Simon recruiting more roadside drug testers

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….

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…

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.

danggers16 said :

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

you’re

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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! :/

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!

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.