 am 17 May 10

Reality check said :

[georgesgenitals said:

The answer is… maybe not. If it costs, say, $10000 to save 3 lives due to implementing roadside drug testing (purely as an example), and it costs $10000 to save 12 lives due to implementing roadside blood alcohol testing, it would make more sense to do the roadside blood alcohol testing

Georgesgenitals – let’s see how you feel when that one person is your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, child….

I’d feel terrible. But does that make it ok for the 4 other families devastated by the drink drivers who killed their loved ones.

Making this into an emotive argument doesn’t help.

Reality check6:31 pm 16 May 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

How come Voice of Reason gets to wave away the 31% stat by making claims without offering any evidence of his own? ‘Logical elucidation’ indeed. I mean, seriously, is this all he has?

Lie 1: VicPol does not conduct random roadside saliva testing. It does conduct roadside saliva testing, but it is not done at random. In fact, it is heavily targetted.

1. [citation required]
2. Who cares if it is targeted, so long as it gets drugged-up drivers off the road?

Lie 2: VicPol’s saliva testing is not conducted to detect drivers travelling while affected. The testing is conducted to detect drivers who have any detectable trace, however insignificant.

[citation required]. I’m particularly interested in seeing stats on the number of people who have tested positive to trace concentrations of illicit substances who’ve gone on to be convicted of an offense.

Lie 3: VicPol’s testing it to detect … illicit drugs. The testing is actually to detect some illicit drugs.

This piece of seventh-grade amateur hour debating might have some weight if the claim was that VicPol test to detect all illicit drugs, but they don’t. They just say ‘illicit drugs’. Guess what ‘some illicit drugs’ are? Illicit drugs. Venn diagrams – you fail at them.

I’m not coming out for or against roadside testing. I’m just calling bulls.it on some seriously poor ‘arguments’ here. And I love the way you wrapped it all up in a riddle obscured by a conundrum. I can imagine you thoughtfully stroking your chin, eyes piercing the camera: “Who actually benefits from roadside drug testing? For whom does it actually “work”? For whom is investment worthwhile?” You’re practically Leonard F*cking Nimoy.

Well come on, super genius, do let us all in on your conspiracy theory. Is it something like “people who think drugs are bad”? Do I get a gold star? I’ll give you one if you can explain why somebody thinking drugs are bad automatically invalidates any claims they might make that getting drug-influenced drivers off the road makes them safer.

+1 – you beat me to it. I think you’ll find that it will resemble alcohol testing – saliva testing being the “indicator”, followed by a blood test to measure quantity of substance in the blood. This will ensure those who have traces of illicit drugs and no visible impairment will not be “unfairly” prosecuted – though I’m all for targeting them and getting them all off the roads… There is an offence for persons driving in a manner implying impairment, despite being under the legal alcohol limit. The same should apply for drug testing. The option SHOULD be available to Police. What if they pull over a car that’s all over the road and the person provides a negative breath sample? Without the power to do a roadside test for drugs – what options do they have? Let the person go on their merry way?

It willl obviously be more successful with targeted as opposed to random testing – and I personally have zero issue with that. You choose to break the law, you wear the consequences, simple as that.

Special G said :

“If it prevents one road death is it worth it? 2? 3? How many – bear in mind the small number of road deaths in the ACT each year.”

georgesgenitals said:

The answer is… maybe not. If it costs, say, $10000 to save 3 lives due to implementing roadside drug testing (purely as an example), and it costs $10000 to save 12 lives due to implementing roadside blood alcohol testing, it would make more sense to do the roadside blood alcohol testing

Georgesgenitals – let’s see how you feel when that one person is your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, child….

johnboy said :

Or maybe we should get smart and just test for impairment?

I gather they already use impairment testers on some mining sites before the staff operate the big toys.

Might pick up that little thing called fatigue and also those individuals who at base state just shouldn’t be driving.

But how would that tap into moral panic and strengthen the Liberal’s image as being ‘tough on drugs’?

georgesgenitals5:14 pm 16 May 10

johnboy said :

Or maybe we should get smart and just test for impairment?

It’s a wonderful idea, but I fear many of the public would fail a test with sensible thresholds, meaning that any politician that introduces it will be known as ‘the person who stopped me driving’. I think we can join the dots from there.

georgesgenitals5:01 pm 16 May 10

Jim Jones said :

If there were a drug testing mechanism that could efficiently and effectively test whether someone was actually drug-impaired at the time of the test, there wouldn’t be any argument.

Until that day, we’ll have to continue to wrestle with poor policy dictated by political pandering to prejudice: “Something must be done; This is something; Therefore we should do it.”

I suspect the what we will end up with is a situation similar to that with drink driving. At the moment, thresholds have been set (ie 0.02 and 0.05 blood alcohol level) at which point a person is deemed unsuitable to be driving a vehicle. Of course, the actual effect on driving will differ a bit from person to person, but the system is at least sensible and well understood by the public.

Testing would need to be done to determine the levels of ‘drug’ that would constitute the threshold of driver impairment. It will be interesting to see how this translates into legislation and driver education, though. Perhaps ’12 hours between shooting up and starting up’? The first few court cases could make for some interesting defence arguments also.

Or maybe we should get smart and just test for impairment?

I gather they already use impairment testers on some mining sites before the staff operate the big toys.

Might pick up that little thing called fatigue and also those individuals who at base state just shouldn’t be driving.

Tooks said :

Jim Jones said :

As many people have already pointed out, ‘testing positive’ does not mean that the person is drug-impaired at the time of the test. In the case of marijuana, testing positive means that the person has imbibed cannabis within the last 2-3 months.

Fail.

That’s my main problem with drug testing. At what levels does a person’s driving become inhibited due to their drug use? How much heroin, cocaine, meth etc needs to be in the system?

I’m with you 100% on that.

If there were a drug testing mechanism that could efficiently and effectively test whether someone was actually drug-impaired at the time of the test, there wouldn’t be any argument.

Until that day, we’ll have to continue to wrestle with poor policy dictated by political pandering to prejudice: “Something must be done; This is something; Therefore we should do it.”

Jim Jones said :

As many people have already pointed out, ‘testing positive’ does not mean that the person is drug-impaired at the time of the test. In the case of marijuana, testing positive means that the person has imbibed cannabis within the last 2-3 months.

Fail.

That’s my main problem with drug testing. At what levels does a person’s driving become inhibited due to their drug use? How much heroin, cocaine, meth etc needs to be in the system?

The other point is, until drink driving is properly punished in our Courts, why even bother trying to detect drug drivers?

Woody Mann-Caruso. I’ve developed a Bullshit detecting saliva test you can buy. I just cant get a politician to endorse it, a bank manager to finance it or a salesman to sell it. It gives 100% results guaranteed.

georgesgenitals9:54 pm 15 May 10

Special G said :

If it prevents one road death is it worth it? 2? 3? How many – bear in mind the small number of road deaths in the ACT each year.

The answer is… maybe not. If it costs, say, $10000 to save 3 lives due to implementing roadside drug testing (purely as an example), and it costs $10000 to save 12 lives due to implementing roadside blood alcohol testing, it would make more sense to do the roadside blood alcohol testing.

The real problem, though, is being able to conclusively link resources expended to lives saved, especially when some accidents have multiple causes (eg driver was tipsy, was speeding a bit, and when a car pulled out in front didn’t react quickly enough). Of course, in other circumstances a really drunk driver may simply drive off the road.

Road safety should be about applying the resources where they are most effective.

Ill try for a star. I say its the drug testing companies that have the most to gain. They seem to be as common as Viagra on Google. I especially like how they present their product on their web sites.

From Sun Biomedical FAQ on why saliva test are so great.

“The inference is that if you are detecting the active parent drug, then there is a distinct possibility that the subject is currently being affected by the drug and has taken it within the past few hours.”

“a distinct possibility that the subject is currently affected” does not sound like an accurate test to charge someone with DUI. Its only a possibility.

And another Gem.

“The company has established an industry benchmark with the most sensitive saliva drugs of abuse testing device available on the market today.”

Sensitive to trace amounts one would presume.

Just in case you where unsure of their motives with the anti drug message.

“The immediate focus of Sun Biomedical is on the commercialization of drugs of abuse testing devices with a particular emphasis on saliva devices.”

Still unsure. They offer to provide a complete service including helping with policy.

“Whether your needs are small scale or large we can provide you with everything you need. From policy design through to all the products you need to conduct a drug and alcohol program.”

I now know that drug users are also causing massive loss of life and profits for business. Did you know “That 70% of drug takers are employed.(1)” “Drug taking costs Australian businesses over $ 14.9 billion dollars per year! ” (Not even a bodge reference for that one) “Losses due to employee theft/fraud (disciplinary actions are 90 percent higher among drug users) (4)”(In Canada alledgedly) “The International Labour Organisation estimates that 15% of all fatal workplace accidents and 25% of all workplace accidents are drug related.” (Notice the absence of the word illicit or abuse that are firmly rooted in its other material)

and then you have this.

“Protecting your business need not be a nightmare, remember your life and the lives of others may depend on it, and it is Clinical Medical Marketing purpose to provide you with SOLUTIONS..

Our products give you peace of mind that you are taking steps to provide a safer workplace with fewer accidents & a happier workforce with the benefits of increased savings and production.”

I take it that will be achieved when 100% of “drug users” are unemployed.

If you ever wanted an example of how to marketing an inferior product than this is it. This brings me to the question of who you actually are Voice of Reason. It would seem some of these Companies are happy to distort figures, present distinct possibilities as fact, distort public policy, present outrageous claims, play on the public’s prejudiced and ignorance. Then they also may employ a very good PR organization/lobby group. We may never know, but I would suspect that a newbie who only post on a single issue may have a interest in the out come of the issue. VR are are you speaking from personnel experience or personal gain? Do you have a financial interest in this issue?

The gain is huge. Maybe another poster could work out some evidence based costs to the community. This reeks of a scam. A huge profitable scam.
enti

Google.

If it prevents one road death is it worth it? 2? 3? How many – bear in mind the small number of road deaths in the ACT each year.

You’d also be kidding yourself if you thought anything the Police do is truly random in the clinical trial sense of the word.

Woody Mann-Caruso7:17 pm 15 May 10

How come Voice of Reason gets to wave away the 31% stat by making claims without offering any evidence of his own? ‘Logical elucidation’ indeed. I mean, seriously, is this all he has?

Lie 1: VicPol does not conduct random roadside saliva testing. It does conduct roadside saliva testing, but it is not done at random. In fact, it is heavily targetted.

1. [citation required]
2. Who cares if it is targeted, so long as it gets drugged-up drivers off the road?

Lie 2: VicPol’s saliva testing is not conducted to detect drivers travelling while affected. The testing is conducted to detect drivers who have any detectable trace, however insignificant.

[citation required]. I’m particularly interested in seeing stats on the number of people who have tested positive to trace concentrations of illicit substances who’ve gone on to be convicted of an offense.

Lie 3: VicPol’s testing it to detect … illicit drugs. The testing is actually to detect some illicit drugs.

This piece of seventh-grade amateur hour debating might have some weight if the claim was that VicPol test to detect all illicit drugs, but they don’t. They just say ‘illicit drugs’. Guess what ‘some illicit drugs’ are? Illicit drugs. Venn diagrams – you fail at them.

I’m not coming out for or against roadside testing. I’m just calling bulls.it on some seriously poor ‘arguments’ here. And I love the way you wrapped it all up in a riddle obscured by a conundrum. I can imagine you thoughtfully stroking your chin, eyes piercing the camera: “Who actually benefits from roadside drug testing? For whom does it actually “work”? For whom is investment worthwhile?” You’re practically Leonard F*cking Nimoy.

Well come on, super genius, do let us all in on your conspiracy theory. Is it something like “people who think drugs are bad”? Do I get a gold star? I’ll give you one if you can explain why somebody thinking drugs are bad automatically invalidates any claims they might make that getting drug-influenced drivers off the road makes them safer.

Niiiiiice post, Voice of Reason.

It’s a pity that the responses you’re most likely to get to such logical elucidation are likely to be ‘drugs are bad, mmkay’, ‘won’t somebody think of the children’, and complaints about the length of your post (strange how people are so resistant to reading and research, and yet feel that their opinion is highly significant without it).

georgesgenitals4:38 pm 15 May 10

I’m actually a big supporter of not doing ‘random’ testing, but using profiling (for any compliance testing, not specifically drug related). It seems to me that this is a better use of our resources. Of course, there will always be people that slip past the radar, so to speak, but this happens anyway.

Whether or not a person is actually impaired is a different argument. I think we need to be very careful about forming policy relating to this, as many road accidents have potentially multiple causes, and thought and analysis needs to be put into working out which bits to target, and why.

As many people have already pointed out, ‘testing positive’ does not mean that the person is drug-impaired at the time of the test. In the case of marijuana, testing positive means that the person has imbibed cannabis within the last 2-3 months.

Fail.

Voice of Reason10:37 am 15 May 10

Hello Reality check. I’ve been reading your contributions with interest and you certainly seem to be pretty convinced that the government should be introducing roadside drug testing. You’ve even had a crack at presenting some data that would support the introduction of roadside drug testing. That’s a welcomed innovation from the roadside drug testing proponents and it’s certainly an interesting choice of data:

Reality check said :

Some stats for you – http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugsAD.html

“Drug driving is a major contributor to road fatalities in Victoria . In 2003, a total of 31 per cent of drivers killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs other than alcohol.”

Fancy that – 31%… Who woulda thought…

The info you’ve quoted is typical of the biased and misleading representation of the Victorian programme. The intended reader, such as yourself perhaps, a trusting and well-meaning member of the community who has no reason to suspect any cause for manipulation, could be forgiven for assuming that the first sentence:

“Drug driving is a major contributor to road fatalities in Victoria.”

is somehow supported by the second sentence:

“In 2003, a total of 31 per cent of drivers killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs other than alcohol.”

So 31% of drivers killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs other than alcohol eh?

For this stat to tell us anything about the “major contribution” that drugs other than alcohol has on road safety, we need to look more closely about what it tells us (or, more importantly, what it doesn’t tell us).

How many of these drivers caused the accident?
What were the drugs that the deceased tested positive to?
Were those drugs capable of impairing driver performance and, if so, at what concentrations?
What were the concentrations of the drugs detected?
What happened in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 in comparison to 2003 and why is the 2003 data being used in isolation?

OK. I acknowledge that having important questions about what appears to be biased and misleading information does not necessarily mean that the the information cannot be trusted. Let’s assume for a moment that the information is squeaky clean and that perhaps the data was meaning to say was that 31% of dead drivers caused their own deaths by driving whilst impaired by drugs and did not die because of another driver’s actions, distraction, or pure dumb luck.

Call me old fashioned, but for me to believe a statement such as:

“Drug driving is a major contributor to road fatalities in Victoria”

when the evidence presented does not appear to support it in any way, I’ll need to believe the source as trustworthy and completely above board. For me to trust the source, I’ll need to look at other statements that it makes to see whether those are squeaky clean and completely above board. Are they?

Let’s look at the very first thing that website says, shall we?

“Victoria Police conduct random roadside saliva testing to detect drivers travelling while affected by illicit drugs.”

They’re not off to a good start. Remember now, if we’re to believe the statement that you quoted, at the very least the rest of that source needs to be accurate and not biased or misleading. Does VicPol “conduct random roadise saliva testing to detect drivers travelling while affected by illicit drugs”? The answer is “no”. Lie numbers 1, 2, and 3.

Lie 1: VicPol does not conduct random roadside saliva testing. It does conduct roadside saliva testing, but it is not done at random. In fact, it is heavily targetted.

Lie 2: VicPol’s saliva testing is not conducted to detect drivers travelling while affected. The testing is conducted to detect drivers who have any detectable trace, however insignificant.

Lie 3: VicPol’s testing it to detect … illicit drugs. The testing is actually to detect some illicit drugs.

What else does that website say that could cast some light on the possible accuracy and / or relevance of the stat that you quoted?

“The random roadside saliva testing is aimed at making Victoria ’s roads safer for everyone by reducing the incidence of drug driving.”

Good of them to highlight the aim of the programme. The important elements of that are:
(i) “making Victoria’s roads safer”
(ii) “reducing the incidence of drug driving”

So how are they going with that? Five years in, one would have to think they’ve stopped to look at whether this massive investment is:
(i) making the roads safer and
(ii) reducing the incidence of drug driving.
I mean there’s not a government in the world that would throw that kind of money at something and not stop to wonder whether it’s a good investment or not. Is there? Well, ask yourself this Reality check and any other interested reader: is there any evidence at all that the VicPol programme is making the roads safer and / or reducing the incidence of drug driving? I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but the answer is no.

So Reality check asserts that the testing needs to be done in the ACT to see if it will work. When a competent government is considering the inroduction of some new policy or programme, that competent government casts it eye across similar initiatives conducted elsewhere to see if they’re working or not. It avoids the kneejerk reaction that you have suggested that requires the government to invest the money in something hoping against hope that it’s going to work. Instead of peeing money into the wind in hope, similar programmes elsewhere can actually tell us what we can expect to find if we go down the same road. So what does the VicPol programme tell us about its effects on road safety and reducing the rate of drug driving? Good question. The VicPol programme tells us that it doesn’t work.

Now, let’s go back to that data that you quoted and reconsider what we think of it in light of some analysis of the statements that surround it.

“Drug driving is a major contributor to road fatalities in Victoria . In 2003, a total of 31 per cent of drivers killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs other than alcohol.”

Wanna make a multimillion dollar investment based on the veracity of that quote? Really Mr Stanhope? For a government that considers itself to be rational and evidence based, this appears to be quite a remarkable thing to propose.

Looks like we’ve ruled out road safety as the reason why the government would be proposing roadside drug testing in the ACT. We’ve even ruled out road safety as the reason why Victoria continues to invest heavily in roadside drug testing.

A gold star for anyone who might be able to think of the real reason. Who actually benefits from roadside drug testing? For whom does it actually “work”? For whom is investment worthwhile?

Reality check6:05 pm 14 May 10

Some stats for you – http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugsAD.html

“Drug driving is a major contributor to road fatalities in Victoria . In 2003, a total of 31 per cent of drivers killed in Victoria tested positive to drugs other than alcohol.”

Fancy that – 31%… Who woulda thought…

And this one – http://www.thesite.org/drinkanddrugs/drugsafety/usingdrugs/howdrugsaffectdriving

Specifies which drug has what effect… All sounding rather dangerous…

Reality check5:59 pm 14 May 10

Reality check said :

We’re all so good at finding faults with suggestions – but does anyone have a real answer?

So you’re saying no-one should criticize a pointless exercise that has been demonstrated to have no positive effect, because … they haven’t presented an alternative?

What truly bizarre logic.

Perhaps to prevent road deaths we should make everyone drive with a banana balanced on their heads. HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE MY BANANA SOLUTION TO ROAD DEATHS WHEN YOU CLEARLY DON’T HAVE ANY ANSWERS.

My point is that every solution is open to criticism – there is no perfect answer!! Bit fiesty aren’t we…

Secondly, there are no credible figures regarding the amount of road accidents in which drug use was a determining factor. You’re assuming that there is a massive problem that we desperately need to find a solution to. There is no evidence to believe this.

There are no credible figures because it’s currently NOT BEING TESTED FOR! Hence my point – let’s get the stats, let’s get the figures, and then create a policy based on actual figures…

Finally, “That’s my opinion” – “I’m simply speaking from my own life experiences”. With respect, perhaps a little research on effective drug and road safety policies would be beneficial. Evidence based policy – that’s policy based on actual evidence of positive effects – will work. Policy based on prejudice and anecdote clearly doesn’t.

You have no idea who I am, where I’ve come from, or what Ive done. So you’re not really in a position to challenge my opinions. I am after the actual data – but the testing needs to be done in order to get those figures… Again, not rocket science (unless you’ve spent too many years smoking weed) Let’s enforce the law and see what happens…

fgzk said :

Evidence based solutions are what we need to step forward.

… and bananas.

“So what’s the answer? “

How many more people have to die before we find another solution to the drug issue?

We need to find reasonable approach to solving the problem. We need to support policy based on evidence. Most people do not know that when the drug laws where passed in the 1950s there was no evidence to support a problem existed in the community. Some people say that it was more about racism and ignorance that they came into existence. The real problems started after.

This legislation runs against the evidence, especially in relation to pot.

This legislation may be just a continuation of drug laws except now its lifestyles we like to discriminate against.

This legislation is just another populist political solution to a complex problem, that will do more harm than good. Much like the laws that proceed it.

We do not need to rush these laws just because every other state has. We need to look at the evidence and find a reasonable solution. The legislation being rushed through seems to represent confused thinking.

#70 Voice of Reason. +1. The government needs to address these issues before it passes the law.

Evidence based solutions are what we need to step forward.

Reality check said :

So what’s the answer? Legalise illicit substances and watch society steadily decline??

Oh, drugs are bad, therefore, societies with legalised drug use are ‘bad’. Pity the facts demonstrate the opposite: Portugal decriminalised the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs and the effects were unilaterally positive: (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization)

Reality check said :

We’re all so good at finding faults with suggestions – but does anyone have a real answer?

So you’re saying no-one should criticize a pointless exercise that has been demonstrated to have no positive effect, because … they haven’t presented an alternative?

What truly bizarre logic.

Perhaps to prevent road deaths we should make everyone drive with a banana balanced on their heads. HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE MY BANANA SOLUTION TO ROAD DEATHS WHEN YOU CLEARLY DON’T HAVE ANY ANSWERS.

Now let’s clear up some massive howlers in your post:

Firstly, there is no ‘letting drug-affected people drive’ – driving while impaired by the influence of drugs is already illegal (including prescription medication).

Secondly, there are no credible figures regarding the amount of road accidents in which drug use was a determining factor. You’re assuming that there is a massive problem that we desperately need to find a solution to. There is no evidence to believe this.

Finally, “That’s my opinion” – “I’m simply speaking from my own life experiences”. With respect, perhaps a little research on effective drug and road safety policies would be beneficial. Evidence based policy – that’s policy based on actual evidence of positive effects – will work. Policy based on prejudice and anecdote clearly doesn’t.

Reality check2:09 pm 14 May 10

fgzk said :

Reality Check…”One death is one too many”

Maybe you need to wake up too. Reality check for you. Drugs have been and will be part of our community forever. The “don’t take drugs” message is a good call but unfortunately has had no effect on drug use. Prohibition is killing as many, if not more people in this country than the road toll. Its not complicated. One death is too many. 100s of deaths is just collateral damage in your war on drugs. 1000s of deaths would be closer to reality. Many are not caused by the drugs themselves but by the legislation that controls the distribution.

“Any illicit substances will affect your ability to drive – bottom line = not acceptable.”
Just another generalisation that any drug user knows to be a lie. Bottom line is if you keep sprouting crap, then your message is just going to be ignored by drug users. Ignorance works both ways.

You clearly have some idea but is it enough to save one life.

So what’s the answer? Legalise illicit substances and watch society steadily decline?? Let drug-affected people drive, despite altered consciousness – and screw the consequences? We’re all so good at finding faults with suggestions – but does anyone have a real answer? An answer that eliminates negative consequences and escapes criticism? I understand that drugs are going anywhere – I’m not that naive. This forum is responding to road side drug tests – my answer is “don’t take drugs and you should have no issue with the testing”. You take drugs, or condone people driving whilst high, then you will have an issue. That’s my opinion. In the ACT we have legislation banning the consumption of illicit substances – therefore taking these substances is an offence, as is driving whilst under the influence of said substances. It’s ALREADY an offence to do this – so why would we not enforce it?? As for stats – I agree, most stats are made up on the spot to support one’s own arguments. I’m not supporting anyone else’s stats, as per above statement – I’m simply speaking from my own life experiences.

Reality Check…”One death is one too many”

Maybe you need to wake up too. Reality check for you. Drugs have been and will be part of our community forever. The “don’t take drugs” message is a good call but unfortunately has had no effect on drug use. Prohibition is killing as many, if not more people in this country than the road toll. Its not complicated. One death is too many. 100s of deaths is just collateral damage in your war on drugs. 1000s of deaths would be closer to reality. Many are not caused by the drugs themselves but by the legislation that controls the distribution.

“Any illicit substances will affect your ability to drive – bottom line = not acceptable.”
Just another generalisation that any drug user knows to be a lie. Bottom line is if you keep sprouting crap, then your message is just going to be ignored by drug users. Ignorance works both ways.

You clearly have some idea but is it enough to save one life.

Reality check said :

As for stats – you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and no evidence to support your views.

I’m the one stating that we shouldn’t believe made up statistics. The ‘statistics’ presented were made up on the spot.

The actual data that exists is in relation to the Victorian experience of roadside drug testing (referenced in the OP) which show conclusively that road side drug testing had no effect whatsoever.

How is this ‘no evidence for your views whatsoever’?

I find it a little hard to believe that you called yourself ‘reality check’, and yet you believe that made-up statistics are so important that they trump actual data.

How about you use some logic and do some research rather than resorting to the reactionary attitude: “drugs are bad … mmmkay”.

You sound like Nancy Reagan.

Reality check said :

Jim Jones said :

The active ingredient THC is detectable in the urine after 48-72 hours in a one-off or occasional user or up to 6 weeks in a heavy user.

http://www.passadrugtestingforall.com/long-does-marijuana-stay-your-system-a-4.html

So don’t take drugs and you won’t have any issues… It’s not rocket science.

As for stats – you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and no evidence to support your views. One death is one too many… Any illicit substances will affect your ability to drive – bottom line = not acceptable. Be it alcohol or drugs, consume them and then drive and there will be consequences. End of story. Wake up to yourselves…

Drugs are bad … mmkay.

Reality check9:10 pm 13 May 10

Jim Jones said :

The active ingredient THC is detectable in the urine after 48-72 hours in a one-off or occasional user or up to 6 weeks in a heavy user.

http://www.passadrugtestingforall.com/long-does-marijuana-stay-your-system-a-4.html

So don’t take drugs and you won’t have any issues… It’s not rocket science.

As for stats – you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and no evidence to support your views. One death is one too many… Any illicit substances will affect your ability to drive – bottom line = not acceptable. Be it alcohol or drugs, consume them and then drive and there will be consequences. End of story. Wake up to yourselves…

georgesgenitals1:24 pm 12 May 10

Profiling is commonly used in parts of law enforcement in this country. I’d agree that certain times, places and people will be targetted.

I guess it comes back to whether using such profiling actually assists with identifying impaired drivers.

Captain RAAF is on the money. This is how they have worked it in Vic. They have targeted Raves and festivals rather than tacking it on general road side testing. The next Bike and Tattoo show should be interesting.

Captain RAAF11:03 am 12 May 10

Anyone that thinks these tests will be ‘random’ is living in lala land.

They will all be targeted tests, so expect to see them done at Summernats, Octoberfest, Skyfire and any other gathering of young people, because lets face it, pot heads are quite often piss heads and gravitate to these large social get-togethers.

Also, I expect you’ll see them in ‘known’ areas of drug users throughout the region but the odds of you (assuming you are like me, law-abiding john Q Citizen) getting random drug tested on the way to Bunnings on a Sunday arvo are non-existant.

The Police know who is using just like airport security know which demographic is a likely terrorist, it’s just that the political correct crowd won’t let them openly identify who they are targeting, but they’ll catch them anyway.

georgesgenitals12:47 pm 11 May 10

fgzk said :

GG give up. Statistical your comments have nothing to do with drug testing. Emotively your boring. Rationally …………Well I cant work out any rational argument/debate that relates to anything. Personally I think you smell like cheese.

Good to see you’re interested and reading. You can fix the odour problem by changing your posture.

georgesgenitals12:46 pm 11 May 10

Jim Jones said :

The stats can say whatever you want them to say when you make them up out of thin air, I think that’s the real trick.

Interpretation of stats is another matter entirely: interpreting made-up stats is as pointless as … a really pointless thing.

Ok, we better stop using stats then. Good call.

/JJ mode off

We all know stats can be manipulated. Take dvaey’s example above. Drugs and speed were both involved – somehow these and other factors have to be apportioned ‘blame’, including that a driver ran a red light. Drugs, speed and breaking the road rules were probably ALL to blame, though not equally.

Given that drug use is probably a factor in road accidents, then, is it actually a useful thing to drug test people? Possibly. The real question is whether such tests could determine the level to which a driver is actually impaired (compared with breath testing, where we have fairly clear science linking blood alcohol to driving impairment). Until that can can conclusively shown, I don’t think there’s much point implementing them.

The stats can say whatever you want them to say when you make them up out of thin air, I think that’s the real trick.

Interpretation of stats is another matter entirely: interpreting made-up stats is as pointless as … a really pointless thing.

GG give up. Statistical your comments have nothing to do with drug testing. Emotively your boring. Rationally …………Well I cant work out any rational argument/debate that relates to anything. Personally I think you smell like cheese.

Jim Jones said :

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

We should believe this made up figure that 50% of all fatal collisions involve illicit drug use, because … why?

Well, think of the recent quadruple fatality on Canberra Ave. Of the 5 people involved, 4 had drugs in their system (probably even all 5 had some trace in their system). Only 1 of these 5 was at fault in the cause of the accident, and the addition of drugs to the whole equation doesnt make a difference when you consider every other aspect of the crash.

Also, the first quote was ‘50% of people, involved in fatal collisions’, and is not ‘50% of fatal accidents’. The stats can say whatever you want them to say.

georgesgenitals11:00 am 11 May 10

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Both are directly related to road safety. But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to rant and rave about it. Calm down and get a life.

Weren’t you the one complaining that people weren’t debating ‘the issue’?

How does going off on a tangent contribute to focusing debate on ‘the issue’?

Weren’t you also the one complaining about personal attacks taking the place of reasoned debates?

How does ‘get a life’ stack up, do you think: reasoned debate or personal attack?

Perhaps now I should make up some ludicrous figures and then dare people to prove me wrong, just to end this post on a high note.

*sigh*

Let’s go through it then:

1) How does going off on a tangent contribute to focusing debate on ‘the issue’?

Both drug use, as well as driver behaviour, are related to road safety. Earlier posts questioned the quantifiable impact of drug use on road safety. Speeding is also road safety related. The comment was that I was surprised how rational people were being about this, given that in other areas there’s a lot of emotive argument. I also gave a real life example in response to another post.

2) Weren’t you also the one complaining about personal attacks taking the place of reasoned debates? How does ‘get a life’ stack up, do you think: reasoned debate or personal attack?

Absolutely. But then I figured stuff it – I’ll join in with you anyway. I’m not trying to claim sainthood here.

3) Perhaps now I should make up some ludicrous figures and then dare people to prove me wrong, just to end this post on a high note.

Be my guest. Please note, though, that I haven’t asserted any ‘ludicrous’ figures. Statistics support my example above, which is why I gave it.

georgesgenitals said :

Both are directly related to road safety. But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to rant and rave about it. Calm down and get a life.

Weren’t you the one complaining that people weren’t debating ‘the issue’?

How does going off on a tangent contribute to focusing debate on ‘the issue’?

Weren’t you also the one complaining about personal attacks taking the place of reasoned debates?

How does ‘get a life’ stack up, do you think: reasoned debate or personal attack?

Perhaps now I should make up some ludicrous figures and then dare people to prove me wrong, just to end this post on a high note.

Also given that possession of all of the drugs tested for is an offence in itself it is like catching you for possession after you took them. Basically what it is saying is taking drugs are bad mmkay.

Special G nails it – it’s not about road safety at all, it’s just about detecting and punishing drug use (if it was the former, it would also be testing for common legal drugs that affect driving ability, like benzodiazepines). So why don’t we search your whole car for contraband while you’re stopped at the RBT while we’re at it – check through the laptop lying on the back seat to make sure you haven’t got any illegally downloaded movies there (sure, it’s got nothing to do with road safety, but it’s illegal so you haven’t got anything to complain about).

Provide a counter argument and cite your sources if you disagree.

It is up to the one making extraordinary claims to supply the extraordinary evidence required.

georgesgenitals7:44 pm 10 May 10

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Stats? Counterpoint? Evidence?

Clearly not.

We should believe this made up figure that 50% of all fatal collisions involve illicit drug use, because … why?

Provide a counter argument and cite your sources if you disagree.

georgesgenitals7:44 pm 10 May 10

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

If you have an issue with my point, fine – debate the issue.

Yeah, right. The way you’ve so intellectually engaged with the issue of road side drug testing: by using it as an opportunity to whine about speeding fines and ignore any evidence that doesn’t support your point.

Such de rigeur internet logic.

Both are directly related to road safety. But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to rant and rave about it. Calm down and get a life.

georgesgenitals said :

If you have an issue with my point, fine – debate the issue.

Yeah, right. The way you’ve so intellectually engaged with the issue of road side drug testing: by using it as an opportunity to whine about speeding fines and ignore any evidence that doesn’t support your point.

Such de rigeur internet logic.

Voice of Reason6:47 pm 09 May 10

vandam said :

Yes and there are proceedures to have elderly drivers retested to make sure they are suitable to drive. There is nothing for drug users.

Yes there is vandam. It’s called the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977. If police suspect that you’re intoxicated by a substance other than alcohol, they can test you.

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Stats? Counterpoint? Evidence?

Clearly not.

We should believe this made up figure that 50% of all fatal collisions involve illicit drug use, because … why?

Voice of Reason5:33 pm 09 May 10

vandam said :

How you measure the drug is a fair question, however drugs are illegal, and shouldn’t be in your system to start off with. So if your the law abiding citizen, then there shouldn’t be any drugs in your system full stop!!!

1. According to the government the legislation proposed is about road safety, not finding creative new ways to punish people for using certain illicit drugs.

2. This legislation will cause people who are not affected by drugs to be convicted of drug driving.

3. This legislation misses the opportunity to include many other drugs capable of impairing the driving of those taking them.

4. There is no evidence that the programme it seeks to replicate has made Victorian roads any safer at all. In fact the only available evidence suggests that in spite of all the money spent on testing for some drugs in Victoria, people continue to drive after taking illicit drugs at exactly the same rate as they did before the programme was introduced.

5. The proposed programme is expensive, and fails a rationality test on the basis that the government could do far more effective things with the resources that would have a meaningful effect on road safety.

6. Given that the opposition are calling for roadside testing for some drugs, and our neighbours have already introduced roadside testing for some drugs, the government thinks it’s better off politically introducing garbage policy than waiting for better science in order to introduce quality policy.

Vandam…”Yes and there are proceedures to have elderly drivers retested to make sure they are suitable to drive. There is nothing for drug users. Just like there are laws to get rid of drink drivers”

It will be difficult for you to get a clear picture of the issue when you have no idea. Why bother.

GG Carrots in the stomach contents does not mean carrots contributed to an accident. Just that a lot of people like to eat carrots. “Stats? Counterpoint? Evidence?” You will find them in the links throughout the thread. Cry baby.

georgesgenitals3:50 pm 09 May 10

Jim Jones said :

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Stats? Counterpoint? Evidence?

Clearly not.

georgesgenitals3:47 pm 09 May 10

Jim Jones said :

[Shown to be wrong? I complained about a poster going on a massive ‘government housing tenants are vile creatures who ruin houses’ rant, and this was ‘shown wrong’?

If reacting negatively to pisspoor stereotypes of public housing tenants is ‘wrong’, then I suppose I’m wrong.

georgesgenitals said :

How about we kick it up a notch, and debate the issue? Is it really that hard?

Coming from someone who’s yet again introduced a pointless (and foundationless) whinge about speed limits in a thread about drug testing – a thread which is notable for having a decent amount of data and links used in it – this statement is particularly apposite.

You accused a poster of a generalisation that simply wasn’t true, then when a number of posters queried you, you went completely silent, because you knew you were wrong.

If you have an issue with my point, fine – debate the issue.

Mods – can we get some guidance here? This sort of crapola makes RiotACT a lot less interesting for everyone. The ‘About’ section states that personally offensive comments may be moderated, but a lot still seem to get through.

fgzk said :

“I ask you this. How would you react if someone driving high on Cannabis, crashed into your wife/partner/kid/mum, and killed them?”

I would react exactly the same if it was, a police chase, a stray bullet from a drug dealer or an elderly driver. Actually I would not be surprised if it was an elderly driver as they have seem to be involved in a lot of fatal crashes in Canberra. Elderly drivers have killed people I know in Canberra. I guess the media are just lazy in chasing up their toxicology reports too.

Its how you measure intoxication/incapacity that is the issue with the drug tests. When are you under the influence of the drug or just have a trace of it in your system? Bring BAC down to 0% if you support this legislation. It will have the same effect on the road toll.

If you spent the same money testing the elderly you would save more lives on the Canberra roads. Not just statistical abortions but real people. Actual knocks at the door. Being ageist would be political suicide as compared to kicking a drug user.

“The community needs to step up” The community steps where ideology tells it to step.

Yes and there are proceedures to have elderly drivers retested to make sure they are suitable to drive. There is nothing for drug users. Just like there are laws to get rid of drink drivers.

How you measure the drug is a fair question, however drugs are illegal, and shouldn’t be in your system to start off with. So if your the law abiding citizen, then there shouldn’t be any drugs in your system full stop!!!

“I ask you this. How would you react if someone driving high on Cannabis, crashed into your wife/partner/kid/mum, and killed them?”

I would react exactly the same if it was, a police chase, a stray bullet from a drug dealer or an elderly driver. Actually I would not be surprised if it was an elderly driver as they have seem to be involved in a lot of fatal crashes in Canberra. Elderly drivers have killed people I know in Canberra. I guess the media are just lazy in chasing up their toxicology reports too.

Its how you measure intoxication/incapacity that is the issue with the drug tests. When are you under the influence of the drug or just have a trace of it in your system? Bring BAC down to 0% if you support this legislation. It will have the same effect on the road toll.

If you spent the same money testing the elderly you would save more lives on the Canberra roads. Not just statistical abortions but real people. Actual knocks at the door. Being ageist would be political suicide as compared to kicking a drug user.

“The community needs to step up” The community steps where ideology tells it to step.

vandam said :

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50%

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

georgesgenitals said :

I know its a bit off topic, but why is it that when NT introduced a speed limit to the major north-south highway, deaths increased.

Correlation is not causation.

This aside, you don’t think that the situation in the NT might be an unusual (and non-representative). There are plenty of stats that demonstrate the level of impact speeding has on motor-accidents. You don’t have to be a genius to find them.

georgesgenitals said :

The point that I am making is that there are some topics where RiotACT posters seem to critically debate, and others where they sprout nothing but rhetoric.

Yes. The blah blah speed gummint rhetoric is so pervasive it’s now being spouted in a thread that is about drug testing. Other issues somehow get debated rationally.

georgesgenitals said :

And then there are posters like you, Jim Jones, who launch personal attcks when they disagree, then run away when shown to be wrong (eg the recent post on government housing).

Shown to be wrong? I complained about a poster going on a massive ‘government housing tenants are vile creatures who ruin houses’ rant, and this was ‘shown wrong’?

If reacting negatively to pisspoor stereotypes of public housing tenants is ‘wrong’, then I suppose I’m wrong.

georgesgenitals said :

How about we kick it up a notch, and debate the issue? Is it really that hard?

Coming from someone who’s yet again introduced a pointless (and foundationless) whinge about speed limits in a thread about drug testing – a thread which is notable for having a decent amount of data and links used in it – this statement is particularly apposite.

vg said :

I’d love to see you justify that comment to the families of people killed in motor vehicles accidents where drug affectation was a major factor.

Exactly how many is this? You seem to know the figures involved, and since they arent being published would you care to share your information? Or do you just like using the emotive arguments, without any real facts to back it up?

I think you will find that drugs found in people, involved in fatal collisions is almost up near 50% and as frequent as drunk drivers.

It’s not rocket science to know that people are willing to drive under the influence of drugs, regardless of whether its Cannabis, Pills or Heroin etc. That is unless your the average publice servant who is oblivious to anything that doesn’t concern them.

I ask you this. How would you react if someone driving high on Cannabis, crashed into your wife/partner/kid/mum, and killed them? This has happened to other people and will keep on happening until it is policed.

The reason why it isn’t reported as frequently as drunk drivers is because at the moment it takes longer to test for drugs, and by the time the results come in, media aren’t interested in running the story.

It’s comments like this, that make people think it is acceptable to drive under the influence.

The community needs to step up and make it well known that they will not tolerate drivers, participating in stupid behaviour or driving under the influence.

georgesgenitals7:57 pm 08 May 10

Jim Jones said :

WTF are you talking about? Speeding contributes measurably to road deaths.

Could you drop the whole ‘speeding blah blah blah gummint blah blah blah’ crap for just one thread?

I know its a bit off topic, but why is it that when NT introduced a speed limit to the major north-south highway, deaths increased.

The point that I am making is that there are some topics where RiotACT posters seem to critically debate, and others where they sprout nothing but rhetoric.

And then there are posters like you, Jim Jones, who launch personal attcks when they disagree, then run away when shown to be wrong (eg the recent post on government housing).

How about we kick it up a notch, and debate the issue? Is it really that hard?

Voice of Reason9:27 am 08 May 10

johnboy said :

To be fair to Mr Stanhope, he’s been doing all he can to kill this off.

Wanna bet?

georgesgenitals said :

Call me crazy, but in this thread we have a lot of people posting comments that basically say ‘let’s work out if this actually contributes to road safety’, yet everytime speeding is brought up, we seem to get rabid rhetoric about ‘it’s the law’ and ‘the safety of my family’, etc.

Doesn’t add up. I suspect many of us are falling victim to fear-based advertising.

If govco could find a way to levy fines and raise revenue from drug testing, I bet they would.

WTF are you talking about? Speeding contributes measurably to road deaths.

Could you drop the whole ‘speeding blah blah blah gummint blah blah blah’ crap for just one thread?

Voice of Reason8:24 am 07 May 10

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16627783/The-Policy-Context-of-Roadside-Drug-Testing

Here’s a piece published in the Journal of the Australasian College or Road Safety. Pretty damning analysis for the government’s proposal.

Of course it won’t stop Stanhope ‘cos his mind’s made up already.

Mr Stanhope. Consultation that occurs after you’ve made up your mind is not consultation at all. It’s a waste of everybody’s time and government resources.

To be fair to Mr Stanhope, he’s been doing all he can to kill this off.

So with all these issues it becomes clear that this legislation is actual about punishing drug users for their drug issues. Its a mass drug testing system to identify and punish drug users. You know the stuff that goes with DUI but worse. Loss of job. Life long record. People labelling you scum bag. General discrimination you would expect for being charged with drug offences.

and it will allow more drunk drivers to slip the net and be killing people on the roads.

georgesgenitals10:21 pm 06 May 10

Call me crazy, but in this thread we have a lot of people posting comments that basically say ‘let’s work out if this actually contributes to road safety’, yet everytime speeding is brought up, we seem to get rabid rhetoric about ‘it’s the law’ and ‘the safety of my family’, etc.

Doesn’t add up. I suspect many of us are falling victim to fear-based advertising.

If govco could find a way to levy fines and raise revenue from drug testing, I bet they would.

OpenYourMind8:23 pm 06 May 10

The affect of Blood Alcohol Content is very clear and quantifiable.

The affect of cannabis use on driving is a very interesting topic.
Here’s a Monash report: http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc231.pdf

There’s a study that was done in South Australia and then quickly buried that indicated cannabis users were in fact safer drivers than those with no drugs in their system.

Here’s an interesting quote
“STUDIES had found it impossible to prove cannabis adversely affected driving, an Adelaide University researcher said yesterday.

Professor Jack Maclean, director of the road accident research unit, said, while there was no doubt alcohol affected driving adversely, that was not the case with marijuana.

“It has been impossible to prove marijuana affects driving adversely,” he told the Australian Driver Fatigue Conference in Sydney.

“There is no doubt marijuana affects performance but it may be it affects it in a favourable way by reducing risk-taking.”

So all the ‘druggies’ are going to be catching buses and hanging around bus interchanges now? 😉

Voice of Reason7:57 pm 06 May 10

Special G said :

That’s some interesting comments Mr voice of reason although part of your reasoning is fairly flawed. Drug testing would be administered by the same Police administering breath screening. General Duties and traffic for the most part.

Also given that possession of all of the drugs tested for is an offence in itself it is like catching you for possession after you took them. Basically what it is saying is taking drugs are bad mmkay.

Thanks for your comments SG.

It stands to reason that the opportunity cost of police performing two tests on one driver will be the capacity to perform one test on two drivers. Quite simply, in order to test people for some drugs they’ll be alcohol breath testing fewer drivers.

There is credible evidence that alcohol breath testing works. It makes roads safer. There is no credible evidence that roadside testing for some drugs makes roads safer.

You are quite correct of course, that possession of illicit drugs is illegal. Taking drugs is probably bad for many people who take them too. However this government is on record as saying that this policy is about road safety, and not punishing drug users for their drug issues. It stands to reason therefore that roadside testing for some drugs should be implemented or scrapped on the merits of its demonstrated impact on road safety.

It is simply not acceptable that someone can be convicted of drug driving when they were driving without the slightest impairment. This policy will bring about convictions that are not warranted.

If your point is valid, and that any detectable amount of some drugs is cause for conviction because the person was committing an offence when they took said drugs, then let’s dispense with the roadside aspect altogether and simply start testing people for drugs. The police could set up testing stations in Garema Place or anywhere else and then simply start screening people. Sure, it won’t be a road safety initiative, but they shouldn’t have been taking the drugs anyway so fine details like that won’t matter ‘cos we’re tough on drugs afterall.

OpenYourMind7:56 pm 06 May 10

Sloppery, it depends on what you are trying to acheive. If it’s road safety, then the legality of the drug makes no difference to its affect. A trace amount of weed or ecstasy is unlikely to make any significant difference whereas legal sleeping medications as well as a host of others are well known for their affect on driving ability. Getting hit by someone impaired by a legal drug will hurt just the same.

If you want to randomly test people for drug use, that’s another matter altogether. Just don’t wrap it up as a road safety measure unless you can associate it with a fair test of level of intoxication.

Yes, but some drugs are ILLEGAL…

Driving while adversely affected by legal medication is illegal too…

+1 Voice of Reason. Most sensible comments. In this day and age of ‘evidence based policy’, we should really be asking two things every time we roll out a new bit of policy: what is the policy trying to achieve, and how do we measure the efficacy of same?

If roadside drug testing is aimed at reducing harm on our roads, shouldn’t it be testing for intoxication, not the residual presence of a drug in someone’s system? The tools at the disposal of cops in other jurisdictions do not provide any degree of accuracy. (If we’re just aiming to test people to see whether they’ve used drugs, shouldn’t this be targeted at a whole of population level, to make the roll-out fair? Which begs the question: what the fark would be the point of bothering with such a venture?)

Where is the evidence base for this type of policy? In Victoria and South Australia there’s no data that I’m aware of. Could this be because their politicians and cops are just as aware as anyone else with a few neurons to rub together that any evalutation would show that the policy is expensive and ineffective? Given limited resources, I would have thought that focusing on dickhead driving (as opposed to very the very quantitative methodology behind the installation of speed cameras everywhere) might be more effective.

This is lowest common denominator ‘A Current Affair’ politics, and is a low point even by the piss-weak standards of the chiefly one and his band of fools in the local council.

At #4 fzgk said”

“Pork Hunt. Ill put cash up that the vast majority are employed, licensed, registered and integrated happily in the community. How much you want to bet.”

I said “large number” and you said “vast majority”. I don’t want to turn this into a maths excercise because I agree with you to “some” extent.

OpenYourMind said :

Take lots of the comments above and apply them to testing for legal medications that are known to affect driving. eg. statements like “if it saves just one life” or “try telling the family of someone who died in a car”. These emotive statements apply whether the drug is legal or illegal. And has been said, the trouble is the tests aren’t good enough to show concentration, just presence of a trace.

Yes, but some drugs are ILLEGAL, like speeding, or riding a bicycle across a pedestrian crossing.

OpenYourMind5:02 pm 06 May 10

Take lots of the comments above and apply them to testing for legal medications that are known to affect driving. eg. statements like “if it saves just one life” or “try telling the family of someone who died in a car”. These emotive statements apply whether the drug is legal or illegal. And has been said, the trouble is the tests aren’t good enough to show concentration, just presence of a trace.

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

For a start, what are the stats on confirmed links between fatal vehicle accidents and drug affectation (other than alcohol)?

Same question I asked above. It would be nice if we could take a more pragmatic view of other road rules in the same way, and adjust things to be more aligned with actual, measurable results. I curious as to whether there is any information (from anywhere) that establishes a clear link between drug use and road trauma, and the nature of the results. There’s probably a link, but what it actually means may not be so clear.

Agreed.

Not likely to originate from the Liberal Party though, is it?

Frankly, it’s not likely to originate from government. Political correctness versus pragmatism, hmmm.

Beserk Keyboard Warrior4:34 pm 06 May 10

I assume pot is exempt from this roadside testing? I drive my ’84 Accord so slowly after a spliff I’d struggle to squash a grape if I collided with it.

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

For a start, what are the stats on confirmed links between fatal vehicle accidents and drug affectation (other than alcohol)?

Same question I asked above. It would be nice if we could take a more pragmatic view of other road rules in the same way, and adjust things to be more aligned with actual, measurable results. I curious as to whether there is any information (from anywhere) that establishes a clear link between drug use and road trauma, and the nature of the results. There’s probably a link, but what it actually means may not be so clear.

Agreed.

Not likely to originate from the Liberal Party though, is it?

Jim Jones said :

For a start, what are the stats on confirmed links between fatal vehicle accidents and drug affectation (other than alcohol)?

Same question I asked above. It would be nice if we could take a more pragmatic view of other road rules in the same way, and adjust things to be more aligned with actual, measurable results. I curious as to whether there is any information (from anywhere) that establishes a clear link between drug use and road trauma, and the nature of the results. There’s probably a link, but what it actually means may not be so clear.

Is ‘voice of reason’s’ post the longest post ever on this site? And it also manages to achieve internal consistency, oft lacking in much shorter postings.

P1 heres the bonus

Then after a week off go back to work as a judge, minister, or other public official and screw up peoples lives while taking boxes of perscribed drugs that affect your work

mutley said :

Jim Jones said :

jasere said :

the way I see it MOST of the sheep that are against it are low life junkies.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a ‘low life junkie’? You really are a tool.

To be honest Jim, he did say MOST of those who disagree. Stop misrepresenting the facts man.

My apologies – MOST of those who disagree with him are low life druggies. That’s a much more reasonable thing to say, isn’t it.

Jim Jones said :

jasere said :

the way I see it MOST of the sheep that are against it are low life junkies.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a ‘low life junkie’? You really are a tool.

To be honest Jim, he did say MOST of those who disagree. Stop misrepresenting the facts man.

Clown Killer2:25 pm 06 May 10

“So what other random searches shall we start up in ever more panicked fear of ourselves?”

I’d love to see you justify that comment to the families of people killed in motor vehicles accidents where drug affectation was a major factor.

If there was a plethora of people dying on our roads aty the hands of drug-addled drivers one might imagine that there might be a Coroners report confirming that.

Does it matter what the number is? Isn’t one road death that could be attributed, in part or in full, to illegal drug use one death too many?

While one is “one to many” in a philosophical sense, the simple truth is there are a lot of things which can be done to subtly adjust the behaviour and thus safety of people on the road. The cost (dollar, time, social, environmental) of these actions, verses the benefits (reduction in injuries, death, dollar value of damage) is what controls which of these actions are taken.

Max speed limit reduced to 10km/h = reduction in deaths, but a little inconvenient

All of the speed limits, BAC, etc are values which have been determined to reduce unacceptable dangers to acceptable ones while not making the world to inconvenient.

One said :

Court awards assetts of dead person to Government for covering cost of disposal

Medical tests, etc = your IP is also given away without your consent

and

So will the police remove Drug affected Drivers from the roads – Answer is NO.

Are you on any medication?

RICH PEOPLE ALWAYS ANSWER NO OFFICER I AM NOT ON ANY MEDICATION

So how come Police do NOT look at Medicare Cards for medications that affect a drivers ability?

So how come the Intoxicated Government lets Drug affected Government workers destroy peoples lives?

Can someone translate for me?

Holden Caulfield1:42 pm 06 May 10

dvaey said :

vg said :

I’d love to see you justify that comment to the families of people killed in motor vehicles accidents where drug affectation was a major factor.

Exactly how many is this? You seem to know the figures involved, and since they arent being published would you care to share your information? Or do you just like using the emotive arguments…

Does it matter what the number is? Isn’t one road death that could be attributed, in part or in full, to illegal drug use one death too many?

Or do you have a number of deaths attributable to illegal drug use that should be “achieved” on our roads before you agree the issue should be addressed with measures such as roadside testing?

jasere Grown ups use punctuation. Even low life junkies have mastered the full stop.

jasere said :

the way I see it MOST of the sheep that are against it are low life junkies.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a ‘low life junkie’? You really are a tool.

54-11 said :

At least a few of the higher risk ones may be removed from the roads, making us all a bit safer.

If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

The same legislation was passed in Victoria and has absolutely no effect whatsoever.

I can’t wait for this I know a few people that dabble in that kind of thing and they are sh%$ing them self’s about it and their argument is the same crap see here

the way I see it MOST of the sheep that are against it are low life junkies. don’t care if its once a week or once a month or even what it is

grow up or your going down MooAHAHAHA

So will the police remove Drug affected Drivers from the roads – Answer is NO.

Are you on any medication?

RICH PEOPLE ALWAYS ANSWER NO OFFICER I AM NOT ON ANY MEDICATION

So how come Police do NOT look at Medicare Cards for medications that affect a drivers ability?

So how come the Intoxicated Government lets Drug affected Government workers destroy peoples lives?

I know I have presented skewed statistics due to the targeted nature of Victorian drug testing. One statistic that I do find compelling is that in 2006 the ACT had the lowest road fatalities in Australia and all of the OECD Nations. Yes we are good drivers after all.

davey I’m assured that ADHD drugs do not give a positive result. The only downside to that is a lot of ADHD people do use other illegal drugs because they find that it helps manage their condition.

Snarky said :

The two worst drugs our society has to deal with are tobacco and alcohol – they’re legal (within certain contexts) and more or less freely available. Tobacco doesn’t impair driving ability to the best of my knowledge, but alcohol does.

If you suck down a ciggy quickly then jump behind the wheel, youre not gonna be 100% coherent, probably have at the very least a bit of headspin.

vg said :

I’d love to see you justify that comment to the families of people killed in motor vehicles accidents where drug affectation was a major factor.

Exactly how many is this? You seem to know the figures involved, and since they arent being published would you care to share your information? Or do you just like using the emotive arguments, without any real facts to back it up? Im more worried about the unroadworthy, dangerous, untrained drivers than the large percentage of drivers who will test positive to smoking a joint in the last month.

This story keeps popping up in the news, but I never hear anything about how theyve fixed the problems that stopped it becoming law in the past. The ACT has looked at testing before and rejected it because none of the current testing methods is accurate enough to be presented in a court of law. Every few months the media jumps on the issue, maybe in the hope that ACT govco will forget the legal reasons it wasnt passed before, and simply pass the law as a knee-jerk reaction to media frenzy.

Another thought comes to mind too, how do police screen for the myriad of drivers who were brought up diagnosed with ADD/ADHD (isnt that every kid these days?) and have been prescribed amphetamine drugs for the treatment and management of their condition. Will those drivers be issued a ‘get out of DUI free’ card by the doctor/pharmacist? What about all the medications which warn on the box ‘do not operate a vehicle while using this medication’? Should pharmacists be demanding to see a drivers licence which they enter the details of into a computer, so the licence is cancelled for the week the driver is on the drugs?

Im honestly a lot more scared of the public servant who drank 10 cups of coffee in the afternoon before leaving work to drive through rush-hour traffic, than the guy who had a joint or an eccy over the weekend. Why dont we test all drivers who report to ED after an accident, for caffeine, tobacco and other stimulants/depressants. I bet that 80% of drivers involved in an accident have caffeine in their system, therefore we should ban it.. after all as vg says, do you want to be the police officer having to tell someone their family member is dead because someone got hopped up on a latte?

I’m all for it. As a motorbike rider, I’m daily at risk from dickheads talking on their mobile phones, who are unable to change lanes properly, and are incapable of indicating.

Who knows how many of these lowlife car drivers are also impaired in other ways. At least a few of the higher risk ones may be removed from the roads, making us all a bit safer.

fgzk said :

I suppose that the police will be doubling all their resources to combat the out of control carnage that drugs are causing on Canberra’s roads.

On a more serious note, do we actually have any stats relating to drug involvement in motr vehicle accidents?

If the VIC experience is anything to go buy then we would could expect a 1:54 ratio of drivers tested recording a positive result for drugs. This compares to a ratio of 1:162 for drink driving offenders. Roughly that would equate to three times the police resources in processing. With the same police resources for testing this must increase your chance of getting waved on thus keeping more drunks on our roads.

I suppose that the police will be doubling all their resources to combat the out of control carnage that drugs are causing on Canberra’s roads.

The active ingredient THC is detectable in the urine after 48-72 hours in a one-off or occasional user or up to 6 weeks in a heavy user.

http://www.passadrugtestingforall.com/long-does-marijuana-stay-your-system-a-4.html

ConanOfCooma10:33 am 06 May 10

I thought THC was broken down in under 48 hours, and the police tested for the metabolised by-products of that breakdown?

Specail G ” administered by the same Police administering breath screening.”

Yes an interesting point indeed. How could this distract from screening drunk drivers. I see it this way. The same police now have to administer two tests. Twice the time testing. For each positive test for say pot the same policeman has to retest and process the driver. I wonder what the statistics are on drunk drivers being waved past the testing point while this goes on. I would hazard a guess that road side testing will actually decrease the amount of DUI’s under the influence of alcohol. Too me that would mean a greater number of drunks on our roads happily waved on.

vg said :


I’d love to see you justify that comment to the families of people killed in motor vehicles accidents where drug affectation was a major factor.

Using emotional blackmail as an argumentative technique – how classy. Reminds me of Stephen Conroy’s argument that anyone who is against his internet filtering proposal is in favour of child pr0n.

For a start, what are the stats on confirmed links between fatal vehicle accidents and drug affectation (other than alcohol)?

Secondly, how do you propose to distinguish between positive results due to drugs currently active in the system, and those that come up positive due to residual traces (THC – the active ingredient of cannabis – remains in the human system for 3 to 90 days after ingestion)?

And really, how effective a use of police time is roadside drug testing?

The legislation is clearly being pushed by “knuckle dragging conservative politicians” (astutely phrased above) who don’t care about the effect on road safety. They’re interested in appearing to be ‘tough on crime’ and having a ‘war on drugs’ (and appealing to the lowest common denominator) rather than looking for effective policy. This is particularly evident by the fact that cleo is in favor of this plan (Let us note that cleo is on record as stating that: (a) marijuana use causes people to go insane, (b) snuff is cocaine, (c) Charles Lutwidge Dodgson wrote Alice in Wonderland in 1865 under the influence of LSD, despite the fact that LSD wasn’t synthesised until the 1950s).

“Drugs are bad, mmkay”.

That’s some interesting comments Mr voice of reason although part of your reasoning is fairly flawed. Drug testing would be administered by the same Police administering breath screening. General Duties and traffic for the most part.

Also given that possession of all of the drugs tested for is an offence in itself it is like catching you for possession after you took them. Basically what it is saying is taking drugs are bad mmkay.

Yay about time!

Court awards assetts of dead person to Government for covering cost of disposal

Medical tests, etc = your IP is also given away without your consent

“Its not your fault, your drunk mate”

So where is the public transport?

Is this another round of police cars getting funding for the Government?

How about a law that sees members of political parties gaoled for their part in accepting secret donations, to write one sided laws which never hold the commissioner responsibile for allowing a all-you-can-drink-society of $Millions in druken abuse where intoxicated members of this select society have a right to assault any victims that are legaly required by ACT Government law to defend their lives while taking care not to harm the drunk attempting to smash in the victims skull?

Every drunk gets a reward to help their lives

The assault victim gets taken to court by the ACT Government

Clown Killer11:24 pm 05 May 10

I don’t really have too much of a problem with testing for other substances that might impair drivers. Testing for alcohol is a good thing, so why not testing for other drugs?

Where to from here? There’s plenty of drivers out and about on our roads that are having problems dealing with basic traffic issues regardless. The numerous threads here on RA with queues of people lining up to freely admit that they find it difficulty managing to drive safely when there are other road users such as cyclists about is testimony to the fact that there needs to be greater focus on the overall competency of drivers.

How about adding tracking numbers to grog containers so police can track the sellers of grog that ends up in the hands of voilent drunks.

Then publish that to mylocaldrunk.act.gov.au?

Funny how the AFP research everything but drugs supplied by people who help with political donations

“So what other random searches shall we start up in ever more panicked fear of ourselves?”

I’d love to see you justify that comment to the families of people killed in motor vehicles accidents where drug affectation was a major factor.

I also bet you won’t publish this

Voice of Reason11:00 pm 05 May 10

This is seriously flawed policy folks. There’s so many problems with it, I hardly know where to start.

First off … let’s drop the pretence there will be some random element. Roadside drug testing will be too expensive and time consuming for the police to waste precious resources on random testing. Compared with breath testing, the costs are astronomical.

Is it about road safety? No. Of course it isn’t. It’s a policy developed behind an illusion of road safety, just as the Victorian model it supposes to replicate provides nothing but an illusion of road safety. There is zero evidence that the Victorian model, held up by proponents of roadside testing for some drugs, has led to safer roads. In fact a study (the IDRS) of illicit drug users has shown that since the introduction of roadside testing for some drugs in Victoria, the self-reported rate of driving when intoxicated by drugs other than alcohol has not decreased at all. Now call me old fashioned, but a road safety initiative that has been demonstrated to not improve road safety is not a road safety initiative at all.

If you doubt this fact, grab hold of the report of the independent evaluation of the Victorian roadside testing for some drugs programme and see for yourself. What’s that you say … you can’t seem to find an independent evaluation of the Victorian programme? No, well you won’t. You see, there isn’t one. Now ask yourself, “why in the years since its introduction would they not evaluate the impact of this programme on road safety outcomes at a population level?” Good question. If such an evaluation was going to find a positive outcome, there would be a report on every shelf. Instead, Martin Boorman from the Victorian Police [some] Drug Testing Unit has stooped as low as the ‘academically credible peer reviewed and scrupulously above board A Current Affair tv programme’ to espouse the virtues of Victorian [some] drug testing programme and fuel the hand wringing of all those constantly demanding that our nation’s governments get tougher on drugs.

It’ll test for any detectable trace of pot, speed/ice and ‘E’. Test positive for even a minute trace and you’ll be charged with drug driving. It won’t matter whether you or your driving is not the slightest bit affected. Take a couple of ‘E’s on a Friday night out with the lads and ladies, and you will test positive when driving to work on a Monday morning. Why is that a problem? It’s obviously a problem if the best drug driving policy they can come up will also capture those who are not drug driving.

Similarly, there’s obviously a problem if the best drug driving policy they can come up with does not propose to screen drivers for other drugs taken commonly in the community and also commonly linked with vehicle crashes (such as benzodiazepines and other prescription medications, and heroin). According to the IDRS, benzos are easy to get in Canberra either on prescription or on the street. Around half of illicit drug users who enter drug treatment programmes have taken benzos in the month before.

Isn’t heroin a drug capable of impairing driver performance? Of course it is. Why won’t the programme screen drivers for heroin? Because they can’t differentiate it from prescription opioids that people might be taking legally. Why is that a problem? It’s a problem because our bodies and minds don’t differentiate between drugs that we have a prescription for and the drugs that we don’t. If it’s a drug capable of impairing driver performance and therefore capable of impacting on road safety, then any drug driving programme worth a cracker would have it within scope? Why doesn’t the proposed roadside testing for some drugs programme have all drugs within scope? Simple, because “normal people” who drive under the influence of legal drugs would get caught in the net.

Why would it be a problem that “normal people” whose driving is impaired get caught in the net? Well it wouldn’t be a problem if your motivation was road safety. It’d only be a problem if your motivation was political convenience, and if “normal people” weren’t the target of efforts to show the electorate that you’re tough on drugs, committed to road safety, and willing to pursue the users of some drugs (but not others) in order to prove your credentials.

So, will roadside testing for some drugs but not others improve road safety in the ACT? No, it won’t. Even if the resources and extra police necessary to implement it magically appeared, the Victorian evidence suggests that people who currently drug drive will continue to do so at precisely the same rate as they do now. Also, many currently driving under the influence of drugs will continue to do so knowing that the drugs that they take are not pot, speed/ice and ‘E’.

More alarming than that however, is the fact that police will need to be re-assigned from other duties in order to test drivers for some drugs but not others. Undoubtedly, some of the police implementing this garbage would otherwise have been involved in drink driving enforcement … a police initiative proven to make the roads safer with more than two thirds of drivers charged with drink driving never reoffending.

Great policy guys. Take police from an initiative proven to be effective in improving road safety, and redeploy them to an initiative without a scintilla of evidence of road safety improvement. Seriously, why the hell would you want to do that? Oh yeah, politics, of course. Why didn’t I think of that?

luther_bendross9:13 pm 05 May 10

Maybe they could check that people’s indicators are working.

The two worst drugs our society has to deal with are tobacco and alcohol – they’re legal (within certain contexts) and more or less freely available. Tobacco doesn’t impair driving ability to the best of my knowledge, but alcohol does. More alcohol testing would be great, lower limits even better, and more convictions once detected would be a trifecta win for me.

Failing that, if you really want to “test” for something else then get out, pull hoon drivers off the road and catch the Mully’s of the world – the disqualified, unlicenced, uninsured b*stards who cause or create the worst accidents.

This is great news: I can’t wait to test drugs on the roadside.

Random Pop Quiz Of Road Rules.

Get more than one wrong and you’re not allowed to drive again until you’ve retaken the learners test on a laptop at the side of the road.

It’s all going to come down to how they calibrate the test.

If someone can get busted on monday morning for a substance they took over the weekend then this is a really bad law that will disproportionally impact on the lives of young adults.

As this is being pushed by some real knuckle dragging conservative politicians, I don’t think they will be too worried about the injustice caused by a high rate of false positives.

OpenYourMind5:16 pm 05 May 10

Real roadside drug testing should include a host of legal medications which are much more likely to affect driving. That testing will never happen.

Here’s a report that covers this issue:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/186549/Drug_Driving_in_the_Territory_an_overview_of_issues_and_options.pdf

No there is no consided range of drug. If its there your done.

Pork Hunt. Ill put cash up that the vast majority are employed, licensed, registered and integrated happily in the community. How much you want to bet.

So what other random searches shall we start up in ever more panicked fear of ourselves?

Cavity searches for the “Mully” gene.

I am interested to know if there is such a thing as “low range” or “high range” readings in this context.

As in, seemed fine but the drug test returned proof there was some in his system, or clearly stoned out if his brain, and tested him to prove it.

I suppose this will be another excuse for the Mully’s of this world to do a runner when Policeman Plod approaches. In the event that this becomes law, I would bet that a large number of drivers testing positive will also be unreg, unlic and uninsured. Bogans…

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.