mogley

EDIT: I'm just going to refrain from commenting. You saw what I wrote.

Gomez

Uh-huh.

Gomez

Yes, I did.

Gomez

Some advice for you, young mogley. Firstly, if you don't want to get into a debate about drugs....don't start a thread about drug testing.

Secondly......I don't have the impression that you're a drug addict. I do, however, have the impression that you're a drug taker. My question about your accident was only slightly tongue-in-cheek.

I base my impression on a few things. Firstly, you are of a generation where drug taking (Ecstasy, in the main) is accepted as a normal Saturday night thing to do. Secondly, you are obviously very passionate about this drug testing subject. It's my experience that people are passionate about things that are close to their heart....or things that will affect their way of life.

Cheers.

mogley

Ok I understand your point.

That is not a problem.
I am not offended at the inference that you made that I take drugs, whether that is true or not, that is not the reason I took offence.

As those who have had an accident know, it is not an experience that is pleasant.
I take it very seriously what happened as you can tell from the pictures I am very thankful that it did not end up being much worse, in terms of physical outcomes for both myself and the other driver.

To have you crack a joke about it is unncessary.

Nevertheless, after all is said and done, its just the internet so i'm over it already.

RXP33D

Okay, say...JUST SAY, if I did use this so called ecstasy over 4 hours ago, and this drug test unit fails on me, the innocent victim, by claiming that I have taken it within the last 4 hours, would I have any way to defend myself, by means of recording a video of when I inhale/consume this 'ecstasy or do i consider myself f@rked and drop my guard and let'em haul me into the back of their paddywagon for further testing?

NOTE: Just saying.

Cromax

I have a feeling you may find that the evidence they provide would not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had consumed the drug within the last 4 hours.

auzoom

Actually side note while I think about it, are drugs like Morphene and Pethadene alowed?

Back to the point at hand....
In general, I dont understand why is it necessary to drive under the influence or either alcohol or any mind altering drug? While there may be an injustice, there is currently no way to clearly identify when someone is no longer able to make sound car driving judgements. Therefore a minimum identified level is the best we have. Would you rather none?

Revolver

I thought this would take off.

I couldn't be bothered quoting but it seems mogley's principal gripes with this law are that:

1. It purports to detect people under the influence of detectable drugs when they may not actually any longer be under the influence.

2. It is being sold as a law to promote road safety when in reality it is another means to detect drug use and perhaps advance the war on drugs.

As to point number 1, see the article posted by Gomez, which is the closest thing to a fact in this whole debate. It limits detection to drugs used within the last 4 hours (i.e. in other words, minute traces of drugs left from earlier 'sessions' will not be picked up). As mogley has himself conceded that 4-6 hours after drug use is the most dangerous time to drive, he can hardly have a problem with such a test.

In any event, I stand by the point I originally made that as drug users are notoriously unable to control their behaviour, it is VERY unlikely that they will self-impose a ban on driving until they believe the effects of drug taking are past.

The same applies with alcohol.

Long before RBT's were introduced it was recognised that driving under the influence of alcohol was dangerous (it's not rocket science). Yet it is only since an effective deterrent was introduced that we have seen a reduction in alcohol related accidents.

I should add that the deterrent's effectiveness has been helped enormously by the cultural change in how drink driving is perceived. It wasn't very long ago that younger people had a great laugh if 'Robbo' (for example) managed to drive home when he couldn't actually walk. These days, such behaviour is more likely to attract disapproval from one's peers, even amongst younger people.

The problem is that we are yet to see the same legal and cultural deterrent against driving while under the influence of drugs. Many people are even deluded into thinking that dope makes you more relaxed (and thus not as likely to indulge in risk-taking behaviour) and/or 'speed' heightens your reflex time. In other words, that such drugs do NOT impair driving. Alternatively, as many drink drivers have said when reaching for the keys, many drug users mistakenly believe they have their usage and its effects under control and they 'can handle it'.

Absolute crap!

As to point number 2, mogley seems upset that a law may have more than one use and the govt isn't being up front about the other use. FFS, grow up! Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 20-30 years, you'd know that the war on drugs was declared long before the war on terror was even thought of.

A simpleton could tell you that as a society we have regularly re-elected govts who have promised to be tougher on drug use and drug related crime. I appreciate that can be just another laura norder platform but I think you'd have to agree that the people who think laissez-faire drug use is okay and it shouldn't be sanctioned or at least actively controlled are in the tiny minority.

The subtext of mogley's comments is that people have a right to smoke dope and a right to drive and it should be up to them to decide how the two rights are exercised, irrespective of the obvious problem that people are historically unable to exercise such perceived rights in a way that will not impact on the safety of others. You may not have intended that subtext mogley but that's how it is reading to me.

I mean, to compare drug use with homosexuality as if neither involve a choice is nonsensical. Personally, I believe the latter very often does not involve an active choice but I don't want to get into that or offend the gay people who are members of this board. But drug use DOES involve a choice. And don't give me that crap about addictive personality disorders, etc, etc. Even if you accept such psycho-babble, as soon as your actions are likely to impact on someone else's safety you can expect little sympathy from me just because you 'can't stop yourself'.

It gets down to this. You know drug use is illegal. You know driving under the influence is illegal. If you knowingly breach the first law and decide to run the risk on the other, you deserve to run a greater risk of getting caught.

BTW, thanks Julia for sharing your experience. I've had similar, which is perhaps why I also feel strongly about such issues.

Revolver

For starters, you'd still be up for any legal sanction applicable to the drug use because your proposed defence involves an admission as to its use. It is just the timing you are disputing.

Secondly, as to the road accident you seem to be describing ('victim'), it would depend on the facts. If a breach by you of the road rules (whether induced by drug impairment or some other cause) has caused the accident, then you'll swing for that too, irrespective of drug use.

If you're just referring to a false positive in the absence of an accident (i.e. random saliva test), then I'm sure the police will have powers under the legislation (as they do under RBT) to take you back to the station for more definitive testing. But I'm not 'positive' about that because I haven't reviewed this new act.

BTW, anyone STILL taking eccy after the host of problems caused by 'bad batches' is a bigger risk taker than I'll ever be.

Grizzly8

Just to put a twist on this read this.

Way too many deaths on the road .



http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../60825007/1047


Michael

timbo

Good point, Michael

Revolver

Well said Kall.

timbo

First, I think it is important to debate the issue, not attack its proponents or critics.

Secondly, I agree with mogley: this law is quite fundamentally flawed because it discriminates by attacking only part of the problem within society, and I can certainly see why younger, recreational drug users might be upset.

However, I make the strong point that driving while impaired by any substance must be discouraged, and my concern about this law is that it may well not cover many substance impairments that are prevalent and used legally in the community.

I suffer from hay fever, and am just coming into the season where I regularly take anti-hystamines. These days, they are pretty good, but back a few years the popular types would have you pretty drowsy, or off with the pixies if you also used a bronchial stimulant such as Ventolin. Add a bit of alcohol to the mix -- even just a small amount -- and I would not like to predict what an objective measure of my faculties and reaction times might have been. That's just my experience.

There are many, many prescription medicines with associated warnings about driving associated with them. I wonder how many people actually take notice of these? More seriously, sometimes these are taken in combination with other prescribed medicines. The possible combinations are endless. You might not be aware, but unintended (prescribed) drug interactions result in something like $1 billion in hospital admission expenditures annually in Australia. These are unrelated to driving incidents, of which we can probably assume there are many.

The blanket law ought to be that it is an offence to drive while impaired by any substance, legal or illegal, and the enforcement process (ie, drug testing) ought to reflect the full extent of the law.

At the very least, any enforcement should be accompanied or preceded by an education campaign which addresses the problem at all levels in society, ie, legal and illegal, young and old, and so-on.

This is an extensive problem and I personally don't agree with an approach that simply addresses part of it!

RXP33D

Perhaps the government will reduce the number of users of ecstasy or marijuana on the streets Friday and Saturday, but is it possible that some will resort to cocaine or heroin for a big night out just to be on the safe side.



Q: What if you plug your pill, can it still be detected in your saliva.? LOL

Revolver

Those that do will be practicing natural selection. Only a matter of time before most horse users are eradicated from the gene pool (but unfortunately replaced by others ). As for coke (the acceptable society drug ), how much do you like your nose?



Thanks, I think we needed a laugh in this thread.

However, the answer to your question is YES. Once the drug enters the blood stream it will show up in saliva too, no matter how it is 'taken'.

kunz

LOL yes, as it enters your bloodsteam either way (and actually faster too).

timbo, excellent points raised there. I too am a regular anti-histame doper and the effects of stronger antihistamines (like phernagon for instance) can be shocking to those who dont know. If the argument is for driver safety, why stop at just illegal drugs??

In mogley's defence, I dont see why there is so much attacking going on?!
He's raised a VALID point. I dont see him condoning drug use, he's simply trying to say that there needs to be a strengthened approach towards this issue and to be fair, legal AND illegal drugs which are known to impair your ability to drive should be tested for.

Everyone (including mogley) knows the effects drugs (legal and illegal drugs can have on driving. You dont need to point that out over and over again. We know how many deaths are caused by driving. We know how many of these accidents are caused by being doped. The argument here is not about introducing drug testing, its about how it is being played out by the RTA and how it SHOULD be improved.

Revolver

Timbo, that all makes sense but I think you're expecting more than our legislators can currently deliver.

You're also forgetting that no law stands alone but is simply part of a system of laws that, when combined, attempt to tackle society's perceived ills.

If all laws that only tackle part of a problem were similarly dismissed, we would not see any change or alternatively we would wait forever for parliaments to develop such cohesive coverage in its legislation.

This kind of measure is just another brick in the wall that is trying to protect people from the consequences of their (and others) actions. It does not discriminate because it actively targets those that are breaking the law anyway. Such people do not deserve protection from detection under the guise of fairness.

In an ideal world, no car would operate if its driver was under the influence of anything at all that would impair his/her ability to drive safely. However, reaching that state of paragon is more than most legislators can hope to achieve. In the meantime, they try to introduce measures that are politcally palatable and go some way to attacking an undeniable problem.

I think as far as it goes, it's a good thing. Does more need to be done to address other safety issues (including the effect of other substances)? Sure, but let's not do nothing because we can't do everything.

BTW, all drugs are 'recreational' until someone gets killed or badly hurt. Nothing recreational about that.

Cromax

Uh, yeah! It can be detected in your sweat, blood, urine and hair as well!

Gomez

Can you imagine the conga line at a rave with all the BYT's (beautiful young things) bent over pushing a pink pill up each others date??!!! Hahahahahaha LOL

Revolver

I'm not attacking mogley but he obviously wanted to know what others think of this new measure and I'm exercising my 'right' to express my views.

I believe some of his thinking is tangled and he appears more worried about this measure having a mulitple use than the consequences of driving while under the influence of drugs.

In case I'm missing something here, please explain to me how you believe the RTA should be playing this out?

More education? Please! Everyone under 50 knows how dangerous drug-use can be (and often is). The message has been trumpeted again and again. Only the addled could possibly be ignorant of the risks implicit in such behaviour.

Leaving dope smokers and eccy/speed users to get on with it until a test is devised that covers all impairing substances? Surely that can remain rhetorical.

I'm just waiting for someone to come in here and tell us we're invading their privacy as well.

timbo

Sorry Dave--I disagree that "everyone under 50 knows...". And you are again limiting your discussion to 'illegal drugs'. It's gross generalisations like this that lead to poor laws. In fact, it is not at all clear what the law is in relation to drugs and driving -- especially prescription or over the counter drugs. Most likely, of course, the catch-all neg driving or similar will be used, but that is not the point.

And the fact is that education only flows once laws are made clear. That's why I find the RTA proposal to be a typical knee jerk approach to something that needs a lot of thought and emphasis.

Revolver

Thinking I might have misunderstood mogley's views, I went back and read his first post again. Some excerpts are quoted above which I think are worth responding to.

Firstly, RDT does not displace the presumption of innocence. If mogley really is a lawyer, he would appreciate that this presumption goes to the prosecution's burden of proof at trial and has nothing to do with legal investigation and/or the gathering of evidence by police. A person retains that presumption, which the prosecution has to dispel by adducing evidence, such as test results.

Secondly, yes, the police used to have to have grounds for reasonable suspicion before they could search cars and other property for drugs and/or require someone to take a drug test. I can also see how some ******** cops would misuse this power to a limited extent but let's have a reality check here. This is hardly a strip search power, allowing cops with a bent for bastardry to harass the guy in the hotted up car. It is a simple saliva test and the inconvenience is no more than being pulled over for RBT.

Personally, if the deterrent effect of this measure saves just one poor kid from being run over by a truckie on speed, I'm more than happy to spend 5 mins complying with a RDT test. There comes a point when personal liberties such as keeping your spit to yourself need to take a backseat to a road toll that hasn't dropped appreciably in years, despite the savage use of speed cameras.

Next, if mogley really believes having to offer up some spit from time to time constitutes repression worth the street riots of a scale that have unfortunately afflicted Paris in recent times, I suggest he look around the world a little more and learn what repression truly is. And he's got a weird concept of democracy if he thinks the majority view should always be subservient to the minority, much less that it is somehow uncivilised to attempt to remove drugged drivers from our roads.

As for his suggestions, I've held forth at length on 1 and 2. As for 3, I reckon you could call these laws whatever you like and the majority would still approve. So don't hold your breath waiting for a backlash.

Lastly, just what the hell does that sig in your first post mean? Can't say it helps your supposedly dispassionate stance on the issue.

I'm trying very hard to play the ball and not the man here and wish you no ill will whatsoever, but the manner in which you've argued this issue invites criticism I'm afraid.