NSW/VIC Random Drug Testing Laws: What do you think?
09-02-2006, 01:22 AM
#1
Bold as love
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSW/VIC Random Drug Testing Laws: I've had enough.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/060831/23/10cso.html
Without having done much research or taken too much effort to develop a coherent argument, here is my view on these 'laws'.
In a nutshell, the NSW and VIC governments have begun random drug testing in the same fashion as RBTs. The plan is initially to target truckies on long-haul routes but it is envisioned that the system will be rolled out more extensively to include RDTs in much the same manner as RBTs.
Personally, I think this is just another example of the endemic problem in our society with politicians using the law to win votes. The politicians represent the people who create laws that repress diversity and puts in check those people society deems as deviating from the norm. Drugs are illegal. I do not want to get into a debate about drug laws but this isn't the issue.
It is an entirely different question to have the authority to randomly drug test road users. The very definition of random drug testing involves displacing the presumption of innocence, does away with reasonable suspicion and is a cheap backdoor to drug enforcement. I am not an expert on drug laws but I am confident that at least the common law did not allow police officers to search ***** nilly citizens from drugs. The legislature no doubt has infringed on our rights once again.
This new law now allows our boys in blue (whom I do not particularly have faith in; but that is another story) to engage in selective acts of discrimination by targeting young drivers and charging them with criminal records for trivial amounts of drugs in the blood stream. This goes without saying that if you are driving under the influence of cannibis or ectstasy or other drug and are physically impaired, then there is a public protection/road safety issue that I can bear. But the law does not distinguish between present drug impairment and previous drug use.
The crucial issue that I want to drive home is that cannibus continues to be present in the body weeks and even months after it has been smoked without causing any apparent physiological impairment. It therefore seems unfair that driving under the influence of alcohol which is just plain stupid is given a similar if not less harsh penalty versus being arrested for the detection of cannibus in your saliva, which is present in your body without any present physiological effects.
A driver with previous private cannibus use who has no physical impairment can be arrested, fined and have their licence suspended for 6 months.
If the purpose of the laws are to protect other drivers where is the logic in random drug testing where unlike alcohol continues to be detectable in the body long after the physical effects have subsided?
Where do you draw the line? If as the Government suggests, this is about 'protecting the public and road safety', then why have they targeted illicit drugs? It's all too easy for lazy, vote hungry politicians to push the drug line and win the support of the majority voting population of the Baby Boomers.
To me, if they were serious about using the laws as protecting road users, then they would have included other non-illicit drugs. What about insomnia pills? What about Codral that induces drowsiness? Where do you draw the line? Or is it too difficult for poor little Transport Minister to think about. It's clear that the primary purpose isn't to protect road users. It's to eliminate illicit drugs in a manner that is easily digestable; disguised as road safety. Sound familiar? What about revenue-raising and speed cameras. It affects all road users, but is particularly vehmently argued by a large proportion of road users as unfair.
Something tells me that these new drug laws are not going to see articles in Wheels magazine and have strong voices representing the interests of drivers etc, simply because 21 year olds do not edit Wheels magazine and hold influential seats of power. We are too busy eating, sleeping, watching TV and taking the blame for everything that is wrong with society.
This is not a personal attack on certain generations. I understand it is human nature to only care about yourself and those around you. I could not give a rats **** about the new P-plate laws restricting drivers to grocery-getters and curfews, but I am sure those younger do, and it should concern them as these laws concern me.
Furthermore, unlike alcohol where you can sleep it off, catch a cab home or have a designated driver, there is no practical solution to driving under the influence of drugs. How can you implement a law upon citizens without giving them the ability to avoid the sanctions of the law? Stop using drugs you might say. That is not a practical solution.
That is like saying if you do not want to be charged for insider trading, then don't be a stock broker. If you do not want to be done for speeding, then don't drive. That is silly. The laws influence us to continuously disclose our numbers, to encourage us to act on publicly available knowledge, to drive below a certain speed limit.
Once again the youth of this country is subject to draconian laws without a voice.
It is a sad truth that the only solution to repression (as the Parisian youth of late have shown us) is violence and that the minority will always be overrun by the majority, which leads me to believe that maybe we are not so civilised and democratic as we would like to think.
Suggestion?
1. Amend the laws such that it truly reflects the definition of 'driving under the influence'. If it is too difficult to ascertain whether a driver is under the influence or merely reading positive without present physiological effects, then the law needs to be scrapped.
2. Include other drugs that are equally as dangerous. What about prescription medicines?
3. Declare the laws for what they are as drug laws and suffer the political backlash as opposed to disguising them as road rules.
PS: I am aware of have misspelt cannibus but cannot be bothered to fix it.
Without having done much research or taken too much effort to develop a coherent argument, here is my view on these 'laws'.
In a nutshell, the NSW and VIC governments have begun random drug testing in the same fashion as RBTs. The plan is initially to target truckies on long-haul routes but it is envisioned that the system will be rolled out more extensively to include RDTs in much the same manner as RBTs.
Personally, I think this is just another example of the endemic problem in our society with politicians using the law to win votes. The politicians represent the people who create laws that repress diversity and puts in check those people society deems as deviating from the norm. Drugs are illegal. I do not want to get into a debate about drug laws but this isn't the issue.
It is an entirely different question to have the authority to randomly drug test road users. The very definition of random drug testing involves displacing the presumption of innocence, does away with reasonable suspicion and is a cheap backdoor to drug enforcement. I am not an expert on drug laws but I am confident that at least the common law did not allow police officers to search ***** nilly citizens from drugs. The legislature no doubt has infringed on our rights once again.
This new law now allows our boys in blue (whom I do not particularly have faith in; but that is another story) to engage in selective acts of discrimination by targeting young drivers and charging them with criminal records for trivial amounts of drugs in the blood stream. This goes without saying that if you are driving under the influence of cannibis or ectstasy or other drug and are physically impaired, then there is a public protection/road safety issue that I can bear. But the law does not distinguish between present drug impairment and previous drug use.
The crucial issue that I want to drive home is that cannibus continues to be present in the body weeks and even months after it has been smoked without causing any apparent physiological impairment. It therefore seems unfair that driving under the influence of alcohol which is just plain stupid is given a similar if not less harsh penalty versus being arrested for the detection of cannibus in your saliva, which is present in your body without any present physiological effects.
A driver with previous private cannibus use who has no physical impairment can be arrested, fined and have their licence suspended for 6 months.
If the purpose of the laws are to protect other drivers where is the logic in random drug testing where unlike alcohol continues to be detectable in the body long after the physical effects have subsided?
Where do you draw the line? If as the Government suggests, this is about 'protecting the public and road safety', then why have they targeted illicit drugs? It's all too easy for lazy, vote hungry politicians to push the drug line and win the support of the majority voting population of the Baby Boomers. To me, if they were serious about using the laws as protecting road users, then they would have included other non-illicit drugs. What about insomnia pills? What about Codral that induces drowsiness? Where do you draw the line? Or is it too difficult for poor little Transport Minister to think about. It's clear that the primary purpose isn't to protect road users. It's to eliminate illicit drugs in a manner that is easily digestable; disguised as road safety. Sound familiar? What about revenue-raising and speed cameras. It affects all road users, but is particularly vehmently argued by a large proportion of road users as unfair.
Something tells me that these new drug laws are not going to see articles in Wheels magazine and have strong voices representing the interests of drivers etc, simply because 21 year olds do not edit Wheels magazine and hold influential seats of power. We are too busy eating, sleeping, watching TV and taking the blame for everything that is wrong with society.
This is not a personal attack on certain generations. I understand it is human nature to only care about yourself and those around you. I could not give a rats **** about the new P-plate laws restricting drivers to grocery-getters and curfews, but I am sure those younger do, and it should concern them as these laws concern me.
Furthermore, unlike alcohol where you can sleep it off, catch a cab home or have a designated driver, there is no practical solution to driving under the influence of drugs. How can you implement a law upon citizens without giving them the ability to avoid the sanctions of the law? Stop using drugs you might say. That is not a practical solution.
That is like saying if you do not want to be charged for insider trading, then don't be a stock broker. If you do not want to be done for speeding, then don't drive. That is silly. The laws influence us to continuously disclose our numbers, to encourage us to act on publicly available knowledge, to drive below a certain speed limit.
Once again the youth of this country is subject to draconian laws without a voice.
It is a sad truth that the only solution to repression (as the Parisian youth of late have shown us) is violence and that the minority will always be overrun by the majority, which leads me to believe that maybe we are not so civilised and democratic as we would like to think.
Suggestion?
1. Amend the laws such that it truly reflects the definition of 'driving under the influence'. If it is too difficult to ascertain whether a driver is under the influence or merely reading positive without present physiological effects, then the law needs to be scrapped.
2. Include other drugs that are equally as dangerous. What about prescription medicines?
3. Declare the laws for what they are as drug laws and suffer the political backlash as opposed to disguising them as road rules.
PS: I am aware of have misspelt cannibus but cannot be bothered to fix it.
Last edited by mogley; 09-02-2006 at 01:30 AM.
09-02-2006, 01:38 AM
#2
Red goes faster
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's a great step getting drugged out morons off the roads.
I don't necessarily object to idiots taking drugs but i certainly object to having my RX8 sharing the road with some drugged out hippy
I don't necessarily object to idiots taking drugs
but i certainly object to having my RX8 sharing the road with some drugged out hippy
Last edited by RIX 8; 09-02-2006 at 01:42 AM.
09-02-2006, 07:13 PM
#4
New Member
Mogley.
No experience on live people but there is certain blood level of cannibas and it metabolite being tested in body, to determine the effect of it in, say car accident causing death.
No experience on live people but there is certain blood level of cannibas and it metabolite being tested in body, to determine the effect of it in, say car accident causing death.
09-03-2006, 04:41 PM
#5
Shootin' from the hip
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheee!What were you on when you posted that Mogley? 
Just kidding.
I haven't really thought this through yet either but some preliminary thoughts:
1. If they're going to test for a legal drug (i.e. alcohol), I don't see why they shouldn't also test for the illegal ones.
2. Many people think dope has only a short-term physical impairment but I absolutely guarantee that a heavy, regular dope smoker is ALWAYS more impaired, whether stoned or not.
3. Does it necessarily follow from your argument that dope smokers don't drive until the effects have 'worn off' and everybody getting caught is just unlucky - don't think so.
4. Dope smokers are deliberately breaking the law - why not suffer the consequences. If it's just another means of detection, tough luck.
5. You're overlooking that speed and ecstasy will also be detected. That's gotta be a good thing given the endemic drug taking in our haulage industry.
6. There's no such thing as a universal speed limit given the differing ability of drivers and their cars and the differing conditions over a given stretch of road. However, ALL drivers are susceptible to drug impairment and anything that helps to eradicate it from our roads is a good thing.
7. Ask a parent who has lost a child to a drugged up motorist what they think about this proposal?
Okay, I probably morphed into devil's advocate a bit there but instead of playing the young person who thinks 'rights' are being taken away, why not think about personal responsibility for your actions?
Just kidding.
I haven't really thought this through yet either but some preliminary thoughts:
1. If they're going to test for a legal drug (i.e. alcohol), I don't see why they shouldn't also test for the illegal ones.
2. Many people think dope has only a short-term physical impairment but I absolutely guarantee that a heavy, regular dope smoker is ALWAYS more impaired, whether stoned or not.
3. Does it necessarily follow from your argument that dope smokers don't drive until the effects have 'worn off' and everybody getting caught is just unlucky - don't think so.
4. Dope smokers are deliberately breaking the law - why not suffer the consequences. If it's just another means of detection, tough luck.
5. You're overlooking that speed and ecstasy will also be detected. That's gotta be a good thing given the endemic drug taking in our haulage industry.
6. There's no such thing as a universal speed limit given the differing ability of drivers and their cars and the differing conditions over a given stretch of road. However, ALL drivers are susceptible to drug impairment and anything that helps to eradicate it from our roads is a good thing.
7. Ask a parent who has lost a child to a drugged up motorist what they think about this proposal?
Okay, I probably morphed into devil's advocate a bit there but instead of playing the young person who thinks 'rights' are being taken away, why not think about personal responsibility for your actions?
09-03-2006, 09:31 PM
#6
Shifty Bastard.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, these laws do target the younger generation. Bring 'em on. The young drivers need to be targeted, mogley. They are the ones that are over-represented in street racing, ******** driving, gross speeding in urban areas etc. Weed/speed/Eccy's just increases the irresponsible behaviour on the roads.
Anything that reduces the ******** element on the roads is fine by me.
Anything that reduces the ******** element on the roads is fine by me.
09-03-2006, 10:06 PM
#7
In between cars, RX8-less
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomez if we are going to talk about ******** behaviour I wish to raise the issue of dumb old ***** that do not know how to drive, they stay in the right hand lane when not over taking, they believe that because of their age they are entitled to respect and "ownership" of the road. They believe that it is their civic duty to slow down other drivers to the speed limit. They are the true meance on the road, they are in considerate self righteous ******.....any how back to the topic.
Whilst I understand Mogleys point and understand where he is coming from, I believe that if you break the law expect to be caught. Take a cab if you are looking at taking drugs, treat it the same way you would alcohol, they said the test will only pick up the drugs in your system up to 4 hours after taking them, remember it is not a blood test it is a saliva test.
Whilst I understand Mogleys point and understand where he is coming from, I believe that if you break the law expect to be caught. Take a cab if you are looking at taking drugs, treat it the same way you would alcohol, they said the test will only pick up the drugs in your system up to 4 hours after taking them, remember it is not a blood test it is a saliva test.
09-03-2006, 10:08 PM
#8
rock-->o<--hard place
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canberra, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 3,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. a licence to drive is a privilege, not a right
2. the roads are a public place; no driver has the right to behave without regard to other users, including taking any substance that impairs their senses, function and thus control of the vehicle
3. this extends to the old and demented as much as to the young and foolish
However, if you'd like to start a thread on police using speed cameras and radar guns on long, straight, safe downhill stretches of road, I will happily provide the anarchistic view
2. the roads are a public place; no driver has the right to behave without regard to other users, including taking any substance that impairs their senses, function and thus control of the vehicle
3. this extends to the old and demented as much as to the young and foolish
However, if you'd like to start a thread on police using speed cameras and radar guns on long, straight, safe downhill stretches of road, I will happily provide the anarchistic view
09-03-2006, 10:13 PM
#9
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will assume that in Aus, just as in Canada, driving is a "privilege" not a right.
Consequently, laws regarding testing or offences are not imposing on anyones rights because you have no "right" to drive.
Chris...
Consequently, laws regarding testing or offences are not imposing on anyones rights because you have no "right" to drive.
Chris...
09-03-2006, 11:26 PM
#10
Shootin' from the hip
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen to all the old buggers coming out of the woodwork! 
Gibbo's dead right though. The young may be over represented in the stats but I wonder how many accos were caused by the frustration engendered by said self-righteous ***** or just something dozy a grey nomad has done.
Anyways, it's not an age debate. I know plenty of people on the wrong side of 30 and 40 who 'indulge'.
Gibbo's dead right though. The young may be over represented in the stats but I wonder how many accos were caused by the frustration engendered by said self-righteous ***** or just something dozy a grey nomad has done.
Anyways, it's not an age debate. I know plenty of people on the wrong side of 30 and 40 who 'indulge'.
09-04-2006, 12:22 AM
#11
Shifty Bastard.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gibbo
Gomez if we are going to talk about ******** behaviour I wish to raise the issue of dumb old ***** that do not know how to drive, they stay in the right hand lane when not over taking, they believe that because of their age they are entitled to respect and "ownership" of the road. They believe that it is their civic duty to slow down other drivers to the speed limit. They are the true menace on the road, they are in considerate self righteous ******......
09-04-2006, 02:24 AM
#13
•▫▪› is way, way way way way way way way way wayyy better than you ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ▪ ;)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Mogley - the presence of drugs does not necessarily equate to impaired driving. I'm not conding drug use, just trying to see both sides of the argument.
There will be a lot of people caught out for having minute amounts of prescribed medicines (or recreational drugs for that matter) which have no effect on their driving. The other problem I see is that there will be thousands of people disputing that effects caused by their particular drug. The backlog in the court system is only going to get worse..
My 0.02c I'm going to go smoke a bong while I still can 
j/k hehe
There will be a lot of people caught out for having minute amounts of prescribed medicines (or recreational drugs for that matter) which have no effect on their driving. The other problem I see is that there will be thousands of people disputing that effects caused by their particular drug. The backlog in the court system is only going to get worse..
My 0.02c
I'm going to go smoke a bong while I still can j/k hehe
09-04-2006, 02:44 AM
#14
Hmmmmmm.........
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by Chrissss
I will assume that in Aus, just as in Canada, driving is a "privilege" not a right.
Consequently, laws regarding testing or offences are not imposing on anyones rights because you have no "right" to drive.
Chris...
Consequently, laws regarding testing or offences are not imposing on anyones rights because you have no "right" to drive.
Chris...
09-04-2006, 04:04 AM
#15
Bold as love
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by auzoom
100% Agree. Nothing more needs saying in my eyes
Australia doesn't have any rights per se.
Unlike the American Bill of Rights or the Canadian I forget what it is, Australia has no enshrined rights except the right to vote and have religious freedom? If i remember correctly.
Therefore, in a strict sense we don't have any rights.
That does not go to say that because it is not a right i should not have a say in it.
Furthermore, if you do not define driving as a 'right' but a privilege then that is implying that I should just not drive if laws are such that I cannot abide by them.
But to say that in the modern automotive age is a bit absurd. The modern vehicle is often the lifeblood of many families and individuals and without it would require individuals to become so incapacitated that it is detrimental to their livelihood.
Driving is not a right I agree, but it is not a privilege either. Earning my licence may prima facie appear as if you have 'earnt' a privilege to drive but i prefer to think of it as being a 'competency test' to see if you have the ability to drive. Not whether the State is granting you a privilege because you are a special member of society.
Any fool over 16 can earn a licence. That is hardly a privilege.
I would also like to say that I agree with all your points raised but the point I am trying to make as Kunz pointed out is that it is VERY possible to drive without physical impairment whilst having drugs detectable in your body.
That is the injustice that I am referring to.
Driving under the influence as per the literal definition (something the RTA seems to ignore) is I agree, stupid and dangerous.
09-04-2006, 04:21 AM
#16
Shifty Bastard.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mogley
The modern vehicle is often the lifeblood of many families and individuals and without it would require individuals to become so incapacitated that it is detrimental to their livelihood......
.......it is VERY possible to drive without physical impairment whilst having drugs detectable in your body.
.......it is VERY possible to drive without physical impairment whilst having drugs detectable in your body.
Don't smoke and drive.
09-04-2006, 04:59 AM
#18
Respect my authoriti!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I have to wade in on this one.
Now here's an opinion from someone who has in previous life attended many MVA's where one or both drivers were under the influence of drugs and or alcohol. In all cases the accidents killed someone..one was a child not strapped in the back of the car with a mother off her face, swearing black and blue that she was not off her face. Her child was dead, impaled on the gearstick of her old Falcon. Now that's a pretty graphic example and I make no apologies.
IN NO WAY SHOULD ANYONE DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Yup feel really strongly about this one. Driving is not a right as others have said. We have the same laws here in SA and I agree with them. If they make one person think twice about driving under the influence then that's fine by me!
Look at it from another perspective what would happen if one of these drivers ran into you or a family member and injured you or them seriously. Would you still be outraged by this "apparent removal of rights"?? I just wonder.
I am not an angel far from it but at 35 I have seen enough trauma to last me a lifetime. Also seen enough young promising minds ruined by drugs.
If you flout the law and get caught you are an idiot. If you don't get caught you are also stupid and don't value life.
Mogley from your other posts previously you have a lot to say, but your age and naivety stands out. Post again on this topic in 5 years time and I bet you will smile and think how times have changed.
There are reasons why these laws are made and enforced. It's to somewhat to protect all those that do the right thing....
In no way am I meaning to be mean to you youngish ones but really think about the bigger picture not about what rights you are losing...?? 
IN NO WAY SHOULD ANYONE DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Yup feel really strongly about this one. Driving is not a right as others have said. We have the same laws here in SA and I agree with them. If they make one person think twice about driving under the influence then that's fine by me!
Look at it from another perspective what would happen if one of these drivers ran into you or a family member and injured you or them seriously. Would you still be outraged by this "apparent removal of rights"?? I just wonder.
I am not an angel far from it but at 35 I have seen enough trauma to last me a lifetime. Also seen enough young promising minds ruined by drugs.
If you flout the law and get caught you are an idiot. If you don't get caught you are also stupid and don't value life.
Mogley from your other posts previously you have a lot to say, but your age and naivety stands out. Post again on this topic in 5 years time and I bet you will smile and think how times have changed.
There are reasons why these laws are made and enforced. It's to somewhat to protect all those that do the right thing....
In no way am I meaning to be mean to you youngish ones but really think about the bigger picture not about what rights you are losing...??
09-04-2006, 05:49 AM
#19
Bold as love
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rotor Convert
Now here's an opinion from someone who has in previous life attended many MVA's where one or both drivers were under the influence of drugs and or alcohol. In all cases the accidents killed someone..one was a child not strapped in the back of the car with a mother off her face, swearing black and blue that she was not off her face. Her child was dead, impaled on the gearstick of her old Falcon. Now that's a pretty graphic example and I make no apologies.
IN NO WAY SHOULD ANYONE DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Yup feel really strongly about this one. Driving is not a right as others have said. We have the same laws here in SA and I agree with them. If they make one person think twice about driving under the influence then that's fine by me!
Look at it from another perspective what would happen if one of these drivers ran into you or a family member and injured you or them seriously. Would you still be outraged by this "apparent removal of rights"?? I just wonder.
I am not an angel far from it but at 35 I have seen enough trauma to last me a lifetime. Also seen enough young promising minds ruined by drugs.
If you flout the law and get caught you are an idiot. If you don't get caught you are also stupid and don't value life.
Mogley from your other posts previously you have a lot to say, but your age and naivety stands out. Post again on this topic in 5 years time and I bet you will smile and think how times have changed.
There are reasons why these laws are made and enforced. It's to somewhat to protect all those that do the right thing....
In no way am I meaning to be mean to you youngish ones but really think about the bigger picture not about what rights you are losing...??
IN NO WAY SHOULD ANYONE DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Yup feel really strongly about this one. Driving is not a right as others have said. We have the same laws here in SA and I agree with them. If they make one person think twice about driving under the influence then that's fine by me!
Look at it from another perspective what would happen if one of these drivers ran into you or a family member and injured you or them seriously. Would you still be outraged by this "apparent removal of rights"?? I just wonder.
I am not an angel far from it but at 35 I have seen enough trauma to last me a lifetime. Also seen enough young promising minds ruined by drugs.
If you flout the law and get caught you are an idiot. If you don't get caught you are also stupid and don't value life.
Mogley from your other posts previously you have a lot to say, but your age and naivety stands out. Post again on this topic in 5 years time and I bet you will smile and think how times have changed.
There are reasons why these laws are made and enforced. It's to somewhat to protect all those that do the right thing....
In no way am I meaning to be mean to you youngish ones but really think about the bigger picture not about what rights you are losing...??
That is not the point however.
I do not think that my argument reflects any naiveity or some sort of starry-eyed youthful disillusionment of this world , but rather quite simply that it seems illogical and deceitful of the RTA to implement a law that does not aim to address the issue of road safety.
Road safety is paramount as you have shown. I just believe that the laws need to reflect the reality of the physical effects of drugs and not piggy back on the drugs are bad so any law that prohibits drugs is good approach.
Recent reforms in drug laws have shown that forcing prohibitive laws on drug users is not the answer. You only have to take a look at some of the drug-ridden streets of Sydney to be aware of this. Harm minimisation and other schemes are attempting to address the problem, hence the "de-criminalisation" of posession and use of small amounts of marijuana, and the policy of hospitals not alerting police authorities on drug-related overdoses.
If this is the current state of legislative policy, then how can that be reconciled with a law that simply ignores the truth about drugs and forces drug users into impossible scenarios?
Originally Posted by Rotor Convert
IN NO WAY SHOULD ANYONE DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Yup feel really strongly about this one.
The fact that the laws are not being changed says to me that this law is just another tool for police to track and enforce drug laws.
09-04-2006, 05:53 AM
#20
Bold as love
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RXP33D
Gibbo,
So if a person dumps a pill/punches a cone and 4 hours later decides to drive, its ok according to the law?
So if a person dumps a pill/punches a cone and 4 hours later decides to drive, its ok according to the law?
It is only now that they are actually implementing the ability to enforce it.
Nevertheless, it is stupid to drive so soon after consuming such drugs.
Therefore, if you get caught, then the law has fulfilled its purpose of protecting other road users from your inebriated state.
However, I if your hypothetical involved, driving 4 months later when it is possible your marijuana and ecstasy is still present and detecable by the random drug tests, then I would answer yes it is still illegal but it is illogical and is actually 'ok' to drive.
You are ok to drive because quite simply, you are no longer under the inebriated effects of the drugs. Doesn't that make sense?
09-04-2006, 06:14 AM
#21
Bold as love
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gibbo
... they said the test will only pick up the drugs in your system up to 4 hours after taking them, remember it is not a blood test it is a saliva test.
If that is the case, then I do not have a problem with it.
Case closed.
My only concern would be the fact that 4 hrs across the board is pretty stupid considering all the different types of drugs.
That and the fact that 4 hrs is actually a very short period of time. 4 hrs and your'e probabaly just coming down if you got a crap pill. 4-6 hrs after you have consumed the drug is probabaly the MOST dangerous time to drive. It is not time to be driving when you are in a drug-induced depression.
I would have said at least 12 hrs.
This law is fraught with problems.
Last edited by mogley; 09-04-2006 at 06:18 AM.
09-04-2006, 06:24 AM
#23
•▫▪› is way, way way way way way way way way wayyy better than you ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ▪ ;)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gomez
mogley, were you stoned when you turned right at a "No right turn" sign and smashed your RX-8?
09-04-2006, 06:39 AM
#24
Shifty Bastard.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chill mogley, chill. The eccy's you popped on Saturday night won't cost you your license.....
Drugs-driving crackdown planned
By Paul Mulvey
August 31, 2006
MOTORISTS will be pulled over for random drug tests as the New South Wales Government moves to cut the toll from drug-related accidents.
The roadside saliva tests will only be able to detect cannabis, speed and ecstasy, with offenders facing jail sentences of up to nine months, unlimited licence suspensions and fines of $2200.
But the crackdown is already facing opposition criticism, as only one specially-equipped police Winnebago van and 20 trained officers will be tasked, initially at least, with covering the entire state.
Announcing the move today, Premier Morris Iemma said all drivers and motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes would undergo blood testing.
Mr Iemma also said Roads and Traffic Authority figures showed one in four male drivers used cannabis and 17 per cent of fatal accidents involved drugs.
“As part of our effort to crack down on this dangerous behaviour that can cost lives, we're introducing these tough new laws,” he said.
Licence renewal fees will jump by up to $2 to raise $7 million to fund the Winnebago van and 20 officers.
The tests will detect the active ingredient of cannabis, speed and ecstasy taken in the previous four hours.
But, because codeine, the active ingredient of many cold medicines and headache tablets, is exempt, illegal drugs which also contain codeine – such as heroin and cocaine – will not be detected.
Police Minister Carl Scully said truck drivers would be specifically targeted.
“The heavy vehicle industry is now on notice,” he said.
“There is strong evidence that long-haul truck drivers are engaging in the consumption of drugs which impairs their driving with tragic and catastrophic consequences.
“Weighing stations and lay-bys on our highways where the trucks are going through, with drivers full as a goog with some of these drugs, is where the police will initially target it.”
Traffic Services Commander Superintendent John Hartley said areas around rave parties and nightclubs would also be targeted.
Supt Hartley said he expected the tests to be operating by November with around 5,500 to be conducted in the first year.
The initiative comes more than two years after the NSW Government made a commitment to the family of nine-year-old Dubbo boy Brendan Saul, who was killed by a hit-and-run driver under the influence of drugs.
Brendan's death in January 2004 had already prompted the introduction of “Brendan's Law”, which increased the penalty for failing to stop after an accident from 18 months to 10 years.
Mr Iemma said it has taken two and half years to obtain the equipment and training good enough for his Government to introduce the drug-testing legislation and honour its commitment to Brendan's parents, Kevin and Patsy.
“We are now in a position to proceed, having done the testing and training and learned from some of the issues our Victorian colleagues faced,” he said.
Victorian police have been drug-testing drivers for 12 months during which 400 of the 20,000 tests returned positive results.
NSW Opposition police spokesman Mike Gallacher said one van, which he called the Iemmabago, was not enough.
“That big holiday bus, a bit like the Griswalds as they move around NSW, will be the only location that you'll see this drug-testing taking place,” Mr Gallacher said.
“It will be a case of taking (the bus) into the marginal seats and doing the media stunt.
“They should be looking at the Victorian model – making sure that every highway patrol car throughout NSW is capable of doing the drug test.”
By Paul Mulvey
August 31, 2006
MOTORISTS will be pulled over for random drug tests as the New South Wales Government moves to cut the toll from drug-related accidents.
The roadside saliva tests will only be able to detect cannabis, speed and ecstasy, with offenders facing jail sentences of up to nine months, unlimited licence suspensions and fines of $2200.
But the crackdown is already facing opposition criticism, as only one specially-equipped police Winnebago van and 20 trained officers will be tasked, initially at least, with covering the entire state.
Announcing the move today, Premier Morris Iemma said all drivers and motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes would undergo blood testing.
Mr Iemma also said Roads and Traffic Authority figures showed one in four male drivers used cannabis and 17 per cent of fatal accidents involved drugs.
“As part of our effort to crack down on this dangerous behaviour that can cost lives, we're introducing these tough new laws,” he said.
Licence renewal fees will jump by up to $2 to raise $7 million to fund the Winnebago van and 20 officers.
The tests will detect the active ingredient of cannabis, speed and ecstasy taken in the previous four hours.
But, because codeine, the active ingredient of many cold medicines and headache tablets, is exempt, illegal drugs which also contain codeine – such as heroin and cocaine – will not be detected.
Police Minister Carl Scully said truck drivers would be specifically targeted.
“The heavy vehicle industry is now on notice,” he said.
“There is strong evidence that long-haul truck drivers are engaging in the consumption of drugs which impairs their driving with tragic and catastrophic consequences.
“Weighing stations and lay-bys on our highways where the trucks are going through, with drivers full as a goog with some of these drugs, is where the police will initially target it.”
Traffic Services Commander Superintendent John Hartley said areas around rave parties and nightclubs would also be targeted.
Supt Hartley said he expected the tests to be operating by November with around 5,500 to be conducted in the first year.
The initiative comes more than two years after the NSW Government made a commitment to the family of nine-year-old Dubbo boy Brendan Saul, who was killed by a hit-and-run driver under the influence of drugs.
Brendan's death in January 2004 had already prompted the introduction of “Brendan's Law”, which increased the penalty for failing to stop after an accident from 18 months to 10 years.
Mr Iemma said it has taken two and half years to obtain the equipment and training good enough for his Government to introduce the drug-testing legislation and honour its commitment to Brendan's parents, Kevin and Patsy.
“We are now in a position to proceed, having done the testing and training and learned from some of the issues our Victorian colleagues faced,” he said.
Victorian police have been drug-testing drivers for 12 months during which 400 of the 20,000 tests returned positive results.
NSW Opposition police spokesman Mike Gallacher said one van, which he called the Iemmabago, was not enough.
“That big holiday bus, a bit like the Griswalds as they move around NSW, will be the only location that you'll see this drug-testing taking place,” Mr Gallacher said.
“It will be a case of taking (the bus) into the marginal seats and doing the media stunt.
“They should be looking at the Victorian model – making sure that every highway patrol car throughout NSW is capable of doing the drug test.”
09-04-2006, 06:43 AM
#25
Bold as love
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Revolver
Wheee!What were you on when you posted that Mogley?
Just kidding.
I haven't really thought this through yet either but some preliminary thoughts:
1. If they're going to test for a legal drug (i.e. alcohol), I don't see why they shouldn't also test for the illegal ones.
Just kidding.
I haven't really thought this through yet either but some preliminary thoughts:
1. If they're going to test for a legal drug (i.e. alcohol), I don't see why they shouldn't also test for the illegal ones.
2 cones in the first hour and 1 every hour thereafter. ? Highly unlikely.
Originally Posted by Revolver
2. Many people think dope has only a short-term physical impairment but I absolutely guarantee that a heavy, regular dope smoker is ALWAYS more impaired, whether stoned or not.
Originally Posted by Revolver
3. Does it necessarily follow from your argument that dope smokers don't drive until the effects have 'worn off' and everybody getting caught is just unlucky - don't think so.
Originally Posted by Revolver
4. Dope smokers are deliberately breaking the law - why not suffer the consequences. If it's just another means of detection, tough luck.
If it is another means of detection, then I would like the government to be frank and declare war on drugs by admitting the laws are to increase police powers in catching drug users. Then I have no problem.
Originally Posted by Revolver
5. You're overlooking that speed and ecstasy will also be detected. That's gotta be a good thing given the endemic drug taking in our haulage industry.
Originally Posted by Revolver
6. There's no such thing as a universal speed limit given the differing ability of drivers and their cars and the differing conditions over a given stretch of road. However, ALL drivers are susceptible to drug impairment and anything that helps to eradicate it from our roads is a good thing.
"Do not operate machinery or a vehicle whilst using this drug" Sound familiar?
Originally Posted by Revolver
7. Ask a parent who has lost a child to a drugged up motorist what they think about this proposal?
Originally Posted by Revolver
Okay, I probably morphed into devil's advocate a bit there but instead of playing the young person who thinks 'rights' are being taken away, why not think about personal responsibility for your actions?
I hope I didn't give the impression that I am a drug addict.
Last edited by mogley; 09-04-2006 at 06:48 AM.