Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

The Pratt calls for roadside drug testing

By johnboy 6 July 2006 49

Steve Pratt is warning us that drastic action is needed to stem the tide of drug addled maniacs behind the wheels of cars on our roads.

The evidence points to a growing problem with drug driving across the entire country. No state or territory is safe from drug drivers

More people are taking drugs? More drug takers are driving? I’m at a loss as to how this can be a rising problem.

But as Steve’s solution is random testing of drivers for drugs, what it’s really about is unwarranted searches.

With Random Breath Testing for alcohol we bought a little safety at the expense of an essential liberty (to not have searches performed until there is positive reason to suspect us), but at least the actual drinking was not illegal, just the driving when drunk.

Anyway I’m sure the safety nazi’s will be thrilled to see liberties further eroded for a minute hypothecated statistical improvement in road safety.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
49 Responses to
The Pratt calls for roadside drug testing
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Special G 9:24 pm 10 Jul 06

VY, nice call.

Thumper 10:19 am 10 Jul 06

Not controversial at all.

With rights come responsibility. A Bill of responsibility, as silly as it sounds, would be a perfect balance to a Bill of rights.

VYBerlinaV8 9:48 am 10 Jul 06

I hear plenty of people in this town carrying on about Human Rights. Perhaps we could balance this with a bill of Human Responsibilities. When you are found to not be meeting your responsibilities , consequences would result. Of course, we will have to work our the details, but I think the effort would be worth it. It would go some way towards sending a message to the folk who seem to believe the world owes them a living.
/end controversial rant

simto 8:36 am 07 Jul 06

Dangerous driving is in itself an offence. Are the police really incapable of judging it and charging under it?

nyssa76 9:50 pm 06 Jul 06

Should read – didn’t arrest her at the time. Oops.

nyssa76 9:49 pm 06 Jul 06

Nothing will happen until the laws are tighter.

My druggie sister and her bf were driving drunk and stoned. She hit a parked car, with its driver still in it, and was bundled off to Calvary.

The police didn’t arrest her but she was charged and got off.

The system is a joke and until it is rectified, don’t expect any deterrent.

Danman 9:45 pm 06 Jul 06

The half life of THC ( Active Marijuana component ) is 28 to 90 days. Not being a smoker myself – i still find it amusing that – theoretically – someone could get pulled over today and charged for having a good time at the Easter Folk Festival. Japes aplenty

johnboy 9:42 pm 06 Jul 06

How about fatigue?

Vic Bitterman 9:36 pm 06 Jul 06

May I suggest that from what I’m reading here, most of us are in agreement that drugged drivers (who are, or potentially are) a danger should be caught and some action taken.

What is unclear, is exactly how one determines what ‘active’ or otherwise, the drugs are. Also what is unclear is how the police can be given this role whilst upholding neutrality – the quoted evidence of the Victorian false-positive needs to be considered.

As for me, it goes as simple as this : Any driver who may harm, maim or injure myself and my family, needs to be off the road, and I don’t care whether their impairment method is drugs or drink – they must be off the road. With the drugs, it’s the determination thing that is the moot point.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site