The Pratt calls for roadside drug testing

The first driver “caught” in Victoria by a roadside drug test was splashed all over the media as part of the police photo-op.

The trouble is that he wasn’t under the influence. It was a false positive.

He’s now suing Victoria Police for destroying his reputation.

Also, eating poppy seeds can trigger a positive result for heroin and ibuprofen (i.e. Nurofen) can trigger a false positive for amphetamines. See here, P8.

I gather something new has come along as I am aware of people who have been convicted of driving under the influence of drugs both here and in other states.

If the choof affects impairs their driving then yes….and it would be to a hospital to be conducted by a medical professional.

If people still want drivers barrelling up and down the highways of this nation driving 18 wheelers wired to the eyeballs on amphetamines or similiar then I guess they should object to the proposal.

OR, ensure the civil liberties of those that chose to drive ‘straight’ aren’t terminated by those who don’t

The problem vg, is that Mr Pratt assumes there are…

Can the blood test differentiate between active drugs and inactive drug metabolites? I haven’t worked in pathology for about 5 years now, but I seem to recall that that wasn’t possible at the time – has something new come along?

Another problem is, do you drag everyone who’s had a choof in the last couple of days down to the station for a poke with a needle? At least a positive breath test is a reliable indication that, at this very moment, you are under the influence.

If they can come up with a test that works pretty much exactly the same as the breath test for drugs, I’d reconsider – but I’m less than convinced right now.

Shab, there is. Its called a blood test. Much like your road side test is not the substantive test for driving under the influence of alcohol. Its the screening test for the big one conducted back at the station. It indicates something but doesnt substantiate it.

Same deal for drug testing. The roadside test would indicate something, then a substantive blood test later, should the legislation permit it, it what shows the ‘under the influence’.

Constantly ranking highly on the surveyed ‘most trusted’ occupations means society, by and large, trusts the Police and that trust is well founded. There are bad eggs in everything but that doesn’t mean the occupation as a whole isn’t trusted.

Then again they did have something in the opposite vein to say about journalists.

There aren’t reds under every bed

Okay, let’s take this a little slower.

Let’s say someone drug impaired is driving past a RBT section at the moment. They (presumably) should be able to judge whether he’s driving competently as he arrives towards them. And if he’s not, they should be able to charge him with dangerous driving, with or without testing him for the use of drugs. So no death messages for VG to tell innocent bystander’s parents.

If he isn’t driving particularly dangerously, then what’s the problem?

JB was pointing out that “Trust us, we’re the police” is not a sustainable approach for a society.

I’m with Bonfire – we can’t seriously be considering this guff.

Oh wait. It was Steve Pratt’s suggestion…

Till there’s a test for whether you are actually under the influence of cannabis/amphetamine/heroin/etc, there’s no way we should be using it to establish people’s guilt of driving while under the influence.

johnboy – there was also the raid on St kilda drug squad back in 2000 – that was pretty major..

JB seems to forget that we live in the ACT, not NSW or Victoria when there was evidence of some form of institutionalised corruption.

There is ample evidence that shows that drug affected drivers are just as impaired, often more so, that alcohol affected one’s. Police won’t suddenly gain some omnipotent new power. The set up would be the same as any RBT except the method of testing slightly different.

No drugs or alcohol in your system and you are on your merry way, as 99% of the driving population would be.

But then again if people are happy to let the drug affected still rip around the place I’ll swap jobs when it comes time to delivering the death message to some innocent bystanders parents

I would say late night hot dog sellers shift tomato sauce and bags of pre chopped onions under the counter.

The Victorian Senior Constable shouldn’t have been there but who knows, he could have been played by the con woman too.

The raid on the armed offenders squad is a fair call if the allegations are proved.

A Police Force is a reflection of the community it represents, and unfortunately there will be a small number of people who do the wrong thing at times. Overall I would say Police as a whole do the right thing and do what they do because they want to help people who need help and lock up people who need locking up.

an issue i have with drug tests is that if crazychester has a doobie today, and drives tomorrow – that will be detected.

the effect of the drug will have gone, but evidence will remain.

all the test indicates is its presence. crazychester will be charged with ‘dui – d’ and thats it.

until the testing is as sophisticated as the rbt technology – which even then is backed up with a blood test, i think this broad spectrum approach to drug tests needs work.

dont test cutting edge technology with citizens freedoms.

and as ive said previously, instead of this technology why not resource police to stop dangerous driving occurring – im afraid speed vans and roadside lasers targetting speed are only focussing on one variable.

Victorian police running the nightclub hot dog stands and threatening competitors while getting supplies delivered by marked cars. And I think we all know what late night hot dog sellers shift under the counter right?

A con woman wanted in three states arrested with her fiance, a fiance who was also a victorian Senior Constable.

Then there’s the raids on the armed offenders squad.

On top of that you’re telling me that last year’s “break-in” at the St Kilda Road headquarters was all an outside job?

And, while we’re on the subject, the wood royal commission was in 1997, not 1975.

What’s wrong with testing for DUI of drugs at the same time as testin for DUI of alcohol? If you’re above the limit you’re charged.

I’m not advocating random searches for drugs.

Unless it’s drug fucked heroin addicts like the ones that trashed my place. Then random strip searching and anal probes with cattle prods is acceptable.

Can’t say I have. Please enlighten me

Eh? been following events in Victoria?

Are you expecting Roger Rogerson to come and throw a bag of sea salt in you car so he can lock you up, take you back to the station and beat the shit out of you with a yellow pages ?

The bad old days of the 70’s are long gone JB

I also like how your magic instincts inform you of my bedtime!

Such olympian knowledge!

Civil liberties are such a pain for police, why can’t they just do whatever they like?

Mmm because police are so trustworthy!

At least you’ll know which cars have got the drugs in them in most States.

Exactly. Only the guilty have anything to fear. I don’t see anything wrong with the coppers searching a vehicle after the driver is found to be driving whilst stoned / high.

The ACT is the most liberal jurisdiction in Australia by far, if deciding whether this ‘power’ is suitable results in a tantrum I think the ACT truly is Australia’s little Amsterdam.

The rest of the country will legislate for driving whilst under the influence of illicit drugs to be much the same as drink driving, and a few years later the ACT will eventually follow suit with a half baked effort that’s not worth the paper its written on, such as the Terrorism ‘Extraordinary Temporary Powers’ Act.

Just because you don’t see the problem doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It all well and good criticise when you work Monday to Friday 8 – 4 and are tucked away in bed by 9 pm each night.

yeah, only the guilty have anything to fear.

I’m looking out my window now and the blood is just flowing down Northbourne, if only we had tested all those druggies.

Police always want more power.

Getting back on topic,

No wonder Stanhope is in charge of this place. With so many soft cocks flying the civil liberties flag the ACT has only itself to blame.

‘unwarranted searches’ what a load of bollocks. OK Johnboy now I know your NOT left wing of course but let’s bring a little common sense to the argument.

Or we could continue letting every drug taking knob out there continue to drive whilst off their tits, complain that some poor person’s civil liberty may be ‘further eroded’, wave a copy of Stanhopes Human Rights Act in the air and keep putting shit on the coppers when someone dies on the roads.

Just think how many poor crooks might have their liberties eroded, get taken off the road and have some drugs taken off them if the coppers actually had some decent powers in the ACT to do something about it.

Come on, guys – if barking toad was Hargreaves he wouldn’t be posting here at 12.53pm … he’d be at lunch.

and he doesn’t have a porn star mo

No. If he was he’d be pushing for .15

Is barking toad really hargraves?

I did see a motor cycle copper checking speed on ANZAC parade this morning, holding his laser. Are cameras attached to this, or was he just doing a baseline to prove everyone drives along at 70 down the hill?

Won’t work, thumper.

Cars in wreckers’ yards still tend to get hammered.

drink driving generally is a lot more dangerous the drug driving. But then again it does come down to the driver….

Too right, Bonfire. I have not seen the police doing any actual road policing in years. Just sneaking around with speed guns blazing (and those are usually either cameras, or civvies in white vans).

QBN has a few cops around the place, and when one is spotted, see all the tailgaters fall away!

Maybe they could show that it’s about road safety rather than unwarranted searches by allowing that evidence of drug use collected by a random drug test can only be used to prosecute drugged-driving charges.

What’s wrong with a policy of testing for drugs whenever there is a test for alcohol. Why should us drinkers be singled out for punishment?

And, slightly off topic – the limit for seasoned drinkers should be .10. Leave the .05 for the alco-pop guzzling kiddies.

if i saw more POLICE cars on the road PULLING OVER idiot drivers for offences which cause accidents, such as inattention and dangerous driving, perhaps i’d think politicians really cared about reducing the road toll and not reducing my liberty and increasing their revenue.

my drug taking days are pretty much over, but,
the number of people i know (myself included) who drug drive, is huge. mainly because we all know that, at present, you can’t really be caught for it.
I’ve been pulled over a couple of times on my way home, and while it was clearly obvious, i don’t think they could do anything. in fact, right out side the city watch house, sent me on my merry way.

People will continue to do this, just as they continue to drink drive.
The problem is that drugs stay ni your system for much longer, and can prevent you from driving the next day, or whatever, due to the length of the halflife

There’s no need to test, the way many Canberrans drive it’s safe to assume they’re on drugs all the time.