Revolver

Timbo, if you can find me one person under 50 who doesn't know that taking dope, eccy or speed can be dangerous to you and others, I'm happy to shout you a beer. Come on! As if there hasn't been enough public campaigns on these issues. You'd have to be a hermit not to know that such drugs impair your faculties and it's not a massive intellectual effort to translate that knowledge to the impact it can have on driving a car safely.

You seriously telling me there's people out there who need to be told driving after taking drugs is a safety concern?

And I'm not limiting my discussion solely to illegal drugs. I conceded that it makes sense to also focus on legal substances that can impair your abilities and I'd agree that education on the effect of prescription drugs on driving is worthwhile (ignoring for a moment the labels on such drugs and the fact that every responsible pharmacist I've ever dealt with has been at pains to warn me similarly when dispensing the medication).

My main point in response to your view is that instead of dismissing this law because it does not also include legal substances, it is better to at least have this deterrent in place and continue work on including the legal substances when effective tests are available. I'm sorry if I didn't make that very clear.

I also reject your assertion that I have been making gross generalisations. Just about everything I've said can be backed up by the studies and stats I've read. However, this is a car forum and I'm trying to keep it car related rather than a dry treatise on the effects of drug use.

If you want to look at gross generalisations, try the overused 'typical knee jerk approach' expression, which is universally used as a means of bolstering a hollow argument.

Gibbo

I would love some people here against drug testing to quatify something for me;
At what point do you deem your ability impaired, this is such a subjective point that varies greatly from individual to individual. I do not know about you guys but there have been a couple of time where I have been very intoxicated (based on the number of drinks I consumed)but I did not feel drunk and other times where I have had only a little to drink and I have felt completely wasted. There is no simple point where someone's ability is impaired or not, as such a guage of judgement has to be set that can be applied to all citizens. For alcohol in NSW it is 0.05. I can tell you that this level might not impair judgement in all people at all, however this is the legal figure set based on research.
As for drugs, we all know they affect peopel in different ways, why is it that when a bad batch hit not everyone who takes it dies, the reason is due to the effects are different from person to person. Are the law enforcement people going to say "OK you had pink butterfly pill, they are not to smacky, and you look like a regular user so your judgement appears to be fine, off you go" of course not, so they have to create a general rule, and that is any detectable drug in you system is against the law. This law has to be a blanket law, the law can not cater for individual subjective effects.

If you want to take drugs so be it, it is a choice we all make, I am not against drug taking, I am against irresponsible drug taking. If you want to pop some pills and do some coke on a night out then great, catch a cab. They are not testing for drugs on the street, it is not random drug tests for pedestrians, it is random drug tests for DRIVERS (NOT PASSENGERS, NOT PEDESTRIANS).

Whether your ability to drive is impaired or not, there is now a law that prohibits driving whilst under the influence of illegal drugs, the law does not state that you can't drive if your judgement is impaired by drugs, it says "UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF", therefore the choice is simple, don't take drugs and drive, make other arrangements.

The test is effective for 4 hours after the drug is taken, therefore a reasonable person would summise that they are after the effected person, not the guy who had a big night the night before and did the right thing by not driving immediately afterwards.

If all else fails remember the good old reasonable doubt........ "MY DRINK MUST HAVE BEEN SPIKED OFFICER"

auzoom

Gibbo to me its not "irresponsible drug taking" its "irresponsible behaviour". But apart from that I agree. I am also confused about the belief that any kind of positive test entitles the police to a search of your vehicle. Even if it did, whats the matter if they did? If you dont have anything to worry about then its fine?

Andrew

Cromax

Uh, your doctor will tell you not to drive a car or operate heavy equipment while under the influence of certain types of prescription drugs. There will also be warnings on the packets or in the documentation inside. You shouldn't drive while under the influence of some cough/cold/flu medicines as well ... such as Demezin.

If you cause an accident, being under the influence of any sort of drug whether it be legal, illegal, from a pharmacist, drug dealer or local supermarket, things like your insurance will be affected. So ... if being fined for it is all you're worrying about it at the moment, think about the financial hardship you can put yourself through by being or while you're driving.

If you're going to go out and drink or take drugs ... catch a taxi home.

azzaboynt

I support the proposed drug tests.

I remember my Dad and his mates going through the same arguments when the drink driving limits were imposed way back in the "good old days". Passionate discussions, liberal use of the F word and stuff, however all said and done, I bet not ONE of them would say NOW that the drink driving laws are unfair or have not contributed in some way to save lives of all of us who have to use our public road system.

Good old days: "mate I've had a skinful and feeling tired so who wants a lift home?"

Now: "I'm wasted, anyone wanna share a taxi?"

Interestingly, the second statement I remember from a few weeks back at a pub where we had an informal 18 year high school reunion. We are mostly all new fathers, family men, and those that drove didn't drink or kept is sensible, everyone else was using taxis and trains and stuff. A LOT different to the hell raisers we were when we had left school.

Given the testing equipment back when RBT was first introduced, the equipment was far far from accurate, as technology improves so to does the effectiveness of the equipment. The same for the drug detection equipment. And the same goes for the general publics perception of drug tests for motorists. I wouldn't be surprised that in a few years time you will be pulled over for a "substance test" where you count down from 10 to 1 and it will be able to detect all manner of substances on the list of "those quanties that are either illegal or of a range to be known to cause an impairment of driving" or some such. Civil rights and liberties? Infringing my rights in a democratic society? When the draconian state becomes too much to bear, and I feel like "freedom" I'll go move to somewhere where they don't have laws. No laws, no rules. freedom.

I'm all for RBT. I'm all for drug tests. If it makes people think of the consequences just a little bit before engaging in activities like driving, then that thought has already saved some lives.

Btw. Cough medicines and stuff do come with a warning about impairing your ability to drive and operate heavy machinery. Read the label. Only Shane Warne could get away with blaming his mother… and even then, he was suspended for a year.

timbo

Of course doctors provide warnings and there are labels on various over the counter medicines, but that doesn't equate in any way at all with an education campaign which demonstrates -- quite graphically -- the impact on people of undertaking certain activities while affected by these substances.

The change in the law to introduce RBT had little impact on the accident and death rate attributed to those driving underr the influence of alcohol; if you study the data you will see the decline did begine until the road safety authorities started to introduce some quite graphic advertisements, accompanied by a coordinated, greater visible presence of police and booze buses.

I am glad you all have such wonderful faith in the human species. The reality is that changing behaviours is much, much harder than we ever think. The most 'successful' instances where this has occured has inevitably been driven by 'propaganda'!

Revolver

There's a lot of force in that Timbo and I've previously noted that the change in cultural attitudes, no doubt partly influenced by the kind of advertising you've referred to, has had a big part to play in the diminishing incidence of people driving while pissed.

Apart from continuing to educate people about the dangers of illegal drugs, I can see the sense in making people more aware of the dangers of prescription drugs. I'm sure there's a few valiumed up housewives who cause some bad accidents while in the fog of that stuff. Suffering from hayfever, I also agree that being chocked to the eyeballs with anti-histamine ain't great for your general level of alertness (fortunately, garlic tabs now do the trick for me).

However, this thread was really about RDT for illegal drugs and specifically dope, eccy and speed. You seem to be suggesting that unless such laws require testing for all impairing substances (i.e. broadening their scope), they are not worth enacting or make 'poor laws'. I can point to many laws that are far from complete in their coverage. However, that is not to say that such laws do not do some good, even if regarded as a bandaid measure.

Interestingly enough, the introduction of RDT will gain quite a wide exposure, largely due to the criticism of those who think the measure draconian. And apart from rabid civil libertarians and some young people who think their lifestyle choices are under threat, I think you'll struggle to find many people who object to RDT as a concept.

Gomez

It's been a fact of life down here for a year. The debate about the law raged on and on for an entire day.

timbo

So THAT'S what it's about Actually, I thought mogley's original point -- and one I have also addressed, albeit from a different perspective -- was that the proposed RDT, while aimed at "illegal' drugs, was in fact discriminatory and aimed at affecting/'repressing' a certain group in society while not applying to others.

When RBT was introduced, they didn't absent chardonnay drinkers or those that only drink single malts! My point is that by targeting only certain classes of drugs and an obvious associated group, the law is clearly discriminatory. More importantly, it avoids at all (and probably for reasons which would run into significant political opposition) the situation of those affected by prescription and over the counter drugs.

Yes, there are many 'incomplete' laws, but that does not justify yet another; yes, there are lots of 'bandaids' but that isn't a sufficient justification either. I am concerned about this because while there is traffic accident research that supports RDT in relation to the illegal drugs specified, there is an almost equal amount pointing to accidents caused by those impaired by 'legal' drugs. To address one while ignoring the other is, in my opinion, very weak. To sum it all up, what will you say to the Police Minister after your child gets injured by a driver affected by a legal drug?

Gibbo

I am waiting for the "I take drugs and I vote" stickers in protest to this measure.

They should enable the cops to take the "Random" out of RDT..

RXP33D

Hey im interested in the pink butterflies...PM SENT Gibbz.

HAHA! Joker I am.

Revolver

You were able to discern an original point?? Congratulations. I just jumped in and had a lash at whatever came to mind.

Your chardonnay/single malt analogy is fatally flawed. RBT is really just RDT except that the drug being tested for was alcohol and only alcohol (which was and is a legal drug). Now, we see dope, eccy and speed also being targeted because there is evidence that such drugs have contributed to road trauma.

To say it's discriminatory because the govt hasn't (yet) gone the extra step of testing for other legal drugs is to suggest that we shouldn't penalise illegal drug users until we can also penalise legal drug users of all kinds. I'm sorry, but to me that's no reason not to widen RBT from alcohol to also include a saliva test for dope, eccy and speed. If they can later broaden that test to include unsafe levels of prescription or over the counter medication, great. But until they do I'm happy to see more being done to reduce the level of drug affected drivers on our roads.

(BTW, as a teenager my wife worked in a pharmacy and had to regularly witness the disturbing spectacle of customers purchasing a bottle of cough syrup, skolling the lot immediately on the pavement outside before getting into their car to drive away, so I'm with you on the problem).

To suggest that 'incomplete' laws should never be enacted is politically naive. Sure it would be great if parliament got it 100% right all the time (even 50% would be nice) but this is reality. I for one am just pleased that at least another risk factor is being attacked, however incompletely, and I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over whether an illegal drug taker feels he/she is being discriminated against. In simple words, stiff ****.

We always whinge that the govt's only approach to road safety has been revenue raising behind the banner of the 'speed kills' brigade. Then, when they actually grow the ***** to take on drug users, it's still not good enough. Sure we can ask them to do more and target other legal substances but that's no reason to suggest these new measures should be repealed.

Your last question is not capable of any easy answer and you well know that. The executive can't protect us against every risk and we can always do more to make our roads safer. The same argument can be mounted in relation to road construction and maintenance. Obviously, I'd be devastated and no doubt be quick to blame everybody possible in my hurt and angst but are you really suggesting to the mother/father of a child killed by someone on illegal drugs that this measure should not have been enacted?

Gibbo

I think one thing a lot of you guys are missing when you say that RDT is wrong.......The Drugs they are testing for are ILLEGAL. As in against the law, as in punishable as in NAUGHTY.

Lets not look past that key point before criticising which drugs are tested for.

Don't expect political or legal consideration when the act you are undertaking is ILLEGAL in the first place.

Revolver

Don't tell me you've given up Timbo?

BTW, where are you hiding mogley?

timbo

No I haven't given up. FFS, it's not about getting the law 100% right the first time, it's about governments having at least having the guts to develop and implement a complete policy. C'mon...by everything you've said, you know this approach is at best a half-measure IN TERMS OF THE OBJECTIVE IT SETS OUT TO ACHIEVE ie, remove the risk of drug-addled drivers, however that condition was induced. It is pointed and specific in its targets whereas the problem is more general, existing among drivers who consume legal and illegal drugs alike, as the data shows.

Just because they make a feeble attempt is no excuse to let governments off the hook for poor law making

timbo

And please keep your response brief; reading wordy and boring justifications for the glaring faults in our legal system tires me

Gomez

Any half baked discriminatory law that gets a single drug addled dingbat off the roads is fine by me.

timbo

Why Gomez....I never noticed how red your neck was before!

Gomez

Is there any point in getting this hot and steamy over a single Winnebago in a state of umpteen million people?

Here we have every patrol car equipped. Personally, I think speed cameras/radars being used to milk your wallet of $131 odd for a 3kph speed breach in a 100kph zone is a far more outrageous issue.

Gomez

I understand where you are coming from, but I live with this law everyday. It's a non-issue.

Fight some other battle.

auzoom

Actually Gomez its zero tolerance. The Radars have an margin of error of +/- 3kms. You can get done for doing 61 in a 60 zone after the margin of error is removed.

Andrew

azzaboynt

if my newborn daughter is injured or killed by someone driving under the influence or anything that impared their driving, and it can be measured by the laws and technology, and enforced... It may help. Parents would understand this.

Laws do not prevent bad things from happening, however it provides a deterrent for people who may be a bit "undecided". I have worked in odd places for a number of years so i sort of know what the absence of laws or rules can lead to.

btw. interesting topic. normally i keep stuff to a minimum however being a new dad, I really can't help myself from puttin my 2 cents worth.

mogley

lol

To be honest I wouldn't have the slightest clue when it comes to criminal law. I never really paid attention to litigation. :0 I prefer transactional work because it pays better.

Nor do I ever intend to step foot into a court room. Don't have the obnoxiousness to be a barrister.

Nevertheless, I haven't read all the posts, a lot of points have been raised and I don't think any sort of consensus will be reached.

Let me just say in closing I will add no more to this argument.

It's been done to death!

PS: Just to set the record straight, yes I know drugs are bad, high school teaches a lot of important lessons in life. "Charlie, are you snorting sherbert?. Go to the Principal's office NOW!". I wonder what happened to good old Charlie. Was a top bloke.

Gibbo

ONCE AND FOR ALL THIS SHOULD END IT!!

Revolver

As my contributions to this thread are obviously boring and/or obnoxious, I'm happy to follow Gibbo's lead.