Simon recruiting more roadside drug testers

johnboy 17 February 2012 28

simon corbell and his troops

Police Minister Simon Corbell has announced a ramp up of officers trained to perform roadside drug testing.

Mr Corbell said that the new team would provide the community with multi-skilled police officers specifically trained to target and remove high risk takers from our roads.

“The new team combines the RAPID (Recognition and Analysis of Plates Identified) and the six-month-old Random Roadside Drug Testing (RRDT) team — increasing the number of officers able and trained to conduct random roadside drug testing from two to nine,” he said.

Since ACT Policing began operating random roadside drug testing in May 2011, more than 300 drug tests have been conducted with ten returning positive roadside tests. Of the ten, two have been charged and convicted.

“The initial months focused on establishing robust governance, training and developing operational requirements, including the purchase of drug kits and other equipment,” Mr Corbell said.

“The Road Safety Operations team is now in place to expand our road safety efforts. The public can expect to see the team out and about, setting up roadside operations targeting drink driving, drug driving and unregistered/unlicensed drivers — a multipronged approach to improving road safety.”

The mouth swabs are looking for weed, ice, and ecstasy.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to Simon recruiting more roadside drug testers
Filter
Order
buzz819 buzz819 2:32 pm 20 Feb 12

Duffbowl said :

Henry82 said :

danggers16 said :

and your a yuppie iced tea drinking hipster from red hill ?

you’re

Best correct both of them..

Buzz819, “your probably a tradesman”? tsk, tsk.

I also noted a possible grammatical error with the use of a comma whereas a semi-colon may have been more appropriate. Normally I frown on the repeated use of “and” in a sentence; however, I’ll let you have that one as you appeared to be constructing a sentence based on a logical sequence.

Sorry, I hung my head in shame….

VYBerlinaV8_is_back VYBerlinaV8_is_back 2:05 pm 20 Feb 12

Tooks said :

danggers16 said :

buzz819 said :

danggers16 said :

its something we dont need its a huge waste of money f*** the police

Good good, I’m going to go out on a limb here, you drive a white Commodore and live in one of Wanniassa, Richardson, Charnwood, Dunlop, Palmerson or Nicholls and on top of that you smoke weed, do ecstasy, drink and drive and don’t register your car AND your probably a tradesman.

and your a yuppie iced tea drinking hipster from red hill ? and also a pedo?

Your parents are brother and sister, right?

Typing with 12 fingers must be difficult, you keep making typos.

Let’s leave Uncle Daddy out of this…

Duffbowl Duffbowl 1:17 pm 20 Feb 12

Henry82 said :

danggers16 said :

and your a yuppie iced tea drinking hipster from red hill ?

you’re

Best correct both of them..

Buzz819, “your probably a tradesman”? tsk, tsk.

I also noted a possible grammatical error with the use of a comma whereas a semi-colon may have been more appropriate. Normally I frown on the repeated use of “and” in a sentence; however, I’ll let you have that one as you appeared to be constructing a sentence based on a logical sequence.

Henry82 Henry82 12:25 pm 20 Feb 12

danggers16 said :

and your a yuppie iced tea drinking hipster from red hill ?

you’re

The_TaxMan The_TaxMan 9:58 am 20 Feb 12

I applaud any directive to remove intoxicated drivers from our roads, however THC being identified in your system when you are NOT intoxicated creates a problem. The issue is dope is illegal and therefore this is a nifty way of identifying those people who use, the reason behind only 2 of 10 charged is that when the toxocology report was the level of THC was deemed low enough to have not caused an impediment to driving. Anyone who has undertaken a roadside drug test will know that if you are found to have THC is your system you will be dissallowed from driving for a 24 hour period and your specimen will be sent for detailed testing. If found to contain low levels of THC ‘representative of possible consumption in the past or the result of second hand smoke’ you will receive a notice of the results with no further action, only if your swab displays levels conducive with ‘driving under the influence’ will you recieve a summons. On the topic of roadside saliva tests, they are highly inaccurate giving regular false positives, resulting in a second test and once that is conducted a final test is sent to the tox lab to determine what, if anything exists in the system. For those wanting to know how long drugs can be detected in their system the follwoing is a guideline
Alcohol 12-24 hours
Amphetamines (except methamphetamine) 12 hours
Methamphetamine 1–3 days
Barbiturates (except phenobarbital) 1 to 2 days
Phenobarbital 4 to 7 days
Cannabis 2–3 days in blood, up to 2 weeks in blood of heavy users[7] However, it depends on whether actual THC or THC metabolites are being tested for, the latter having a much longer detection time than the former. THC (found in marijuana) may only be detectable in saliva/oral fluid for 2–24 hours in most cases.
Cocaine 2 to 5 days
Heroin 1– 2 days
LSD 2 to 4 days
Methadone 24 hours
PCP 1 to 3 days

On the point of Methadone, if taken responsibly does not impair driving owever if taken at doses higher than recomended does impair your driving skills but as with other ‘legal’ drugs is not tested for even the impact of driving skills is well documented and proven.

buzz819 buzz819 8:55 am 20 Feb 12

danggers16 said :

buzz819 said :

danggers16 said :

its something we dont need its a huge waste of money f*** the police

Good good, I’m going to go out on a limb here, you drive a white Commodore and live in one of Wanniassa, Richardson, Charnwood, Dunlop, Palmerson or Nicholls and on top of that you smoke weed, do ecstasy, drink and drive and don’t register your car AND your probably a tradesman.

and your a yuppie iced tea drinking hipster from red hill ? and also a pedo?

Nah, more of a water drinker myself, I don’t go around counting my steps, so I can’t really be a pedometer though. I’m guessing I got most of that statement correct though, thanks for playing.

Tooks Tooks 4:01 am 20 Feb 12

danggers16 said :

buzz819 said :

danggers16 said :

its something we dont need its a huge waste of money f*** the police

Good good, I’m going to go out on a limb here, you drive a white Commodore and live in one of Wanniassa, Richardson, Charnwood, Dunlop, Palmerson or Nicholls and on top of that you smoke weed, do ecstasy, drink and drive and don’t register your car AND your probably a tradesman.

and your a yuppie iced tea drinking hipster from red hill ? and also a pedo?

Your parents are brother and sister, right?

Typing with 12 fingers must be difficult, you keep making typos.

danggers16 danggers16 9:53 pm 19 Feb 12

buzz819 said :

danggers16 said :

its something we dont need its a huge waste of money f*** the police

Good good, I’m going to go out on a limb here, you drive a white Commodore and live in one of Wanniassa, Richardson, Charnwood, Dunlop, Palmerson or Nicholls and on top of that you smoke weed, do ecstasy, drink and drive and don’t register your car AND your probably a tradesman.

and your a yuppie iced tea drinking hipster from red hill ? and also a pedo?

Tooks Tooks 2:24 pm 19 Feb 12

aronde said :

I am curious how 10 positive tests can result in only 2 convictions? Were the other 8 false positives? If so that is one heck of an unreliable test!

The smart assumption would be that the other matters haven’t be dealt with at court yet.

Henry82 Henry82 2:18 pm 19 Feb 12

danggers16 said :

its something we dont need its a huge waste of money f*** the police

Let me guess, you’ve had a few run-ins with police?

Tooks Tooks 1:55 pm 19 Feb 12

danggers16 said :

its something we dont need its a huge waste of money f*** the police

If imbeciles like this don’t like it, it must be a good thing.

buzz819 buzz819 10:59 am 19 Feb 12

danggers16 said :

its something we dont need its a huge waste of money f*** the police

Good good, I’m going to go out on a limb here, you drive a white Commodore and live in one of Wanniassa, Richardson, Charnwood, Dunlop, Palmerson or Nicholls and on top of that you smoke weed, do ecstasy, drink and drive and don’t register your car AND your probably a tradesman.

Skidd Marx Skidd Marx 10:56 am 19 Feb 12

I love how legislators can conveniently overlook any need to establish the point at which drivers with cannabis in their system are impaired. But as long as we subscribe to the incredibly hypocritical “drugs are bad” mantra” we won’t have to waste any energy actually thinking about it. Phew.

danggers16 danggers16 10:36 am 19 Feb 12

its something we dont need its a huge waste of money f*** the police

Ben_Dover Ben_Dover 9:59 am 19 Feb 12

Cannabis will show up in your blood stream up to 3-5 days after smoking it, longer if you are a heavy user. I have no problem with getting intoxicated people off the road, and banning them from driving for driving under the influence. I have big issues with banning people for driving while not under the influence.

http://www.ohsinc.com/how_long_do_drugs_stay_in_your_system.htm

http://www.cocaine.org/drugtestfaq/index.html

Alderney Alderney 6:42 am 19 Feb 12

Cheap said :

The funny thing is that your performance behind the wheel actually improves with the use of amphetamines. It has the exact opposite effect of alcohol – rather than depressing the nervous system, it stimulates it, improving reaction times and alertness. The US Air Force even gives amphetamines to its pilots on long missions for this very reason.

I’m not saying that everyone should go out and smoke some fat shards before driving, because obviously there is a point where your driving actually is impaired, I just don’t think it should be open for more debate, rather than simply outlawed on a knee-jerk reaction.

I also think that there should be a threshold for what is considered drug driving – if the government accepts that low levels of marijuana or other drugs don’t significantly alter driving (in the same way that it does with alcohol), then there should be no penalty for low range drug driving. And if the government accepts that there is a safe limit but can’t find a way of determining how intoxicated you are, then the system is flawed and should be scrapped.

So my two points are:
1. Not all drugs are the same when it comes to motor control and judgement, so they should be held to different standards
2. There shouldn’t be a double standard when it comes to safe levels of intoxication

Unfortunatley, your argument does not fit in with the ‘all drugs are bad’ mantra peddled by the ignorant.

Cheap Cheap 1:15 am 19 Feb 12

MJay said :

Cheap said :

I also think that there should be a threshold for what is considered drug driving – if the government accepts that low levels of marijuana or other drugs don’t significantly alter driving (in the same way that it does with alcohol), then there should be no penalty for low range drug driving. And if the government accepts that there is a safe limit but can’t find a way of determining how intoxicated you are, then the system is flawed and should be scrapped.

So my two points are:
1. Not all drugs are the same when it comes to motor control and judgement, so they should be held to different standards
2. There shouldn’t be a double standard when it comes to safe levels of intoxication

Drugs are going to affect everyone differently though, so even though two people may have had only had a small amount of the drug the differences in their coordination, alertness etc are potentially going to be very different.

Secondly, how is there a double standard? There are different rules governing the use/consumption/production etc of alcohol and other drugs. So two different sets of laws for them seems perfectly reasonable too me.

Your first point – doesn’t that mean that there should be a 0 alcohol limit for all drivers? And for your second: the point isn’t that the drugs may be illegal. It isn’t illegal to be under the effects of illegal drugs. The point is that the government thinks that there is a safe level of intoxication for alcohol but not other drugs.

AnimosiTy AnimosiTy 9:36 pm 18 Feb 12

about time! will discourage any drug use when driving! making the roads safer!
hopefully they put as much effort into this as their point to point cameras! :/

aronde aronde 8:47 pm 18 Feb 12

KeenGolfer said :

aronde said :

I am curious how 10 positive tests can result in only 2 convictions? Were the other 8 false positives? If so that is one heck of an unreliable test!

It’s not hard to work out. Only 2 have had their day in court so far. The other 8 will have their turn in the coming months.

Yes I thought that might be the case but my impression from the wording of the release was that they only charged 2 out of the 10 and convicted those 2!

angrymotorist1 angrymotorist1 6:41 pm 18 Feb 12

OpenYourMind said :

angrymotorist1 said :

Good. The more drugged up losers we can get off our roads the better.

Does that include all those on all sorts of legal prescribed medications that make a vehicle equally unsafe to operate.

Yes.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site